The long-running legal battle over whether non-advocates, particularly Chartered Accountants, can appear before tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities has moved closer to its conclusion before the Delhi High Court.
Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar, appearing on behalf of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), has concluded his submissions after multiple rounds of hearings. The Delhi High Court has now scheduled the matter for hearing the submissions of ICSI and other respondents on May 25, 2026, while rejoinder arguments by the petitioners will be heard on May 28, 2026.
The litigation, which has remained pending for nearly twenty-one years, arises from petitions filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) and related parties seeking restrictions on non-advocates from representing clients before tribunals and statutory authorities. The matter is now viewed as entering its final phase and a definitive ruling is expected during the year.
The hearing before the Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain witnessed extensive arguments from ICAI defending the long-standing statutory role of Chartered Accountants in representing taxpayers and litigants before specialized forums. The Court recorded that Mr. Arvind Datar had concluded submissions on behalf of ICAI and fixed further dates for completion of arguments.
During the hearings, several significant legal submissions were advanced on behalf of ICAI. One of the central arguments was that Chartered Accountants have been appearing before tribunals since 1941, beginning with the establishment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which was India’s first tribunal system. ICAI argued that such representation has continued for decades under statutory authorization and forms an integral component of the tax and regulatory framework.
It was also argued that the act of appearing before tribunals by Chartered Accountants does not amount to practicing the profession of law in the strict sense contemplated under the Advocates Act. According to ICAI’s submissions, representation rights in specialized tribunals are not derived from general legal practice rights but flow from specific statutory provisions enacted by Parliament.
A major legal contention raised by Mr. Datar related to Section 288 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was argued that the provision, which permits authorized representatives including Chartered Accountants to represent taxpayers before income tax authorities, cannot be declared inconsistent with the Advocates Act because both statutes are parliamentary enactments. ICAI contended that the issue is one of legislative design and statutory interpretation rather than a conflict between legal professions.
ICAI further argued that unless Section 33 of the Advocates Act itself is struck down or declared unconstitutional, prayers seeking to prevent professionals other than advocates from appearing before tribunals cannot legally survive. The submissions emphasized that rights of audience before statutory forums are determined by the relevant governing legislation applicable to those forums.
The arguments also referred to earlier judicial precedents where similar attempts to create an exclusive monopoly in favor of advocates had reportedly been rejected. It was contended that courts have historically recognized the legislature’s authority to permit different categories of professionals to represent parties in specialized fields involving technical expertise.
Another notable point highlighted during the submissions was that there have been instances in the past where even advocates themselves were restricted from appearing before certain forums such as industrial tribunals, indicating that rights of representation are forum-specific and dependent upon statutory frameworks.
The case carries substantial implications for multiple professional bodies including Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries and Cost Accountants, who regularly appear before authorities such as the ITAT, GST Appellate forums, NCLT, NCLAT and other quasi-judicial bodies. A final ruling could potentially shape the future contours of representation rights before specialized tribunals across India.
With ICAI having completed its arguments and the Court moving toward concluding hearings, the dispute over professional representation rights — pending for over two decades — may finally receive judicial closure.
Case Details
Case Title: BCI Versus UOI
Case No.: W.P.(C) 2360/2005& CM APPL. 1735/2005, CM APPL. 3467/2006, CM APPL. 3520/2006
Date: 19.05.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Rajeev Saxena, Sr. Adv.
Counsel For Respondent: Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv.
