BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SINGH MALIK versus D. K. GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES AND ANR.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 484, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Directions issued
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 484 : 2024 INSC 410
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President 
Jasbir Singh Malik 
v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of 
Communicable Diseases and Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 2646 of 2009)
14 May 2024
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Pankaj Mithal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to 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; whether “Service” hired or availed of an advocate 
would fall within the definition of “Service” contained in the C.P. 
Act, 1986/2019; 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; whether the 
legal profession is sui generis; and whether service hired or availed 
of an advocate could be said to be the service under “contract of 
personal service” so as to exclude it from the definition of “Service” 
contained in s. 2(42) of the CP Act 2019.
Headnotes†
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Consumer Protection Act, 
2019 – Complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against 
Advocates practising Legal Profession – Maintainability – 
District Forum held that it had the jurisdiction to adjudicate 
upon the dispute between the parties and decided the 
complaint in favour of the complainant – However, the State 
Commission held that the services of lawyers/advocates did
not fall within the ambit of “service” defined u/s. 2(1)(o) of 
the 1986 Act – In Revision, the National Commission held 
inter alia that if there was any deficiency in service rendered 
by the Advocates/Lawyers, a complaint under the 1986 Act 
would be maintainable – Correctness:
Held: Services hired or availed of an Advocate would be that of 
a contract ‘of personal service’ and would thus, stand excluded 
from the definition of “service” contained in the s. 2(42) of the CP
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
485
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
Act, 2019 – In view thereof, the complaint alleging “deficiency in 
service” against Advocates practising legal profession would not 
be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019 – Thus, the impugned 
judgment passed by the National Commission set aside [Paras 
42, 43] – Held: Per Pankaj Mithal, J. (Concurring) In the era of 
globalization, a law has to be applied in context with the prevailing 
situation of the country, nonetheless, on the basis of the common 
resolution of the UNO, laws must have a uniform application in 
all nations – It is, thus, essential that the consumer protection 
laws in all countries may somewhat have universal application 
and be confined to ‘consumers’ only i.e. to the persons who buys 
any goods for consideration or hires or avails of any service 
for consideration, impliedly excluding the professional services 
especially that of a lawyer – In doing so, in India also the services of 
professionals more particularly that of lawyers have to be excluded 
from consumer protection law in accordance with the intention 
expressed in enacting the same – 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 CP Act, 1986 and re-enacted in 2019 – Thus, the 
view taken by the
National Commission that complaint would be 
maintainable in CP Act, 1986, in respect of deficiency in service 
rendered by the lawyers, is incorrect and is set aside. [Paras 24-28]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Consumer Protection Act, 
2019 – Legislature, if intended to include the Professions or 
services rendered by the Professionals within the purview 
of the CP Act 1986/2019:
Held: 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 – Legislature 
never intended to include either the Professions or the services 
rendered by the Professionals within the purview of the said Acts 
– Other object of the Act was to provide to the consumers timely 
and effective administration and settlement of their disputes arising 
out of the unfair trade and unethical business practices – If the 
services provided by all the Professionals are also brought within 
the purview of the Act, there would be flood-gate of litigations 
in the commissions/forums established under the Act, and the 
very object of Act would be frustrated – Legislative draftsmen 
are presumed to know the law and there is no reason to assume 
that the legislature intended to include the Professions or the
486
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Professionals or the services provided by them within the ambit 
of the CP Act – Any interpretation of the Preamble or the scheme 
of the Act for construing ‘Profession’ as ‘Business’ or ‘Trade’; or 
‘Professional’ as ‘service provider’ would be extending the scope 
of the Act which was not intended, rather would have a counter 
productive effect. [Paras 42, 19, 20, 18]
Legal Profession – Legal Profession is sui generis or is 
different from the other Profession:
Held: 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 – Legal 
profession is different from the other professions for the reason that 
what the Advocates do, affects not only an individual but the entire 
administration of justice, which is the foundation of the civilized 
society – Legal profession is a solemn and serious profession, 
and has always been held in very high esteem – Their services 
in making the judicial system efficient, effective and credible, and 
in creating a strong and impartial Judiciary, which could not be 
compared with the services rendered by other professionals [Paras 
42, 30] – Held: Per Pankaj Mithal, J. (Concurring) Profession of 
law, as such, is regarded as sui generis i.e. which is unique – It is 
distinct from all other professions and is one of its own kind. [Para 3]
Consumer Protection
Act, 2019 – s. 2(42) – Service hired or 
availed of an Advocate, if 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 s. 2(42):
Held: Service hired or availed of an Advocate is a service under 
“a contract of personal service,” and thus, would fall within the 
exclusionary part of the definition of “Service” contained in s. 
2(42) – 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 service” – 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. [Paras 42, 39, 41]
Reference to larger Bench – Three-Judge Bench decision in 
*Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha & Others holding 
inter alia that the wide amplitude of the definition of ‘service’ in 
the main part of s. 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
487
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
would cover the services rendered by Medical Practitioners 
within the said s. 2(1)(o) of the Act – Correctness:
Held: Having regard to the history, object, purpose and the 
scheme of the CP Act and that neither the “Profession” could 
be treated as “business” or “trade” nor the services provided 
by the “Professionals” could be treated at par with the services 
provided by the Businessmen or the Traders, so as to bring them 
within the purview of the CP Act, the decision in *Indian Medical 
Association vs. V.P Shantha’s case to be revisited and considered 
by a larger bench – Thus, matter referred to Hon’ble the Chief 
Justice of India for consideration – Supreme Court Rules – Order 
VI r 2. [Paras 21, 24]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Consumer Protection Act, 
2019 – Scope and object of – Intention of the legislature:
Held: The said Act was enacted to provide for the better protection 
of the interests of the consumers against their exploitation by the 
traders and manufacturers of the consumer goods, and to help 
consumers in getting justice and fair treatment in the matter of 
goods and services purchased and availed by them in a market 
dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies – Reasons 
for re-enacting the CP Act, 2019 by the Legislature, were certain 
shortcomings found in the CP Act 1986 while
administering the 
said Act, and due to the emergence of global supply chains, rise in 
international trade and rapid development of ecommerce leading to 
new systems for goods and services, new options and opportunities 
had become available to the consumers – New forms of unfair 
trade and unethical business practices also came to be developed, 
which made the consumers more vulnerable – Furthermore, 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 – Professionals could not be 
called Businessmen or Traders, nor Clients or Patients be called 
Consumers. [Paras 12, 14, 15]
Words and phrases – Definition of term “Profession” – 
Meaning and explanation of:
Held: “Profession” would require advanced education and training 
in some branch of learning or science – Nature of work is also 
skilled and specialised one, substantial part of which would be
488
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
mental rather than manual – Thus, having regard to the nature 
of work of a professional, which requires high level of education, 
training and proficiency and which involves skilled and specialized 
kind of mental work, operating in the specialized spheres, where 
achieving success would depend upon many other factors beyond 
a man’s control, a Professional cannot be treated equally or at 
par with a Businessman or a Trader or a Service provider of 
products or goods as contemplated in the Consumer Protection 
Act – Similarly, services rendered by Businessman or Trader 
to consumers with regard to his goods or products cannot be 
equated with the Services provided by Professional to his clients 
with regard to his specialized branch of profession. [Paras 15, 18]
Legal profession – Justice Delivery System and the evolving 
jurisprudence – Role of Advocates:
Held: Legal profession cannot be equated with any other traditional 
professions – It is not commercial in nature but is essentially 
a service oriented, noble profession – Role of Advocates is 
indispensable in the Justice Delivery System – Evolution of 
jurisprudence to keep the Constitution vibrant is possible only 
with the positive contribution of the Advocates – Advocates are 
expected to be fearless and independent for protecting the rights 
of citizens, for upholding the Rule of law and also for protecting 
the Independence of Judiciary – People repose immense
faith in 
the Judiciary, and the Bar being an integral part of the Judicial 
System has been assigned a very crucial role for preserving the 
independence of the Judiciary, and in turn the very democratic set 
up of the Nation – Advocates are perceived to be the intellectuals 
amongst the elites and social activists amongst the downtrodden, 
thus are expected to act with utmost good faith, integrity, fairness 
and loyalty while handling the legal proceedings of his client – 
Being a responsible officer of the court and an important adjunct 
of the administration of justice, an Advocate owes his duty not only 
to his client but also to the court as well as to the opposite side 
[Para 29] – Held: Per Pankaj Mithal, J. (Concurring) 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
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
489
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
just conclusion, it may be possible that at times, the lawyers may 
earn displeasure of the client while assisting the court. [Para 2]
Advocates Act, 1961 – Advocate – Legal Practitioner – 
Definition of, and explanation:
Held: Advocate is included in the definition of “Legal Practitioner” 
but legal practitioner is not included in the definition of Advocate 
– Advocate is one who has been entered in any roll under the 
provisions of the Advocates Act – Law relating to legal practitioners 
and to provide for the constitution of Bar Councils and an All-India 
Bar is covered under the Advocates Act, 1961 – As per s. 29, there 
is only one class of persons entitled to practice the profession of law, 
namely Advocates, and as per s. 30, every advocate whose name is 
entered in the State roll is entitled as of right to practice in all Courts 
including the Supreme Court and before any Tribunal or any other 
authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any 
law for the time being in force entitled to practice – Comprehensive 
provisions are contained in the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar 
Council of India Rules to take care of the professional misconduct of 
the Advocates, and prescribing the punishments if they are found guilty 
of professional or other misconduct by the Disciplinary Committees 
of the State
Bar Council or the Bar Council of India. [Para 34]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 2(1)(o) – Consumer 
Protection Act, 2019 – s. 2(42) – Definition of “Service” 
contained in s. 2(1)(o) of the CP Act 1986 and in s. 2(42) of 
the CP Act 2019 – Elucidation:
Held: Definition of “Service” contained in s. 2(1)(o) of the CP Act 
1986 and in s. 2(42) of the CP Act 2019 is the same – Definition 
of ‘service’ is divided into three parts-first part is explanatory in 
nature and defines service to mean service of any description 
which is made available to the potential users; the second part 
is inclusionary part, which expressly includes the provision of 
facilities in connection with the specific services; and the third part 
is exclusionary part which excludes rendering of any service free 
of charge or under a contract of personal service. [Paras 35, 37]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 2(1)(g) – Consumer 
Protection Act, 2019 – s. 2(11) – Definition of ‘Deficiency’ in 
s. 2(1)(g) of 1986 Act and s. 2(11) of 2019 Act:
Held: There is slight difference in the definition of ‘Deficiency’ in 
s. 2(1)(g) of 1986 Act and s. 2(11) of 2019 Act. [Para 36]
490
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Advocates – Relationship between an Advocate and his 
Client – Nature of control – Unique attributes:
Held : Advocates are generally perceived to be their client’s agents 
and owe fiduciary duties to their clients – Advocates are fastened 
with all the traditional duties that agents owe to their principals – 
Advocates have to respect the client’s autonomy to make decisions 
at a minimum, as to the objectives of the representation – Advocates 
are not entitled to make concessions or give any undertaking to the 
Court without express instructions from the Client – It is the solemn 
duty of an Advocate not to transgress the authority conferred on him 
by his Client – 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 – 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 – 
Thus, his responsibility is onerous – He is expected to follow the 
instructions of his client rather than substitute his judgment – Thus, 
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. [Para 41]
Consumer Protection Laws – Exclusion of lawyers from 
Consumer Protection
Laws – International practice/norms – 
Discussed. [Paras 6-9, 13-15, 17, 24] Per Pankaj Mithal, J. 
