Advocates Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act

Why in news?

• The Supreme Court held that advocates cannot be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019) for deficiency of services.

Supreme Court judgment

• The court was hearing an appeal against a 2007ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), and overturned the commission’s ruling.
• The NCDRC had held that services provided by lawyers fell underSection 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
• In its judgment, the court said legal representation for a fee couldn’t be classified as a service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 
• It noted that lawyers provided a unique service, and that there was no indication that the legislature intended to include professionals under the Act.

Doctors in consumer law

• In1995, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. VP Shantna ruled that doctors would be covered under the consumer protection law.
• The Supreme Court also called for reconsidering this judgment that brought doctors under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019

• Definition of consumer: A consumer is defined as a person who buys any good or avails a service for a consideration.  It does not include a person who obtains a good for resale or a good or service for commercial purpose.
  • It covers transactions through all modes including offline, and online through electronic means, teleshopping, multi-level marketing or direct selling.
• Rights of consumers: Six consumer rights have been defined in the Bill, including the right to;
  • Be protected against marketing of goods and service which are hazardous to life and property;
  • Be informed of the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services;
  • Be assured of access to a variety of goods or services at competitive prices;
  • Be heard and assured that the consumer’s interest will receive due consideration at appropriate fora;
  • Seek redressal against unfair or restrictive trade practices;
  • Consumer awareness.
• Central Consumer Protection Authority:It will regulate matters related to violation of consumer rights, unfair trade practices, and misleading advertisements.
• Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission:Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (CDRCs) will be set up at the district, state, and national levels.
• Product liability:Product liability means the liability of a product manufacturer, service provider or seller to compensate a consumer for any harm or injury caused by a defective good or deficient service.

Way Ahead

• The relationship between a client and their lawyer is akin to a contract of personal service. Consequently, lawyers cannot be dragged to consumer courts over alleged deficiencies in service.
• However, they can still be sued in ordinary courts for negligence and other malpractice.

Legal Position on live-in Relationships in India

Why in news?

• The Allahabad High Court stated that a Muslim cannot claim rights in a live-in relationship when he or she has a living spouse. 

About

• The judgement called such a relationship against the tenets of Islam while hearing a writ petition. 
• Live-in relationships with variables of marital status of the partners, their possibly different faiths, birth of children and even separation have occupied the attention of the judiciary at various levels in recent years.

Legal Status in India

• India does not have any laws that directly address a live-in partnership.
• As per the top Court, for a man and a woman to live together is part of ‘the right to life’; therefore, a live-in relationship is no longer an offence.
• The concept of live-in relationships waslegally recognized for the first time in 2010 while discussing the safety of women and said that women who were in live-in relationships are protected under the domestic violence law.
• Twelve years later, the Supreme Court strengthened the legitimacy of live-in partnerships by recognizing that children born out of such situationsare entitled to rights under a co-parenting agreement and have a right to inherit property.
• The Supreme Court in its various judgments has stated that a man and a woman living like a husband and a wife in a long-term relationship, and even have children, the judiciary will presume that the two were married and that the same laws would be applicable to them and their relationship. 

Arguments in Favour of Live-In Relationships

• Changing Social Norms:Indian society is experiencing significant cultural shifts, Live-in relationships are seen as a reflection of this changing mindset, allowing individuals to explore alternative forms of partnership.
• Compatibility Testing:In a country where arranged marriages are still prevalent, live-in relationships offer a way for couples to get to know each other on a deeper level before making a lifelong commitment.
• Financial Independence:Living together provides financial independence and allows couples to share living expenses, which can be particularly advantageous in expensive cities.
• Reduced Stigma:While live-in relationships may still face stigma in certain conservative segments of Indian society, attitudes are gradually evolving, especially in urban areas.
• Legal Recognition and Protection:The Indian legal system has begun to acknowledge the rights of couples in live-in relationships through various judgments by the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Personal Freedom and Choice:Ultimately, live-in relationships in India represent a broader movement towards individual freedom and choice in matters of love and relationships.

Arguments Against Live-In Relationships

• Social Stigma:Live-in relationships are often viewed negatively in Indian society, particularly in more conservative communities.
  • Couples face judgment, criticism, and ostracism from family members, friends, and the broader community.
• Cultural and Religious Beliefs:India is a country with diverse cultural and religious traditions, many of which emphasize the sanctity of marriage and family.
  • Live-in relationships are seen as contrary to these beliefs and perceived as morally and socially unacceptable.
• Family Pressure:Live-in relationships may strain familial relationships and lead to conflict with parents who may not approve of the arrangement.
• Legal Ambiguity:Despite some legal recognition of live-in relationships by the Indian judiciary, there is still ambiguity and uncertainty regarding the legal rights and protections of couples in such arrangements.
• Lack of Financial Dependence:Women may feel pressured to enter into marriage rather than pursue a live-in relationship as marriage is seen as providing more financial security and stability.
• Impact on Children: If children are involved in a live-in relationship, they may face social stigma and discrimination, particularly in more conservative communities.
• Lack of Social Support: Unlike marriage, which is socially sanctioned and supported, couples in live-in relationships lack the same level of social support and acceptance.
  • This led to feelings of isolation and alienation, especially during times of crisis or need.
• Influence of Media and Westernization:While attitudes towards live-in relationships may be changing, particularly in urban areas, there is concern that the increasing influence of Western media and culture is eroding traditional values and norms regarding marriage and relationships.
• Potential for Exploitation and Abuse:In the absence of legal protections and societal recognition, individuals in live-in relationships may be vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, and coercion, particularly if there is a significant power imbalance between partners.

Way Ahead

• Positive and realistic portrayal of live-in relationships in media and popular culture can help normalize these relationships and reduce stigma.
• Family acceptance plays a crucial role in the success of live-in relationships, particularly in the Indian context where familial ties hold significant importance.
• Encouraging open dialogue and understanding within families can facilitate acceptance of diverse relationship choices.
• Ultimately, the way forward for live-in relationships in India lies in upholding the principles of personal choice and freedom.
• Individuals should have the right to choose their relationship dynamics without fear of societal judgment or legal repercussions.