Soon after graduation, it is practically impossible for any law graduate to have their own independent practice and earn on their own without any support from a senior or a mentor. However, as per the Advocates Act, 1961, an advocate is not supposed to be associated with any office for monetary benefit as the sole purpose of advocacy is to serve the society, irrespective of whether the budding advocate dies of hunger.

Keeping the spirit high of the Act, 1961, the Madras High Court in Farida Begam v The Puducherry Government and Others held that a senior advocate must provide a minimum salary of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- to support advocates. On the contrary, after a month of this judgment, the Madras High Court in P. N. Vignesh v. The Chairman and Members of the Bar Council and Ors. came up with another astounding judgment, where Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, was drawn into the argument and interpreted on the lines that legal professionals must not be treated as businesses, and emphasised the nobility and service-oriented nature of the profession, as also it is contrary to the ethics, morality, and essence of advocacy. Additionally, in this judgment, the court mandated that online service providers like Quikr, Sulekha, and JustDial cease their operations of soliciting legal work and advertising legal services. These platforms were found to violate Rule 36 of Rules, 1975, which prohibits advocates from advertising their services.

Following this, the Bar Council of India (BCI) on July 7 sent a ‘cease and desist’ notice to all online platforms where an advocate had the option to advertise their credentials so that potential clients could easily reach out.

But the contrary view was taken as the lawyers are doing business and it is a noble profession where one is not allowed to reach out to people regarding his/her/their work. At a time when the world is moving on digital technology, it seems like it is nothing but a step back from the development and well-being of the advocates.

As mentioned in several judicial pronouncements the purpose of the advocacy is to serve society and accordingly, the aim behind giving a platform to advocates is to basically make the people at large aware so that those who are in need can seek legal assistance easily rather than running from pillar to post. Not all advocates can afford to have their own website and make it as per the requirements of the Act, 1961 and the Rules, 1975.

An amendment in 2008 allows lawyers to display basic information such as their name, contact information, qualifications, and email address on their websites, provided it includes a disclaimer stating that the information is accurate. If a lawyer provides additional information beyond what is permitted, they may be held accountable under Section 35 of the Act, 1961, and face disciplinary action for professional misconduct. It is pertinent to note here that the advocates who are seeking help from online platforms are required to put the relevant information, as mentioned above and even if it is not their personal website, the act is bona fide to maintain the integrity and nobility of the legal profession.

However, by overlooking the 2008 Amendment and with the stringent and regressive provisions for advocates, it is unreasonable and arbitrary to restrict advocates from exercising their right to the profession under Article 19 (1) and their right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Courts have had differing opinions on advertising by lawyers. Some have gone into what can and cannot constitute advertising while others have relied on the concept of 'commercial speech'.

In the case of Tata Yellow Pages v. MTNL, the Supreme Court held that commercial speech forms a part of freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Advertising is also a form of commercial speech, where a seller proposes to sell his goods to the consumer, motivated by commercial interest. Article 19(2) of the Constitution can curtail the said right if the commercial speech is deceptive, unfair, misleading and untruthful.

It is evident that the above judgement raises concerns on the validity of Rule 36 of the Rules, 1975 and challenges the following provision indirectly, as it is contrary to Article 19(1)(g) which guarantees the freedom to carry on trade, profession or business as well it deprives the Advocates of the right to advertise their services.

Another important question is whether the legal profession falls within the ambit of a business. The Supreme Court in S. Mohan Lal v. R. Kondiah observed that the term "business" is capable of a variety of meanings. In a broad sense, it means "everything that occupies the time, attention, and labour of men, for the purpose of livelihood or profit". Therefore, the practice of law was held to be a business within the meaning of the expression employed in Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

Based on this judgment, it can be concluded that practising law can be compared to a business, and as businesses frequently use commercial speech to communicate their products/services to consumers, advocates should also be allowed a similar right. However, the Supreme Court cautioned that the meaning of words and expressions must take their colour from the context in which they occur, implying that the profession of law may not always be a business if the context expressly provides against it.

Recently, amid the Covid-19 pandemic, a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the restriction on advertising by advocates due to the increasing difficulty in garnering work. The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Bar Council of India to respond to the petition, but no further development has been made in this matter to date.

The legal profession in India is grappling with challenges posed by modern technological advancements and the need to adhere to traditional ethical standards. The recent rulings and actions by the BCI reflect an attempt to preserve the nobility and service-oriented nature of the profession. However, these measures have also raised concerns about the rights of advocates to practice and earn a livelihood in a digital age.

Where recently, the criminal laws in India saw a partial overhaul under the garb of colonial laws, similarly, it is important to bring the important amendments in the Act, 1961 and the Rule, 1975 considering the needs and requirements of the present era and generation. Balancing the ethics of the profession with the practical realities of today's world remains a critical issue that requires continuous deliberation and thoughtful regulation.

Sanya Singh is a practising lawyer based out in New Delhi. She pursued a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from NUSRL, Ranchi and holds a keen interest in civil and commercial litigation. The views expressed are personal