{"id":325994,"date":"2024-07-08T09:00:27","date_gmt":"2024-07-08T03:30:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=325994"},"modified":"2024-07-08T12:20:20","modified_gmt":"2024-07-08T06:50:20","slug":"advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/","title":{"rendered":"Advocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

A<\/span> two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers<\/span> v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Disease<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a> (for short, “D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>”) has held that services hired or availed of an advocate do not fall under the definition of word “service” of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, “CP Act”), 1986<\/a>2<\/sup><\/a>\/20193<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The appeals arose before the Supreme Court against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which held that if there was any deficiency in service rendered by the advocates\/lawyers, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the only issue for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether service rendered by an advocate, comes under the Consumer Protection Act or not. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of its consideration and dealt with another aspect i.e. whether services rendered by the professionals falls within the purview of the CP Act? In dealing with this issue of services rendered by the professionals, the two-Judge Bench in D.K. Gandhi<\/span> case<\/span>4<\/sup><\/a> doubted the correctness of the law laid down by the three-Judge Bench in Indian Medical Assn.<\/span> v. V.P. Shantha<\/span>5<\/sup><\/a>, (for short, “V.P. Shantha case<\/span>\/judgment”), and as it was less in number strength, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India to constitute the larger Bench.<\/p>\n

As the two-Judge Bench in D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a> has dealt with the two aspects, therefore, this article will also discuss those two aspects individually i.e. (1) reference of the V.P. Shantha <\/span>judgment7<\/sup><\/a> to the larger Bench was not necessary; and (2) services hired or availed of an advocate do fall under definition of word “service” of the CP Act, 1986\/2019, albeit to limited extent.<\/p>\n

(1) Reference of the V.P. Shantha judgment to the larger Bench was not necessary<\/h4>\n

The reasons which the two-Judge Bench in D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a> gave before coming to conclusion that V.P. Shantha <\/span>judgment9<\/sup><\/a> requires reconsideration are thus: (i<\/span>) there is no whisper in the Statement of Objects and Reasons either of the CP Act, 1986\/2019 to include the professions or the services provided by the professionals like advocates, doctors within the purview of the CP Act as professionals cannot be called the businessmen or traders, nor clients or patients be called consumers and that the terms “business” or “trade” having a commercial aspect involved, cannot be used with term “profession”.10<\/sup><\/a> Profession requires high level of education, training and proficiency which involves skilled and specialised kind of mental work11<\/sup><\/a>; and (ii<\/span>) the object of the CP Act is to provide timely and effective settlement of the disputes and if the services provided by all the professions are brought within purview of the CP Act, there would be floodgate of litigations in consumer commissions because remedy is inexpensive and summary in nature.12<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Before discussing the aforesaid two reasons, it is apt to note that the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Indian Medical Assn.<\/span> v. V.P. Shantha<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a>, <\/span>dealt with the issue of whether services rendered by “medical professionals” falls under the definition of “service” under Section 2(1)(o<\/span>) of the CP Act, 198614<\/sup><\/a>. The same was answered in affirmative. Now, the following discussion:<\/p>\n

The seven-Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd.<\/span> v. CIT<\/span>15<\/sup><\/a>, had laid down parameters before calling for reconsideration of the earlier view. It held that the Court should be satisfied that whether in the interests of the public good or any other valid and compulsive reasons, it is necessary that the earlier decisions should be revised. The Referring Court should ask to itself: what is the nature of infirmity or error on which plea of revision is based, was some patent aspects of question remain unnoticed or attention of court was not drawn to any relevant and material statutory provision or was any previous decision was noticed, has the earlier decision been followed by subsequent Benches or High Court, would reversal of earlier view lead to public inconvenience, hardship or mischief.16<\/sup><\/a> The reason behind laying these parameters is stated thus:<\/p>\n

23<\/span>. … When this Court (Supreme Court) decides questions of law, its decisions are under Article 141, binding on all courts within the territory of India, and so, it must be constant endeavour and concern of this Court to introduce and maintain an element of certainty and continuity in the interpretation of law in the country. Frequent exercise by this Court of its power to review its earlier decisions on the ground that the view pressed before it later appears to the Court to be more reasonable, may incidentally tend to make law uncertain and introduce confusion which must be consistently avoided.17<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

