Delhi HC examines statutory boundaries between legal profession & representation rights granted to CA, CS, CMA professionals

Bar Council of India Vs UOI (Delhi High Court)

Delhi High Court examines the statutory boundaries between the legal profession and representation rights granted to CA, CS, CMA professionals

Summary: The Delhi High Court, in a hybrid hearing concerning the Bar Council of India (BCI), directed Mr. Srimanto Sen, Principal Secretary, BCI, to file an affidavit affirming the additional written submissions dated 4 August 2026 and confirming whether BCI still presses its prayer in W.P.(C) 2360/2005 seeking to prohibit persons other than Advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 from appearing before the concerned respondents and carrying out the profession of law. The Court also considered submissions concerning the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) and noted that Form-D, the application for issue, renewal or restoration of a Certificate of Practice of Company Secretaries, contains 26 areas of practice, including several areas of law. ICSI was directed to place on record a chart showing the number of Company Secretaries presently practising in those areas. The Court further directed ICSI to file an affidavit stating the source of its power to prescribe the 26 areas in Form-D and to pass the Resolution dated 14 October 2022 concerning services rendered by Company Secretaries in practice under Section 2(2)(f) of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 and Regulation 168 of the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982. Further arguments were listed for 23 September 2026 at 2:30 PM.

The controversy

The Delhi High Court is considering an important and long-pending professional dispute concerning whether persons who are not enrolled as advocates—including Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries and Cost Accountants—can appear and represent parties before tribunals and other statutory authorities.

The proceedings arise principally from W.P.(C) 2360/2005 filed by the Bar Council of India. The matter is being heard with connected petitions, including W.P.(C) 4003/2017 filed by the Association of Tax Lawyers and W.P.(C) 541/2020.

The controversy lies at the intersection of two sets of statutory provisions:

1. The Advocates Act, 1961 recognises advocates as the class of persons entitled to practise law; and
2. Several special enactments expressly permit Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, Cost Accountants and other authorised representatives to appear before particular statutory authorities and tribunals.

The High Court has not yet delivered its final judgment. Its order dated 5 August 2026 seeks further affidavits, statutory explanations and factual information before the Court proceeds with the remaining arguments.

BCI’s original prayer

During the hearing, counsel for the Bar Council of India handed over additional written submissions dated 4 August 2026. These submissions were stated to have been filed on instructions received from Mr. Srimanto Sen, Principal Secretary of the BCI.

The Court directed Mr. Sen to file an affidavit affirming the contents of those additional submissions.

More significantly, the Court directed him to state whether the BCI still presses its original prayer in W.P.(C) 2360/2005, which seeks:

“A Writ of Prohibition or an order or direction in the nature of Prohibition thereby prohibiting the Respondents from permitting persons other than Advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 from appearing before the Respondents 3 & 4 and carrying out the profession of law.”

The direction is important because the Court wants an authorised officer of the BCI to clarify on affidavit whether, after more than two decades of litigation and subsequent statutory developments, the BCI continues to seek the prohibition in the terms originally framed.

Provisions of the Advocates Act relied upon

The BCI’s position rests principally upon Sections 29, 30 and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Section 29 declares that, subject to the Act and the rules made thereunder, there shall be only one recognised class of persons entitled to practise the profession of law—advocates.

Section 30 grants an advocate whose name is entered in a State roll the right to practise throughout India:

• in all courts, including the Supreme Court;
• before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence; and
• before any other authority or person before whom the advocate is entitled to practise under any law.

Section 33 provides that, except as otherwise provided under the Advocates Act or any other law in force, no person shall be entitled to practise before any court or authority unless enrolled as an advocate.

The words “except as otherwise provided…in any other law for the time being in force” are likely to be crucial. They expressly contemplate that another statute may create an exception and authorise persons other than advocates to appear before a particular authority or tribunal.

Special statutes permitting representation by other professionals

Several central enactments permit representation by persons who are not necessarily advocates.

Section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Section 288 permits an assessee to appear through an authorised representative before an income-tax authority or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, except where the assessee is required to attend personally for examination on oath or affirmation.

