The Supreme Court has sent a notice to the Bar Council of India regarding the extent of online listings for lawyers.
The Supreme Court has notified the Bar Council of India (BCI) about a Special Leave Petition (SLP) from Sulekha.com, New Media Private Limited. This petition questions the limits on online listings for lawyers. It challenges a recent ruling from the Madras High Court that requires search engines and other websites to remove content that could be seen as advertising for legal services. The SLP asks if third-party sites that collect lawyer profiles break Rule 36, especially if they only share information allowed by BCI Rules. Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti stated, “Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. After service of notice, the matter be tagged with SLP (civil) No. 17844/2024.”
On July 3, the Madras High Court had instructed the BCI to take strict action against lawyers who advertise their services, citing breaches of legal ethics. The Division Bench, led by Justices SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan, ordered the BCI to create guidelines that would require state bar councils to discipline lawyers who solicit or promote their services through ads, messages, or intermediaries. The Court highlighted that legal services should not be viewed as a profit-driven business but as a valuable service to society. “Unlike some other countries, the Indian legal profession is distinct as we embody selfless courage by leading rights-based movements in our nation. Our freedom movement, supported by some of the finest lawyers, proves this. Every lawyer contributes to delivering justice. It is not for any third party to rate or brand a lawyer’s services. The legal profession is not and cannot be treated as a business,” the Court stated.
The Supreme Court has notified the Bar Council of India (BCI) about a Special Leave Petition (SLP) from Sulekha.com, New Media Private Limited. This petition questions the limits on online listings for lawyers. It challenges a recent ruling from the Madras High Court that requires search engines and other websites to remove content that could be seen as advertising for legal services. The SLP asks if third-party sites that collect lawyer profiles break Rule 36, especially if they only share information allowed by BCI Rules. Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti stated, “Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. After service of notice, the matter be tagged with SLP (civil) No. 17844/2024.”
On July 3, the Madras High Court had instructed the BCI to take strict action against lawyers who advertise their services, citing breaches of legal ethics. The Division Bench, led by Justices SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan, ordered the BCI to create guidelines that would require state bar councils to discipline lawyers who solicit or promote their services through ads, messages, or intermediaries. The Court highlighted that legal services should not be viewed as a profit-driven business but as a valuable service to society. “Unlike some other countries, the Indian legal profession is distinct as we embody selfless courage by leading rights-based movements in our nation. Our freedom movement, supported by some of the finest lawyers, proves this. Every lawyer contributes to delivering justice. It is not for any third party to rate or brand a lawyer’s services. The legal profession is not and cannot be treated as a business,” the Court stated.
Cause Title: Sulekha.com New Media Private Limited v. P.N. Vignesh & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25794/2024]