From these guiding principles, if one sees the aforementioned reasoning in D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>18<\/sup><\/a>, none of the parameters as laid down in Keshav Mills <\/span>judgment19<\/sup><\/a> are shown as to why V.P. Shantha <\/span>judgment20<\/sup><\/a> requires reconsideration. In fact, one of the reasonings of the two-Judge Bench in D.K. Gandhi<\/span> case<\/span>21<\/sup><\/a> that “professionals” cannot be said to have been included in the definition of word “service” by the legislature as profession cannot be equated to commercial activity was argued in V.P. Shantha case<\/span>,22<\/sup><\/a> and the said contention was negatived by the three-Judge Bench, therefore, revisiting the law on the point which was earlier answered amounts to wastage of precious judicial time.<\/p>\n

Having referred the issue whether “professionals” fall within the definition of term “service” to the larger Bench, still, the two-Judge Bench in D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>23<\/sup><\/a> decided to deal with the aspect of whether service hired or availed of an advocate comes under Consumer Protection Act. For this, inter alia, it declared “legal profession” as sui generis i.e. the legal profession is different and unique, hence it cannot be equated with the other professions like medical profession, etc.24<\/sup><\/a> Firstly, as the issue before the two-Judge Bench was only whether advocates fall under the Consumer Protection Act or not, it would have sufficed to confine itself to the said issue, but it went into the aspect of entire gamut of “professionals”, by referring to the larger Bench. Secondly, when it had to hold “legal profession” as different from other professions, then there was no need to discuss and then refer to larger Bench whether “professionals” come under the definition of service as it was not called for to deal with that issue at all. Thirdly, having doubted the correctness of law declared in V.P. Shantha<\/span> judgment25<\/sup><\/a> viz. inclusion of professionals in definition of term “service”, judicial discipline would have been in the fact that entire issue is referred to be dealt by the larger Bench itself. This piecemeal declaration of law would only lead to uncertainty and confusion in the law.<\/p>\n

It is settled principle of statutory interpretation that the Statement of Objects and Reasons are an external aid of interpretation,26<\/sup><\/a> and cannot be used for interpreting the legislation if the words used in the statute are clear enough.27<\/sup><\/a> Keeping these principles in mind, if one gleans through the term “service” under the CP Act, 1986\/2019, one would find that the term “service” is defined in three ways. One is general definition which is very wide. Second is, certain specific activities are included, and the third is, exclusionary clause which keeps “services provided free of charge” and “contract of personal service” outside the ambit of term “service”. For the discussion on present aspect of this article, the general definition would suffice. The general definition uses the language, “service of any description which is made available to potential users….” The Supreme Court in LDA<\/span> v. M.K. Gupta<\/span>28<\/sup><\/a> while interpreting Section 2(1)(o<\/span>) of the old CP Act, 1986 which defined “service”, has held that the use of words “any” and “potential” are of wide amplitude.29<\/sup><\/a> Hence, when the language of the statute is very clear to mean that the service of each and every description, but for two exemptions, comes under the ambit of CP Act, there was no need to rely on Statement of Objects and Reasons which is an external aid of interpretation and which comes to rescue when the language of statute is unclear or ambiguous.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in CIT<\/span> v. Bansi Dhar<\/span>30<\/sup><\/a> has held that “once certain words in an Act of Parliament had received a judicial construction in one of the superior courts, and the legislature repeated these without any alteration in a subsequent statute, the legislature must be taken to have used them according to the meaning which a court of competent jurisdiction had given to them”.31<\/sup><\/a> Here, the definition of term “service” under Section 2(42) of the CP Act, 2019 is a verbatim copy of Section 2(1)(o<\/span>) of the old CP Act, 1986 with extra inclusion of word “telecom” under Section 2(42) of the CP Act, 201932<\/sup><\/a>. Therefore, the fact that the legislature while drafting Section 2(42) of the CP Act, 2019 has not made any change in the language of term “service” despite knowing the interpretation given by the three-Judge Bench in V.P. Shantha <\/span>judgment33<\/sup><\/a> to include professional service, leads to only one conclusion that, even the legislature has accepted professional service to come under the definition of word “service”. Added to it, under the inclusionary part of Section 2(11) of the CP Act, 2019 which defines the expression “deficiency”, the term “any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer” is used, meaning thereby, if there is any negligence or omission or commission in providing service, all of these could be by the professional as well, and the same would result in deficiency in service.<\/p>\n

