Home Blog

Microfinance Transparency: RBI Pushes Digital Payments with RuPay Debit Cards, BHIM-UPI

Mariya Paliwala
-
0
Microfinance Transparency: RBI Pushes Digital Payments with RuPay Debit Cards, BHIM-UPI

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), has undertaken several targeted initiatives. These steps aim not only to promote digital transactions but also to ensure transparency and regulatory improvements in the microfinance and cooperative sectors.

Minister of State for Finance, Shri Pankaj Chaudhary, informed the Lok Sabha today through a written reply that the government continues to promote digital payments through a mix of incentives and infrastructure support. Among the major measures is the Incentive Scheme to encourage the use of RuPay Debit Cards and low-value BHIM-UPI transactions (particularly person-to-merchant or P2M transactions). Additionally, the Payments Infrastructure Development Fund (PIDF) has been launched to facilitate the deployment of digital payment infrastructure, especially in underserved and rural regions.

Fraud Prevention and Cybersecurity Measures

To safeguard consumers from digital payment frauds, several security mechanisms have been put in place. 

These include Device binding to ensure transactions are carried out from registered devices, Two-factor authentication using secure PINs, Daily transaction limits and use-case restrictions, and AI/ML-powered fraud monitoring tools offered by NPCI to banks for real-time alert generation and transaction decline in suspicious cases.

Further, awareness campaigns are being conducted regularly by the RBI and banks through SMS alerts, radio jingles, and cybercrime prevention publicity to educate users about safe digital practices.

In response to concerns over the regulation of microfinance institutions (MFIs) and cooperative societies, the RBI has also introduced reforms to enhance transparency and accessibility.

A board-approved interest rate policy has been mandated for all regulated entities, incorporating a transparent pricing structure based on cost of funds, risk premiums, and margins.

The definition of microfinance loans has been simplified, and several quantitative restrictions on NBFC-MFIs have been lifted. These include the removal of loan caps per cycle and relaxation of minimum loan tenure requirements.

The previous mandate requiring at least 50% of microfinance loans to be used for income generation has been scrapped. This change recognizes the growing demand for credit in areas such as medical expenses, education, and income stabilization.

These initiatives reflect the government’s continued commitment to improving digital financial infrastructure while ensuring secure, inclusive, and transparent access to credit for underserved populations.

100% GST Penalty Can’t Be Imposed Without Proving Fraud, High Court Must Rehear Case: Supreme Court

Mariya Paliwala
-
0
100% GST Penalty Can’t Be Imposed Without Proving Fraud, High Court Must Rehear Case: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the 100% Goods Service Tax (GST) penalty cannot be imposed without proving fraud and directed the high court to rehear the case.

The bench of  Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has set aside the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing a review application filed by M/s Godway Funicrafts. The apex court directed the High Court to reconsider the company’s grievance regarding a 100% penalty levied under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

The petitioner/assessee, M/s Godway Funicrafts had initially approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court through a writ petition challenging an order that imposed a steep 100% penalty. The company contended that such a penalty was unjustified since the department had not proved any fraud or wilful concealment, which is a mandatory prerequisite under Section 74 of the CGST Act and its corresponding State provisions.

While the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court in November 2020, a review application was subsequently filed, emphasizing the contention that fraud had not been established. However, the High Court again dismissed the review application in May 2022, noting that the issue was not argued during the original writ proceedings.

The court held that that although the argument on the penalty may not have been expressly pressed during the writ hearing, it was raised in the memorandum of the writ petition and again in the review application.

The Court held that, “In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant was entitled to raise the contention regarding the imposition of 100% penalty in the review application… The High Court has to consider the same on merits.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court restored the review application to the High Court’s file, allowing M/s Godway Funicrafts to fully argue its position regarding both the penalty and the interest imposed.

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to hear the review plea afresh. To allow the appellant to raise all relevant arguments, including the absence of fraud or wilful concealment. To consider the legality of the penalty imposition and any accrued interest thereon. To decide the review application on its merits in accordance with law.

The Court also clarified that if M/s Godway Funicrafts is unsuccessful in the High Court, it may approach the Supreme Court again, but only on the issue of penalty.