The expression “authorised representative” includes, among others:

• a legal practitioner;
• an accountant;
• a person who has passed a recognised accountancy examination; and
• persons possessing prescribed educational qualifications.

Thus, the right of an accountant to represent an assessee before income-tax authorities and the ITAT flows directly from an Act of Parliament and not merely from an administrative instruction or a rule framed by a professional institute. The provision can be accessed on the Income Tax Department’s official website.

Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013

Section 432 expressly permits a party to a proceeding or appeal before the NCLT or NCLAT to appear personally or authorise one or more of the following professionals to present the party’s case:

• Chartered Accountants;
• Company Secretaries;
• Cost Accountants;
• legal practitioners; or
• any other person.

The constitutional and statutory validity and scope of this provision form part of the broader controversy in the connected proceedings. The provision is contained in the Companies Act, 2013.

Similar authorised-representation provisions can also be found in taxation and regulatory enactments, including Section 116 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 146A of the Customs Act, 1962.

The essential question is whether these special provisions constitute valid statutory exceptions recognised by Section 33 of the Advocates Act or whether some of the activities undertaken pursuant to them cross the permissible boundary and become the exclusive practice of law.

High Court examines the areas of practice claimed by Company Secretaries

Counsel appearing for the Institute of Company Secretaries of India and the Institute of Cost Accountants of India made their submissions before the Court.

During the hearing, the Court examined “Form-D,” the application prescribed for the issue, renewal or restoration of a Certificate of Practice for Company Secretaries. The Court noticed that Form-D mentions 26 different “Areas of Practice,” several of which concern different areas of law.

The ICSI has consequently been directed to place on record a chart specifying the number of Company Secretaries presently practising in each of the 26 areas mentioned in Form-D.

The direction appears intended to enable the Court to ascertain the actual extent and nature of the professional activities being undertaken by practising Company Secretaries, rather than deciding the controversy only on abstract descriptions contained in forms or resolutions.

ICSI directed to disclose the source of its authority

The Court also considered an ICSI resolution titled:

“Services to be rendered by Company Secretary in Practice pursuant to the decision of the Council of the Institute under Section 2(2)(f) of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980, read with Regulation 168 of the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982.”

Under the framework referred to in the resolution, Company Secretaries have been permitted to practise in several areas listed from A to X.

The High Court has directed the ICSI to file an affidavit explaining:

1. the source of its power to prescribe the 26 areas of practice appearing in Form-D; and
2. the statutory authority under which the ICSI Council passed the resolution dated 14 October 2022.

This direction draws an important distinction between two kinds of professional authority:

• a right of representation expressly conferred by Parliament through an enactment such as Section 432 of the Companies Act; and
• additional areas of practice stipulated by a professional institute through its forms, regulations or council resolutions.

While a statutory right expressly created by Parliament stands on a strong and distinct footing, an institute prescribing additional professional activities must demonstrate that those activities fall within the powers conferred upon it by its parent enactment.

Key questions before the High Court

The connected proceedings raise several interrelated questions:

1. Whether appearing and pleading before every judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal necessarily constitutes the practice of law exclusively reserved for advocates.
2. Whether Sections 288 of the Income-tax Act, 432 of the Companies Act and similar provisions constitute valid exceptions expressly recognised by Section 33 of the Advocates Act.
3. Whether there is a legal distinction between professional advice, compliance work, authorised representation and the regular conduct of adversarial litigation.
4. Whether a professional institute can, through regulations, prescribed forms or council resolutions, expand the areas in which its members may practise.
5. Whether such areas of practice are sufficiently authorised by the parent professional enactment.
6. Whether any distinction must be drawn between appearing before an administrative authority and pleading before a tribunal performing judicial functions.
7. Whether a general prohibition sought under the Advocates Act can override specific representation rights conferred by subsequent or special parliamentary enactments.

The principle that a special enactment may operate as an exception to a general enactment is likely to have considerable relevance. Equally important is the express saving contained in Section 33 of the Advocates Act for appearances permitted by “any other law.”

What the order does not decide

The order dated 5 August 2026 is procedural and interlocutory. It does not finally hold that Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries or Cost Accountants are prohibited from appearing before any tribunal or statutory authority.

