Inappropriate headline for SC’s judgment on lawyer’s service not falling under Consumer Protection Law

This blog is comment/ analysis of headline of newspaper article only, and not on the Supreme Court judgment.

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that services by lawyers will not fall under Consumer Protection Act.

Though the question posed before SC was, whether a complaint alleging ‘deficiency in service’ against Advocates practising Legal Profession, would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, but having regard to the entire spectrum and scheme of the said Act, following questions were considered:

(i) Whether the Legislature ever intended to include the Professions or services rendered by the Professionals within the purview of the CP Act 1986 as re-enacted in 2019?

(ii) Whether the Legal Profession is sui generis?

(iii) Whether a Service hired or availed of an Advocate could be said to be the service under ‘a contract of personal service’ so as to exclude it from the definition of ‘Service’ contained in Section 2 (42) of the said Act?

There is detailed analysis on the said provisions and references to the past cases.

The headline (Lawyers can’t be sued) by HT is a bit misleading because that is not the observation/conclusion. Supreme Court has stated that the aggrieved person can initiate action against Advocate with Bar Council under Advocates Act.

The headline ought to have been “Lawyers can’t be sued under Consumer Protection Act” or reference should have been to – deficiency of service.

The headline by Bar and Bench is apt as it considers the moot question before the Supreme Court.

Services by lawyers will not fall under Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court:

Interesting judgment, must read for all legal professionals.