Case Details

Case Title: M/S Godway Funicrafts Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors

Case No.: Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S).16833- 16834/2023

Date:  JULY 15, 2025

Click Here To Read Order

Fresh GST Audit For Periods Already Adjudicated Is Barred: Calcutta High Court

Mariya Paliwala
-
0
Fresh GST Audit For Periods Already Adjudicated Is Barred: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that a fresh GST audit under Section 65 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 cannot be initiated for periods that have already been audited and adjudicated under Section 73 of the same Act, the reopening is allowed only for uncovered tax periods.

The bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury noted that the State authorities had already completed proceedings under Section 73 for FY 2017–18 to 2019–20. The Central GST department had also adjudicated similar issues for FY 2018–19 to 2021–22. Any further audit for these already adjudicated periods would violate Section 6(2)(b) and the principles of natural justice.

“In view thereof, there being little scope for the respondents to reopen the audit afresh for the periods which have already been covered by the previous audit, the aforesaid audit should be restricted to the periods 2017-2018 and 2022-2023,” the bench ruled.

The petitioner/assessee had challenged a set of audit observations dated January 13, 2025, issued by the Central Tax authorities despite prior adjudications on the same subject matter by State authorities.

The petitioner contended that multiple assessment orders had already been passed by the State GST authorities under Section 73 for the financial years 2017–18, 2018–19, and 2019–20, covering the very issues that the central audit was now seeking to re-examine.

The petition also highlighted that a show-cause notice dated December 19, 2023, and a subsequent order-in-original dated April 25, 2024, had already been issued by the Central GST department for the tax periods 2018–19 to 2021–22. These were based on audit observations which, the petitioner argued, rendered any further audit redundant and violative of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act — a provision that prohibits initiation of proceedings by both Central and State authorities on the same subject matter.

The Court allowed the writ petition partially, directing that the audit for FY 2018–19 to 2021–22 shall not be reopened. Permitted audit proceedings only for FY 2017–18 and 2022–23, periods that had not previously been assessed under Section 73. Directed the authorities to consider a pending representation by the petitioner.

Case Details

Case Title: Abdur Rouf Khan Vs. Superintendent of Central Tax, Kolkata 

Case No.: WPA 3987 of 2025

Date:  09/07/2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: Prasenjit Das

Counsel For Respondent: Manju Manot Agarwal

Click Here To Read Order

CGST Delhi South Busts Rs. 47.12 Crore Fake ITC Racket in Iron & Steel Sector, One Arrested

Mariya Paliwala
-
0
CGST Delhi South Busts Rs. 47.12 Crore Fake ITC Racket in Iron & Steel Sector, One Arrested

The Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Delhi South Commissionerate has unearthed a significant Input Tax Credit (ITC) scam amounting to ₹47.12 crore in the iron and steel sector. The action, spearheaded by the Anti-Evasion Branch, has led to the arrest of a proprietor based in Naraina, accused of orchestrating the fraudulent operation.

According to official sources, the accused firm was engaged in trading iron and steel products and allegedly availed and passed on ITC worth ₹47.12 crore against fictitious invoices corresponding to a taxable turnover of around ₹261 crore. Investigations revealed that no actual movement of goods had taken place, and the transactions existed only on paper.

The probe was triggered by specific intelligence inputs that pointed to irregularities in the firm’s supply chain. Upon closer scrutiny, it was found that the entity had claimed ITC from suppliers whose GST registrations had either been cancelled or suspended — a clear breach of provisions under the CGST Act, 2017.

Authorities carried out a search at the firm’s declared business premises under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act and discovered that the location was non-functional. The proprietor was subsequently taken into custody on August 1, 2025, under Section 69 in conjunction with Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Act, which pertain to the fraudulent availing of input tax credit and issuance of bogus invoices.

This operation is part of a broader enforcement campaign launched by the CGST Delhi South Commissionerate aimed at dismantling fake ITC networks that not only result in massive revenue loss but also distort competitive fairness in the market. Officials emphasized that advanced data analytics and supply chain tracking tools are being extensively used to uncover such fraudulent networks.

