The Delhi High Court is set to examine a significant question impacting the legal and professional landscape across the country — whether individuals who are not enrolled as advocates, including CAs and CSs, can represent clients and plead cases before tribunals and other quasi-judicial authorities.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain was hearing a batch of connected petitions, including one filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) and another by the Association of Tax Lawyers. The petitions challenge the permissibility of non-advocate professionals — such as Chartered Accountants (CAs), Company Secretaries (CSs) and Cost Accountants — appearing before tribunals on behalf of clients.
At the heart of the dispute lies the interpretation of the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly Sections 30, 33 and 45, vis-à-vis Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The petitioners argue that section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 restricts the practice of law before courts, tribunals and authorities exclusively to persons enrolled as advocates. Section 30 grants advocates the right to practise before all courts and tribunals. Section 45 prescribes penalties for unauthorised practice of law.
According to senior counsel appearing for the Association of Tax Lawyers, permitting non-enrolled professionals to conduct proceedings, especially where evidence is recorded, directly conflicts with the statutory scheme of the Advocates Act.
On the other hand, professionals such as Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries rely on Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, which allows authorised representatives — including certain qualified professionals — to appear before tribunals, subject to applicable rules and practice directions.
One of the connected petitions had also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013. The original petitioner in that matter has since passed away, and the Court permitted his legal representative to be impleaded and continue the proceedings.
Senior counsel for the petitioners took the Bench through provisions of The Advocates Act, 1961, The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The submission advanced was that “practice of law” includes not merely drafting or advisory work, but also pleading and conducting evidence — functions which, according to the petitioners, fall exclusively within the domain of enrolled advocates.
The counter-argument, expected to be elaborated in subsequent hearings, is that tribunals are specialised forums and Parliament has consciously permitted subject-matter experts to represent parties in such proceedings.
At the request of counsel, the Bench adjourned the matter to March 16, 2026, directing that any additional written submissions be filed at least two weeks before the next date. The Court clarified that no further adjournments would be granted and that the matter shall be treated as part-heard.
Case Details
Case Title: Bar Council Of India Versus UOI
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2360/2005 & CM APPL. 1735/2005, CM APPL. 3467/2006, CM APPL. 3520/2006
Date: 17/02/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Ashish Middha, Adv.
Counsel For Respondent: Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Adv.
Read More: Right to Videography and Lawyer’s Presence During S. 70 CGST Summons: Bombay HC
