Written by Kanishka Panwar
Lex Lumen Research Journal Winter Intern,
January 2026
Introduction
In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Bar of Indian Lawyers v D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr., dealt with the question whether a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession, would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as re-enacted in 2019? (hereinafter, ‘CP Act’). The Division Bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mittal, arrived at the same conclusion that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019 would not be applicable to lawyers. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court overruled the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) decision in D.K. Gandhi PS v M. Mathiasii, wherein it was ruled that a complaint for deficiency in the services against lawyers, under the CP Act, 1986, would be maintainable.
Factual background
The respondent Mr. D.K. Gandhi had availed the services of an advocate (appellant) in a cheque dishonour case, under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the case, the accused agreed to pay the due amount along with expenses, which were received by the advocate. The advocate, however, withheld a part of the sum received, alleging unpaid legal fees. Consequently, the respondent filed a consumer complaint against the advocate.
The appellant resisted the said complaint by raising a preliminary objection claiming that the District Consumer Forum lacked jurisdiction as the Advocates were not covered under the provisions contained in the CP Act, 1986. The objection was rejected, and the District Consumer Forum decided the complaint in favour of the respondent. On appeal the State Commission reversed the decision, holding that Section 2(1)(o)iii of the CP Act, 1986 did not cover lawyers. However, in revision application, the NCDRC passed the impugned order, overturning the decision of the State Commission, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Judicial analysis
The court framed following sub-questions, having regard to the entire scheme and spectrum of the Act, that required consideration for deciding the above-mentioned question.
(i) Whether the Legislature ever intended to include the Professions or services rendered by the Professionals within the purview of the CPA 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)iv of the CP Act 2019?
For answering these questions, the Supreme Court delved into an analysis of the following: – Revisiting legislative intent
To answer the first question the court revisited the history, object, and purpose of enacting the CP Act, 1986. It referred to State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society and Othersv, Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Guptavi, and others. It was repeatedly held that the said Act was enacted to provide for the better protection of the interests of the consumers against their exploitation, and to help them get justice and fair treatment in the matter of consumption. The court observed: –
“There is no good reason to assume that the legislature intended to include the Professions or the Professionals or the services provided by the professionals within the ambit of the CP Act, it would be extending the scope of the Act.”
Further, the Apex Court clarified the distinction between ‘traders’ or ‘businessmen’ and ‘professionals’, held that- “Professional” means “someone who belongs to a learned profession or whose occupation requires a high level of training and proficiency.” It referred to the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Editionvii, “Profession” means “a vocation requiring advanced education and training; especially one of the three traditional Professions- Law, Medicine and the Ministry.”
It concluded that a Professional cannot be treated equally or at par with a Businessman or a Trader or a Service Provider as contemplated in the CP Act.
Sui generis nature of the legal profession
In R. Muthukrishnan vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madrasviii, the court highlighted the unique nature of the legal profession. It observed that the legal profession cannot be equated with any other traditional professions. In State of U.P. and Others vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association and Othersix, it was observed that the Legal profession is
essentially a service-oriented and noble profession. Moreover, advocates are expected to act according to the principles of uberrima fides i.e., the utmost good faith, integrity, fairness, and loyalty while handling the legal proceedings of his client.
Therefore, having regard to the role, duties, and social impact of the Advocates as professionals, the bench held the legal profession as sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other profession.
Advocate’s services as a “contract of personal service”
Definition of “Service” contained in Section 2(1)(o) of the CP Act, 1986 and in Section 2(42) of the CP Act, 2019 is the same. the definition of ‘service’ is threefold– explanatory (any service made available to users), inclusionary, (includes facilities connected with specified services), and exclusionary (excludes free services or those under a contract of personal service). The court relied on its pronouncement made in Dharangdhara Chemical Works Ltd v State of Saurashtra and Ors.x, wherein it was held that:
“The greater the amount of direct control exercised over the person rendering the services by the person contracting for them, the stronger would be the grounds for holding it to be a ‘contract of personal service.’”