The department reiterated its commitment to intensifying its crackdown on tax evasion in the coming months, urging businesses to maintain compliance and avoid associating with suspicious or unverified entities in the GST ecosystem.

Accrued Property Rights Can’t Be Defeated By Retrospective Policy Changes; Mutation Denial Struck Down: Calcutta HC

Amit Sharma
-
0
Accrued Property Rights Can’t Be Defeated By Retrospective Policy Changes; Mutation Denial Struck Down: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that rights lawfully accrued property rights under a previous government policy cannot be nullified by later executive orders with retrospective effect, especially when such orders impair vested leasehold or property interests.

The bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, while setting aside a mutation denial order issued in 2014, emphasized that once a leasehold interest is transferred lawfully during a period when restrictive conditions stood withdrawn, such transfers remain valid and enforceable regardless of subsequent changes in government policy.

The Court found that a 1971 government notification had expressly removed key restrictions on leasehold property transfers. These relaxations remained valid until 1986, when the restrictions were reimposed by executive memo. Transfers made during this 15-year interregnum accrued legitimate rights, which cannot be undone retroactively.

Quoting Supreme Court precedents, the Court reaffirmed the principle that a citizen’s vested or accrued rights cannot be taken away by retrospective administrative decisions, unless the statute explicitly provides for such retrospective application.

“A valuable right, once accrued under a valid government notification, cannot be impaired by subsequent policy change—especially when such change is not expressly retrospective,” the judgment reads.

Detailed Background: 50 Years of Transfers and Policy Flip-Flops

The case revolves around a lease granted in 1969 by the Government of West Bengal for a residential property in Salt Lake (Bidhannagar). The original lease deed imposed multiple restrictive clauses: prohibiting transfer without government approval, disallowing partition among multiple heirs, and banning mortgage without prior consent.

However, in a crucial policy shift, the Government issued a memo on November 25, 1971, deleting these three restrictive clauses across lease deeds executed before that date. This liberalized regime allowed leaseholders to transfer or gift their interest without prior government permission.

Relying on this relaxation the original lessee, Monoronjon Bhowmick, settled the property in 1970 in favour of his brother Sudhir Ranjan Bhowmick. Mutation was duly effected in Sudhir’s name in 1974. In 2001, Sudhir executed a gift deed in favour of his son Sanjoy Bhowmick, and mutation again followed without objection. In 2009, Sanjoy executed a registered deed of assignment in favour of the present petitioners, who subsequently applied for mutation.

But things took a turn in 1986, when the State Government withdrew the earlier relaxation through a new memo, reimposing the three original restrictions on all lease deeds executed on or before 1971.

Years later, in 2014, the municipal authority rejected the petitioners’ mutation application on the ground that the 2009 transfer had been made without prior government approval — now again required under the 1986 memo. It also invoked a 2012 policy notification, which imposed new conditions on leasehold transfers.

The petitioners challenged this order, arguing that their rights stemmed from a valid, restriction-free transfer chain originating from the 1971 policy. The 1986 memo could not operate retrospectively to undo transactions that occurred while restrictions were lawfully lifted. The 2012 notification could not govern transactions that had taken place before its issuance.

Court’s Reasoning and Legal Principles Applied

The court laid out key legal propositions:

Prospective vs. Retrospective Operation:
The Court held that the 1986 memo did not explicitly provide for retrospective effect, and hence could not invalidate the transfers made during the 1971–1986 interregnum.

Accrued Rights Are Constitutionally Protected:
Once a transferee receives leasehold rights under a valid regime, those rights become vested and cannot be impaired by later policy changes unless clearly provided for by law.

Government Cannot Arbitrarily Undo Its Past Policy:
Relying on Supreme Court rulings, the Court underscored that executive action cannot destroy vested property rights—a principle central to both statutory interpretation and constitutional fairness.

Doctrine of Waiver and Novation:
The mutation granted in 2002 to Sanjoy Bhowmick, despite the 1986 memo, was treated by the Court as an implied waiver of restrictions and novation (a substituted agreement) recognizing the changed legal position.

Inapplicability of the 2012 Notification:
The 2012 policy was deemed irrelevant, as the transaction had already taken place in 2009.

