Problem of Moot Court Competition

City Academy Law College 2^nd Intra Moot Court, 2017

Moot Proposition

Heeramall and Associates, a leading law firm well known for its commitment, to offer free legal service for the needy and deprived people, launched a website. It was claimed that the primary objective of launching this website was free legal advice. This website contains a statement of the areas that the law firm specializes in along with a list of the branch offices and contact details of these branches. The website also has a list of the important cases, particularly PILs that the firm has conducted successfully. Furthermore, it also cites the name of law firms or the lawyers who have been the opponents of the firm in the above-mentioned cases. The web site highlights that their opponents, in most cases, have been celebrated lawyers and leading law firms of the country.

A law firm, Mathur and Associates whose name appears on the website as one of the opponents who lost the case against Heeramall and Associates, writes to the State Bar Council objecting to the use of its name on Heeramall’s website. They complain that the website has the effect of defaming him and moreover maintaining website amounts to promotion and advertisement which is unethical. The State Bar Council, after considering the compliant, issued a notice to Mr. Heeramall asking him to withdraw his firm’s website failing which disciplinary action may be initiated against him.

Right to Advertise having been a contemporary debatable issue, gradually the matter acquired media importance and became the issue of national importance. Looking at the importance of the matter Bar Council of India (BCI) withdrew the matter from the State Bar Council for speedy disposal. Having considered the complaint bar council of India issued notice to Mr. Heeramall to present his stand to the satisfaction of the disciplinary committee of the BCI, failing which his enrollment was to be cancelled.

Mr. Heeramall filed a reply wherein he contended that maintaining website does not amount to advertisement since the primary purpose is legal aid. He also added that mention of Mathur and associates does not amount to defamation since it is merely a statement of fact. Finding Mr. Heeramall reply unsatisfactory, BCI takes disciplinary action suspending the enrollment of the Mr. Heeramall. BCI also issue a general notice cautioning the lawyers against publishing broachers or maintaining websites.

Mr. Heeramall files an appeal in the Supreme Court in India against BCI’s order. He contends that this decision besides being arbitrary, is also violative of his right under Article 19(1) (a) and (g) of the Constitution of India.

A PIL is also filed by a Consortium of Law Firms, named Advocates of India, in the Supreme Court of India challenging the restrictions imposed by BCI, prohibiting maintenance of websites by these law firms on the following grounds:

1)      The restrictions are unreasonable and arbitrary

2)      Restrictions violate right to equality

3)      Violation of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) which cannot be justified by Article 19(6) since the ban is against public policy i.e. access the information about these firms.

4)      Violation of Right to Liberty

During the admission stage the Consortium clarified their stand that they are challenging the validity of Rule 36 of BCI on standard of Professional Conduct and Etiquette with respect to restriction on advertising and with respect to restrictions on soliciting. The rule in its relevant part states that:

An advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photographs to be published in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned….

They also clarified that the Consortium is not demanding absolute freedom without any supervision whatsoever but seeks the issuance of guidelines under which the websites should be maintained. It is claimed that the law firms should be allowed to maintain the websites at least in a passive form.

The BCI opposed the writ petition on the grounds that there exists an intelligible differentia between the legal profession and other profession which are of commercial nature. They also said that as opined by the Honorable Apex Court in its numerous judgments legal profession is a noble profession and should be free from commercialization and therefore what the present petitioner are seeking is commercialization of the profession against the mandate of these judgments.

The BCI also pleaded that allowing law firms to host a website will amount to discrimination against lawyers having independent practice and will be prejudicial to their interest.

The petition was admitted by the apex court and it was clubbed with the appeal pending before it in the matter of Mr. Heeramall. Nonetheless the Bar Council of India challenged the Locus Standi of The consortium at the hearing stage on the ground that it is not a registered organization. They also stated that there is no actual breach of any right but just an alleged potential breach. Therefore the writ being premature is liable to be dismissed.

Drafted By – Moot Court Committee