Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.- United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Introduction
Right to Advertisement is one of the intrinsic features of conducting any
business, profession, or any other organization in today s world. It provides a
platform for the person to communicate any form of information to the public at
large, given that such advertisement formulates on the rules and regulations
laid down on such behalf. The communication can be through newspapers,
magazines, emails, letters, events, etc.
Advertisements or
Commercial Speeches has been incorporated under Article 19
(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. It has been accepted as a part of Freedom
of Speech and Expression , The Supreme Court has considered in the case of Tata
Press[1] that the public at large has a right to receive the commercial
information and such protection of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of
India is available to both speaker and recipient of the speech. The
commercial nature of such expressions were held to be immaterial while extending
the protection under the said article of the Constitution.
And like any other fundamental right,
freedom of speech and the expression is also not an absolute right. Under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of
India, the state may impose
reasonable restriction on the exercise of such
right
in the interest of the public on the following ground:
- Sovereignty and Integrity of India
- Security of State
- Friendly relations with foreign states
- Public Order
- Decency or Morality
- Contempt of Court
- Defamation
- Incitement to an offense
But this right of the advertisement has been completely done away with, in the
case of legal professionals. There is a complete prohibition on a legal
professional to advertise their legal services through the court of law. This
includes any type of advertisement w.r.t. legitimate administrations provided,
by posing as a legal counselor under the legal framework.
The root of prohibition can be directly traced back to Rule 36 of the Bar
Council of India as under:
36. An advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or
indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal
communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or
inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photographs to be published in
connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned. His sign-board
or name-plate should be of a reasonable size.
The sign-board or name-plate or
stationery should not indicate that he is or has been President or Member of a
Bar Council or of any Association or that he has been associated with any person
or organization or with any particular cause or matter or that he specializes in
any particular type of worker or that he has been a Judge or an Advocate
General.
This rule clearly states that the Legal Profession is different from any other
profession, unlike others soliciting work under the legal profession, has been
completely banned by such rule. The reasoning was that the legal Profession
being the noblest profession will lose its light if the advertisement is
permitted within the legal market. Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of
Bar
Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dhabolkar[2] said that:
Law is not an exchange,
not briefs, not stock, thus the paradise of business rivalry ought not to
vulgarize the lawful calling. It is the idea that legal advertising will render
this prestigious profession into a mere profit-making institution which will
maneuver the focus from the concepts like liberty and Justice to profits.
However, there lies a cosmic debate in the legal sector and existing criticism
against such archaic BCI rules which prohibit all types and forms of
advertisement. Pitting the ideas of Reasonability, Constitutionality,
Transparency, free flow of ideas, globalization, and liberalization against the
above-said rule.
Law as a Noble Profession
Law is a traditional profession having public service goals at the center of it
all. From the start of this profession considered as an upholder and protector
of law. The service under such a sector was provided with the foremost aim to
serve society and then to earn a livelihood.
In the case of
Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of
India[3], the Supreme Court enunciated that profession of law being a pious and
honorable profession, its main object being the service of mankind by serving
the system of administration of justice, it is the pious duty of the Bar Council
to protect its public image by restricting the inflow of large numbers of
retired personnel who seek to enter a legal profession solely for additional
gains.
It is imperative to understand that law as a profession is nothing
without its ideals and ethics. And therefore in every law school curriculum, an
important subject is taught
Professional Ethics to make sure that the young
law minds met with the demands of such a profession by upholding the ideals and
ethics.
Also in the case of
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dhabolkar[4],
Justice Krishna Iyer has further stated that:
the canon of ethics and propriety
for the legal profession totally taboo conduct by way of soliciting,
advertising, scrambling and other obnoxious practices, subtle or clumsy, for the
betterment of the legal business.
But the question that remained unanswered is how soliciting the service, being
incidental to the profession will affect the primary conduct of law
professionals? Is it not possible to pave a way where both the ideals go hand in
hand, i.e. allowing the advertisement within the legal market without creating
any challenges against the noble profession.