In case of advocate-Client relationship, advocates are generally perceived to be the agents of their clients and owe fiduciary duties to them. Also, the advocates are expected to follow the instructions of clients. Therefore, the client exercises a considerable amount of control over
the advocate, making the services those of a ‘contract of personal service,’ excluding the same from definition of “service” contained in CP Act, 2019.
Opinion of the Court
The Division Bench gave two opinions reaching the same conclusion on why the CP Act will not be applicable to lawyers. Justice Bela Trivedi justified the non-applicability of CPA, 1986 to lawyers on three major grounds, as explained above.
Justice Pankaj Mittal came to the same conclusion but used more of a comparative legal approach. He considered the international practice and noticed that common law countries evidence the exclusion of lawyers from the umbrella of consumer protection laws. He refers to USA (The Code of Maryland, Title 13, explicitly states that:xi
“This title does not apply to (1) The professional services of a certified public accountant, architect, clergyman, professional engineer, lawyer….”)
Malaysia (Section 2(2)(e)xii of the Malaysian Consumer Protection Act, 1999), Canada, etc. Thus, Justice Mittal concludes that the Advocates Act, 1961 is a complete code sufficient to regulate the relationship between lawyers and clients.
Scope of judicial interpretation
The Apex court’s observations, while focused on the legal profession, are broad enough to potentially include any other regulated professions such as doctors and engineers. However, the same is not explicitly specified in the judgment. The court stated: –
“The question as to whether the other professionals could be covered by the Consumer Protection Act, can be considered in an appropriate case, having a factual foundation for deciding the same.”
The court also took note of their decision passed in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Ors.xiii where medical practitioners were included within the purview of the CP Act, 1986 and referred the said case to Hon’ble CJI for reconsideration.
Final remarks
The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court finally brings closure to an issue that had remained unsolved for over a decade. Advocates must be able to discharge their professional duties without fear of severe repercussions. The Supreme Court, through this judgment, has affirmed the necessity of providing advocates with immunity, though such immunity is not absolute. Comprehensive provisions are contained in the Advocates Act, 1961xiv and the Bar Council of India Rulesxv framed thereunder, to take care of the professional misconduct and other disciplinary violations on part of the advocates, and prescribing of punishments by the Disciplinary Committees of the State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India as the case may be. For instance, misappropriating of funds, sabotaging the client, deliberately failing to appear in a case after taking fees, contemptuous conduct, etc. But they cannot be held accountable for “deficiency” in services.
The role of an advocates requires courage and independence in discharge of their professional duties, serving as vital officers of the justice system. Accordingly, they are bound by the doctrine of uberrima fides and to act with professional loyalty while representing their clients.
Besides this, they have a moral obligation to represent their client to the best of their abilities, and this obligation though not a rule of law, assumes greater significance, owing to the “Sui generis” nature of the profession.
References
i Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS Nat’l Inst. of Communicable Diseases, (2024) 8 S.C.C. 430. ii D.K. Gandhi P.S., Nat’l Inst. of Communicable Diseases v. M. Mathias, 2007 S.C.C. OnLine NCDRC 55. iii Consumer Protection Act 1986, § 2(1)(o), No. 68, Acts of India (1986).
iv Consumer Protection Act 2019, § 2(42), No. 35, Acts of India (2019).
v State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Bldg. Coop. Soc’y, (2003) 2 S.C.C. 412. vi Lucknow Dev. Auth. v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 S.C.C. 243.
vii Black’s Law Dictionary 11th ed.
viii R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar Gen., High Ct. of Judicature at Madras, (2019) 16 S.C.C. 407. ix State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers’ Ass’n, (1994) 2 S.C.C. 204.
x Dharangdhara Chem. Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra & Ors., (1956) 2 S.C.C. 636. xi MD Commercial Law Code § 13-104 (2024)
xii Consumer Protection Act 1999, § 2(2)(e), Laws of Malaysia (1999).
xiii Indian Med. Ass’n v. V.P. Shantha & Ors., (1995) 6 S.C.C. 651.
xiv The Advocates Act 1961, No. 25, Acts of India (1961).
xv Bar Council of India Rules, Gazette of India, Part III, (Sept. 6, 1975) (India).
