Preventing Advocates From Listing Their Services Online Creates Uneven Playing Field : Sulekha.com To Supreme Court
Digital platform Sulekha.com has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the Madras High Court judgment directing the Bar Councils to take action against advocates soliciting work through online portals and online service providers allowing advocates' advertisements.
The petition filed through Advocate Utkarsh Sharma, contends that the High Court's interpretation could lead to economic and class barriers within the legal profession by enabling only advocates who can afford individual websites to have an online presence.
“The substantial costs and expenditures of resources will lead to creation of economic barriers for certain lawyers; leading to creation of different classes within advocates, i.e. one who could afford their own websites and the others who cannot. Additionally, the advocates in bigger and urban cities will be at an unfair advantage over their colleagues in emerging cities and rural parts of the country”, the petition reads.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti, noting that a similar matter was pending, ordered the present petition to be tagged with Justdial.Com, Just Dial Limited v. PN Vignesh & Ors, and issued notice returnable within four weeks.
“Mr. Ankur Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a similar matter is pending before this Court and produces a copy of this Court's order dated 14.08.2024 in SLP(Civil) No.17844/2024. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. After service of notice, the matter be tagged with SLP(Civil) No.17844/2024”, the order states.
Sulekha.com, as stated in the petition, is an intermediary platform that lists professionals, including advocates, and provides their contact details. The petition emphasizes that the High Court's ruling directed online platforms, including global entities like Google and LinkedIn, to remove content that allegedly violated Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules but did not specify what material was considered unlawful.
According to the petition, the High Court's judgment failed to acknowledge a 2008 amendment to Rule 36 that allows advocates to publish specific “Permitted Details” on websites, such as names, addresses, contact numbers, and areas of practice. The petition argues that the High Court's directive to remove all advocate-related listings created ambiguity regarding which listings breached Rule 36, given that the amendment allows advocates to publish certain information online.
“Rule 36 of the BCI Rules also permits the advocates to furnish website information, subject to the same being in the Schedule provided therein. Hence, enabling the online platform of the Petitioner Company to be used by advocates for publication of permitted information, pertaining to themselves and their professional practice, so as to provide the advocates with a better out-reach, while ensuring adherence to the Schedule contained in Rule 36, shall not constitute a violation of Rule 36 of the BCI Rules”, the petition adds.
It argues that requiring advocates to create and maintain personal websites, as opposed to appearing on public platforms, would result in financial inequality among advocates. The petition further argues that limiting online listings disadvantages rural-based lawyers, who might lack resources for establishing personal websites, and restricts citizens' access to reliable information on legal services.
The petition highlights that the High Court's judgment, as interpreted by the BCI's subsequent notice, called for the immediate removal of all advocate profiles on platforms like Sulekha. This, the petition argues, disregarded the public's right to free speech, as reviews and feedback from clients help those in need of legal assistance.
“It is further submitted that any review of an advocate on any of the Search Websites proved by general public is only in furtherance of their right to free speech and expression and are not encouraged or prompted by such Online Platforms, in any way. Therefore, any blanket ban on the reviews provided by the clients and individuals on the Search Websites runs contrary to and leads to curtailment of their rights of expression of their free and uninfluenced opinion.”
The petition also points out that other professions, such as medicine, allow listing on similar platforms, where reviews and information help patients make informed decisions.
The petition emphasizes that the petitioner's platform has measures to verify the credentials of listed advocates, including collection of Aadhaar, PAN, and Bar Council ID details, which ensures a level of accountability. The petition contends that this verification process adds a protective layer against unlicensed individuals posing as advocates.
Case no. – Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25794/2024
Case Title – Sulekha.com New Media Private Limited v. PN Vignesh & Ors.