Case Details

Case Title: Sri Suresh Bajaj and Anr. -Vs- The State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case No.: WPA 14151 of 2023

Date:  01.08.2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: N.C Bihani, Sr. Adv.

Counsel For Respondent: Ayan Banerjee, Adv.

Click Here To Read Order

UDIN By CA For Documents Relating To Audit Reports Is Implicit In Tender Conditions: Andhra Pradesh HC

Amit Sharma
-
0
UDIN By CA For Documents Relating To Audit Reports Is Implicit In Tender Conditions: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that  the requirement of mentioning the Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN) provided by chartered accountant (CA) is manifestly implicit in the Tender Conditions and it is indispensable.

The bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad has observed that the rejection of the bid of the Writ Petitioner for non-mentioning of UDIN in the Annual Turnover Certificates and the Balance Sheets is neither discriminatory nor illegal or arbitrary.

The Superintendent Engineer, Department of Rural Water Supply & Sanitation, Vijayawada had issued tender the Notice for the work of ‘Operation and Maintenance of CPWS scheme to Battinapadu and 34 other habitations for the year 2025 to 2026’ with an Estimated Contract Value (EMV) of Rs.63,61,806/- via e-procurement portal; and that as the Writ Petitioner has executed similar works on the previous occasions, the Writ Petitioner has participated in the tender.

The Writ Petitioner found that the bid submitted by him was rejected when he had opened the portal. The petitioner was told by Official that the ground for rejection of the bid of the Writ Petitioner was due to non-furnishing of Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN) on the Annual Turnover Reports and the Balance sheets that were duly issued by the Writ Petitioner’s Chartered Accountant.

The petitioner contended that  the tender document never specified the compulsion of furnishing UDIN along with Annual Turnover Reports and the Balance Sheets and therefore, the Official Respondents ought not to have disqualified the Writ Petitioner in the technical bid on the ground that the Writ Petitioner did not furnish the UDIN along with the Annual Turnovers and the Balance Sheets.

The issue raised was whether the requirement of providing UDIN by the full-time Chartered Accountants for the documents issued by them relating to Audit Reports etc., is manifestly implicit in the Tender Conditions?

The court stated that  in pursuance of the Notification of the ICAI, in the year 2019 the mandatory practice of mentioning of UDIN has been in vogue since 2019 and therefore, this practice had been followed in respect of the every Tender Notification.

The court held that  all the full-time Chartered Accountants across the nation have ‘adapted to’ and ‘adopted’ this mandatory practice. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Writ Petitioner to contend that he was not aware of this indispensable practice, particularly in the light of the fact that the Writ Petitioner is a seasoned Civil Contractors.

Case Details

Case Title: Sri Guttikonda Seshukumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case No.: Writ Petition No: 16902 Of 2025

Date:  17/07/2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: Kasim Nag Asaim

Counsel For Respondent: GP

Click Here To Read Order

Advocates Under Scrutiny: How Legal Offices Are Becoming Easy Targets for ED, GST Dept.

Mariya Paliwala
-
0
Advocates Under Scrutiny: How Legal Offices Are Becoming Easy Targets for ED, GST Dept.

A troubling trend is emerging in India’s legal landscape as enforcement agencies like Enforcement Directorate (ED) and GST department increasingly turn their attention to advocates, summoning them, raiding their offices, and seizing confidential documents/gadgets under the guise of investigation. 

The recent summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to Senior Advocate Pratap Venugopal — following similar action against Senior Advocate Arvind Datar and now GST Department’s recent action against Advocate Puneet Batra — has reignited fierce debate about the sanctity of attorney-client privilege and the independence of the legal profession.

ED Summons To Advocate

At the center of the controversy is legal advice related to the issuance of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) to Dr. Rashmi Saluja, the former chairperson of Religare Enterprises Limited (REL). Venugopal, in his capacity as Advocate-on-Record and partner at K J John and Co., had procured a legal opinion from Senior Advocate Arvind Datar for Care Health Insurance Ltd. (CHIL). He clarified that this occurred before his designation as a Senior Advocate on January 19, 2025, and that he formally resigned from the firm by January 31, 2025, in accordance with the Senior Advocates Designation Rules.

