Sulekha.com Challenges Madras High Court Order in Supreme Court Over Advocate Listings and Online Platform Restrictions

Case: Sulekha.com New Media Private Limited v. PN Vignesh & Ors.

Sulekha.com has approached the Supreme Court, filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against a Madras High Court ruling that directs Bar Councils to take action against advocates using online platforms to advertise their services, as well as against platforms listing advocate profiles. Sulekha argues that the High Court’s decision could lead to economic inequality within the legal profession by only enabling those with the resources to create and maintain individual websites to have an online presence, thereby disadvantaging those in smaller towns and rural areas.

Represented by Advocate Utkarsh Sharma, Sulekha contends that the High Court’s interpretation threatens to create a division among advocates, as only those who can afford dedicated websites could reach potential clients online. This division, they argue, could lead to regional imbalances, favoring urban-based advocates over their rural counterparts who may lack the resources to create a personalized digital footprint. Further, Sulekha highlights that such limitations on online visibility restrict citizens’ access to reliable legal information, especially in underserved regions.

The Supreme Court Tags Petition With Similar Case

A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti acknowledged the potential relevance of a similar case, Justdial.com v. PN Vignesh & Ors., and tagged Sulekha’s petition with this matter. The Court issued a notice for the case, returnable within four weeks.

Petition Details: Grounds and Arguments by Sulekha.com

1. Barrier to Legal Accessibility
   Sulekha’s petition emphasizes that the High Court’s order, if interpreted broadly, could create economic and social barriers, limiting digital access only to advocates who can afford independent websites. The company claims this could create an uneven playing field, disadvantaging advocates in smaller cities and rural areas, while giving those in major urban centers a significant advantage. This, Sulekha contends, may prevent economically constrained advocates from accessing online platforms that help connect them with potential clients.
2. Ambiguity in High Court’s Ruling
   According to Sulekha, the High Court’s directive to platforms like Sulekha, Google, and LinkedIn to remove content associated with advocates’ advertising was unclear, as it did not specify what constitutes a violation under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules. This rule, which regulates advocate advertising, was amended in 2008 to permit advocates to publish “Permitted Details” online, such as their name, contact information, and areas of expertise. Sulekha argues that without explicit guidance, the directive creates confusion around what information advocates may share without breaching Rule 36.
3. Public Right to Information and Free Speech
   The petition asserts that the High Court’s decision impedes the public’s right to free speech, as reviews and feedback from clients help people seeking legal assistance make informed decisions. According to Sulekha, reviews provided by clients on platforms like theirs are expressions of free speech that are not influenced by the platform itself. Therefore, prohibiting such feedback on digital platforms may infringe on individuals’ rights to express their experiences and opinions about the legal services they received.
4. Comparison to Other Professions
   Sulekha’s petition highlights that similar professional fields, such as medicine, allow practitioners to be listed on platforms where public reviews provide crucial guidance for potential clients. Sulekha contends that listing advocates on platforms in a comparable manner enhances public trust and transparency, enabling informed decisions. Restricting advocates from appearing on such platforms, they argue, places them at a disadvantage compared to other professionals who benefit from online visibility.
5. Verification and Accountability
   Sulekha asserts that their platform has processes in place to verify the credentials of advocates listed, requiring Aadhaar, PAN, and Bar Council ID details from professionals. This verification step, according to Sulekha, introduces accountability and offers a safeguard against non-licensed individuals posing as advocates, thereby ensuring the integrity of information presented to the public.

Legal Background and Case Progression

Sulekha’s petition highlights the historical amendment of Rule 36 by the BCI in 2008, which enabled advocates to provide limited information online. However, the Madras High Court’s recent interpretation has resulted in the issuance of a directive by the BCI calling for the removal of advocate profiles from platforms like Sulekha. Sulekha’s petition stresses that this broad interpretation ignores the rule’s amendment, which aimed to modernize legal practice by allowing limited online presence.

The Need for a Clearer Directive

The petition argues for greater clarity in the application of Rule 36, as the current judgment’s ambiguity has resulted in varying interpretations by digital platforms, advocates, and legal professionals. Sulekha believes a more precise understanding of what constitutes permissible online listings could prevent unfair restrictions on advocates’ digital presence and ensure that the public retains access to essential legal information.

Conclusion: Balancing Digital Presence and Professional Integrity

Sulekha.com’s appeal seeks a balanced approach that respects the integrity of the legal profession while allowing advocates an affordable means to connect with clients online. The petition advocates for a system where advocates can leverage the outreach potential of online platforms without breaching ethical boundaries set by the BCI, ensuring equitable access to legal representation across socio-economic backgrounds.

Case Information

Case No.: SLP (Civil) No. 25794/2024