The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) that had closed a disciplinary complaint without providing adequate reasons. The Court held that such non-speaking orders cannot be sustained in law, particularly when allegations of professional misconduct are involved.

The bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the Board’s order merely stated that the complaint was related to a family dispute, without addressing the specific allegations or the findings recorded by the Director. The Court noted that the Director’s prima facie opinion had highlighted inconsistencies and deviations in the conduct of the respondent, including alleged unauthorized access to the petitioner’s personal information.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by Shekhar Sharma challenging the decision of ICAI’s Board of Discipline, which had dismissed a complaint against a chartered accountant on the ground that the dispute was of a “family nature.” The Board had disagreed with the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline), who had found potential misconduct, but failed to provide any substantive reasoning for its conclusion.

Rejecting the ICAI’s stance, the Court emphasized that even if a dispute arises in a familial context, it does not preclude examination of professional misconduct if statutory violations are alleged. “There is no prohibition to entertain a complaint at the instance of a spouse, if it discloses professional misconduct,” the Court remarked, underlining that the nature of the relationship cannot override legal scrutiny.

The Court further stressed that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are obligated to provide clear and cogent reasons when they disagree with findings of fact or expert opinions. The absence of such reasoning renders the decision arbitrary and legally untenable.

The High Court set aside the impugned minutes of the Board’s meetings dated March 28 and 29, 2018, as well as the subsequent communication issued in May 2023. The matter has been remanded back to the ICAI’s disciplinary authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

Case Details

Case Title: Shekhar Sharma Versus UOI

Citation: JURISHOUR-566-HC-2026(DEL) 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 10170/2023

Date: 18.03.2026

Counsel For  Petitioner: Advocates Aayush Agarwal and Gaurav Verma

Counsel For Respondent: Vibhooti Malhotra, Advocate 

Read More: No Evidence of Pilferage Under Section 45 of Customs Act: CESTAT Quashes Duty Demand on CONCOR