This development follows a similar summons to Senior Advocate Arvind Datar — a move that sparked outrage across the legal fraternity and was later withdrawn amidst public outcry. Legal professionals argue such steps represent a dangerous erosion of the age-old principles of client confidentiality and the constitutional independence of the Bar.

Court Slams GST Raid on Advocate’s Office

Parallel to the ED episode, the GST Department’s recent action against Advocate Puneet Batra has drawn sharp judicial scrutiny. Batra, a well-established practitioner in tax and criminal law, found his office — and by extension, client information — under seizure following a GST investigation linked to a client, Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd.

Batra contends that he withdrew his representation after being unable to reach the client post-search, and that he had informed the GST Department accordingly. Nonetheless, GST officers conducted a search on July 25, 2025, and seized sensitive material, including client files, firm documents, and a CPU containing 1250 GB of data — potentially related to over 100 active legal cases.

The Delhi High Court took strong exception to these actions, directing the Department not to open or access the contents of the seized CPU without the presence of the petitioner or his authorized representative. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain emphasized the constitutional protections afforded to advocates, stating:

“This Court would like to be first satisfied as to in what manner a search and seizure was conducted at the office of an Advocate, inasmuch as any documents that may have been given by the client to his lawyer are purely confidential in nature and are protected by attorney-client privilege.”

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on August 4, 2025, with the GST Department ordered to file a detailed affidavit justifying the search.

Legal Fraternity Pushes Back

In a strong display of unity, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) issued a scathing statement condemning the ED for issuing a notice to Senior Advocate Arvind Datar. The Association labeled it an “alarming case of investigative overreach,” warning that such actions jeopardize both the rule of law and the right to independent legal counsel.

“This action by the ED is not only unwarranted but reflects a disturbing trend of investigative overreach that threatens the independence of the legal profession,” the statement said.

It stressed that conflating legal counsel with complicity in alleged misconduct violates constitutional protections and sets a dangerous precedent that could deter lawyers from offering candid legal advice.

The withdrawal of the notice against Datar has done little to quell concerns. Legal experts point out that the very act of issuing such summons has a chilling effect on legal independence and citizens’ right to confidential counsel.

Turf War Within the Legal Community

The controversy has also exposed internal fissures within the legal fraternity. Dr. Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), criticized SCAORA for overstepping its mandate by commenting on broader legal policy issues. Singh claimed that as a body limited to Advocates-on-Record, SCAORA lacks the standing to speak for the entire Bar.

Despite this internal discord, many lawyers argue that the issue transcends institutional boundaries. “This is not about one association or another,” said a senior lawyer on condition of anonymity. “This is about protecting the foundational principles of justice. Today it’s one advocate, tomorrow it could be any of us.”

Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent

What appears at first glance to be isolated investigations is, to many in the legal community, indicative of a systemic shift toward the erosion of attorney-client privilege and the coercive overreach of enforcement authorities. Whether under ED or GST scrutiny, the legal profession finds itself caught in the crosshairs of investigative zeal — raising critical questions about the independence of the Bar, the integrity of due process, and the future of legal confidentiality in India.

As the legal community braces for further hearings and possibly more summonses, the judiciary’s response in the coming months will likely determine the extent to which the rule of law and the independence of legal counsel remain intact in the country’s constitutional framework.

Read More: Delhi HC Slams GST Raid on Advocate’s Office, Upholds Attorney-Client Privilege; Bars Access to Seized Gadgets Without Lawyer’s Presence

Delhi HC Slams GST Raid on Advocate’s Office, Upholds Attorney-Client Privilege; Bars Access to Seized Gadgets Without Lawyer’s Presence

Mariya Paliwala
-
0
Delhi HC Slams GST Raid on Advocate’s Office, Upholds Attorney-Client Privilege; Bars Access to Seized Gadgets Without Lawyer’s Presence

The Delhi High Court has while upholding Attorney-Client Privilege, slammed the GST raid on Advocate’s office and barred access to seized gadgets without lawyer’s presence.

