Supreme Court Exempts Advocates From Liability Under Consumer Protection Act

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declared that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 cannot hold advocates accountable for deficiencies in services rendered.

The ruling, which distinguishes between professionals and those engaged in business and trade, marks a significant departure from previous interpretations of consumer law.

The bench, comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, overturned a 2007 judgment by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had categorized legal services under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

Justice Trivedi, while delivering the verdict, emphasized the distinction between professions and commercial endeavors. He highlighted the specialized education, skills, and mental labor required in the legal profession.

Justice Trivedi stated, “We have distinguished profession from business and trade.”

The court clarified that complaints against advocates alleging deficient services are not maintainable before consumer forums, emphasizing that the legal profession holds a unique status.

Clients recognize advocates as their agents, expecting them to adhere to their instructions.

Consequently, services provided by advocates fall under the category of personal contracts, exempting them from the definition of services outlined in the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The ruling also called for a reevaluation of the 1995 judgment in Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantna, which held medical professionals accountable under consumer protection laws.

The bench suggested that the unique attributes of the legal profession necessitate a separate legal framework.

The decision came after extensive arguments before the court, with senior advocates highlighting the distinct nature of legal services and advocating for the independence of the legal bar.

Senior Advocate V Giri, appointed as amicus curiae, underscored the role of advocates as agents of their clients, urging the court to recognize the nuanced differences in legal practice.

Also Read: SC Reserves Verdict In Contempt Case Against Patanjali Ayurved