Legal Profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other Profession
Today, a two judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal, by separate judgments, held that the Legal Profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other Profession. A service hired or availed of an Advocate is a service under “a contract of personal service,” and therefore would fall within the exclusionary part of the definition of “Service” contained in Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CP Act, 2019) and a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019.
Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi delivered her judgment holding that there was not a whisper in the statement of objects and reasons either of the CP Act, 1986 or 2019 to include the Professions or the Services provided by the Professionals like Advocates, Doctors etc. within the purview of the Act. It is very well accepted proposition of the fact that Professionals could not be called Businessmen or Traders, nor Clients or Patients be called Consumers. It is also required to be borne in mind that the terms ‘business’ or ‘trade’ having a commercial aspect involved, could not be used interchangeably with the term ‘Profession’ which normally would involve some branch of learning or science. Profession as such would require knowledge of an advanced type in a given field of learning or science, or learning gained by a prolonged course of specialized study.
Further, held that the very purpose and object of the CP Act 1986 as re-enacted in 2019 was to provide protection to the consumers from the unfair trade practices and unethical business practices only. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Legislature ever intended to include the Professions or the Professionals within the purview of the Act. Therefore, having regard to the role, status and duties of the Advocates as the professionals, the legal profession is sui generis i.e unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other profession.
The unique attributes of the relationship between an Advocate and his Client:
- 1) Advocates are generally perceived to be their client’s agents and owe fiduciary duties to their clients.
- 2) Advocates are fastened with all the traditional duties that agents owe to their principals. For example, Advocates have to respect the client’s autonomy to make decisions at a minimum, as to the objectives of the representation.
- 3) Advocates are not entitled to make concessions or give any undertaking to the Court without express instructions from the Client.
- 4) It is the solemn duty of an Advocate not to transgress the authority conferred on him by his Client.
- 5) An Advocate is bound to seek appropriate instructions from the Client or his authorized agent before taking any action or making any statement or concession which may, directly or remotely, affect the legal rights of the Client.
- 6) The Advocate represents the client before the Court and conducts proceedings on behalf of the client. He is the only link between the court and the client. Therefore, his responsibility is onerous. He is expected to follow the instructions of his client rather than substitute his judgment.
The Conclusion of the the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi is summarized here:
- (i) The very purpose and object of the CP Act 1986 as re-enacted in 2019 was to provide protection to the consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices, and the Legislature never intended to include either the Professions or the services rendered by the Professionals within the purview of the said Act of 1986/2019.
- (ii) The Legal Profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other Profession.
- (iii) A service hired or availed of an Advocate is a service under “a contract of personal service,” and therefore would fall within the exclusionary part of the definition of “Service” contained in Section 2 (42) of the CP Act 2019.
- (iv) A complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019.
Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal framed the question in a different way as whether the legal services of the lawyer availed of by the client would be covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now Consumer Protection Act, 2019) and held that it is well recognized that the profession of law is a noble profession having an element of duty towards the court. Lawyers perform multi-faceted duties. They not only have a duty towards the client or their opponents but they have a paramount duty to assist the court as well. In a way, they are officers as well as ambassadors of the court. Thus, in rendering such kind of a duty to enable the courts to come to a just conclusion, it may be possible that at times, the lawyers may earn displeasure of the client while assisting the court.
Further, Hon’ble Justice held that:
“With the above additional reasoning supplementing the various other grounds for excluding the services of the professionals from the Consumer Protection Act, I am in agreement with the opinion expressed by my esteemed sister and I am of the view that the legislature in India as in some other countries, had not intended to include the services rendered by the professionals especially the lawyers to their client within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and re-enacted in 2019.“
Disposed of: The impugned judgment passed by the NCDRC is set aside. The Appeals stand allowed accordingly.
Reference: Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2646 of 2009, dated May 14, 2024.