(Concurring)
Case Law Cited
In the judgment of Bela M. Trivedi, J.
Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Others 
[1995] Supp. 5 SCR 110 : (1995) 6 SCC 651 – To be 
revisited.
State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building 
Coop. Society and Others [2003] 1 SCR 397 : (2003) 
2 SCC 412; Common Cause, A Registered Society v. 
Union of India and Others [1993] 1 SCR 10 : (1997) 10 
SCC 729; Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta 
[1993] Supp. 3 SCR 615 : (1994) 1 SCC 243; Laxmi 
Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [1995] 
3 SCR 174 : (1995) 3 SCC 583; State of West Bengal
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
491
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
v. Subodh Gopal Bose & Others [1954] 1 SCR 587 : 
AIR 1954 SC 92; Triveniben v. State of Gujarat [1989] 1 
SCR 509 : (1989) 1 SCC 678; Byram Pestonji Gariwala 
v. Union Bank of India and Others [1991] Supp. 1 SCR 
187 : (1992) 1 SCC 31; R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar 
General, High Court of Judicature at Madras [2019] 1 
SCR 589 : (2019) 16 SCC 407; State of U.P and Others 
v. U.P. State Law Officers Association and Others [1994] 
1 SCR 348 : (1994) 2 SCC 204; Dharangadhra Chemical 
Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra and Others [1957] 1 
SCR 152 : AIR 1957 SC 264; Himalayan Cooperative 
Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh and Others 
[2015] 4 SCR 616 : (2015) 7 SCC 373 – referred to.
Simmons v. Heath Laundry Company (1924) 1 KB 
762 – referred to.
In the judgment of Pankaj Mithal, J.
Om Prakash v. Assistant Engineer, Haryana Agro 
Industries Corporation Ltd. and Anr. [1994] 3 SCR 
463: (1994) 3 SCC 504; Laureate Buildwell (P) Ltd. v. 
Charanjeet Singh [2021] 6 SCR 673 : (2021) 20 SCC 
401 – referred to.
D’Orta-Ekenaike v. Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1.
Books and Periodicals Cited
In the judgment of Bela M Trivedi, J.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition; “Jackson and 
Powell on Professional Liability” 2nd supplement to the 
7th edition – referred to.
List of Acts
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Consumer Protection
Act, 2019; 
Legal Practitioners Act, 1879; Bombay Pleaders Act, 1920; Indian 
Bar Councils Act, 1926; Advocates Act, 1961; Supreme Court Rules.
List of Keywords
Deficiency in service; Service hired or availed of an Advocate; 
Definition of Service; Professions or services rendered by the 
Professionals; Legal Profession, sui generis; Service under contract
492
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of personal service; Unfair trade practices and unethical business 
practices; Timely and effective settlement of consumers’ disputes; 
‘Profession’ as ‘Business’ or ‘Trade’; ‘Professional’ as ‘service 
provider’; Exclusionary part of the definition of “Service”; Reference 
to larger Bench; Decision to be revisited; Justice Delivery System; 
Role of Advocates; Independence of Judiciary; Relationship 
between an Advocate and his Client; International practices; Duty 
of advocates/lawyers towards the court.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2646 of 2009
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2007 of the National 
Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP 
No.1392 of 2006
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2647, 2648 and 2649 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 6959 
of 2011 and Civil Appeal No. 8214 of 2017
Appearances for Parties
Guru Krishna Kumar, Narender Hooda, Manoj Swarup, Rakesh 
Tikku, V. Giri, Jaideep Gupta, Shekhar Naphade, Dr. Adish C. 
Aggarwala, Sukumar Pattjoshi, Arijit Prasad, Jayant Bhushan, 
Dinesh Kumar Goswami, S. Wasim Ahmed Quadri, Vikas Singh, 
Ramkrishna Viraragvan, Vivek Subba Reddy, V.K. Singh, Sr. Advs., 
Ashok Kumar Singh, Shantwanu Singh, Ms. Pragya Singh, Akshay 
Singh, Rahul Dubey, Daya Krishan Sharma, D K Sharma, Rohit 
Vats, Yashdeep, Akshay Amritanshu, Samyak Jain, Ayush Raj, Ankit 
Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Ms. Apoorva Singh, Rishi Bhargava, Ms. 
Yashvi Aswani, Jasbir
Singh Malik, Ms. Chandni Sharma, Shaurya 
Lamba, Varun Punia, K. Maruthi Rao, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Gaurav 
Yadava, Mohinder Jit Singh, Hardik Rupal, Satyam Aneja, Ms. 
Suveni Bhagat, Ms. Vishwaja Rao, Rahul Narang, Harshed Sundar, 
Nihar Dharmahikari, Shubham Rana, Piyush Goel, Mrs. Sunita 
Sharma, Ms. N. Annapoorani, Devvrat, Manoj K. Mishra, Snehashish 
Mukherjee, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Puneet Singh Bindra, Sachin 
Sharma, Ms. Harshita Sharma, Ms. Sachita Chawla, Ms. Swati 
Setia, Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Rohit Pandey, Meenesh Kumar 
Dubey, Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Amrendra Kumar Singh, Vibhu 
Shanker Mishra, Kumar Gaurav, Shashank Shekhar, Vikas Gupta,
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
493
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
Pratap Venugopal, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Manish Goswami, 
Upendra Mishra, Ratnesh Kumar, Meghraj Singh, Pradeep Kumar 
Yadav, Pankaj Kumar, Pankaj Singh, Munawwar Naseem, Siddharth, 
Mukes Kumar, Subhendu Adikari, Siddharth Batra, Rhythm Katyal, 
Ms. Archna Yadav, Chinmay Dubey, Ms. Shivani Chawla, Pratyush 
Arora, Ashutosh Chugh, Rajesh Srivastava, Gaurav Verma, M/S. 
Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, Anil C Nishani, H. M. Harish, 
Krishna M Singh, Nikhil Jain, Rajiv Kumar, K Krishna Kumar, Vishwesh 
R Murnal, P. Prasanna Kumar, Ajit Achappa, Kiran Kumar, Hitesh 
Kumar Sharma, S.K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Amit Kumar Chawla, 
Sandeep Singh Dhingra, Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Ms. Priya Singh, 
Sanjay Singh, Ms. Kavita Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Petitioner-in-person
Respondent-in-person
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1.	
An important question of law pertaining to the Legal Profession as a 
whole that has fallen for consideration before this Court is – 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? In other words, whether 
a “Service” hired or availed of an Advocate would fall within the 
definition of “Service” contained in the C.P. Act,
1986/2019, so as 
to bring him within the purview of the said Act? 
2.	
The present set of Appeals emanate from the impugned order dated 
06.08.2007 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi in Revision Petition No.1392/2006, 
in which the NCDRC has held inter alia that if there was any deficiency 
in service rendered by the Advocates/Lawyers, a complaint under 
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “CP Act, 1986”) would 
be maintainable.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3.	