The Court has also not declared Section 288 of the Income-tax Act, Section 432 of the Companies Act or any comparable authorised-representation provision unconstitutional or invalid.

Nor has the Court stayed the operation of those provisions.

Therefore, reports suggesting that the Delhi High Court has already barred CAs, CSs or CMAs from appearing before tribunals would be incorrect and premature. The statutory rights presently available under the respective enactments continue to operate, subject to the final decision in these proceedings and the applicable rules of the particular forum.

Why the case is professionally significant

The eventual judgment may have far-reaching implications for advocates, Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, Cost Accountants, tax practitioners and parties appearing before specialised tribunals.

Modern regulatory adjudication frequently requires a combination of legal interpretation and specialised knowledge of accounting, taxation, corporate compliance, securities regulation, insolvency and cost records. Parliament has therefore expressly allowed specialised professionals to represent parties before several authorities and tribunals.

At the same time, the Advocates Act protects the regulated practice of law and ensures that persons conducting legal proceedings remain subject to prescribed professional qualifications and disciplinary standards.

The task before the High Court is consequently not merely to resolve a conflict between professional bodies. It is to harmonise the Advocates Act with special statutory provisions enacted by Parliament and to determine the lawful boundary between specialised professional representation and the exclusive practice of law.

Present status

The Court has directed:

• the Principal Secretary of the BCI to affirm the additional written submissions by affidavit;
• the BCI to clarify whether it still presses its original prayer seeking prohibition against persons other than enrolled advocates;
• the ICSI to disclose the number of practising Company Secretaries working in each of the 26 areas mentioned in Form-D; and
• the ICSI to explain by affidavit the statutory source of its authority to prescribe those areas and pass its resolution dated 14 October 2022.

The connected matters have been listed for further arguments on 23 September 2026 at 2:30 p.m.

Until a final judgment is pronounced, the controversy remains pending, and no conclusion should be drawn that the Delhi High Court has already curtailed the statutory representation rights of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries or Cost Accountants.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. At the outset, Mr. Preet Pal Singh, ld. Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India (BCI) has handed over additional written submissions on behalf of the BCI dated 4^th August, 2026, which according to him, has been submitted on the basis of instructions received from Mr. Srimanto Sen, Principal Secretary, BCI.

3. Let an affidavit be filed by Mr. Srimanto Sen, Principal Secretary, BCI, affirming the contents of the additional written submissions filed today on behalf of the BCI.

4. In addition, in the said affidavit, Mr. Sen shall also confirm whether the BCI still presses upon its prayer in W.P.(C) 2360/2005, which reads as under:

“(i) issue a Writ ofProhibition or an order or direction in the nature of Prohibition thereby prohibiting the Respondents from permitting persons other than Advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 from appearing before the Respondents 3 & 4 and carrying out the profession of law;”

5. Mr. Sangram Patnaik, ld. Counsel appearing for the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) and Mr. Chaturvedi, ld. Counsel for Institute of Cost Accountants in India, have made their submissions today.

6. During the course of submissions, the Court has noticed that in ‘Form– D’, i.e. the Application Form for the issue/renewal/restoration of Certificate of Practice of Company Secretaries, there are a total of 26 areas under the head ‘Areas of Practice’ which include several areas of law under which the Company Secretaries can be issued Certificates of Practice.

7. In this regard, let the ICSI place on record a chart giving the number of Company Secretaries, who are presently practicing in these various areas of practice, as contained in Form– D.

8. In addition, a Resolution has also been placed on record on behalf of ICSI bearing the title “Services to be rendered by Company Secretary in Practice pursuant to the decision of the Council of the Institute under Section 2(2)(f) of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980, read with Regulation 168 of the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982”.

9. Under the said Regulations, the Council permits Company Secretaries to practice in various areas, which have been enlisted from A to X.

10. In regard to the 26 areas under the head ‘Areas of Practice’ enlisted in FORM–D, as also the areas of practice permitted under the Regulations stated above, the ICSI shall file an affidavit giving the source of its power to stipulate such areas of practice and pass the resolution dated 14^th October, 2022.

11. List for further arguments on 23^rd September, 2026 at 2:30 PM.