Clash of Traditions: High Court Scrutinizes Legal Tech Platforms as Former Justice Questions Supreme Court's Foundational Verdicts

New Delhi – The Indian legal system is currently grappling with two distinct yet profound challenges that strike at the core of its foundational principles: the regulation of technology in legal practice and the enduring legacy of landmark judicial decisions. In Madhya Pradesh, the High Court is examining the legality of online platforms commercializing legal services, a move that could redefine the boundaries of the legal profession. Simultaneously, trenchant criticism from a respected former Chief Justice, Dr. S Muralidhar, has reignited debate over the Supreme Court's handling of the Ayodhya dispute and its subsequent impact on the rule of law.

The Digital Disruption: MP High Court Probes Online Legal Services

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued a notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges the burgeoning industry of online legal service platforms, questioning their compliance with the Advocates Act, 1961. A bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai is presiding over the matter, which alleges that an unnamed entity is engaging in the "commercialization of legal services" through aggressive online advertising, including celebrity-endorsed promotions.

The PIL, filed by a group of practicing lawyers, contends that such platforms violate the sacrosanct professional ethics that prohibit solicitation and advertising. The petitioners argued that the entity in question not only provides legal information but actively solicits clients by offering "fixed-price packages" for various dispute resolution services.

During the hearing on September 11, counsel for the petitioners, Prashant Upadhyay, articulated the multifaceted nature of the alleged violation. "There are three aspects- solicitation is prohibited, legal services by online are prohibited, and advertisement through social media is prohibited," he submitted to the court. The plea highlights that the platform, through major intermediaries like YouTube and Instagram, has been running sponsored advertisements since 2023, effectively treating legal aid as a commercial product.

The case brings to the forefront the inherent conflict between the traditional, non-commercial ethos of the legal profession and the market-driven dynamics of modern legal-tech startups. The respondent entity, according to the petitioners, has attempted to circumvent the Advocates Act by identifying as a company, not a law firm, and claiming it does not directly provide legal services but acts as a facilitator.

This defense, however, is being challenged under Section 29 of the Advocates Act, which unequivocally states: “Advocates to be the only recognised class of persons entitled to practise law... there shall, as from the appointed day, be only one class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law, namely, advocates.”

The bench introduced a contemporary dimension to the debate with an oral observation, inquiring how such platforms differ from advanced AI. "What about ChatGPT or Gemini? They also give advice. You give them a question, it will answer it," the court mused, pointing to the evolving landscape where technology is increasingly capable of dispensing legal information and procedural guidance.

This judicial inquiry signals a critical turning point. The outcome of this case, Prashant Upadhyay v Bar Council of India , could establish a crucial precedent for the regulation of the legal-tech sector in India. The court has issued notices to the Bar Council of India, the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, YouTube, Instagram, and the Union of India, making them key stakeholders in a decision that will shape the future of legal practice in the digital age. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on October 27.

A Critical Retrospective: Dr. S Muralidhar on the Ayodhya Judgment and Judicial Integrity

While one court looks to the future of law, a former judicial luminary is urging a critical look at its past. Dr. S Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, delivered a powerful critique of the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment, raising profound questions about judicial process, secularism, and the court's institutional memory.

Speaking at the AG Noorani Memorial Lecture, Dr. Muralidhar expressed deep disappointment that the Supreme Court bypassed a potential mediated settlement in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute. He revealed that the court-appointed mediation panel had reported a near-successful settlement, with the Sunni Waqf Board agreeing to relinquish its claims under certain conditions.

"There seems to have been a conscious decision not to push this mediation process forward," Dr. Muralidhar opined, contrasting it with the usual judicial practice of encouraging settlements. He questioned the "tearing hurry" to deliver a verdict on the merits, suggesting it was linked to the impending retirement of the then-Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. "This is an issue which was too big to be hurried through," he lamented.

Dr. Muralidhar's analysis delved into what he termed the "astounding" nature of the judgment itself, where he argued there was no "logical outcome" and the conclusions did not align with the findings. He pointed to the unusual "authorless" nature of the main judgment and a controversial anonymous "addendum" that focused on devotee belief, which he said conflicted with the main text.

His critique extended to the Court's perceived failure to uphold its own principles, particularly concerning the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Despite the Ayodhya judgment dedicating significant space to upholding the Act's importance, Dr. Muralidhar noted the Court's subsequent decisions, such as allowing a survey in the Gyanvapi case, have diluted its own precedent.

"What I'm concerned about is sticking to your judgment on the Places of Worship Act," he stated. "You have not stuck to your own order and you allowed it to get diluted. And that has serious repercussions. Today, there are 17 suits all over the country."

Furthermore, Dr. Muralidhar condemned the Supreme Court's handling of the contempt proceedings against former UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh for the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid. The case was closed after three decades with the remark, "What is the point in flogging a dead horse?" Dr. Muralidhar described this as "institutional amnesia, which in my view is unforgivable, of an act which the Supreme Court found was an egregious crime."

Intersecting Crossroads: Law, Technology, and Precedent

These two developments, though seemingly unrelated, converge on a central theme: the Indian judiciary is at a crossroads, forced to reconcile its long-standing principles with the pressures of technological advancement and the weight of its own history.

The PIL in the Madhya Pradesh High Court is not merely about a single company's business model; it is a referendum on whether the regulatory framework of the legal profession, designed in a pre-digital era, can adapt to a world of AI, online aggregators, and social media marketing without compromising its ethical core.

Simultaneously, Dr. Muralidhar's reflections serve as a vital reminder that the strength of the judiciary lies not only in its ability to adapt but also in its consistency, transparency, and unwavering commitment to the principles of justice and the rule of law. His critique suggests that when courts appear to prioritize expediency over process or waver on their own declared principles, it can have far-reaching consequences that erode public trust and legal certainty for years to come.

As the legal community watches these events unfold, it is clear that the outcomes will have a lasting impact. One will determine the rules of engagement for law in the 21st century, while the other will continue to shape the narrative of how India’s highest court navigates its most profound constitutional and social challenges.