The short facts in C.A. No.2649/2009, arising out of the impugned 
order passed by the NCDRC are that: -
494
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(i)	
The appellant is an Advocate by profession. The respondent 
Mr. D.K. Gandhi had hired the services of the appellant as an 
advocate for filing a Complaint in the Court of Metropolitan 
Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, against one Kamal Sharma 
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the 
cheque for Rs.20,000/- issued by the said Kamal Sharma in 
favour of the respondent D.K. Gandhi was dishonoured. 
(ii)	 During the course of the said complaint case, the accused 
Mr. Sharma agreed to pay the sum of Rs.20,000/- for the 
dishonoured cheque besides Rs.5,000/- as the expenses 
incurred by the complainant. It was alleged by the respondent 
(complainant) that though the appellant had received from the 
accused Mr. Sharma the DD/pay order for Rs.20,000/- and 
the crossed cheque of Rs.5,000/- on behalf of the respondent, 
the appellant did not deliver the same to the respondent and 
instead demanded Rs.5,000/- in cash from the respondent. 
The appellant also filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,000/- in the 
court of Small Causes, Delhi raising a plea that the sum was 
due to him as his fees. Subsequently, the appellant gave the 
DD/pay order for Rs.20,000/- and cheque for Rs.5,000/- to the 
respondent, however, the payment of cheque for Rs.5,000/- 
was stopped by the accused Mr. Sharma at the instance of the 
appellant. The respondent therefore filed a complaint before the 
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Delhi seeking 
compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in addition to the amount of 
cheque of Rs.5,000/-, as also Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony 
and harassment along with the cost. The appellant resisted 
the said complaint by filing a reply on 03.03.1998 raising a 
preliminary objection to the effect that the District Consumer 
Forum had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised in 
the complaint as the Advocates were not covered under the 
provisions contained in the CP Act.
(iii)	 The District Forum, however, rejected the said preliminary 
objection, holding that it had the jurisdiction to adjudicate 
upon the dispute between the parties and further decided the 
complaint in favour of the respondent. The appellant being 
aggrieved by the said order had filed an appeal before the State 
Commission, which by the order dated 10.03.2006 allowed the
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
495
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
same holding that the services of lawyers/advocates did not 
fall within the ambit of “service” defined under section 2(1)(o) 
of the CP Act, 1986. The NCDRC, however in the Revision 
Application preferred by the respondent passed the impugned 
order as stated hereinabove.
(iv)	 Being aggrieved by the said impugned order passed by the 
NCDRC, the present set of appeals has been filed by the Bar of 
Indian Lawyers, Delhi High Court Bar Association, Bar Council 
of India, and by the appellant M. Mathias. 
SUBMISSIONS
4.	
Since the issues involved in this batch of Appeals pertain to the 
Advocates practising in the various courts/tribunals and other legal 
forums of the country, a wide range of arguments were advanced 
before us. Having regard to the significance and sensitivity of the 
issues involved, we had appointed the learned Senior Advocate, Mr. 
V. Giri as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
5.	
The broad submissions made by the learned Senior Counsels Mr. 
Narender Hooda, Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Mr. Manoj Swarup, Mr. 
Manan Mishra, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Mr. Vikas 
Singh and learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Sharma may be summarized 
as under: - 
(i)	
The Advocates Act, 1961 is a law dealing exclusively with the 
legal profession which provides a robust mechanism laying 
down professional standards for
compliance and for determining 
professional misconduct.
(ii)	 The legal profession is a noble profession and not a business 
or trade. It is an extension of system of justice, and the success 
of judicial process depends on the independence of the Bar. 
Hence, its autonomy is needed to preserve the democracy and 
to keep judiciary strong.
(iii)	 A unique feature which distinguishes an Advocate from other 
professional is that an Advocate has a duty to the court and 
his peers, in addition to his duty to the client. He is not mere 
a mouthpiece but he has to exercise his own judgment for 
upholding the interest of his client by all fair, legal and reasonable 
means, and by being respectful to the court.
496
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(iv)	 The Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils are invested 
with the disciplinary powers. An error of judgment or mere 
negligence may not be a professional misconduct. In any 
case, the professional misconduct which subsumes cases of 
negligence, which is covered by the special law i.e., Advocates 
Act, 1961.
(v)	 The Advocates Act being special law would prevail over the CP 
Act so far as the conduct of Advocates are concerned.
(vi)	 The law of negligence recognizes that a professional would 
be held liable in a civil action for negligence and includes 
professionals of varied fields who possess special skill in that 
profession generally.
(vii)	 The legal professionals in United Kingdom can be sued for 
negligence by a way of regular civil action, however they would 
not be liable under the law dealing with consumer rights for 
trade/commercial activities.
(viii)	Allowing consumer protection law to apply to the Advocates 
would open floodgates of unnecessary litigations and it would 
not be in the larger public interest to do so. It would also lead 
to multiple proceedings before multiple forums, reagitation of 
issues decided by a judicial body including the Supreme Court 
with potentially conflicting decisions.
(ix)	 The summary nature of proceeding under the consumer 
protection law with its accent on inexpensive and speedy 
remedy (though enacted with laudable objects for protection 
of consumers against trade
and commercial activities), can 
become an easy tool for disgruntled litigants to knock at the 
doors of the consumer forums against the advocates. It would 
lead to speculative/vexatious claims, rather than seeking 
relief in respect of bona fide grievances against professional 
misconduct.
(x)	 The legal profession is recognized as sui generis and stands 
out among other profession due to its distinctive nature, where 
the lawyers often find themselves operating in an environment 
where control is elusive. Unlike many other professions where 
practitioners may have a higher degree of control over their
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
497
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
surroundings, the lawyers frequently navigate through complex 
legal landscapes shaped by diverse factors.
(xi)	 One of the primary distinctions of legal profession is the in-
herent complexity of legal issues. Lawyers must grapple with 
intricate statutes, case laws and regulatory frameworks, which 
often lack definitive answers. Legal disputes frequently involve 
multiple parties with conflicting interests, further complicating 
the matters. Unlike some other professions where problems 
may have more straightforward solutions, the lawyers often 
face ambiguity and uncertainty in their work, making control 
over outcomes elusive.
(xii)	 The adversarial dynamics have an element of unpredictability, as 
outcomes depend not only on the lawyer’s skill and knowledge 
but also on the strategies employed by opposing counsel and 
the decisions of judges.
(xiii)	Lawyers are bound by ethical and professional obligations that 
constrain their autonomy and control over their work. Adherence 
to the codes of conduct, client confidentiality, and obligations 
to the court limit the freedom of lawyers to act solely in their 
own interest or according to their preferences.
(xiv)	Unlike any other profession, where professionals are in 
control of their surrounding fully, legal profession is the sole 
profession, where advocates have no
control over their en-
vironment. The environment they work in is controlled by the 
presiding Judge.
(xv)	 The Bar Council of India Rules prescribe at least four sets of 
duty that a lawyer has to oblige, viz., Duty to the Court, Duty 
to the Client, Duty to Opponent and Duty to Colleagues, in 
no particular order. These duties are sometimes conflicting in 
nature, however whenever a conflict arises, the duty to court 
is considered to be paramount.
(xvi)	Unlike the medical profession, where scientific standards exist 
to decide the standard of care, there is no universal standard 
of care or objective test that exists or can be prescribed as the 
threshold in the case of legal profession to adjudicate upon the 
question of abdication of duty to care.
498
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(xvii)	Distinguishing the decision of this Court in Indian Medical 
Association vs. V.P. Shantha & Others1, it was sought to 
be submitted that there is a fundamental difference between 
the practice of law and the practice of medicine, as also the 
difference in the nature of professional-client relationship. 
The complexity of legal issues, and the diversity of legal 
contexts also would take the legal services rendered by 
the Advocates outside the purview of the services defined 
under the CP Act.
6.	
The learned Senior Advocate Mr. V. Giri - Amicus Curiae, submitted 
that the Advocates can be broadly classified into two categories 
based on the terms of their engagement and the nature of work 
being done by them for their clients – (1) Advocates engaged by 
clients to conduct their cases and then represent them before any 
court, tribunal or other forum, on the strength of a vakalatnama 
and (2) Advocates engaged by clients to provide their professional 
expertise for providing legal opinions, issuing legal notices, drafting 
agreements, etc. He submitted that the first category of advocates 
would not come within the purview of a service provider under the 
CP Act, as in that case the advocate acts as a representative or 
agent of the client. He further submitted that it is open to a party to 
plead and appear in person in the court, however when he executes 
a vakalatnama, he chooses to engage an Advocate as his
agent, 
and the acts and statements of the advocate, in the course of his 
duties in the matter, are like the acts and statements of the principal 
i.e., the client himself. Such relationship cannot be equated to that 
of a “service provider” and a “consumer” as contemplated in the 
CP Act. However, the Amicus Curiae Mr. Giri fairly submitted that 
in the second category of Advocates i.e., the Advocates who are 
engaged by the clients outside the precincts of the court and outside 
the litigation process i.e., who are not engaged on the strength of a 
vakalatnama but engaged to provide legal services outside the court 
process, would come within the purview of a service provider, and 
any deficiency or shortcoming in the professional services rendered 
by such Advocates, completely outside the confines of the litigation 
process, would be covered under the CP Act.