Placing such strict standards and regulations on the lawyers only go against the
idea of the nobility of the profession. Such a rule-based upon the Victorian
notion, although where the British have evolved to a modern idea of the legal
profession, we stuck ourselves to the traditional and outdated idea.
Word of
Mouth is not enough in today s world to embrace the sanctity of the profession,
legal industry must be open for changes to thrive.
Rule 36 of BCI also stands on
a very thin line constitutionally, as it is not covered properly on any of the
exceptions laid down in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. The same
rule was tested in the case of
V.B. Joshi v. Union of India 2008, where the
scope of online advertisement was given some relaxation to help the lawyers to
reveal certain information, such changes will not come into existence if this
rule 36 comes entirely works within the periphery of the Article 19 (2) of the
Constitution of India.
And strict actions could be taken against the lawyers or
law firms who still advertise through circular letters or election manifestos or
organizing moot court competitions or offering certificate courses or written
articles or using visiting cards etc. All of this adds to the vulnerability and
flawed reasoning behind this rule. Now, how can a rule safeguard the nobility of
the profession when it s not even constitutionally sound?
Legal Profession a commercial activity
The amendment in rule 36 is a clear effect of the developing change in the
system, where even the legislators accepted the adaptation by introducing the
exception clause in the above-mentioned rule. The amendment to Rule 36, Section
IV of the BCI rules allowed advocates the opportunity to advertise online. It
permits the advocates to upload their names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail
IDs, enrolment details, qualifications, and area of practice on the selected
website.[5]
Earlier both direct and indirect types of advertisements were
frowned upon by the rule, several case laws existed to disallow the lawyers from
indulging in such activities. In the case of
Government Pleader v. S.A
pleader[6], it was decided that sending a postcard displaying the address, name,
and description of an advocate would amount to the advertisement. In another
case, it was held that under the election manifestos, lawyers are prohibited to
propagate his name and advertise in the form of announcements and canvassing[7].
The traditional idea of the legal profession and the reasoning behind such
precedents getting faded day by day, the legal profession is being given the
same treatment as any other profession or service. The landmark case of
Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa[8] which provides clarity on the term
Industry included legal profession in it. Further, in the case of K Vishnu v.
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission[9], it was observed that advocate
being regarded as an officer of the court, but cannot be set free from their
basic role of services to their clients and therefore the legal administrations
can be subject to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Even in the Report of the
High-Level Committee on Competition Policy and Law, under the
Chairmanship of S.V.S. Raghavan stated that:
the legislative restrictions in terms of law and
self-regulation have the combined effect of denying opportunities and growth of
professional law firms, restricting their desire and ability to compete
globally, preventing the country from obtaining the advantage of India s
considerable expertise and precluding consumers of free and informed
choice.[10]
Lloyd Pearson, London-based Legal Directories Consultant also said
that because of such advertising restrictions, the world knows very little about
most Indian firms or lawyers, despite having 1.2 million of them.[11]
Thus, it
may be said that law service is becoming subject of trade-related laws,
therefore consumers, supplier, demand, and supply must be given adequate space
to conduct activities. Attaching such a negative image with the term
trade is
also unnecessary, trade is not just about profits but also consumer
satisfaction, informed choices, free flow of information, etc.
It is time to come with terms that the Legal profession is both noble as well as
contain commercial characteristics, and suppressing the later part in the
limelight of the former is simply mistaken and wrong. The courts, as well as Bar
Council, must realize that such restrictions, in reality, are imposed on the
small-time lawyers or law firms, cause the lion's in the legal market, first of
all, need very little advertisement and secondly, even if they do, they meet the
need through organizing competitions or events, publishing information on
websites, using foreign-based publications, etc. These resourceful firms had
found other ways to advertise themselves to attract prospective clients and
referral partners while the complete burden of such restrictions is bearing by
other lawyers with a lack of resources under the context of the nobility of the
legal profession.
