ARTICLE
9 June 2025

Contempt Notices Issued By Allahabad High Court To Online Portals Doing Advertisements & Soliciting For Lawyers

EL
Ethical Legal Consultants

Contributor

We provide best legal solutions in the matters pertaining to Divorce, Family Disputes, RERA Property disputes, Matrimonial, Criminal, Civil, Recovery, consumer disputes and Arbitration. Our top priority is to minimize the legal hassles of our clients in dealing with the court matters.

Our well experienced and dedicated team of lawyers works extensively to provide best in class services and solutions, helping resolve Family disputes and Matrimonial cases like Dowry Demand, Domestic Violence, Maintenance, Divorce, and Child Custody.

Our team is well equipped to handle legal matters pertaining to Anticipatory bail, Criminal Offence charges, Cheque bounce, Arbitration & Reconciliation, Consumer Forum and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, with presence in cities Faridabad, Gurgaon, New Delhi & NCR.

Allahabad High Court on Tuesday issued show cause notices for contempt to online portals carrying out advertisements and soliciting for lawyers, despite explicit directions of the high court vide order...
India Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment

Allahabad High Court on Tuesday issued show cause notices for contempt to online portals carrying out advertisements and soliciting for lawyers, despite explicit directions of the high court vide order dated 12-12-2019 to desist from such activities.

Rule 36 and 37 of the Code of Ethics formulated by the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961, prohibits advertising, touting and solicitation of work by lawyers.
Citing the same, the high court had in a writ petition titled Yash Bharadwaj v. Union of India, issued interim directions restraining online portals like 'myadvo', 'justdial', 'lawrato' etc., from soliciting work on behalf of lawyers. The Petitioner contended that since no rules have been prescribed to regulate the advertisement by the practicing advocates, individual lawyers are taking recourse to advertise themselves which in turn reduces the integrity of the entire community of lawyers in the eyes of the public. He had also submitted that lawyers enlisted with such websites/portals are not their employees because had they been their employees, then they would not have been entitled to practice which is prohibited as per Rule 49 of the Code of Ethics formulated under Section 49 (1) (c) of the Act. Furthermore, even sharing the remuneration or any other similar arrangement is violative of Rule 2 formulated by respondent No.2 under Section 49 (1) (ah) of the Act.

The order passed by the High Court in the month of December 2019 read, "we pass an interim order to the effect that the opposite parties would not indulge in the practices opposed to Rule 2, 36 & 37 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Rule 36 provides for certain restrictions on the Advocates and accordingly whatever restrictions have been imposed therein, would apply on all the opposite parties till further hearing. They are restrained to act in violation of Rules 2, 36 & 37 of Bar Council of India Rules."

During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the Bar Council of India had informed the Court that a five members Committee was constituted to look into the complaints of the Petitioner.

Originally published 5 February 2020

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More