1	
[1995] Supp. 5 SCR 110 : (1995) 6 SCC 651
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
499
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
ANALYSIS
7.	
Though the question posed before us is, whether a complaint 
alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal 
Profession, would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection 
Act, having regard to the entire spectrum and scheme of the said 
Act, following further questions stem from the said question, which 
deserve consideration.
(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 CP Act 2019?
8.	
For adverting to the first question, whether the Legislature ever 
intended to include the Professions or the services rendered by the 
Professionals within the purview of the CP Act 1986 as re-enacted 
in 2019, it would be germane to ascertain the legislative intention 
and to look back to the history, object and purpose of enacting the 
CP Act 1986. A three-Judge Bench in case of State of Karnataka 
vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society and Others2, 
while dealing with the issue raised about the
constitutional validity 
of the CP Act 1986, had elaborately considered the history, objects 
and purpose of enacting the said Act.
“5. Before adverting to the question as regard the 
competence of Parliament to enact the said Act, we may 
notice the history of legislation leading to enactment of 
the said Act.
6. The Secretary General, United Nations submitted draft 
guidelines for consumer protection to the Economic and 
Social Council (UNESCO) in 1983. The General Assembly 
of the United Nations upon extensive discussions and 
2	
[2003] 1 SCR 397 : (2003) 2 SCC 412
500
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
negotiations among governments on this scope and content 
thereof adopted the guidelines which inter alia provide for 
the following:
“Taking into account the interests and needs of consumers 
in all countries, particularly those in developing countries, 
recognizing that consumers often face imbalances in 
economic terms, educational level, and bargaining power, 
and bearing in mind that consumer should have the right 
of access to non-hazardous products, as well as the 
importance of promoting just, equitable and sustainable 
economic and social development, these guidelines for 
consumer protection have the following objectives:
(a)	 To assist countries in achieving or maintaining 
adequate protection for their population as consumers.
(b)	 To facilitate production and distribution patterns 
responsive to the needs and desires of consumers.
(c)	
To encourage high levels of ethical conduct for those 
engaged in the production and distribution of goods 
and services to consumers.
(d)	 To assist countries in curbing abusive business 
practices by all enterprises at the national 
and international levels which adversely affect 
consumers.
(e)	 To facilitate the development of independent 
consumer groups.
(f)	
To further international cooperation in the field of 
consumer protection.
(g)	 To encourage the development of market conditions 
which provide consumers with greater choice at 
lower prices.”
7. The framework for the
Consumer Act was provided by a 
resolution dated 9-4-1985 of the General Assembly of the 
United Nations Organisation. This is known as “Consumer 
Protection Resolution No. 39/248”. India is a signatory to 
the said Resolution.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
501
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
8. The said Act was enacted having regard to the 
aforementioned Resolution.
9. It seeks to provide for better protection of the interests 
of consumers and for the said purpose, to make provision 
for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other 
authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and 
for matters connected therewith, as would appear from the 
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act.
10. It further seeks inter alia to promote and protect the 
rights of consumers such as—
"(a)	 The right to be protected against marketing of goods 
which are hazardous to life and property;
(b)	 the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, 
potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect 
the consumer against unfair trade practices;
(c)	
the right to be assured, wherever possible, access 
to variety of goods at competitive prices;
(d)	 the right to be heard and to be assured that 
consumers’ interests will receive due consideration 
at appropriate forums;
(e)	 the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice 
or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and
(f)	
right to consumer education.””
9.	
The scope and object of the said legislation had also come up for 
consideration before this Court in Common Cause, A Registered 
Society vs. Union of India and Others3 in which it was observed: -
“2. The object of the legislation, as the Preamble of the 
Act proclaims, is “for better protection of the interests 
of consumers”. During the last few years preceding the 
enactment there was in this country a marked awareness 
among the consumers of goods that they were not getting 
their money’s worth and were being exploited by both 
3	
[1993] 1 SCR 10 : (1997) 10 SCC 729
502
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
traders and manufacturers of consumer goods. The need 
for consumer redressal fora was, therefore, increasingly 
felt. Understandably, therefore, legislation was introduced 
and enacted with considerable enthusiasm and fanfare 
as a path-breaking benevolent legislation intended to 
protect the consumer from exploitation by unscrupulous 
manufacturers and traders of consumer goods. A three-tier 
fora comprising the District Forum, the State Commission 
and the National Commission came to be envisaged under 
the Act for redressal of grievances of consumers….”
10.	 In Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta4, it was 
observed in paragraph 2 as under: -
“2. ……To begin with the preamble of the Act, which 
can afford useful assistance to ascertain the legislative 
intention, it was enacted, ‘to provide for the protection of 
the interest of consumers. Use of the word ‘protection’ 
furnishes key to the minds of makers of the Act. Various 
definitions and provisions which elaborately attempt to 
achieve this objective have to be construed in this light 
without departing from the settled view that a preamble 
cannot control otherwise plain meaning of a provision. In 
fact the law meets long felt necessity of protecting the 
common man from such wrongs for which the remedy 
under ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory. 
Various legislations and regulations permitting the State 
to intervene and protect interest of
the consumers have 
become a haven for unscrupulous ones as the enforcement 
machinery either does not move or it moves ineffectively, 
inefficiently and for reasons which are not necessary to be 
stated. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare 
of the society by enabling the consumer to participate 
directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove 
the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against 
powerful business, described as, ‘a network of rackets’ 
or a society in which, ‘producers have secured power’ 
to ‘rob the rest’ and the might of public bodies which are 
4	
[1993] Supp. 3 SCR 615 : (1994) 1 SCC 243
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
503
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers 
do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty 
and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving 
the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked.…..”
11.	 Yet in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute5, 
it was held in paragraph 10 as under: -
“10. A review of the provisions of the Act discloses that the 
quasi-judicial bodies/authorities/agencies created by the 
Act known as District Forums, State Commissions and the 
National Commission are not courts though invested with 
some of the powers of a civil court. They are quasi-judicial 
tribunals brought into existence to render inexpensive and 
speedy remedies to consumers. It is equally clear that 
these forums/commissions were not supposed to supplant 
but supplement the existing judicial system. The idea was 
to provide an additional forum providing inexpensive and 
speedy resolution of disputes arising between consumers 
and suppliers of goods and services. The forum so 
created is uninhibited by the requirement of court fee 
or the formal procedures of a court. Any consumer can 
go and file a complaint. Complaint need not necessarily 
be filed by the complainant himself; any recognized 
consumers’ association can espouse his cause. Where 
a large number of consumers have
a similar complaint, 
one or more can file a complaint on behalf of all. Even 
the Central Government and State Governments can act 
on his/their behalf. The idea was to help the consumers 
get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and 
services purchased and availed by them in a market 
dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. 
Indeed, the entire Act revolves round the consumer and 
is designed to protect his interest. The Act provides for 
“business-to-consumer” disputes and not for “business-to-
business” disputes. This scheme of the Act, in our opinion, 
is relevant to and helps in interpreting the words that fall 
for consideration in this appeal.”
5	
[1995] 3 SCR 174 : (1995) 3 SCC 583
504
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
12.	 Thus, considering the intention of the Legislature, the objects and 
reasons of the Act of 1986 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 by the traders and 
manufacturers of the consumer goods, and to help consumers in 
getting justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services 
purchased and availed by them in a market dominated by large 
trading and manufacturing bodies.
13.	 After several years of passing of the CP Act 1986, still many 
shortcomings in the said Act were noticed while administering various 
provisions of the said Act. Hence, the CP Act 1986 was repealed and 
the CP Act, 2019 came to be re-enacted. The statement of objects 
and reasons for re-enacting the said Act of 2019 reads as under:-
“1. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986) was 
enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of 
consumers and for the purpose of making provision for 
establishment of consumer protection councils and other 
authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes, etc. 
Although, the working of the consumer dispute redressal 
agencies has served the purpose to a considerable extent 
under the said Act, the disposal of cases has not been 
fast due to various constraints. Several shortcomings have 
been noticed while administering the various provisions 
of the said Act.
2.
Consumer markets for goods and services have 
undergone drastic transformation since the enactment of 
the Consumer Protection Act in 1986. The modern market 
place contains a plethora of products and services. The 
emergence of global supply chains, rise in international 
trade and the rapid development of e-commerce have led 
to new delivery systems for goods and services and have 
provided new options and opportunities for consumers. 
Equally, this has rendered the consumer vulnerable 
to new forms of unfair trade and unethical business 
practices. Misleading advertisements, tele- marketing, 
multi-level marketing, direct selling and e-commerce pose 
new challenges to consumer protection and will require
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
505
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
appropriate and swift executive interventions to prevent 
consumer detriment. Therefore, it has become inevitable 
to amend the Act to address the myriad and constantly 
emerging vulnerabilities of the consumers. In view of this, 
it is proposed to repeal and re-enact the Act.”
