Three advocates—Prashant Upadhyay, Harsh Kushwaha, and Prashant Yadav—filed a petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court which challenges a series of sponsored advertisements and celebrity endorsements promoting legal services online through fixed-price packages. The ads feature a well-known actor portraying a judicial persona, urging viewers to purchase pre-priced legal service packages via social media platforms like YouTube and Instagram. The petitioners contend these advertisements mislead the public and amount to a violation of the Advocates Act and Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules, particularly Rules 36 and 37, which prohibit advertising, solicitation, and commercial promotion by advocates.
According to the plea, erstwhile efforts were taken to get these advertisements removed: a cease-and-desist notice was issued to YouTube in January, followed by replies from the platform denying applicability of the Advocates Act. Subsequently, complaints were lodged with the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council, but the petitioners assert that no action was taken by these bodies. This inaction prompted their approach to the High Court, where they seek removal of all sponsored advertisements, reels, and promotional content soliciting legal work. The petition also seeks directions for the BCI, State Bar Council, and relevant ministries to monitor and prevent such advertising in future, and for platforms hosting such content to be held accountable. They further propose that gains derived from such unlawful promotion be deposited into the Advocates’ Welfare Fund.
During the hearing, a division bench led by Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Binod Kumar Dwivedi expressed concern about whether such a matter was maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The court asked the petitioners how the issue falls within the PIL framework. The petitioners responded that the advertisements amount to the commercialization of the legal profession and that the public interest is engaged by the misleading portrayal of legal services as consumer products. They argued that the ads promise services like trademark registration, case redressal before courts, and oppose trademark filings, all under pre-priced packages.
The bench questioned whether there was anything objectively “objectionable” in the content at present, noting that no advocates or law firms were named in some advertisements. The court questioned whether the entity behind the ads qualifies under the Advocates Act, given the claim by the entity that they are not subject to the Advocates Act. The court also asked for representations filed by the petitioners to State Bar Council and whether those bodies had been impleaded.
The bench pointedly remarked that before delving into substantive merits, the question of whether this matter qualifies as PIL must be determined. The judges indicated reservations about whether PIL is a proper vehicle to regulate advertising norms in the legal profession.
The court ordered that a copy of the writ petition be supplied to the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council in Indore, and listed the matter for hearing in the next week. At present, the court declined to issue any notice or express substantive views about the legality of the ads, stating that they had own reservations but would hear all parties.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.