Abstract
The question whether non-advocate professionals—particularly Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Cost and Management Accountants—may appear and plead before specialized tribunals has re-emerged as a constitutional controversy before the Delhi High Court in Bar Council of India v. Union of India & Connected Matters. The dispute raises foundational issues concerning the scope of the Advocates Act, 1961, the validity of statutory provisions such as Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the evolving technocratic character of India’s tribunal system. This article examines the statutory conflict, the competing professional claims, the relevant Supreme Court precedents, the impact on insolvency adjudication under the IBC, and the broader constitutional implications, while maintaining doctrinal coherence across all issues raised in the record.
I. The Contemporary Controversy Before the Delhi High Court
By order dated 16 February 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain recorded that the petitions before it raise an important and far-reaching issue: whether persons who are not enrolled as advocates are entitled to appear before tribunals and plead cases on behalf of their clients.
The matters include W.P.(C) 2360/2005 filed by the Bar Council of India, W.P.(C) 4003/2017 filed by the Association of Tax Lawyers, and W.P.(C) 541/2020 in which the constitutional validity of Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been specifically challenged.
The Court has treated the matters as part-heard and listed them for final hearing on 16 March 2026, making it clear that no further adjournments shall be granted.
The controversy thus squarely concerns the right of audience before tribunals such as the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), and the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), and specifically whether Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, Cost and Management Accountants, and other similarly qualified professionals may lawfully represent clients before these adjudicatory bodies.
II. The Statutory Conflict: Advocates Act versus Specialized Legislation
At the heart of the dispute lies a tension between the Advocates Act, 1961 and certain later special statutes governing tribunals. The Bar Council of India relies principally on Sections 30 and 33 of the Advocates Act, which confer upon enrolled advocates the right to practice before all courts and tribunals and prohibit any person other than an advocate from practicing before such forums. Section 45 further provides for penalties for unauthorized practice. The petitioners contend that appearing before tribunals and pleading cases constitutes the “practice of law,” and that such practice is statutorily reserved for advocates alone.
In contrast, Parliament has enacted specific provisions that expressly permit non-advocate professionals to appear as authorized representatives. Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013 authorizes Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Cost and Management Accountants in practice to represent parties before the NCLT and NCLAT. Section 288 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 similarly permits Chartered Accountants and tax practitioners to appear before the ITAT, and the CGST Act, 2017 contains analogous provisions recognizing such professionals in GST adjudication. These enactments form the legislative basis of what may be described as the “technical representation model.”
The constitutional question, therefore, is whether specific enabling provisions under specialized statutes can coexist with, or override, the general exclusivity claimed under the Advocates Act. The Court is required to undertake a harmonious construction of these enactments while also addressing the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 432 of the Companies Act.
III. The Rationale for Technical Representation
The policy foundation underlying statutory permission for non-advocates to appear before tribunals is rooted in the structural design of tribunal adjudication. Tribunals such as the NCLT, ITAT, and GSTAT routinely adjudicate disputes involving complex financial statements, valuation models, tax computation, audit trails, corporate restructuring, and forensic analysis. These disputes often require a granular understanding of accounting standards, fiscal frameworks, compliance mechanisms, and regulatory filings.
Chartered Accountants, through a rigorous multi-tier examination system and mandatory articleship prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, develop proficiency in financial reporting under Ind AS and IFRS, direct and indirect taxation, auditing standards, corporate and allied laws, strategic financial management, and forensic auditing. Their training combines theoretical depth with sustained practical exposure under experienced practitioners, enabling them to navigate complex financial datasets and interpret regulatory frameworks.
Company Secretaries, qualified under the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, undergo a structured academic programme coupled with compulsory practical training focused on corporate governance, company law, securities regulation, restructuring processes, and compliance management. Their curriculum integrates constitutional principles of corporate regulation, the Companies Act, SEBI regulations, secretarial standards, and drafting of statutory filings. Through mandatory management training, they acquire exposure to board procedures, mergers and acquisitions documentation, regulatory submissions, and quasi-judicial proceedings. In matters involving oppression and mismanagement, amalgamations, or compliance disputes before the NCLT, their institutional training directly aligns with the tribunal’s jurisdictional mandate.
Cost and Management Accountants, certified by the Institute of Cost Accountants of India (formerly ICWAI), undergo rigorous examinations and prescribed practical training in cost accounting, performance evaluation, financial strategy, risk assessment, and economic analysis. Their curriculum encompasses cost audit, indirect taxation, operations management, pricing strategies, and strategic cost control. In insolvency and fiscal disputes, issues frequently arise concerning liquidation value, fair value, transfer pricing, and cost structure analysis—areas that fall squarely within their domain expertise. Their analytical orientation equips them for quantitative evaluation and financial dispute resolution in regulatory contexts.