Conclusion
Lawyers had two sets of duties, one owed to the court and the other owed to the
public, these duties also encompasses some rights within it. And as long as
these rights do not interfere with either set of duties, the lawyers are fully
competent to exercise such rights. A reasonable scope of advertisement can
coexist which does not affect the honor of the Profession.
In the
above-discussed case of
V.B. Joshi v. Union of India, several other important
issues such as publishing brochures for distribution at seminars and having
insertions in online law dictionaries, were not discussed by the court and the
amendment only limited itself to online advertisements. The amendment vividly
did not take into account the illiteracy rate of India, or they choose to ignore
it. Not all people in India have access to the internet or even if they do, they
lack skills to utilize it at the required level.
Countries like the U.K. and the U.S. have lifted the limitations imposed on the
advocates concerning the legal advertisement by enforcing regulations to ensure
that there is a particular standard deciding the size and style of the
advertisement. Although, it is a risky operation where the negative impact may
overshadow the positive aspects of advertisements and also does not offer any
guarantee that just because it is successful in other countries will be
particularly successful in India. But since when the govt. has stopped itself
from enforcing new laws which have more severe outcomes, because of the factors
such as risk and chances of not been successful.
Despite the above argument, any reasonable person can foresee that the negative
factors attached to the idea can easily be curtailed by effectively following a
set of rules. A panel could be shaped to administrate over concerning matters,
for example:
- The exploitation of the Idea: If not regulated properly, it might likely
get exploited by unscrupulous lawyers by furnishing false information,
defaming others, making the mockery of the court system, immoral punchlines,
etc. to sway gullible consumers.
- Shifting Focus: Lawyers will have to focus on publicizing themselves as
well, in addition to legal arguments, skills, and knowledge.
- Expensive Legal Services: Lawyers will obviously incur a cost in
advertising, which will make the service of the lawyer more expensive, that
will fuel another controversy altogether.
- Bring hatred in the Profession: Lawyers will develop jealousy amongst
their colleagues, which will impair the dignity of the profession.
Therefore, the BCI must come with the modification to put a close check over the
advertisement in the legal sector to safeguard the favored traditional notion
and attract penal provisions to punish the violators.
It is also important to note that some kind of advertisement still exists in the
current legal market especially by huge law firms or big lawyers and there is no
regulations or rules to regulate them, the position of the profession will still
be far better off than sticking to the age-old rule of BCI without even
considering the advantages of the regulated legal advertisements including
opportunities to the young lawyers, free flow of information, increased
awareness among the public about the legal market, Global recognition,
facilitating better services to the domestic as well as international clients,
etc.
In the age of globalization and commercialization, to justify the BCI rules, the
reasoning of law is a
noble Profession is simply not enough. This rule is
affecting the lawyers as well as the public by impounding their rights
incorporated under the constitution. This is the duty of legislators and
judicial courts to harmoniously construct rules to allow advocates to advertise
while preserving the respect of the legal profession in India.
End-Notes:
- 1995 SCC (5) 139
- Bar Council of Maharashtra v/s. M.V Dhabolkar, (1976) AIR 242
- Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India [(1995) 1
SCC 732]
- Bar Council of Maharashtra v/s. M.V Dhabolkar, (1976) AIR 242
- http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BCIRulesPartVonwards.pdf
- AIR 1929 Bombay 335
- C.V. Sekkizhar v. Secretary, Bar Council, Madras, AIR 1967 Mad 35
- Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage Board, Etc. v/s. R. Rajappa&
Others,(1978), SCR (3) 207
- (2000) ALD (5) 367
- 8.2.5, Chapter VII, Competition Policy and Professional Services, Report
of High Level Committee on Competition Policy and Law- S.V.S. Raghavan
Committee, 2000
- http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/C74B86B2-2614-4B56-A50D-8D498A841418.pdf
Authentication No: AG021708080719-4-820
|
Please Drop Your Comments