The Supreme Court, in an important judgment delivered today, emphasized the uniqueness of Legal Profession.

While holding that a consumer complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession will not be maintainable, the court said that the Legal Profession is sui generis i.e. unique in nature and cannot be compared with any other Profession.

On uniqueness of Legal profession, Justice Bela M. Trivedi made the following observations:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. The Advocates 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Advocates do, affects not only an individual but the entire administration of justice, which is the foundation of the civilized society.
  6. 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.

Referring to the provisions contained in Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure and Chapter IV of Advocates Act pertaining to right to practise, the Court listed the following unique attributes about the relationship between an Advocate and his Client:

  1. Advocate 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 the colleagues as enumerated in the Bar Council of India Rule-Unique attributes
  2. Advocates are generally perceived to be their client’s agents and owe fiduciary duties to their clients.
  3. 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.
  4. Advocates are not entitled to make concessions or give any undertaking to the Court without express instructions from the Client.
  5. It is the solemn duty of an Advocate not to transgress the authority conferred on him by his Client
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

In his separate but concurring opinion, Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that the legal profesion is distinct from all other professions and is one of its own kind.

"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.", the judge said.


Cause Title: Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 410)

Appearance:

Appellant: Sr. Advocates Narender Hooda, Guru Krishna Kumar, Manoj Swarup, Manan Mishra, Jaideep Gupta, Shekhar Naphade, D.K. Sharma and Vikas Singh; AOR Ashok Kumar Singh, Daya Krishan Sharma, Akshay Amritanshu, Varun Punia, Anjani Aiyagari, Mohinder Jit Singh, Suveni Bhagat and Daya Krishan Sharma; Advocates Shantwanu Singh, Pragya Singh, Akshay Singh, Rahul Dubey, D K Sharma, Rohit Vats, Yashdeep, Samyak Jain, Ayush Raj, Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Apoorva Singh, Rishi Bhargava, Yashvi Aswani, Jasbir Singh Malik, Chandni Sharma, Shaurya Lamba, K. Maruthi Rao, Gaurav Yadava, Hardik Rupal, Satyam Aneja, Vishwaja Rao, Rahul Narang, Harshed Sundar, Nihar Dharmahikari, Rohit Vats, Shubham Rana, Piyush Goel and Sunita Sharma

Respondents: Sr. Advocates Jaideep Gupta, Shekhar Naphade, Adish C. Aggarwala, Sukumar Pattjoshi, Arijit Prasad, Jayant Bhushan, Dinesh Kumar Goswami and S. Wasim Ahmed Quadri; AOR N. Annapoorani, Devvrat, Shashank Shekhar; Advocates Manoj K. Mishra, Snehashish Mukherjee, Rashmi Malhotra, Puneet Singh Bindra, Sachin Sharma, Harshita Sharma, Sachita Chawla, Swati Setia, Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Rohit Pandey, Meenesh Kumar Dubey, Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Amrendra Kumar Singh, Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Kumar Gaurav, Vikas Gupta, Pratap Venugopal, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Manish Goswami, Upendra Mishra, Ratnesh Kumar, Meghraj Singh, Pradeep Kumar Yadav

Click here to read/download the Judgment




Supreme CourtJustice Bela M TrivediJustice Pankaj Mithal

Verdictum News Desk