On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declared that legal services provided by lawyers do not come under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act, thereby preventing the litigants from claiming compensation.

A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal emphasized that the legal profession is sui generis (unique) and cannot be equated with any other occupation.

The Bench stated that the relationship between an advocate and a client possesses distinct characteristics, as the client maintains direct control over the advocate.

The Court opined that advocates must honor the autonomy of their clients and refrain from making concessions without explicit instructions. It emphasized that a significant degree of direct control rests with the client in the advocate-client relationship.

Consequently, the Court concluded that legal services would be excluded from the scope of the Consumer Protection Act.

Pertinently, the Court ruled that its 1996 decision in Indian Medical Association v. Shanta regarding medical negligence would require reconsideration.

This landmark judgment established that medical professionals could be held accountable under the Consumer Protection Act, extending the Act's definition of 'services' to encompass the healthcare and medical sectors. Hence, it suggested that the matter concerning this be brought before the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench.

The issue regarding the inclusion of lawyers' services under the Consumer Protection Act stemmed from a 2007 verdict of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which asserted that such services fall within the Act's purview. The NCDRC noted the bilateral monetary contract between a client and their lawyer.

The top court had issued a stay on the NCDRC ruling on April 13, 2009.

In the case, the appellants, the Bar of Indian Lawyers, were represented by Senior Advocate Narender Hooda and Advocate Jasbir Malik. Senior Advocate V Giri served as the Amicus Curiae. During the hearings, various questions were raised regarding which forum should adjudicate on deficiencies in legal services provided by lawyers.

The counsel representing the Bar Council of India (BCI) asserted that advocates carry out a sovereign function and emphasized that pleadings must strictly adhere to the desires of the client.

Justice Mithal highlighted that the rules of the Bar Council of India (BCI) do not specifically mention the term "negligence" or outline any consequences for such actions. Regarding the medical profession, Justice Trivedi remarked that medicine is equally noble as the legal profession.

The Bench also raised questions about why lawyers would not fall under the purview of the Act if doctors and medical professionals do. Additionally, it remarked that it cannot prevent litigants from filing false proceedings against lawyers whose services they were dissatisfied with.