14.	 It is trite to say that a reference to statement of objects and reasons 
is permissible for understanding the background, the antecedent 
state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the 
statute, and the evil which the statute had sought to remedy.* As 
discernible from the statement of objects and reasons for re-enacting 
the CP Act, 2019, there were certain shortcomings found in the CP 
Act 1986 while administering the said Act, and at the same time, 
due to the emergence of global supply chains, rise in international 
trade and rapid development of e-commerce leading to new systems 
for goods and services, new options and opportunities had become 
available to the consumers. However, new forms of unfair trade 
and unethical business practices also came to be developed, which 
made the consumers more vulnerable. Misleading advertisements, 
telemarketing, multi-level marketing, e-commerce posed new 
challenges, which necessitated the Legislature to re-enact the Act.
15.	 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. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition, 
“Profession” means “a vocation requiring advanced education and 
training; especially one of the three traditional Professions- Law, 
Medicine and the Ministry.” “Professional” means “someone who 
* State of West Bengal vs. Subodh Gopal Bose & Others, AIR 1954 SC 92
506
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
belongs to a learned profession or whose occupation requires a 
high level of training and proficiency.”
16.	 According to Rupert M. Jackson and John L. Powell,* the Occupations 
which are regarded as Professions have four characteristics, viz.,
(i)	
the nature of the work which is skilled and specialized and a 
substantial part is mental rather than manual;
(ii)	
commitment to moral principles which go beyond the general 
duty of honesty and a wider duty to community which may 
transcend the duty to a particular client or patient; 
(iii)	 professional association which regulates admission and seeks 
to uphold the standards of the profession through professional 
codes on matters of conduct and ethics; and 
(iv)	 high status in the community.
17.	 As observed in Indian Medical Association (supra) :- 
“22. In the matter of professional liability professions differ 
from other occupations for the reason that professions 
operate in spheres where success cannot be achieved 
in every case and very often success or failure depends 
upon factors beyond the professional man’s control. In 
devising a rational approach to professional liability which 
must provide proper protection to the consumer while 
allowing for the factors mentioned above, the approach 
of the courts is to require that professional men should 
possess a certain minimum degree of competence and 
that they should exercise reasonable care in the discharge 
of
their duties. In general, a professional man owes to 
his client a duty in tort as well as in contract to exercise 
reasonable care in giving advice or performing services.”
18.	 In view of the above, a “Profession” would require advanced education 
and training in some branch of learning or science. The nature of 
work is also skilled and specialised one, substantial part of which 
would be mental rather than manual. Therefore, having regard to 
the nature of work of a professional, which requires high level of 
education, training and proficiency and which involves skilled and 
* “Jackson and Powell on Professional Liability” 2nd supplement to the 7th edition
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
507
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
specialized kind of mental work, operating in the specialized spheres, 
where achieving success would depend upon many other factors 
beyond a man’s control, a Professional cannot be treated equally 
or at par with a Businessman or a Trader or a Service provider of 
products or goods as contemplated in the CP Act. Similarly, the 
services rendered by a Businessman or a Trader to the consumers 
with regard to his goods or products cannot be equated with the 
Services provided by a Professional to his clients with regard to 
his specialized branch of profession. The legislative draftsmen are 
presumed to know the law and 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. Any interpretation of the Preamble or the 
scheme of the Act for construing ‘Profession’ as ‘Business’ or ‘Trade’; 
or ‘Professional’ as ‘service provider’ would be extending the scope 
of the Act which was not intended, rather would have a counter 
productive effect. We are therefore of the considered opinion 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.
19.	 One should also not lose sight of the fact that the other object of the 
Act was to provide to the consumers timely and effective administration 
and settlement of their disputes. If the services provided by all 
the Professionals are also brought within the purview of the Act, 
there would be flood-gate of litigations in the commissions/forums 
established under the Act, particularly because the remedy provided 
under the Act is inexpensive and summary in nature. Consequently, 
the very object of providing timely and effective settlement of 
consumers’ disputes arising out of the unfair trade and unethical 
business practices would be frustrated. 
20.	 We may clarify at this juncture that we do not propose to say that 
the professionals could not be sued or held liable for their alleged 
misconduct or tortious or criminal acts. In the process of overall 
depletion and erosion of ethical values and degradation of the 
professional ethics, the instances of professional misconduct are 
also on the rise. Undoubtedly, no professional either legal, medical
508
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
or any other professional enjoys any immunity from being sued or 
from being held liable for his professional or otherwise misconduct 
or other misdeeds causing legal, monetary or other injuries to his 
clients or the persons hiring or availing his services. The fact that 
professionals are governed by their respective Councils like Bar 
Councils or Medical Councils also would not absolve them from their 
civil or criminal liability arising out of their professional misconduct 
or negligence. Nonetheless, as discussed hereinabove, we are of 
the opinion that neither the Professions nor the Professionals were 
ever intended to be brought within the purview of the CP Act either 
of 1986 or 2019.
21.	 Of course, we are conscious of the decision in Indian Medical 
Association vs. V.P. Shantha & Others (supra), in which a three-
Judge Bench of this Court has held inter alia that the wide amplitude 
of the definition of ‘service’ in the main part of Section 2(1)(o) would 
cover the services rendered by Medical Practitioners within the said 
Section 2(1)(o). However, in our humble opinion, the said decision 
deserves to be revisited having regard to the history, object, purpose 
and the scheme of the CP Act and in view of the opinion expressed 
by us hereinabove to the effect that neither the “Profession” could 
be treated as “business” or “trade” nor the services provided by the 
“Professionals” could be treated at par with the
services provided 
by the Businessmen or the Traders, so as to bring them within the 
purview of the CP Act .
22.	 At this juncture, we may rely upon Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme 
Court Rules which reads as under: -
“ORDER VI, Rule 2.- 
Where in the course of the hearing of any cause, appeal 
or other proceeding, the Bench considers that the matter 
should be dealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the 
matter to the Chief Justice, who shall thereupon constitute 
such a Bench for the hearing of it.” 
23.	 The said Rule has been interpreted in Triveniben vs. State of 
Gujarat6, in which it has been observed that: -
6	
[1989] 1 SCR 509 : (1989) 1 SCC 678
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
509
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
“35. This is undoubtedly a salutary rule, but it appears to 
have only a limited operation. It apparently governs the 
procedure of a smaller Bench when it disagrees with the 
decision of a larger Bench. If the Bench in the course of 
hearing of any matter considers that the matter should be 
dealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the matter to 
the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice shall then constitute 
a larger Bench for disposal of the matter. This exercise 
seems to be unnecessary when a larger Bench considers 
that a decision of a smaller Bench is incorrect unless a 
constitutional question arises”. 
24.	 In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the decision of the 
three-judge bench, in case of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. 
Shantha (supra) deserves to be revisited and considered by a larger 
bench. We, therefore refer the matter to Hon’ble the Chief Justice 
of India for His Lordship’s consideration.
25.	 This takes us to the next question. Even if, it is held that the CP Act 
applies to the “Professions” and the “Professionals,” the next question 
that falls for our consideration is whether the Legal Profession is sui 
generis or is different from the other Profession, particularly from the 
Medical Profession because the NCDRC in the impugned order has 
relied upon the decision in case of
Indian Medical Association vs. 
V.P. Shantha (supra) for bringing the Advocates within the purview 
of the CP Act.
26.	 As observed in Byram Pestonji Gariwala vs. Union Bank of India 
and Others7, the Indian legal system is the product of history. It is 
rooted in our soil; nurtured and nourished by our culture, languages 
and traditions; fostered and sharpened by our genius and quest for 
social justice; reinforced by history and heritage. After the attainment 
of independence and the adoption of the Constitution of India, 
judicial administration and the constitution of the law courts remained 
fundamentally unchanged. The concept, structure and organisation of 
courts, the substantive and procedural laws, the adversarial system 
of trial and other proceedings and the function of judges and lawyers 
remained basically unaltered and rooted in the common law traditions 
7	
[1991] Supp. 1 SCR 187 : (1992) 1 SCC 31
510
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
in contradistinction to those prevailing in the civil law or other systems 
of law. Resultantly, the role, status and capacity of an advocate to 
represent his client has also remained by and large unaltered.
27.	 This Court in R. Muthukrishnan vs. Registrar General, High 
Court of Judicature at Madras8, delineating the unique nature of 
the legal profession and of the services rendered by the lawyers, 
observed thus: 
“16. The legal profession cannot be equated with any 
other traditional professions. It is not commercial in nature 
and is a noble one considering the nature of duties to be 
performed and its impact on the society. The independence 
of the Bar and autonomy of the Bar Council has been 
ensured statutorily in order to preserve the very democracy 
itself and to ensure that judiciary remains strong. Where 
the Bar has not performed the duty independently and 
has become a sycophant that ultimately results in the 
denigrating of the judicial system and judiciary itself. There 
cannot be existence of a strong judicial system without 
an independent Bar.
17. It cannot be gainsaid that lawyers have contributed in 
the struggle for independence of the nation. They have 
helped in the framing of the Constitution of India and 
have helped the courts in evolving jurisprudence by doing 
hard labour and research work. The nobility of the legal 
system is to be ensured at all costs so that the Constitution 
remains vibrant
and to expand its interpretation so as to 
meet new challenges.