The other reasoning that as CP Act is brought to provide timely and effective settlement of the disputes and if the services provided by all the professions are brought within purview of the CP Act, there would be floodgate of litigations in consumer commissions is, with due respects, flawed. In no principle of interpretation or jurisprudence it is stated that by inclusion of certain class of litigants (here, professionals) within the ambit of a statute if there would be floodgate of litigation, such class of litigations should be excluded. Interpretation depends upon the language used by the statute and not based on workload of litigation. Also, as “the life of law has not been logic: it has been experience”,34<\/sup><\/a> and that experience of functioning of consumer commissions shows that against the avowed mandate of the CP Act to decide the complaint within 3\/5 months35<\/sup><\/a> and appeal within 90 days period36<\/sup><\/a>, it is already taking 1-3 years for District Commissions to decide original complaints and if matter is carried on appeal, it is taking 4-5 years to decide such appeal by the State\/National Commissions. Further, the major chunk of filing comes out of real-estate matters like not registering the plot\/flat or not completing the project\/flat on time. Therefore, neither the disputes are getting resolved in time nor are the consumer commissions with less amount of cases, therefore, mere adding of cases against lawyers would not defeat the mandate of the statute for timely disposal of cases.<\/p>\n

(2) Services hired or availed of an advocate do fall under definition of word “service” of the CP Act, 1986\/2019, albeit to limited extent<\/h4>\n

The two-Judge Bench in D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>37<\/sup><\/a> held that services engaged or hired of an advocate fall under the “contract of personal service” i.e. under the exclusionary clause of definition “service”, therefore, the advocates are exempted from the Consumer Protection Act, 1986\/2019. It reasoned that: (i<\/span>) A considerable amount of direct control is exercised by the client over the manner in which an advocate renders his services during the course of his employment, like advocate acts as an agent of the client, without instructions from the client an advocate cannot make concessions or give any undertaking to the court, advocate is like a link between the court and his client,38<\/sup><\/a> (ii<\/span>) in different countries, the legislature has expressly excluded lawyers from the ambit of Consumer Protection Act,39<\/sup><\/a> therefore, based on universal practice, the Consumer Protection Act of India is said to exclude lawyers from ambit of the CP Act, 1986\/2019.40<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In simple terms, this interpretation has led the advocate as an employee of his client. In the contract law jurisprudence, there are two terms viz. “contract for service” and “contract of service”. The differentiation between both is explained succinctly in V.P. Shantha <\/span>judgment41<\/sup><\/a> by referring to various authorities. It is observed thus:<\/p>\n

A “contract for services” implies a contract whereby one party undertakes to render services e.g. professional or technical services, to or for another in the performance of which he is not subject to detailed direction and control but exercises professional or technical skill and uses his own knowledge and discretion. (See<\/span>: Oxford Companion to Law, p. 1134.) A “contract of service” implies relationship of master and servant and involves an obligation to obey orders in the work to be performed and as to its mode and manner of performance.42<\/sup><\/a> We entertain no doubt that parliamentary draftsman was aware of this well-accepted distinction between “contract of service” and “contract for services” and has deliberately chosen the expression “contract of service” instead of the expression “contract for services”, in the exclusionary part of the definition of “service” in Section 2(1)(o<\/span>). The reason being that an employer cannot be regarded as a consumer in respect of the services rendered by his employee in pursuance of a contract of employment.43<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Also, “amount of control” is another major factor in determining whether particular service falls under contract of service or not. An advocate is not the servant\/employee of his client because an advocate is a professional, and also, he is not always obliged to obey the orders\/instructions of his client. Though an advocate has to act as per the instructions of his client, but his first obligation is that he is an officer of the court, which means without being bothered by the outcome of the case for the client for whom he\/she is representing, an advocate owes a duty to assist the court in proper perspective to ensure that the rule of law gets glorified. So, if an occasion comes to decide between the court and the client, without hesitation, an advocate has to be on the side of the court, which means he has to forego the instructions of his client. An advocate also owes a duty to the other side advocate of treating him with respect.<\/p>\n

Therefore, as CP Act, 1986\/2019 does not use the words “contract for personal service”, it can be safely said that services hired or availed of the advocate come under the definition of word “service”. It is pertinent to note that not every act of an advocate comes under “deficiency of service”. For instance, if an advocate after representing the case effectively and arguing the matter, loses it, the same would not amount to deficiency in service as the outcome of case is not in the hands of the advocate.44<\/sup><\/a> But, having taken his professional fees, if the advocate does not attend the court which results in losing of the case, the same would amount to deficiency in service as because of his omission in attending the matter, his client has to suffer the loss.<\/p>\n