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has observed that the Advocate cannot be subjected to harassment in this manner unless and until there is some material for the GST Department to show that the advocate himself is not merely representing his client but is also personally involved in the alleged illegality. Some prima facie material would have to be shown by the GST Department.

“This Court would like to be, first satisfied as to in what manner a search and seizure was conducted at the office of an Advocate, inasmuch as any documents that may have been given by the client to his lawyer are purely confidential in nature and are protected by attorney-client privilege.” The bench said.

The bench directed the GST Department to file an affidavit. In the meantime, the Petitioner need not appear before the GST Department pursuant to the impugned summons and the date for his appearance shall be postponed beyond the next date of hearing. Insofar as the CPU is concerned, since it could be consisting of belonging to other clients of the Petitioner, the same shall not be opened in any manner and the contents of the said CPU shall not be downloaded by the GST Department without the presence of the Petitioner or any of his Authorised Representative.

The petitioner, Puneet Batra is an advocate who is stated to be a member of the Delhi High Court Bar Association as also the Sales Tax Bar Association and the New Delhi Bar Association (Patiala House District Court). As per the petition, he is a regular practitioner in diverse fields of law including direct and indirect taxation, school fee regulation matters, Cyber Law and other criminal matters.

The firm M/s. Bass Legal LLP is a tax consulting firm run by the Petitioner’s parents, and the Petitioner is an Advocate who handles all the taxation matters on behalf of the firm.

The Advocate contended that one M/s. Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. which is a gaming company had engaged the Petitioner for rendering various professional and legal services, including GST filings before Registrar of Companies, Income Tax returns, Intellectual Property Rights registration work, cyber crime, etc. It is stated that the said services are being provided by the Petitioner to the client since 2023.

According to the Advocate, a search was conducted at the client’s registered premises by the GST Department. It is stated that the Advocate was handling more than 100 cases, on behalf of the client including in respect of the said search. It is stated that since the Petitioner could not contact the client despite repeated efforts the Petitioner and his legal team had withdrawn their Vakalatnama/Power of Attorney via email to the GST Department.

The advocate received a summons for appearance before the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East. According to the Petitioner-Advocate, he filed a reply stating that he is merely the lawyer for the client and the same was taken on record by the GST Department. 

The Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST Delhi East, conducted a search at the office of the firm and the Petitioner’s office (advocate’s office). During the search various documents relating to the client have been resumed by the GST Department. In addition, the Partnership Deed related to the firm and other documents, have also been resumed by the GST Department. The GST Department has also seized electronic gadgets being a complete CPU having 1250 GB. The documents resumed and the electronic gadgets seized have been recorded vide a punchnama dated 25th July, 2025.

The court listed the matter on 4 August 2025. 

Case Details

Case Title: Puneet Batra Versus UOI

Case No.: W.P.(C) 11021/2025, CM APPL. 45387/2025 & CM APPL. 45388/2025

Date:  28.07.2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv.

Counsel For Respondent: Aditya Singla

Click Here To Read Order

Ways By Which Advocates Can Publicize Their Services Without Amounting To Advertisement 

Amit Sharma
-
0
Ways By Which Advocates Can Publicize Their Services Without Amounting To Advertisement 

Advocates in India are strictly regulated by the Bar Council of India (BCI), which prohibits direct advertising and solicitation of clients but there are some legal tricks by which Advocate can publicize his services.

Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules explicitly bars lawyers from soliciting work through advertisements or circulars, either in print, television, or digital media. 

However, this does not mean that advocates cannot publicize their expertise or attract new clients at all. There are ethical and legal ways to build a professional image and clientele without violating these rules. This article explores those permissible avenues.

Professional Website (Compliant with BCI Guidelines)

While blanket advertising is restricted, the BCI in 2008 allowed advocates to maintain a basic website that shares:

  • Name
  • Contact details
  • Qualifications
  • Enrollment details
  • Areas of practice
  • Bar Association membership

Dos:

  • Keep the site informative, not promotional.
  • No flashy slogans or testimonials.
  • Avoid self-congratulatory content.

Don’ts:

  • No mention of success rates or case outcomes.
  • No paid search engine promotion or social media ads.

