Can Online Portals Publish Advocates' Advertisements? Supreme Court Seeks Response Of Bar Council Of India
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 14) sought the response of the Bar Council of India on whether online portals can be allowed to publish advertisements of advocates.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti was hearing a petition filed by 'JustDial', an online portal listing local services, challenging the recent judgment passed by the Madras High Court directing the Bar Councils to take action against advocates who are soliciting work through online portals. The High Court also directed the BCI to take action against online service providers who are allowing advocates' advertisements.
JustDial argued that they are only an online directory which mentions only the names, qualifications and areas of practice of the advocates, enabling clients to search for lawyers.
Although they urged the bench to stay the directions passed against online portals, the Supreme Court declined. At the same time, it issued notice to the Bar Council of India, seeking its response to the petition. The bench observed that the matter raised a larger issue concerning the ethical and professional standards of the legal profession.
In the judgment, the Madras High Court sharply rebuked lawyers soliciting work through online websites in violation of Bar Council of India Rules. In view of this, the Court directed the Bar Council of India to issue circulars/instructions/guidelines to State Bar Councils to initiate disciplinary proceedings against solicitation of work by the lawyers.
Following the High Court's judgment, directives were issued by the BCI directing the State Bar Councils to take stringent disciplinary actions against advocates found advertising or seeking work through online portals. The same can be read here.
The BCI also issued cease and desist notice to the Chief executive Officer of four online platforms, i.e., Quikr India Pvt. Ltd., Sulekha.com New Media Pvt Ltd., Just Dial Limited, and Grotal.com.
The BCI notice mainly highlighted violations. One is the illegal solicitation of work, violating Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rule. Second, the practice of providing ratings and offering prices for lawyer services.
In view of this, the online platforms were asked to immediately remove listings, profiles, and advertisements related to legal practices by advocates. Further, they are also required to Cease and Desist and Terminate any operations that enable the advertisement or solicitation of legal practice by advocates.
Before the High Court, the websites submitted that they were only providing online directory services and not soliciting work for lawyers. It was submitted that directory services were not prohibited under the Act.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan, however, noted that these websites were selling legal services of lawyers for a fixed price which was against the Bar Council of India rules. The court noted that the websites also independently provided rating services of lawyers without any basis or authority. It court added that the lawyers, who were enlisting themselves in these websites were bringing down the nobility of the profession.
In its string of observations, it also noted that the legal profession, unlike others, was not a job or a business and the intention was to provide welfare to the society. The court added that though a fee was paid to the lawyers, it was paid out of respect for their time and knowledge.
“It is agonising that some of the legal professionals today are trying to adopt a business model. Legal service is neither a job nor a business. A business is driven purely by profit motive. But in law, larger part is a service to the society. Though a service fee is paid to a lawyer, it is paid out of respect for their time and knowledge,” the court said.
Against this backdrop, the High Court directed the Bar Council of India to register complaints before competent authorities against online service providers/intermediaries conspiring or aiding the commission of unlawful acts of publication of advertisements by lawyers.
Case details: JUSTDIAL.COM, JUST DIAL LIMITED vs. PN VIGNESH SLP(C) No. 17844/2024