Brief Factual Conspectus

Appellant's Submission

Submissions of the Amicus Curiae

Questions of Law and Analysis

(i)  Whether the legislature ever intended to include the professions or services rendered by the [rofessional within the purview of the Act as re-enacted in 2019?

The Hon’ble Court considering the objects of the Act and after observing the ratio laid down in Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantha, held that the purpose of the Act is to protect the interests of the consumers and concluded that Advocates cannot be treated as manufacturers or traders or a businessmen or service providers of the products.

The Court ruled that the legislature never intended to include professions or professionals within the purview of the Act.

(ii)    Whether the Legal Profession is sui generis?

The Bench, while relying inter alia upon R Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General, Madaras High Court, observed that the legal profession is unique, and as such cannot be compared with other professions. The Court held that the legal profession is unique as what Advocates do, affects the entire administration of justice.

(iii)      Whether services availed of an Advocate could be said to be a service under a contract ‘of personal service’?

The Bench, while observing that a considerable amount of direct control is exercised by a client, after signing the ‘vakalatnama’, over the manner in which an Advocate renders his services, opined that services of an Advocate are availed under a contract of ‘personal service’ and is thus excluded from the definition of ‘service.’

Apart from referring to the BCI rules and the Advocates Act, the Court while referring to consumer laws of Malaysia, Québec, the USA and the EU directives, held that lawyers being regulated professionals cannot be disrobed of their immunity by their inclusion under consumer laws.