 BCI Circular No. 36/2008 permits such websites with basic info.

Contributing Legal Articles, Blogs, and Commentaries

Writing for newspapers, magazines, or reputed online portals like LiveLaw, Bar & Bench, or Mondaq can position an advocate as an expert in a particular legal domain. Similarly, running a personal blog or LinkedIn newsletter is allowed as long as there is no solicitation.

Benefits:

  • Establishes thought leadership.
  • Increases visibility among potential clients and industry players.
  • Enhances credibility through informed commentary.

Participating in Public Seminars, Legal Awareness Camps, and Webinars

Advocates are encouraged to spread legal literacy. Conducting or participating in awareness sessions on legal rights (e.g., women’s rights, cyber law, property disputes, taxation) enhances public visibility without violating norms.

Examples:

  • Holding sessions in schools, colleges, or NGOs.
  • Hosting webinars in collaboration with legal tech platforms.
  • Community radio or podcast appearances (informative, not promotional).

Such educational initiatives are seen as public service, not promotion.

Joining Professional Legal Directories and Platforms

Portals like:

  • Bar & Bench Directory
  • IndiaLaw
  • Vakilsearch (only listings, not advertisements)
  • Google Business (limited use – only name, location, hours)

…allow clients to find lawyers organically.

Caveat: Ensure listings are factual. No client reviews, star ratings, or promotional content should be encouraged or displayed.

Leveraging LinkedIn Professionally

Unlike Facebook or Instagram, LinkedIn is considered a professional networking platform, and it’s acceptable to:

  • Share legal updates or case law summaries.
  • Discuss statutory changes or recent judgments.
  • Express legal opinions (without claiming superiority).

Avoid:

  • Asking for clients directly.
  • Mentioning personal achievements or “victories” in court.

Building Strong Referral Networks

Word-of-mouth referrals remain the most ethical and effective way to grow clientele:

  • Maintain professional relationships with fellow advocates.
  • Engage with clients transparently and respectfully.
  • Offer genuine advice to acquaintances and they may refer others.

This organic method is 100% compliant and builds long-term trust.

Engagement in Pro Bono Work

Pro bono work—especially in high-visibility PILs or social issues—often attracts attention from media and potential clients. While the purpose is social service, it inadvertently builds the advocate’s public reputation.

Bonus: Several reputed firms and NGOs scout lawyers for collaboration based on such initiatives.

Networking Through Legal Conferences and Bar Events

Participation in:

  • Legal conclaves
  • National Moot Court Judging Panels
  • Bar Council activities
  • Continuing Legal Education (CLE) workshops

…brings lawyers in touch with potential collaborators and clients without direct solicitation.

Publishing Books, eBooks, and Legal Handbooks

Authoring books on legal subjects builds authority and can attract a niche client base. For example:

  • “Understanding Cyber Law for Startups”
  • “Property Law for NRIs”
  • “Divorce & Custody: A Legal Handbook”

Distribution through legal publishers or online (Amazon, Notion Press) is allowed if not promotional.

Academic Engagements and Teaching Assignments

Serving as a visiting faculty, guest lecturer, or trainer at law schools or corporate training programs:

  • Enhances visibility in academic and business circles.
  • Builds reputation among students, startups, HR professionals, etc.

Conclusion

While the Bar Council of India rightly discourages overt advertising to maintain the dignity of the legal profession, it still allows advocates to ethically highlight their expertise and build a professional network. The key lies in being informative, not promotional; helpful, not boastful. By leveraging education, thought leadership, and integrity, lawyers can grow a credible practice that stands the test of both law and ethics.

Legal MethodDescriptionCompliance Tip
Basic WebsiteBio, qualifications, contact infoNo ads/testimonials
Legal WritingBlogs, articles, opinionsInformative, no self-promotion
Webinars/SeminarsLegal literacy effortsMust be non-solicitative
Professional DirectoriesListings on legal portalsAvoid ratings/promos
LinkedIn PostsShare insights or updatesNo success bragging
ReferralsOrganic network growthBased on trust
Pro Bono WorkSocial causes/public interestHelps reputation organically
Legal ConferencesBar association eventsProfessional networking
PublishingBooks or guides on legal issuesMust not contain self-praise
TeachingAcademic engagementsBuilds niche visibility

Advertisements by Advocates is Prohibited: What Amounts To “Advertisement”?

