The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): In a landmark decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that lawyers do not fall under the scope of the Consumer Protection Act and cannot be sued for “deficiency in service” in consumer courts. The ruling emphasizes that clients exercise significant control over the services provided by their advocates, which makes their service a “contract of personal service,” thus excluded from the definition of “service” under the Act.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal explained that the legal profession is unique and specialized, incomparable to other professions. They noted that the primary aim of the Consumer Protection Act, both in its original 1986 form and as re-enacted in 2019, is to shield consumers from unfair trade and unethical business practices. The legislature did not intend to include professional services within the Act’s coverage.
The court asserted that services provided by advocates fall under a “contract of personal service” and thus are excluded from the Act’s definition of “service” as stated in Section 2(42) of the 2019 Act. Therefore, any complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against practicing advocates is not maintainable under the Act.
This judgment came in response to a plea from bar bodies and individuals contesting a 2007 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruling. The NCDRC had previously held that advocates’ services were subject to the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the Act’s purpose is to provide consumers with timely and effective dispute resolution. Including professional services would inundate the Act’s commissions and forums with litigation due to the inexpensive and summary nature of the provided remedies.
The bench underscored that the legal profession is not commercial but service-oriented and noble. Advocates play an indispensable role in the justice delivery system, contributing to the evolution of jurisprudence and maintaining the vibrancy of the Constitution. They are expected to act with “uberrima fides”—utmost good faith, integrity, fairness, and loyalty—toward their clients while also owing duties to the court and opposing parties.
The court further highlighted that the actions of advocates impact the entire administration of justice, which underpins civilized society. Thus, the legal profession is solemn and serious, distinct from other professions. The esteemed role and duties of advocates reinforce the view that their profession is unique and incomparable.
The Supreme Court’s ruling overturned the NCDRC’s 2007 decision, which had classified legal services under Section 2(1)(o) of the 1986 Act. This section defined “service” broadly but excluded services rendered under a “contract of personal service.”
In April 2009, the Supreme Court had already stayed the NCDRC’s 2007 verdict. This latest decision reaffirms that lawyers, due to the nature of their professional duties and the trust placed in them, cannot be subject to the Consumer Protection Act.
