The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the alleged commercialization of legal services through online advertisements and celebrity endorsements.
The matter came up before a division bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi.
The petitioner, appearing in person along with associates, argued that certain private companies were operating as entities providing legal services such as trademark registration, opposition filings, and other related work, without being run by licensed advocates. “They are selling packages, they are selling the services,” the petitioner submitted, adding that this amounted to the commercialization of the profession and violated the Advocates Act.
The bench, however, repeatedly questioned the nature of the PIL, asking: “How is it public interest litigation?” The judges observed that the promotional videos on platforms like YouTube and Instagram merely advertised trademark registration services. “YouTube, Instagram are only platforms… we do not find anything objectionable (with the video). They are only saying to get trademark registered. Whether it would amount to violation of the Advocates Act?” Justice Shukla noted.
The petitioner countered that such activities extended beyond mere facilitation of registration and entered the domain of legal practice, which should be restricted to advocates. A complaint had already been filed before the regulatory bodies, including the State Bar Council, but no action had been taken, the petitioner said.
When asked about other lawyers involved, the petitioner responded that his associates had assisted with research for the matter.
The bench expressed strong reservations about treating the issue as a PIL. “I think this public interest litigation is not the forum to decide this. Certainly not a PIL,” Justice Shukla remarked.
However, since the petitioner claimed that copies of the petition had already been served on the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and the Bar Council of India, the court directed that the councils be given an opportunity to respond.
While refraining from issuing notice or making any conclusive observations, the bench ordered:
“Petitioners-in-person submit that one copy of the writ petition has been supplied in the office of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Indore. List the matter in the next week.”
The case will now be taken up next week for further hearing, with the court indicating that the role of the Bar Councils will be central to the proceedings.