Amit Sharma
-
0
Advertisements by Advocates is Prohibited: What Amounts To “Advertisement”?

The legal profession in India, revered for its ethics and decorum, stands on a strict code when it comes to public image and professional self-promotion. The advertisements by advocates is prohibited.

As per Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules, advocates are expressly prohibited from advertising their services in any manner that goes against the dignity of the profession. Yet, in the digital age, where lines blur between personal branding and promotion, the boundaries are often tested — sometimes unintentionally.

What Exactly Is Considered “Advertisement” by Advocates?

Extensive research and legal precedent identify the following activities as violative of the advertising prohibition imposed on advocates in India:

1. Soliciting Clients through Paid Promotions

  • Using Google Ads, Facebook Ads, Instagram promotions, or LinkedIn-sponsored posts to directly attract legal clients.
  • Sponsored posts claiming “best criminal lawyer in Delhi” or “Top 10 divorce lawyers in India.”

2. Boastful Claims on Websites

  • Personal or firm websites that list exaggerated or unverifiable claims like “100% success rate,” “most reputed,” or “number one advocate.”
  • Publishing client testimonials or success stories with identifiable details to build a reputation.

3. Distribution of Flyers, Pamphlets, and Banners

  • Physical advertising materials in public spaces like metro stations, bus stops, or newspapers.
  • Hoardings displaying names and specialization of advocates with a view to attract clientele.

4. Listings on Commercial Legal Portals with Promotional Language

  • Paid listings on platforms like JustDial, Sulekha, or IndiaMART that highlight credentials, achievements, or guarantee results.
  • Use of tags like “highly rated,” “fastest relief,” or “award-winning” in directories.

5. Appearances in Advertorials or Media Interviews with a Promotional Tone

  • Giving interviews to media platforms where advocates use the opportunity to solicit clients indirectly.
  • Featuring in “Top 10 Law Firms of India” editorials that are paid inclusions.

6. Publishing Success Stories on Social Media

  • Posts on Facebook, Twitter (X), or Instagram detailing high-profile cases, bail orders secured, or verdicts won, especially if names of clients or case details are shared.
  • Using social media handles like “@BestLawyerInIndia” or bios like “India’s #1 Legal Expert.”

7. Branded YouTube Channels & Legal Blogs for Client Acquisition

  • Videos titled “Get Bail in 24 Hours – Guaranteed” or “How to Win a Property Dispute – Lawyer Secrets Revealed.”
  • Content that encourages viewers to reach out for personal legal advice with contact numbers and consultation offers.

8. Cold Calling or Email Marketing

  • Unsolicited calls or emails offering legal services, discounts on consultation, or legal plans.
  • WhatsApp forwards or bulk messages promoting law services.

What Is Permissible?

The BCI has made a slight exception in the digital realm. Advocates may publish limited information on their own websites, including:

  • Name, enrollment number, and contact details.
  • Areas of practice, academic qualifications, and professional experience.
  • However, such listings must not be boastful or promotional in tone.

Advocates can also be listed in online legal directories in a non-solicitational manner — without client reviews, advertisements, or rankings.

Legal Consequences of Violation

Advocates found guilty of advertising may face:

  • Disciplinary action by the State Bar Council.
  • Suspension or disbarment under the Advocates Act, 1961.
  • Striking down of their digital content and injunctions against such activity.

In Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2018), the Supreme Court reiterated that Indian lawyers are prohibited from advertising or soliciting work, even as foreign law firms face scrutiny for indirect promotional practices.

Conclusion

As legal practice evolves amidst modern communication methods, so too must the understanding of professional boundaries. The line between informative presence and unethical advertisement is thin — and advocates must tread with extreme caution. While building an online presence for visibility is increasingly essential, doing so within the confines of the law remains non-negotiable for India’s legal professionals.

123...415Page 1 of 415
© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv