Back
Tribunal Turf War: Can CAs and CSs Plead Cases or Is It Advocates Only?
In a high-stakes clash over who gets to argue in India's tribunals, the on , heard fervent submissions from the and the . A of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain delved into whether professionals like Chartered Accountants (CAs), Company Secretaries (CSs), and Cost Accountants—many without an LL.B.—can represent clients before these forums. The court adjourned the matter to March 16, marking it with no further delays allowed.
Roots of the Rift: Petitions Challenging Professional Boundaries
The dispute spans multiple writ petitions, led by , , and . Filed over two decades ago in some cases, they spotlight tensions between the , and provisions like .
The trigger? Tribunals such as the have rules allowing non-advocates to appear, citing the Companies Act. BCI and tax lawyers cry foul, insisting this encroaches on advocates' monopoly. Tragically, petitioner Purav Middha passed away; the court permitted his legal heir, Ashish Middha, to substitute and argue .
Petitioners' Power Play: Advocates Act as the Sole Gatekeeper
Senior Advocate
Rajeev Saxena
, for the
, laid out a robust case. He emphasized
Section 30
of the Advocates Act grants
only enrolled advocates
the right to
"appear before all Courts, Tribunals or any other authority."
bars others from practicing law, with
Section 45
prescribing punishment for violations—even before forums handling evidence.
BCI echoed this, arguing enrollment with a State Bar Council is non-negotiable. As news reports from the hearing noted, they warned that allowing non-advocates dilutes the profession and invites chaos in adjudication.
Counterstrike from Professionals: Companies Act Opens the Door
Representatives for CAs, CSs, and others countered with Section 432 of the Companies Act , alongside tribunal practice directions and rules. They contended these explicitly permit qualified professionals to represent clients, carving out exceptions to the Advocates Act for specialized forums like corporate tribunals. This stance, highlighted in courtroom exchanges and external coverage, frames the battle as one of statutory harmony versus advocate exclusivity.
Decoding the Debate: No Ruling Yet, But Stakes Are Sky-High
The Bench meticulously noted both sides without tipping its hand, focusing on constitutional validity challenges. No precedents were directly cited in this oral order, but underlying tensions reference broader conflicts—like past Supreme Court nods to advocate exclusivity versus tribunal-specific relaxations. The court clarified procedural hurdles, like substitution for the deceased petitioner, signaling readiness for deep dives ahead.
Key Observations from the judgment underscore the core friction:
"These petitions raise a very important issue as to whether persons who are not enrolled as Advocates can appear before Tribunals and plead cases on behalf of their clients."
"Under the, it is only Advocates who can practice before any Court or Tribunal, or any other authority and enrolment with the State Bar Council is mandatory for the same."
"In terms of, read with relevant Practice Directions and Rules of the Tribunals, such Tribunals permit them to represent their clients."
"Any person who illegally practises in Courts, Tribunals, or other authorities would be punishable under."
Adjournment with a Warning: March Showdown Looms
No final verdict emerged—the hearing was adjourned at counsels' requests for written submissions (due two weeks prior).
"No further adjournment shall be granted,"
the order sternly noted, treating matters as
.
Implications? Victory for BCI could bar thousands of professionals from tribunals, funneling work to advocates and reshaping corporate litigation. A win for opponents might affirm specialized representation, easing access in niche areas. As external reports affirm, this could redefine "practice of law" nationwide, with eyes on .
