On Tuesday, a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court declared that advocates are not subject to liability under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for instances of service deficiency. The Court’s decision rendered complaints against advocates in this regard non-maintainable before consumer forums, setting a significant precedent in the legal landscape.

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court marks a significant departure from a 2007 decision rendered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC’s previous stance maintained that legal services fell squarely within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the Supreme Court’s reversal of this decision underscores a pivotal shift in the interpretation of legal services within the framework of consumer protection legislation. This divergence highlights the evolving legal discourse surrounding the liability of advocates under consumer law and sets a new precedent for future cases.

The Court asserted that the legal profession stands apart from other vocations, and therefore, cannot be subjected to the Consumer Protection (CP) Act. Consequently, the ruling decreed that lawyers are immune from lawsuits for service deficiencies under the Act. A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal further diverged from a previous apex court verdict dating back to 1995, which had encompassed the medical profession within the scope of the Consumer Protection Law. The Court opined that this decision warrants re-examination by a larger bench, highlighting the absence of an explicit intention to extend the consumer law jurisdiction to professions.

The Court’s stance underscores its interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly in light of its re-enactment in 2019. It elucidated that the primary objective of the Act is to shield consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business conduct. This ruling thus affirms the unique position of the legal profession and delineates its exemption from the consumer law ambit, aligning with the overarching purpose of consumer protection legislation.

THE REASON BEHIND THIS DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

The Supreme Court’s reversal of the 2007 decision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) stemmed from a meticulous examination of the legislative intent behind the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court emphasized that there was no explicit indication from the Legislature to include professions or professionals, such as advocates, within the ambit of the Act.

In its reasoning, the Court highlighted the unique nature of the legal profession, distinguishing it from other vocations. It underscored the critical role played by lawyers in the judicial system, emphasizing their duty not only to clients but also to the court and the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that the services provided by lawyers are integral to the efficient functioning of the judicial system and are vital for upholding democracy.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the significant degree of control exercised by clients over the manner in which advocates render their services, reinforcing the contractual nature of the advocate-client relationship. The Court concluded that legal services, being of a personal nature and integral to the administration of justice, fall outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Therefore, considering the unique attributes and indispensable role of the legal profession, the Supreme Court concluded that advocates cannot be held liable for alleged deficiencies in service under consumer law. This comprehensive analysis and recognition of the distinctiveness of the legal profession led to the reversal of the 2007 decision by the NCDRC.

For more insightful legal updates and expert analysis, stay tuned with AMA Legal Solutions.