Parliament’s recognition of these professionals as authorized representatives thus reflects a legislative assessment that tribunal adjudication frequently requires domain-specific articulation rather than purely adversarial advocacy.
IV. The Case for Exclusivity and Procedural Integrity
The Bar Council of India advances a doctrinally distinct position. It contends that tribunals, though specialized, exercise adjudicatory powers that affect property rights and civil consequences. Representation before such bodies entails interpretation of statutes, application of procedural law, conduct of cross-examination, and adherence to evidentiary standards. These functions, it argues, require formal legal training and ethical regulation under the unified disciplinary framework of the Bar Council of India.
From this perspective, permitting non-advocates to plead cases risks creating a parallel and insufficiently regulated class of quasi-lawyers. The BCI asserts that uniform courtroom standards and procedural integrity necessitate exclusive representation by enrolled advocates.
V. Supreme Court Jurisprudence on Right of Audience
The issue is informed by Supreme Court precedent distinguishing between a discretionary permission to appear and a statutory right to practice law. In Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma, the Court recognized that non-advocates may, in appropriate cases, be permitted to represent parties with the court’s leave. In Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. R.K. Chawla, the Court clarified that Section 32 of the Advocates Act grants courts discretion to allow non-advocates to appear, but does not create a general right to practice law.
The present controversy requires reconciliation of Section 32 of the Advocates Act with Section 432 of the Companies Act, which appears to confer a statutory right of representation in specific forums. The constitutional validity challenge to Section 432 makes it highly probable that the matter will ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
Further, in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 1018 of 2021), including the clarification issued on 19–20 November 2025, the Supreme Court emphasized that tribunals discharge judicial functions and must maintain independence, competence, and institutional integrity. At the same time, the Court acknowledged the inclusion of Technical Members in tribunal composition, underscoring the technocratic dimension of such bodies. The present dispute therefore intersects with the broader constitutional understanding of tribunals as hybrid institutions combining judicial authority with subject-matter expertise.
VI. The NCLT and Insolvency Under the IBC
The practical consequences of the controversy are particularly acute in insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Insolvency Resolution Professionals, frequently drawn from the ranks of Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries, manage the affairs of the corporate debtor, prepare information memoranda, oversee valuation exercises, and coordinate the Committee of Creditors. If such professionals are prohibited from directly addressing the NCLT, an institutional paradox arises: the individual most familiar with the financial substratum of the insolvency process must speak only through an advocate.
IBC jurisprudence accords primacy to the “commercial wisdom” of the Committee of Creditors. Many disputes involve valuation assessments, preferential and fraudulent transactions under Sections 43 to 66 of the Code, and forensic accounting analyses. While legal interpretation is undoubtedly central, the factual matrix is deeply financial and accounting-oriented. Requiring exclusive advocate representation may increase litigation costs, introduce procedural formalism, and potentially prolong resolution timelines, thereby affecting the efficiency objectives underlying the IBC and the broader ease of doing business framework.
VII. Stakeholder Positions and Constitutional Implications
The Central Government is likely to defend the statutory permissions granted under the Companies Act and CGST Act as part of a regulatory design aimed at efficiency and accessibility. The professional bodies—ICAI, ICSI, and the Institute of Cost Accountants of India—are expected to emphasize parliamentary recognition of their expertise, statutory authorization to appear, and the existence of institutional disciplinary frameworks ensuring accountability.
The Bar Council of India, conversely, maintains that the Advocates Act embodies a unified regulatory regime governing legal practice and that permitting non-advocates to plead undermines professional exclusivity and uniform standards.
The litigation thus implicates questions of legislative competence, harmonious construction of statutes, separation of powers, and the definitional contours of “practice of law.” The Court must determine whether representation before tribunals is an extension of traditional courtroom advocacy or a hybrid technical-administrative function distinct from conventional litigation.
VIII. Conclusion: A Structural Moment in India’s Adjudicatory Evolution
The dispute over the right of audience before tribunals transcends professional rivalry. It concerns the structural evolution of India’s adjudicatory institutions in an era of regulatory complexity. If the exclusivity claimed under the Advocates Act is upheld in absolute terms, tribunal advocacy may become entirely advocate-centric, reinforcing traditional courtroom paradigms. If statutory permissions under specialized legislation are sustained, India will consolidate a multidisciplinary model of adjudication in which legal and technical expertise coexist within constitutionally supervised frameworks.
The forthcoming decision of the Delhi High Court, and the near-inevitable scrutiny by the Supreme Court, will shape not only professional boundaries but also the architecture of regulatory justice in India. In determining whether tribunals remain extensions of conventional courts or continue as hybrid institutions blending legal reasoning with domain expertise, the judiciary will define the contours of modern adjudication in the Indian constitutional order.