18. It is basically the lawyers who bring the cause to the 
Court are supposed to protect the rights of individuals of 
equality and freedom as constitutionally envisaged and 
to ensure the country is governed by the rule of law. 
Considering the significance of the Bar in maintaining the 
rule of law, right to be treated equally and enforcement of 
various other fundamental rights, and to ensure that various 
8	
[2019] 1 SCR 589 : (2019) 16 SCC 407
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
511
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
institutions work within their parameters, its independence 
becomes imperative and cannot be compromised. The 
lawyers are supposed to be fearless and independent 
in the protection of rights of litigants. What lawyers are 
supposed to protect, is the legal system and procedure 
of law of deciding the cases.
19. Role of the Bar in the legal system is significant. The 
Bar is supposed to be the spokesperson for the judiciary 
as Judges do not speak. People listen to the great 
lawyers and people are inspired by their thoughts. They 
are remembered and quoted with reverence. It is the duty 
of the Bar to protect honest Judges and not to ruin their 
reputation and at the same time to ensure that corrupt 
Judges are not spared. However, lawyers cannot go to 
the streets or go on strike except when democracy itself 
is in danger and the entire judicial system is at stake. In 
order to improve the system, they have to take recourse 
to the legally available methods by lodging complaint 
against corrupt Judges to the appropriate administrative 
authorities and not to level such allegation in the public. 
Corruption is intolerable in the judiciary.
20. The Bar is an integral part of the judicial administration. 
In order to ensure that judiciary remains an effective tool, 
it is absolutely necessary that the Bar and the Bench
maintain dignity and decorum of each other. The mutual 
reverence is absolutely necessary. The Judges are to be 
respected by the Bar, they have in turn equally to respect 
the Bar, observance of mutual dignity, decorum of both 
is necessary and above all they have to maintain self-
respect too.
21. It is the joint responsibility of the Bar and the Bench 
to ensure that equal justice is imparted to all and that 
nobody is deprived of justice due to economic reasons or 
social backwardness. The judgment rendered by a Judge 
is based upon the dint of hard work and quality of the 
arguments that are advanced before him by the lawyers. 
There is no room for arrogance either for a lawyer or for 
a Judge.
512
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
22. There is a fine balance between the Bar and the 
Bench that has to be maintained as the independence of 
the Judges and judiciary is supreme. The independence 
of the Bar is on equal footing, it cannot be ignored and 
compromised and if lawyers have the fear of the judiciary or 
from elsewhere, that is not conducive to the effectiveness 
of the judiciary itself, that would be self-destructive.”
28.	 In State of U.P and Others vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association 
and Others9, it was observed thus: -
“14. Legal profession is essentially a service-oriented 
profession. The ancestor of today›s lawyer was no more 
than a spokesman who rendered his services to the needy 
members of the society by articulating their case before 
the authorities that be. The services were rendered without 
regard to the remuneration received or to be received. 
With the growth of litigation, lawyering became a full-time 
occupation and most of the lawyers came to depend upon 
it as the sole source of livelihood. The nature of the service 
rendered by the lawyers was private till the Government 
and the public bodies started engaging them to conduct 
cases on their behalf.”
29.	 It is thus well recognized in catena of decisions that the legal 
profession cannot be equated with any other traditional professions. 
It is not commercial in nature but is essentially a service oriented, 
noble profession. It cannot be gainsaid that the role of
Advocates 
is indispensable in the Justice Delivery System. An evolution of 
jurisprudence to keep our Constitution vibrant is possible only with the 
positive contribution of the Advocates. The Advocates are expected 
to be fearless and independent for protecting the rights of citizens, for 
upholding the Rule of law and also for protecting the Independence 
of Judiciary. People repose immense faith in the Judiciary, and the 
Bar being an integral part of the Judicial System has been assigned 
a very crucial role for preserving the independence of the Judiciary, 
and in turn the very democratic set up of the Nation. The Advocates 
9	
[1994] 1 SCR 348 : (1994) 2 SCC 204
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
513
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
are perceived to be the intellectuals amongst the elites and social 
activists amongst the downtrodden. That is the reason they 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. Being a responsible officer of the 
court and an important adjunct of the administration of justice, an 
Advocate owes his duty not only to his client but also to the court 
as well as to the opposite side.
30.	 The legal profession is different from the other professions also for 
the reason that what the Advocates do, affects not only an individual 
but the entire administration of justice, which is the foundation of the 
civilized society. It must be remembered that the legal profession is 
a solemn and serious profession. It has always been held in very 
high esteem because of the stellar role played by the stalwarts 
in the profession to strengthen the judicial system in the country. 
Their services in making the judicial system efficient, effective and 
credible, and in creating a strong and impartial Judiciary, which is 
one of the three pillars of the Democracy, could not be compared 
with the services rendered by other professionals. Therefore, 
having regard to the role, status and duties of the Advocates
as 
the professionals, we are of the opinion that the legal profession is 
sui generis i.e unique in nature and cannot be compared with any 
other profession. 
31.	 The next question that falls for our consideration is whether a service 
hired or availed of an Advocate could be said to be the service under 
a “contract of personal service?”
32.	 At the outset, it may be stated that in the Indian Courts, various 
sobriquets or epithets like pleaders, advocates, lawyers, vakils, 
counsels, attorneys etc. are being used interchangeably to describe 
the Legal Practitioners, may be because various Acts like Legal 
Practitioners Act, 1879, Bombay Pleaders Act, 1920, Indian Bar 
Councils Act, 1926 were in force during pre-independence era. 
However, on the Advocates Act, 1961 having come into force, the 
provisions of the said Acts stood repealed as per Section 50 of the 
Advocates Act. The Advocates Act 1961 was enacted to amend and 
consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide for 
the constitution of Bar Councils and an All-India Bar.
514
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
33.	 The Advocates Act defines “Advocate” separately from “Legal 
Practitioner” - 
“2(1)(a) - “advocate” means an advocate entered in any 
roll under the provision of this Act;”
Section 2(1)(i) defines “legal practitioner’ as under: -
“2(1)(i) - “Legal Practitioner” means an advocate or vakil 
of any High Court, a pleader, mukhtar or revenue agent;”
34.	 Advocate is included in the definition of “Legal Practitioner” but legal 
practitioner is not included in the definition of “Advocate.” Advocate 
is one who has been entered in any roll under the provisions of the 
Advocates Act. If we glean over the provisions of the Advocates 
Act, 1961, it appears that the said Act was enacted to amend and 
consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide for 
the constitution of Bar Councils and an All-India Bar. As per Section 
16 thereof, there are only two classes of Advocates, namely Senior 
Advocates and other Advocates. As per Section 29, there is only 
one class of persons entitled to practice the profession of law, 
namely Advocates, and as per Section 30, every advocate whose 
name is entered in the State roll is entitled as of right to practice in 
all Courts including the Supreme Court and before any Tribunal or 
any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or 
under any law for the time being in force entitled to practice. The 
disciplinary powers for taking action against the Advocates and
impose punishment for their misconduct have been conferred upon 
the State Bar Councils and Bar Council of India as the case may be 
under the Chapter V of the Advocates Act. The Bar Council of India 
Rules framed under the Advocates Act lay down the restrictions on the 
Senior Advocates, and also lay down the standards of professional 
conduct and etiquette, which include the duties of the advocate 
to the Court, to the client, to the opponent and to the colleagues. 
Thus, comprehensive provisions are contained in the Advocates 
Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules framed thereunder, 
to take care of the professional misconduct of the Advocates, and 
prescribing the punishments if they are found guilty of professional 
or other misconduct by the Disciplinary Committees of the State Bar 
Council or the Bar Council of India as the case may be.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
515
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
35.	 In the light of the above provisions of the Advocates Act, let us 
consider some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 
1986/2019. The 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 which reads as under: -
“Service means service of any description which is made 
available to potential users and includes, but not limited 
to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, 
financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of 
electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging 
or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement 
or the purveying of news or other information, but does 
not include the rendering of any service free of charge 
or under a contract of personal service.”
36.	 There is slight difference in the definition of ‘Deficiency’ in Section 
2(1)(g) of 1986 Act and Section 2(11) of 2019 Act. The same is 
reproduced as under: -
Section 2(1)(g) of CP Act, 1986:-
“Section 2(1) (g) -”Deficiency” means any fault imperfection, 
shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and 
manner of performance which is required to be maintained 
by or under any law for the time being in force or has been 
undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of 
a contract or otherwise in relation to any
service.”
Section 2(11) of CP Act, 2019:-
Section 2(11) - “Deficiency “ means any fault, imperfection, 
shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and 
manner of performance which is required to be maintained 
by or under any law for the time being in force or has been 
undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance 
of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and 
includes-
(i)	
any act of negligence or omission or commission 
by such person which causes loss or injury to the 
consumer; and
516
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(ii)	
deliberate withholding of relevant information by such 
person to the consumer”
37.	 As can be seen, the definition of ‘service’ is divided into three parts 
– the first part is explanatory in nature and defines service to mean 
service of any description which is made available to the potential 
users; the second part is inclusionary part, which expressly includes 
the provision of facilities in connection with the specific services; 
and the third part is exclusionary part which excludes rendering of 
any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. 