The fact that in other countries the legislature has in explicit terms excluded lawyers from the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and that the Indian legislature even in the year 2019 has not done it, despite the ruling of the Supreme Court about professionals in V.P. Shantha<\/span> judgment45<\/sup><\/a> in 1995 and ruling of the National Commission about the lawyers in the year 2007, only adds to the legislative intent to bring even the lawyers within the ambit of the CP Act. The statute under interpretation has to be interpreted based on the language and wording used in it, and not based on what practices are applied universally and also when statutes of other countries explicitly exclude something, unlike ours.<\/p>\n

Now, as anyways, the larger Bench is called upon to decide whether “professionals” per se come under the definition of term “service”, it would be apt, though the scope of such bench would be limited to answer the question of reference, if this subsidiary question — whether services hired or availed of the advocate come under the definition of word “service” and to what extent — is also answered by the larger Bench, which it can do if such subsidiary question logically and unavoidably arises.46<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Advocate, High Court of Telangana and Co-author, Consumer Protection Act: A Commentary<\/span> (Eastern book Company, Lucknow, 2020). The author can be accessed at: akashbaglekar@gmail.com.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

1.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Consumer Protection Act, 1986<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Consumer Protection Act, 2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 651<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928<\/a>.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 651<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 651<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928, para 15<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>, 2004 SCC OnLine SC 928, para 18<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928, para 19.<\/a><\/p>\n

13.<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 651<\/a>.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S. 2(o<\/span>).<\/a><\/p>\n

15.<\/a> 1965 SCC OnLine SC 80<\/a>.<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> Keshav Mills case<\/span>, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 80, para 23<\/a>.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> Keshav Mills case<\/span>, 1965 SCC OnLine SC 80<\/a>.<\/p>\n

18.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928<\/a>.<\/p>\n

19.<\/a> 1965 SCC OnLine SC 80<\/a>.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 651<\/a>.<\/p>\n

21.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928<\/a>.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 651, para 27<\/a>.<\/p>\n

23.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928<\/a>.<\/p>\n

24.<\/a> D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928, para 30<\/a>.<\/p>\n

25.<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 651<\/a>.<\/p>\n

26.<\/a> A. Manjula Bhashini<\/span> v. A.P. Women’s Coop. Finance Corpn. Ltd.<\/span>, (2009) 8 SCC 431, para 40.<\/a><\/p>\n

27.<\/a> S.C. Prashar<\/span> v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas<\/span>, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 77, para 23<\/a>.<\/p>\n

28.<\/a> (1994) 1 SCC 243<\/a>.<\/p>\n

29.<\/a> M.K. Gupta case<\/span>, (1994) 1 SCC 243, para 4<\/a>.<\/p>\n

30.<\/a> (1986) 1 SCC 523<\/a>.<\/p>\n

31.<\/a> Bansi Dhar case<\/span>, (1986) 1 SCC 523, para 36<\/a>. This principle was reiterated in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills<\/span> v. CCE<\/span>, (2016) 3 SCC 643, para 21<\/a>.<\/p>\n

32.<\/a> Consumer Protection Act, 2019, S. 2(42).<\/a><\/p>\n

33.<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 651, para 27<\/a>.<\/p>\n

34.<\/a> Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law (1881), Lecture 1, p. 1.<\/p>\n

35.<\/a> See<\/span> old Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S. 13(3-A)<\/a> and Consumer Protection Act, 2019, S. 38(7).<\/a><\/p>\n

36.<\/a> See<\/span> Consumer Protection Act, 2019, S. 52.<\/a><\/p>\n

37.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928<\/a>.<\/p>\n

38.<\/a> D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928, para 41<\/a>.<\/p>\n

39.<\/a> D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928, paras 56 to 64<\/a>.<\/p>\n

40.<\/a> D.K. Gandhi case<\/span>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 928, paras 67 and 68<\/a>.<\/p>\n

41.<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 651<\/a>.<\/p>\n

42.<\/a> See: Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, 5th Edn.<\/span>, p. 540; Simmons<\/span> v. Heath Laundry Co.<\/span>, (1910) 1 KB 543 : 79 LJ KB 395; Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd.<\/span> v. State of Saurashtra<\/span>, 1956 SCC OnLine SC 11<\/a> at p. 159.<\/p>\n

43.<\/a> V.P. Shantha case<\/span>, (1995) 6 SCC 651, para 40<\/a>.<\/p>\n

44.<\/a> Nandlal Lohariya<\/span> v. Jagdish Chand Purohit<\/span>, (2022) 6 SCC 456, para 7<\/a>.<\/p>\n

