The Delhi High Court has sought further clarity in a long-running legal dispute concerning the extent to which CS, CA, CMA  can undertake activities involving the practice of law, particularly in light of the statutory BCI framework governing advocates and professional bodies. 

A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain passed the order in a batch of connected petitions, including the BCI’s 2005 writ petition, a petition filed by the Association of Tax Lawyers, and proceedings concerning the professional activities of Company Secretaries and Cost Accountants. 

The proceedings arise from a petition filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) seeking to restrain persons other than advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961 from appearing before specified authorities and carrying out the profession of law. 

Buy Now: JurisHour Ultimate Legal Research Combo – 4 Premium E-Magazines at an Unbeatable Price

The BCI placed additional written submissions dated August 4, 2026, before the Court. The submissions were stated to have been filed on the basis of instructions received from Srimanto Sen, Principal Secretary, BCI.

The High Court directed Sen to file an affidavit affirming the contents of the additional written submissions. Significantly, the Court also directed him to confirm whether the BCI continues to press its original prayer in W.P.(C) 2360/2005. 

The original prayer seeks a writ of prohibition or an appropriate direction restraining the respondents from permitting persons other than advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961, from appearing before the concerned respondents and carrying out the profession of law. 

The issue therefore concerns the boundary between the statutory right to practise law vested in advocates and the professional functions that other regulated professionals may undertake when those functions involve legal, regulatory or compliance-related work.

The Court’s attention was particularly drawn to the scope of practice permitted to Company Secretaries.

During submissions, counsel for the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) and the Institute of Cost Accountants of India appeared before the Bench. The Court noted that Form-D, which is the application form for issuance, renewal or restoration of a Certificate of Practice for Company Secretaries, contains 26 different areas under the heading “Areas of Practice.” Several of these areas relate to law. 

Against this backdrop, the High Court directed the ICSI to place on record a chart setting out the number of Company Secretaries who are presently practising in the various areas identified in Form-D. 

The direction is significant because it seeks to establish, on the basis of actual professional practice, the extent to which Company Secretaries are operating in areas that may overlap with functions traditionally associated with legal practice.

The Court also took note of a resolution placed on record by the ICSI 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.”

According to the order, the relevant regulations permit Company Secretaries to practise in various areas, which have been listed from A to X.

The High Court has now required the ICSI to explain the statutory basis for prescribing these areas of practice. Specifically, the Institute has been directed to file an affidavit identifying the source of its power to stipulate the 26 areas of practice in Form-D, as well as the authority for passing the resolution dated October 14, 2022. 

This direction places the statutory foundation of the ICSI’s practice framework at the centre of the dispute. The Court is effectively examining whether the professional activities permitted to Company Secretaries derive sufficient authority from the governing legislation and regulations, particularly where those activities involve areas of law.

The proceedings originate from a writ petition filed by the BCI in 2005. The matter has remained pending alongside connected proceedings, including the petition filed by the Association of Tax Lawyers in 2017 and another petition filed in 2020. 

The connected litigation brings into focus the professional boundaries between advocates and other statutory professional bodies, including the ICSI and the Institute of Cost Accountants of India.

At this stage, however, the High Court has not finally determined whether the areas of practice identified by the ICSI amount to impermissible practice of law or whether the BCI’s proposed restrictions should be granted. The latest order is primarily procedural and seeks additional material and clarification from the parties before the Court proceeds with the substantive arguments.

The Delhi High Court has directed the parties to complete the required filings, including the affidavits and information sought from the BCI and ICSI.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Assessee Can’t Use S. 264 Revision to Claim Relief Omitted From Original Return: Supreme Court