Therefore, let us consider whether the service rendered by the 
Advocates practising Legal Profession could be said to be the Service 
under “a contract of personal service,” so as to exclude it from the 
definition of “Service” contemplated under the Act.
38.	 The question as to whether a given relationship should be classified 
as a contract ‘for services’ as opposed to a contract ‘of service’ 
[i.e. contract ‘of personal service’] is a vexed question of law and 
is incapable of being answered with exactitude without reference to 
the underlying facts in any given case. This Court in Dharangadhra 
Chemical Works Ltd. vs. State of Saurashtra and Others10, 
recognized this position of law and held that “the correct method of 
approach, therefore, would be to consider whether having regard 
to the nature of the work there was due control and supervision
by 
the employer”. In the words of Fletcher Moulton, L.J. at P.549 in 
Simmons v. Heath Laundry Company [(1924) 1 KB 762] which were 
cited with approval in Dharangadhra Chemcial Works Ltd. (supra):
“In my opinion it is impossible to lay down any rule of law 
distinguishing the one from the other. It is a question of 
fact to be decided by all the circumstances of the case. 
The greater the amount of direct control exercised over the 
person rendering the services by the person contracting 
for them the stronger the grounds for holding it to be a 
contract of service, and similarly the greater the degree of 
independence of such control the greater the probability 
that the services rendered are of the nature of professional 
services and that the contract is not one of service.” 
10	
[1957] 1 SCR 152 : AIR 1957 SC 264
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
517
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
39.	 What is sought to be opined in the above cases is 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 service.” Hence, 
let us see whether in case of Advocate-Client relationship, the 
client exercises direct control over the Advocate who is rendering 
his legal professional services to him. At this stage, it would be 
beneficial to refer to some of the important provisions of Code of 
Civil Procedure, which pertain to the representation of party-litigant 
through Advocates. Order III of CPC pertains to the Recognized 
Agents and Pleaders. As per the definition of “Pleader” contained 
in Section 2 (15) CPC, ‘Pleader means any person entitled to 
appear and plead for another in Court and includes an Advocate, 
a Vakil and an Attorney of a High Court. Rule1 of Order III states 
that any appearance, application or act in or in any Court may 
be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized 
agent or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case 
may be on his behalf. Rule 4 of the said Order III states that no 
pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been 
appointed for the purpose by such person by document in writing 
signed
by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other 
person duly authorized by or under a power of attorney to make 
such appointment. It further provides that every such appointment 
shall be filed in Court and shall for the purposes of sub-rule (1) be 
deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court 
by writing signed by the client or the pleader as the case may be 
and filed in the Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until 
all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client. 
Such document regarding appointment of a pleader is known in 
common parlance as “Vakalatnama”, the proforma of which has 
been appended in Form No.19 of the ‘Appendix H’ to CPC. The 
said form is reproduced here under: -
“No.19
VAKALATNAMA
In the Court ……..Suit/Miscellaneous case/ Civil Appeal/ 
Execution Case No……….. of 19…./20…,fixed for Plaintiff/ 
Appellant/ Applicant/ D.H……….. Defendant/ Respondent/
518
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Opposite Party/ J.D. Vakalatnama of Plaintiff/ Appellant 
Applicant/ D.H./ Defendant/ Respondent/ Opposite Party/ 
J.D.
In the case noted above Sri…………, each of Sarvasri………. 
Advocate, is hereby appointed as counsel, to appeals, 
plead and act on behalf of the undersigned, in any manner, 
he thinks it proper, either himself or through any other 
Advocate, and in particular to do the following, namely, -
To receive any process of Court (including any notice from 
any appellate or revisional Court), to file any applications, 
petitions or pleadings, to file, produce or receive back any 
documents, to withdraw or compromise the proceedings, 
to refer to any matter to arbitration, to deposit or withdraw 
any moneys, to execute any decree or order, to certify 
payment, and receive any money due under such decree 
or order. 
The undersigned should be bound by all whatsoever may 
be done in the aforesaid case (including any appeal or 
revision therefrom) for and on behalf of the undersigned 
by any of the said counsel. 
Signature……… 
Attesting Witness:
Name in full ………. 
Name in full………….
Date ………….
 Address……………
Date………….
Accepted/ Accepted on the strength of the signature of 
the attesting witnesses.”
40.	 A conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Order III CPC and 
Chapter IV of Advocates Act pertaining to right to practise, there 
remains no shadow of doubt that an advocate whose name has 
been entered in the State
roll is entitled as of right to practise in all 
Courts, however he can act for any person in any Court only when 
he is appointed by such person by executing the document called 
“Vakalatnama.” Such Advocate has certain authorities by virtue of 
such “Vakalatnama” but at the same time has certain duties too, 
i.e. the duties to the courts, to the client, to the opponent and to
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
519
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
the colleagues as enumerated in the Bar Council of India Rules. In 
this regard, this Court in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing 
Society vs. Balwan Singh and Others11 has made very apt 
observations, which are reproduced hereunder-
22. Apart from the above, in our view lawyers are perceived 
to be their clientʼs agents. The law of agency may not 
strictly apply to the client-lawyerʼs relationship as lawyers 
or agents, lawyers have certain authority and certain 
duties. Because lawyers are also fiduciaries, their duties 
will sometimes be more demanding than those imposed 
on other agents. The authority-agency status affords the 
lawyers to act for the client on the subject-matter of the 
retainer. One of the most basic principles of the lawyer-
client relationship is that lawyers owe fiduciary duties to 
their clients. As part of those duties, lawyers assume all 
the traditional duties that agents owe to their principals 
and, thus, have to respect the clientʼs autonomy to make 
decisions at a minimum, as to the objectives of the 
representation. Thus, according to generally accepted 
notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow 
the clientʼs instructions rather than substitute their judgment 
for that of the client. The law is now well settled that a lawyer 
must be specifically authorised to
settle and compromise 
a claim, that merely on the basis of his employment he 
has no implied or ostensible authority to bind his client 
to a compromise/settlement. To put it alternatively that a 
lawyer by virtue of retention, has the authority to choose 
the means for achieving the client’s legal goal, while the 
client has the right to decide on what the goal will be. If the 
decision in question falls within those that clearly belong 
to the client, the lawyer’s conduct in failing to consult the 
client or in making the decision for the client, is more likely 
to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
23. The Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 (for short “the BCI 
Rules”), in Part VI Chapter II provide for the “Standards 
11	
[2015] 4 SCR 616 : (2015) 7 SCC 373
520
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of Professional Conduct and Etiquette” to be observed 
by all the advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961 (for 
short “the 1961 Act”). In the Preamble to Chapter II, the 
BCI Rules provide as follows:
“An advocate shall, at all times, comport himself 
in a manner befitting his status as an officer of 
the Court, a privileged member of the community, 
and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may 
be lawful and moral for a person who is not a 
member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar 
in his non-professional capacity may still be 
improper for an advocate. Without prejudice to 
the generality of the foregoing obligation, an 
advocate shall fearlessly uphold the interests of 
his client and in his conduct conform to the rules 
hereinafter mentioned both in letter and in spirit. 
The rules hereinafter mentioned contain canons 
of conduct and etiquette adopted as general 
guides; yet the specific mention thereof shall 
not be construed as a denial of the existence of 
others equally imperative though not specifically 
mentioned.”
24. The Preamble makes it imperative that an advocate 
has to conduct himself and his duties in an extremely 
responsible manner. They must bear in mind that what 
may be appropriate and lawful for a person who is not a 
member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non-
professional capacity, may be improper for an advocate 
in his professional capacity.
25. Section II of the said Chapter
II provides for duties 
of an advocate towards his client. Rules 15 and 19 of 
the BCI Rules, have relevance to the subject-matter and 
therefore, they are extracted below:
“15. It shall be the duty of an advocate fearlessly 
to uphold the interests of his client by all fair 
and honourable means without regard to any 
unpleasant consequences to himself or any
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
521
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
other. He shall defend a person accused of a 
crime regardless of his personal opinion as to 
the guilt of the accused, bearing in mind that 
his loyalty is to the law which requires that no 
man should be convicted without adequate 
evidence.
***** 
19. An advocate shall not act on the instructions 
of any person other than his client or his 
authorised agent.”
26. While Rule 15 mandates that the advocate must 
uphold the interest of his clients by fair and honourable 
means without regard to any unpleasant consequences 
to himself or any other. Rule 19 prescribes that an 
advocate shall only act on the instructions of his client 
or his authorised agent” 
41.	 When we examine the relationship between an Advocate and 
his Client from this point of view, the following unique attributes 
become clear:
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.
522
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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. 
Thus, 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. All of these attributes 
strengthen our opinion that the services hired or availed of an 
Advocate would be that of a contract ‘of personal service’ and would 
therefore stand excluded from the definition of “service” contained 
in the section 2(42) of the CP Act, 2019. As a necessary corollary, 
a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates 
practising Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the 
CP Act, 2019. 
42.	 In that view of the matter, we summarize our conclusions as under-
(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. 
43.	 The impugned judgment passed by the NCDRC is set aside. The 
Appeals stand allowed accordingly.
44.	 Before parting, we appreciate and place on record the valuable 
assistance and services rendered by the learned Senior Advocate 
Mr. V. Giri appointed as an Amicus Curiae in these matters.