45.<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 651<\/a>.<\/p>\n

46.<\/a> See State of Punjab<\/span> v. Salil Sabhlok<\/span>, (2013) 5 SCC 1, para 145<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Baglekar Akash Kumar*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":325997,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[70683,20951,18321,70686,70685,70684],"class_list":["post-325994","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-advocate-not-liable","tag-chief-justice-of-india","tag-consumer-protection-act","tag-cp-act","tag-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment","tag-under-consumer-protection-act"],"yoast_head":"\nAdvocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Disease\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Advocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Disease\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-07-08T03:30:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-07-08T06:50:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-1.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Advocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/\",\"name\":\"Advocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-_1_.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-07-08T03:30:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-07-08T06:50:20+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Disease\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-_1_.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-_1_.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Consumer Protection Act\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Advocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Advocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment | SCC Times","description":"A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Disease","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Advocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment","og_description":"A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Disease","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-07-08T03:30:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-07-08T06:50:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-1.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Advocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/","name":"Advocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-_1_.webp","datePublished":"2024-07-08T03:30:27+00:00","dateModified":"2024-07-08T06:50:20+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Disease","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-_1_.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-_1_.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Consumer Protection Act"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/08\/advocate-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-a-critique-of-supreme-court-judgment\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Advocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/shared-image-_1_.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":322099,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/14\/advocates-are-not-liable-under-consumer-protection-act-deficiency-of-services-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":325994,"position":0},"title":"Consumer Protection| Advocates not liable for deficiency of services; Professionals to be treated differently from persons carrying out business and trade: SC","author":"Apoorva","date":"May 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAny interpretation of the Preamble or the scheme of the Act for construing \u2018Profession\u2019 as \u2018Business\u2019 or \u2018Trade\u2019; or \u2018Professional\u2019 as \u2018service provider\u2019 would be extending the scope of the Act which was not intended, rather would have a counter productive effect\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Consumer protection Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Consumer-protection-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Consumer-protection-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Consumer-protection-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Consumer-protection-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":267062,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/19\/medical-negligence-consumer-protection-act-should-not-be-a-halter-round-the-neckncdrc\/","url_meta":{"origin":325994,"position":1},"title":"[Medical Negligence] Consumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck: NCDRC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 19, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"National Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): In an alleged medical negligence case, the Coram of R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr S.M. Kantikar, Member, reiterates that the \u201cConsumer Protection Act should not be a halter round the neck.\u201d An instant appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":332775,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/09\/consumer-commissions-has-power-to-act-as-jm-includes-power-to-issue-arrest-warrants-dhc\/","url_meta":{"origin":325994,"position":2},"title":"Consumer Commissions have power to act as Judicial Magistrate for trial of offences, which includes power to issue arrest warrants: Delhi HC","author":"Arushi","date":"October 9, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The question here is not about past wrongs, it is about the present failure to comply with a legally binding order. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is explicit on this point, that those in charge of a company during non-compliance are accountable. By holding a directorial position during this period,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":244408,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/25\/educational-institutions\/","url_meta":{"origin":325994,"position":3},"title":"NCDRC | Whether educational institutions and co-curricular activities such as swimming provided by them will be covered under Consumer Protection Act? Read on","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) addressed the issue of whether educational institutions fall under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The instant appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":343297,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/08\/ncdrc-penalties-constitute-debt-under-ibc-sc-answers-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":325994,"position":4},"title":"Penalties imposed by NCDRC are regulatory in nature & do not constitute “debt” under IBC, 2016: Supreme Court","author":"Sucheta","date":"March 8, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Permitting a stay on regulatory penalties under the guise of insolvency proceedings would undermine the very purpose of the CP Act and embolden errant developers to escape liability through insolvency proceedings.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"NCDRC penalties debt IBC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/NCDRC-penalties-debt-IBC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/NCDRC-penalties-debt-IBC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/NCDRC-penalties-debt-IBC.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/NCDRC-penalties-debt-IBC.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":238411,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/03\/are-you-a-homebuyer-planning-to-take-builder-to-court-sc-says-you-can-choose-between-seeking-remedy-under-the-rera-act-or-the-consumer-protection-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":325994,"position":5},"title":"Are you a homebuyer planning to take builder to Court? SC says you can choose between seeking remedy under the RERA Act or the Consumer Protection Act","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 3, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"The RERA Act does not bar the initiation of proceedings by allottees against the builders under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/325994","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=325994"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/325994\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/325997"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=325994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=325994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=325994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}