MP High Court Issues Notice On PIL Alleging Commercialization Of Legal Services By Use Of Celebrity Promotion, Online Ads

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Thursday (September 11), issued notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a group of lawyers challenging the alleged commercialization of legal services by an entity through sponsored online advertisements and celebrity-led promotions.

The bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai issued notice to the respondents which includes the Bar Council of India, State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, YouTube, Instagram and Union of India. 

The plea alleged that a platform was selling fixed-price packages through sponsored videos and social media posts promoted by well-known film personalities portraying figures associated with the justice system. It was further claimed that these advertisements are allegedly accessed in Indore and disseminated through two major social media intermediaries.

During the hearing today, the counsel for the petitioners argued that several online platforms had emerged that were imparting legal services to clients, while simultaneously soliciting work and commercializing the platform. 

The counsel said that the respondent platform not only provided legal information on its website but also has a platform to solicit clients and has offered legal services in the form of different dispute resolutions.

He submitted that the entity referred matters to advocates and advertised its services through YouTube and Meta, adding that records show that such advertising had been running since 2023. The counsel further stated that he had issued a cease-and-desist notice to stop such advertisements through featuring celebrities.

At this stage the court orally inquired whether only advertisements were prohibited. 

To which the petitioner's counsel said, "There are three aspects- solicitation is prohibited, legal services by online are prohibited, and advertisement through social media is prohibited". 

When the court asked if there was any provision of registration of such platforms with Bar Council of India, the counsel said that the entity is not a law firm as per its own reply. The counsel said that the entity had said that it is not giving legal services as it is a company and are not covered by Advocates Act. 

The bench also orally said, "What about ChatGPT or Gemini? They also give advice. You give them a question, it will answer it- if that is a legal provision, and you will have to follow this procedure," the court orally asked. 

The petitioners, however, emphasized that section 29 of the Advocates Act clearly stipulated that only enrolled advocates were authorised to practice in India.

Section 29 of the Advocates Act stipulates, "Advocates to be the only recognised class of persons entitled to practise law.―Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder, there shall, as from the appointed day, be only one class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law, namely, advocates". 

The matter is next listed on October 27.

Case Title: Prashant Upadhyay v Bar Council of India (WP - 33776/2025 (O)

For Petitioner: Advocates Prashant Upadhyay, Harsh Kushwaha and Prashant Yadav 

For State Bar Council: Khiladi Lal Gangore