AP High Court Ruling On Lawyer Immunity Sparks Debate Among Mumbai Activists
On July 14, 2026, a recent ruling by the Andhra Pradesh High Court exempting advocates from consumer court complaints triggered mixed reactions among lawyers and consumer rights activists in Mumbai. The High Court held that complaints alleging deficiency in legal services rendered by advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The court observed that the advocate-client relationship is one of "personal service", which is expressly excluded from the Act’s definition of "service".
Reacting to the ruling, Advocate Shirish Deshpande, Chairman of the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP), said the High Court merely followed the binding precedent of the Supreme Court and its judgment cannot be faulted. However, Deshpande stated that the MGP has serious reservations about the Supreme Court’s interpretation. He questioned why legal services deserve an exemption when doctors' services are covered under the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that the reasoning creates an unjustified distinction. Deshpande added that the MGP has already urged the Central government to amend the Consumer Protection Act to explicitly include both medical and legal services.
Offering a different perspective, Advocate Anand Patwardhan, former president of the Consumer Court Advocates Association, said the issue revolves around the unique role advocates play in the administration of justice. Patwardhan noted that while a lawyer provides professional advice and representation for consideration, an advocate's foremost duty is towards the justice delivery system and the court. He stated that courts have consistently recognised advocates as officers of the court, and the immunity recognised under consumer law stems from this distinct professional responsibility.
Meanwhile, Mumbai-based consumer activist Kamalakar Shenoy opposed the blanket exclusion for all advocates. Shenoy argued that every professional must be accountable for the work they undertake, stating that if an advocate accepts legal fees but fails to make reasonable efforts to conduct a case, the fees and services should be open to scrutiny. He maintained that advocates who commit serious lapses or fail to exercise due care should be held accountable.
