The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Sulekha.com, New Media Private Limited, concerning the boundaries of permissible online listings for advocates.

The SLP challenges a recent Madras High Court judgment that mandates search engines and third-party websites to remove content potentially construed as advertising for legal professionals.It asks whether third-party platforms that aggregate lawyer profiles violate Rule 36, particularly when they publish only information permitted under the BCI Rules.

The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti said, "Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. After service of notice, the matter be tagged with SLP (civil) No. 17844/2024."

Representing Sulekha.com, Advocate Ankur Khandelwal, along with AoR Utkarsh Sharma and Advocate Sahil Siddiqui, contended that the Madras High Court’s interpretation of Rule 36 could impact advocates’ online presence and client outreach.

Pertinently, on July 3, the Madras High Court had issued directives to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to take stringent action against advocates engaging in advertising and branding practices, citing violations of legal ethics.

The Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan had directed the BCI to formulate guidelines compelling state bar councils to initiate disciplinary measures against lawyers who solicit or advertise their services through advertisements, messages, or intermediaries. The Court had also emphasized that legal services are not to be treated as a business driven solely by profit but as a noble service to society. "Unlike a few other countries, the Indian legal profession is unique as we represent selfless courage by spearheading some of the rights-based movements in our country. Our Indian freedom movement, comprising some of the best lawyers in the country, stands testament to the same. Every lawyer in our country is a contributor in the process of delivery of justice. And it is not for any third party to brand or rate the services of a lawyer. The legal profession is not and can never be treated as a business," the Court had said.

The Court's order stemmed from a petition filed by PN Vignesh, highlighting concerns over online platforms such as Quikr, Sulekha, and Justdial offering "online lawyer services." These platforms not only list lawyers but also assign ratings and designations like "Platinum" or "Premium" to them, potentially influencing clients seeking legal assistance.

While defending their services as mere directories, the websites had argued that they were not actively soliciting legal work. However, the Court found that these platforms were effectively selling legal services, which contravenes Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules prohibiting touting. "Rule 36 of Bar Council of India Rules specifically prohibits touting. Therefore, the online websites/intermediaries are estopped from taking shelter under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. The Advocates Act is an Act of Parliament," it had said.

Cause Title: Sulekha.com New Media Private Limited v. P.N. Vignesh & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25794/2024]

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Hrishikesh RoyJustice SVN BhattiBar Council of India

Sukriti Mishra