Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President, Jasbir Singh Malik Vs. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases [May 14, 2024]
Parties Involved
Appellant: Bar of Indian Lawyers through its President, Jasbir Singh Malik
Representing the interests of lawyers and legal professionals.
Respondent: D.K. Gandhi, PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases
The complainant who engaged legal services and later raised a grievance.
Background
D.K. Gandhi hired an advocate associated with the Bar of Indian Lawyers to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonoring a cheque of ₹20,000.
An amount of ₹25,000 was delivered to the appellant (₹20,000 as the cheque amount and ₹5,000 as legal expenses).
The appellant did not remit the full amount to D.K. Gandhi and instead claimed ₹5,000 as his fee through a separate suit in the Court of Small Causes, Delhi.
D.K. Gandhi approached the District Consumer Forum, alleging a deficiency in service by the advocate.
The District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, but the State Commission held that services by advocates do not fall under the Consumer Protection Act.
The matter reached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which allowed the complaint, leading to further appeal in the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
Applicability of Consumer Protection Act to Advocates:
Whether services rendered by advocates constitute a “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Maintainability of Complaints Against Advocates:
Whether a consumer can file a complaint alleging deficiency in legal services under the Act.
Consistency with Earlier Precedents:
How this case aligns with prior rulings such as Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, which allowed complaints against medical professionals under the Act.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Nature of Legal Profession:
The Court emphasized that the legal profession is unique and governed by separate rules, ethics, and regulatory mechanisms.
The legislature did not intend for advocates’ services to fall under the Consumer Protection Act.
Precedent Review:
While medical professionals were included under the Consumer Protection Act, the Court noted that advocates perform functions requiring independent professional judgment, which is distinct from standard commercial services.
Need for Specialized Regulation:
Issues arising from advocates’ services should be handled through Bar Council regulations and professional disciplinary mechanisms, not consumer courts.
Larger Bench Consideration:
The Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench, due to potential conflicts with earlier judgments and the importance of the legal profession.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that advocates’ services do not fall under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Complaints alleging deficiency in legal services are not maintainable under the Act.
The case was referred to a larger bench for further consideration regarding this issue.
Significance
Clarifies Scope of Consumer Protection Act:
Establishes that the Act does not apply to advocates, differentiating legal services from commercial services.
Maintains Professional Autonomy:
Protects the independence and judgment of lawyers in their professional work.
Framework for Grievances:
Emphasizes that grievances against lawyers should be addressed through professional disciplinary bodies rather than consumer courts.
Potential for Revisiting Precedents:
Referral to a larger bench signals the Court may review earlier judgments that included professionals like lawyers under consumer protection laws.
RELATED Blog
0 comments