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
523
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
Pankaj Mithal, J.
1.	
The moot question which emanates from the proceedings at hand, 
if put in a different way, is 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).
2.	
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.
3.	
The profession of law, as such, is regarded as sui generis i.e. which 
is unique. It is distinct from all other professions and is one of its 
own kind.
4.	
It is in the above context that we have to examine if the legislature 
in enacting the Consumer Protection Act intended to include the 
services rendered by professionals, particularly by lawyers to their 
clients, within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.
5.	
The laws intended to protect consumers, as opposed to traders are 
comparatively
of recent origin. 
6.	
The General Assembly of United Nations upon extensive discussions 
with Governments of various nations submitted draft guidelines for 
consumer protection to the United Nations Economic and Social 
Council (UNESCO) in the year 1983 inter alia providing for the 
following:
a)	
To assist countries in achieving or maintaining adequate 
protection for their population as consumers;
b)	
To facilitate production and distribution patterns responsive to 
the needs and desires of the consumers;
c)	
To encourage high levels of ethical conduct for those engaged 
in the production and distribution of goods and services to 
consumers;
524
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
d)	
To assist countries in curbing abusive business practices by 
all enterprises at the national and international levels which 
adversely affect consumers;
e)	
To facilitate the development of independent consumer groups;
f)	
To further international cooperation in the field of consumer 
protection;
g)	
To encourage the development of market conditions which 
provide consumers with greater choice at lower prices;
7.	
A bare reading of the above guidelines reveals that the same have been 
formulated taking into account the interests and needs of consumers 
in various countries, particularly developing countries, in order to level 
out economic imbalances between consumers and service providers.
8.	
The General Assembly of the United Nations Organization by Resolution 
No. 39/248 dated 9.4.1985 provided a framework known as Consumer 
Protection Resolution to which our country is also a signatory.
9.	
It is on the basis of the above Consumer Protection Resolution of the 
UNO that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in India was enacted 
with the objective to save the consumers from unfair conduct and 
practices of traders.
10.	 In Om Prakash vs. Assistant Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries 
Corporation Ltd. and Anr.1 a three Judge Bench vide paragraph 
7 described the Objects and Reasons for the enactment of the 
Consumer Protection Act as under:
“7. From the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 
Act, it appears that the
purpose of the Act is to protect the 
interest of the consumer and to provide ‘the right, to seek 
redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous 
exploitation of consumers’…”
11.	 Recently, in Laureate Buildwell (P) Ltd. vs. Charanjeet Singh,2 a 
three Judge Bench of this Court, highlighting the objectives of the 
Consumer Protection Act held as follows: 
1	
[1994] 3 SCR 463 : (1994) 3 SCC 504
2	
[2021] 6 SCR 673 : (2021) 20 SCC 401
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
525
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
“26. If one also considers the broad objective of the 
Consumer Protection Act, which is to provide for better 
protection of the interests of consumers and for that 
purpose, provide for the establishment of Consumer 
Councils and other authorities for the settlement of 
consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith, 
as evident from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of 
the Act. The Statement further seeks inter alia to promote 
and protect the rights of consumers such as—
“2. … (a) the right to be protected against marketing of 
goods which are hazardous to life and property;
(b) the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, 
potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the 
consumer against unfair trade practices;
(c) the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to 
variety of goods at competitive prices;
(d) the right to be heard and to be assured that consumers’ 
interests will receive due consideration at appropriate 
forums;
(e) the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices 
or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and
(f) right to consumer education.”
12.	 The idea behind the Consumer Protection Act from 1986 till today 
has been to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in 
matters of goods and services purchased and availed of by them 
in a market
dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. 
The entire Act revolves around the consumer and is designed to 
protect their interests.
13.	 Leaving aside India for the time being, if we consider the 
international practice with regard to the inclusion of lawyer-client 
relationships within the ambit of consumer protection laws, we 
would notice that the practice of common law countries evidences 
the exclusion of lawyers from the umbrella of consumer protection 
laws. It must be kept in mind that the consumer protection laws 
of almost all countries are based upon the same resolution of
526
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the UNO which forms the foundation for framing the Consumer 
Protection Act in India.
14.	 To illustrate, Consumer Protection Act, 1999 enacted by the Parliament 
of Malaysia vide Section 2 (2)(e) specifically provides that the said act 
shall not apply, inter alia, to services provided by professionals who 
are regulated by any law. It may be worth noting that the services of 
the professionals such as lawyers in Malaysia are governed by Legal 
Profession Act, 1976. Therefore, by virtue of the above Section 2 
(2) (e), the services provided by the professionals such as lawyers 
stand excluded from the application of the Consumer Protection Act 
of Malaysia.
15.	 This legislative intent of excluding regulated professions from the 
ambit of Consumer Protection Law has been continuing for over 
a considerable period of time now. Aspects of such exclusion find 
mention in the DIRECTIVE 2011/83/EU OF THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 OCTOBER 2011 on 
consumer rights where it has been said that provisions of the said 
directive should not apply to regulated professions. 
16.	 At the heart of this legislative intent to exempt such ‘regulated 
professions’ from the scope of consumer laws lies the fact that such 
professions are sui generis and paramount as services of general 
interest. 
17.	 The recent DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/958 OF THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 28 June 2018 bears a 
befitting
testimony to this continuing intent of lawmakers and the desire 
to safeguard regulated professions from any outside interreference. 
18.	 Similarly, Section 188 of the Consumer Protection Act (Québec) 
provides that: 
“For the purpose of this division, every person offering 
or providing any of the services referred to in section 
189 [covering contracts of service] is considered to be a 
merchant, except: … (i) persons who are members of a 
professional order governed by the Professional Code 
(chapter C-26).”
(emphasis supplied)
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
527
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
19.	 In a similar vein, States in the USA also exempt legal professionals 
from consumer laws. 
20.	 Illustratively, the Code of Maryland, Title 13, dealing with minimum 
standards of consumer protection in Maryland, in Subtitle 1 § 13-104 
explicitly states that:
“this title does not apply to: (1) The professional services 
of a certified public accountant, architect, clergyman, 
professional engineer, lawyer….”
(emphasis supplied)
21.	 The Code of the District of Columbia, while highlighting the powers 
of the consumer protection agency in Title 28 Chapter 39 § 28–3903 
states in clause (c) that:
“(c) The Department may not: … (2) apply the provisions 
of section §28-3905 [Consumer Protection Complaints] 
to: … (C) professional services of clergymen, lawyers, 
and Christian Science practitioners engaging in their 
respective professional endeavors”; 
(emphasis supplied)
22.	 The Australian High Court, the highest court of the land in Australia, 
in D’Orta-Ekenaike vs. Victoria Legal Aid3 has emphatically echoed 
the need for such exemption and its direct bearing on the justice 
delivery system. The reasoning of its majority is instructive and 
deserves to be quoted in full: 
“84. To remove the advocate’s immunity would make a 
significant inroad upon what we have earlier described 
as a fundamental and pervading tenet
of the judicial 
system. That inroad should not be created. There 
may be those who will seek to characterize the result at 
which the Court arrives in this matter as a case of lawyers 
looking after their own, whether because of personal 
inclination and sympathy, or for other base motives. But 
the legal principle which underpins the Court’s conclusion 
3	
(2005) 223 CLR 1
528
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
is fundamental. Of course, there is always a risk that the 
determination of a legal controversy is imperfect. And it 
may be imperfect because of what a party’s advocate 
does or does not do. The law aims at providing the best 
and safest system of determination that is compatible 
with human fallibility. But underpinning the system is the 
need for certainty and finality of decision. The immunity 
of advocates is a necessary consequence of that need”. 
(emphasis supplied)
23.	 It would be trite to mention here that the legal profession is a 
regulated profession in India. The Advocates Act, 1961 regulates the 
conduct of lawyers in India and is a complete code in itself. Given 
the regulation, India also needs to bring the working of its regulated 
professions in alignment with international practices. 
24.	 In the era of globalization, though I am conscious that a law has 
to be applied in context with the prevailing situation of the country, 
nonetheless, to have a uniform application of any law particularly 
the one which has been framed on the basis of the common 
resolution of the UNO, laws must have a uniform application in all 
nations. It is, therefore, essential that the consumer protection laws 
in all countries may somewhat have universal application and be 
confined to ‘consumers’ only i.e. to the persons who buys any goods 
for consideration or hires or avails of any service for consideration, 
impliedly
excluding the professional services especially that of a 
lawyer whose profession is sui generis.
25.	 In doing so, in India also the services of professionals more particularly 
that of lawyers have to be excluded from consumer protection law 
in accordance with the intention expressed in enacting the same.
26.	 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.

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
529
Bar of Indian Lawyers Through its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. 
D. K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.
27.	 Accordingly, the view taken by the NCDRC to the effect that in 
respect of deficiency in service rendered by the lawyers, a complaint 
in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be maintainable, is incorrect 
and stands overruled. 
28.	 The impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission dated 06.08.2007 is hereby set aside. 
29.	 The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
Result of the case: In the judgment of Bela M. Trivedi, J.: 
Appeals allowed.
In the judgment of Pankaj Mithal, J.:  
Appeals disposed of.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain