E-Commerce Site Lawkart Under Fire for Fabricating Endorsements from Supreme Court Judges, Senior Advocates

NEW DELHI – An e-commerce platform named Lawkart.com has ignited a firestorm within the Indian legal community after it was discovered promoting a lawyer's neckband using a series of fabricated five-star reviews attributed to a veritable who's who of the Indian judiciary and bar, including sitting and former Chief Justices of India. The blatant misuse of eminent names to sell a "Premium Cotton" neckband for ₹499 has raised serious questions about unfair trade practices, professional ethics, and the potential for contempt of court.

The deceptive marketing strategy was brought to public attention through a viral LinkedIn post by Pune-based advocate, Ankur Jahagirdar. He pointed out not only the highly inflated price of the neckband—originally listed at ₹1,799 and discounted to ₹499—but also the astonishing list of "reviewers."

"The fun part is the reviews on the neck band that are published on the website," Jahagirdar wrote. "The reviewers? Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Arun Mishra, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Rohinton Nariman etc. It’s basically more or less the same script in all these fake reviews."

Following the public outcry, the website hastily removed the fraudulent endorsements. However, archived versions of the product page reveal the staggering extent of the impersonation.

---

A Hall of Fame of Fabricated Reviews

The list of legal luminaries whose identities were misappropriated is extensive and alarming. It included former Chief Justices of India such as SA Bobde, UU Lalit, and NV Ramana, as well as the current CJI DY Chandrachud. The website also featured fake testimonials from sitting Supreme Court judges like Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, and former judges including Justices RF Nariman, Madan Lokur, and Kurian Joseph.

The audacity did not stop at the judiciary. The "reviewers" section read like a directory of the country's top senior advocates. Former Attorney General KK Venugopal, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and legal stalwarts like Harish Salve, Mukul Rohatgi, Kapil Sibal, and Indira Jaising were all falsely quoted praising the neckband.

Most disturbingly, Lawkart posthumously enlisted deceased legal legends Fali Nariman, Soli Sorabjee, and Ram Jethmalani, with "reviews" dated just a few months prior, long after their passing. This move, in particular, has been condemned as a deeply disrespectful and unethical tactic. The fabricated endorsements even extended beyond the legal sphere, roping in a wide array of political figures from across the party spectrum.

Speaking to Bar & Bench , Advocate Jahagirdar elaborated on his decision to flag the issue. "The exponentially high price of the band and fake reviews posted in the name of Supreme Court judges and deceased eminent personalities like senior advocate Ram Jethmalani made it look like a scam, a bad practice, or a dark pattern being followed by the concerned website," he stated.

After Jahagirdar's post gained traction, the number of reviews on the product page dropped from 268 to 147, with the names of judges and senior advocates conspicuously absent.

---

The Legal Implications: Beyond a Simple Scam

While the incident might appear as a clumsy and audacious marketing ploy, it ventures into serious legal territory, implicating several statutes and legal principles.

1. Unfair Trade Practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The most direct legal violation falls under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Act explicitly defines "unfair trade practice" in Section 2(47) to include any practice that "falsely represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have."

Using fake endorsements from respected figures to imply quality and approval is a textbook case of misleading advertising. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), established under this Act, has the power to investigate and penalize such practices, which can include hefty fines and directives to cease the activity.

2. Contempt of Court and Lowering the Dignity of the Judiciary

The use of names of sitting and former Supreme Court judges is particularly egregious. The judiciary in India maintains a strict and necessary distance from all forms of commercial activity to uphold its impartiality and dignity. Falsely associating judges with the endorsement of a commercial product, however trivial, undermines the authority and sanctity of the judicial office.

This act could potentially be construed as "scandalizing the court," a ground for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It creates a false impression that members of the judiciary are available for commercial endorsements, which could erode public trust in the institution.

3. Misappropriation of Identity and Personality Rights

The incident also highlights the growing issue of personality rights in the digital age. While India does not have a specific statute for personality rights, courts have recognized this right as an extension of the right to privacy and property. It protects an individual's right to control the commercial use of their name, likeness, and other aspects of their identity.

The unauthorized use of the names of dozens of prominent individuals for commercial gain is a clear infringement of these rights. It is a form of identity theft where the goodwill and reputation built by these legal figures over decades are hijacked to sell a product.

---

A "Dark Pattern" in Legal E-commerce

Advocate Jahagirdar's use of the term "dark pattern" is apt. Dark patterns are user interfaces and marketing strategies designed to trick users into doing things they didn't mean to, such as buying a product or signing up for a service. Fabricating social proof—in this case, reviews from trusted authorities—is a classic dark pattern intended to manipulate consumer trust.

This incident serves as a stark warning to the legal community, which is increasingly reliant on online services for everything from legal research to professional attire. It underscores the need for vigilance and skepticism when engaging with e-commerce platforms, especially those that appear to target a niche professional audience.

While Lawkart has since removed the offending reviews, the digital trail remains through archived web pages. The legal community is now watching to see if any of the impersonated individuals will pursue legal action or if regulatory bodies like the CCPA or the Bar Council of India will take cognizance of this flagrant breach of ethics and law. The case of the "judicially-endorsed" neckband may seem absurd on the surface, but it reveals deeper vulnerabilities at the intersection of law, technology, and commerce.