How Is PIL Maintainable? MP High Court Remarks On Plea Against Legal Service Entity Using Celebrity Promotion, Online Ads

While hearing a PIL filed by certain lawyers challenging the alleged commercialization of legal services by an entity through sponsored online advertisements and celebrity-led promotions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (September 2) orally asked the petitioners as to how a PIL was maintainable. 

During the hearing, a division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi orally questioned the petitioner's counsel regarding the nature of the case and how such an issue could fall within the ambit of a PIL.

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

The petitioner's counsel said that there were comments on the video which was published on YouTube by the entity. 

The court said, "We don't go by the comments...You know YouTube, Instagram they are only platforms...This...online legal India is concerned we do not find anything objectionable. They are saying only to get the trademark registered...whether it amounts to violation of the advocate's act? None of the advocates, law firm nothing is there".

To this the petitioner's counsel said,"Here they are selling packages, Services. They are promising that they will have experts employed in the cases and they will even have redressal of the cases before the court. That is what they are claiming on their website...as well as on the videos endorsed by the Celebrities...".

At this stage the court orally asked as to how was the present matter a public interest litigation. 

"You may have personal, some case....But how will it be a PIL?" the court asked. 

The counsel submitted that the video and ads in question amounted to commercialization of the legal profession. 

The court at this stage said, "Before entering into the merits, you have to satisfy how it is public interest. First video shows that he is appearing to get trademark registration. All types of registration".

The petitioner's counsel argued that the entity's website depicts that they would not only be doing trademark registration but will also be filing opposition, which the counsel said is a lawyer's job. 

The counsel said that the petitioner had approached the concerned authorities wherein a reply was filed as per which entity said that they would not be covered under Advocates Act as they were not advocates.  

"We are not commenting on...But I think PIL is not a forum to decide all this. We don't find that any PIL is involved," the court orally said. 

The counsel said that petitioner made representation to State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India, but they have thus far not taken any action. 

The court asked if the bodies had been impleaded to which the counsel said that they had been added as parties. 

After hearing the matter for some time the court said, "At present we are not issuing any notice nor are we expressing our views. We have our own reservations regarding PIL. Just because you say you have supplied a copy (State Bar Council) a copy, we would like to hear them also". 

The bench in its order dictated:

"Petitioners-in-person submit that one copy of the writ petition has been supplied in the office of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Indore. List the matter in the next week". 

The matter is listed next week. 

Case Title: Prashant Upadhyay v Bar Council of India

(WP - 33776/2025 (O)