---

---

Three lawyers have filed a public interest petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging a wave of online advertisements and celebrity endorsements marketing legal services as pre-packaged, e-commerce offerings. The issue centers on sponsored ads—primarily on YouTube—featuring a prominent actor in judicial garb urging viewers to buy “the best online legal services” through fixed-price deals, a move the petitioners say jeopardizes the dignity of India’s legal profession.

Following the appearance of these ads, a cease-and-desist notice was sent to YouTube on January 10, 2025. In its February 21 reply, the platform denied the applicability of the Advocates Act to such advertisements. When neither the Bar Council of India (BCI) nor the State Bar Council acted on subsequent complaints, the lawyers brought the matter to court.

The plea, filed by Advocates Prashant Upadhyay, Harsh Kushwaha, and Prashant Yadav, argues that digital marketing portraying legal services as set-price products misleads consumers and undermines core ethical standards. Specifically, the plea accuses such conduct of violating Rules 36 and 37 of the BCI Rules, which strictly prohibit advertising, solicitation, and commercial promotion by practicing lawyers.

“The commercialisation of the profession and reduction of advocacy to a mere e-commerce product,” the petitioners wrote, “directly contravenes the sanctity of legal practice.”

Among the remedies sought, the lawyers urge the court to order:

• Immediate removal of all sponsored legal ads, promotional videos, and reels from platforms like YouTube and Instagram.
• Directions to regulatory bodies—the BCI, State Bar Council, and relevant Union ministries—to strictly monitor and prevent similar advertising in the future.
• Specific accountability for platforms hosting and profiting from such content, citing the landmark 2024 Madras High Court decision in PN Vignesh v. Bar Council of India, which refused blanket safe-harbour protections for intermediaries promoting illegal content.
• Deposit of all illicit revenue obtained from these marketing campaigns into the Advocates’ Welfare Fund.

The case is expected to set critical precedents regarding the digital boundaries of legal advertising and the responsibility of online intermediaries when professional norms are at stake. With regulation of legal practice in the digital space now in sharp focus, the High Court’s intervention may have ripple effects on how the legal sector is marketed nationwide.