Advocates are exempt from liability under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (re-enacted in 2019) for service deficiencies, stated the Supreme Court on Tuesday, emphasizing the distinction between legal professionals and those engaged in commercial activities.
In a departure from a 2007 ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal overturned the interpretation that legal services fall within the purview of Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Previously, the division bench had reserved its verdict on 26 February.
Profession not same as business or trade
Expanding further, the judgment highlighted the distinction between professions and commercial enterprises, noting that professionals require extensive education, skill and intellectual effort. They emphasized that a professional’s success depends on numerous factors beyond their influence. Consequently, professionals cannot be equated with businesspersons under the Consumer Protection Act. Additionally, the bench suggested that the judgment in Indian Medical Association versus VP Shantna (1995) 6 SCC 651, which established the liability of doctors and medical professionals under the Consumer Protection Act, ought to be reexamined.
According to LiveLaw, Justice Trivedi said that they had made a clear distinction between profession and business or trade. They emphasized that a profession involves advanced education and training in a particular field of learning or science, with work characterised by specialisation and skill, much of which is mental rather than manual. Considering the nature of a professional’s work, which demands high levels of education, training and expertise and relies on specialised mental skills operating in specific domains where success is influenced by factors beyond one’s control, they concluded that professionals cannot be equated or treated similarly to businessmen, traders or providers of goods or services.
The highest court also clarified that its ruling does not imply that advocates are immune from being sued in regular courts of law. It noted that advocates are obligated to follow their client’s instructions and clients exert significant control over advocates in how they fulfill their duties before the court.
Among the oldest and most noble professions
The legal profession, revered for its ancient roots and noble principles, plays a crucial role in society, guided by strict regulations and ethics.
“Advocacy or legal profession is one of the oldest professions in the world and is considered one among the only few noble ones left in our society. In India, the legal profession is regulated through the Advocates Act, 1961 under Section 49(1)(c) of which the Bar Council of India has laid down Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette which are highly exhaustive. Under the BCI rules, a client always has had a remedy to reach out to the State Bar Council where the advocate is enrolled to complain about professional misconduct. The Bar Councils are immensely vigilant and proactive when it comes to regulation of the legal profession in India and every complaint received is thoroughly tried and it is ensured that grievances of bona fide litigants are addressed,” said Sagar Aggarwal, Managing Partner, Areness.
“However, since the profession is one of its kind with several restrictions such as solicitation, advertisement, profit sharing, etc., it lacks the flavour of any other trade or service or profession where factors like customer success, value for money or such performance-based or quality metrics can be employed,” Aggarwal said.
He said that the present Supreme Court judgment has only played a clarificatory role rather than laying down a new precedent. Hence, litigants should continue to repose their faith in their lawyers as lawyers devote their labour and sweat to get results for their clients as word of mouth and references are the only route to grow in this career.
Other than lawyers
The legal landscape has been stirred by a Supreme Court judgment that could potentially redefine the parameters of professional liability beyond the legal realm. As legal experts deliberate on its implications, professionals across various fields, find themselves contemplating the potential ramifications.
“If we look at other professionals such as doctors, architects, chartered accountants, etc., though most professions have similar codes of ethics by their parent bodies, however, the present Supreme Court judgment may create a new jurisprudence for evaluating professionals other than the legal profession in a manner to a subjective evaluation of each case and service provided to understand whether a service provided by a professional will fall within the ambit of the CPA or not,” the Areness managing partner said.
“If a student fails after taking tuition, the same shall also fall outside the ambit of CPA. Illustratively, if a business such as coaching classes after taking fees from a student, does not hold classes, the same may fall within the ambit of CPA, however, if a student after properly attending the classes fails, the same cannot be considered as deficiency in service,” said Aggarwal.
Whether this judgment will indeed pave the way for a broader interpretation of the CPA and how it may impact the standards and practices across various professions, remains to be seen. Yet, one thing is certain—the intersection of law and professional ethics has never been more complex demanding a nuanced understanding of responsibility and service delivery in the modern era.
Link to article –
