The Delhi High Court has commenced hearing a batch of petitions addressing the critical legal question of whether individuals not enrolled as Advocates—including Chartered Accountants (CAs), Company Secretaries (CSs), and Cost Accountants—possess the legal standing to appear and plead cases before Tribunals.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain, while hearing the matters on February 16, 2026, observed that these petitions “raise a very important issue as to whether persons who are not enrolled as Advocates can appear before Tribunals and plead cases on behalf of their clients.”
Background
The proceedings involve three interconnected petitions:
- W.P.(C) 2360/2005, filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI).
- W.P.(C) 4003/2017, filed by the Association of Tax Lawyers.
- W.P.(C) 541/2020, originally filed by Purav Middha, which specifically challenges the constitutional validity of Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The central conflict involves the interpretation of the Advocates Act, 1961, versus provisions in specialized statutes like the Companies Act, 2013, which purportedly allow other professionals to represent clients.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioners (BCI and Association of Tax Lawyers): Representing the Association of Tax Lawyers, Senior Advocate Mr. Rajeev Saxena contended that the right to practice law is restricted solely to enrolled Advocates. His primary arguments included:
- Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961: The counsel argued that this provision “does not permit the practice of law to be conducted by anyone else, except those who are enrolled as Advocates under the Act.”
- Exclusive Right of Practice: Under Section 30, it was submitted that only Advocates have the right to appear before all Courts, Tribunals, or any other authority.
- Evidentiary Proceedings: Mr. Saxena specifically noted that in any forum or Tribunal that has the power to conduct evidence, “only advocates can practice and conduct such evidence.”
- Penal Consequences: The court was informed that under Section 45 of the Act, any person illegally practicing in Courts or Tribunals is liable for punishment.
For the Other Professionals (CAs, CSs, and Cost Accountants): The respondents argued that their right to represent clients is derived from specific statutory provisions. They relied on:
- Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013: This section, read with relevant Practice Directions and Tribunal Rules, expressly permits these professionals to represent their clients before such bodies.
Court’s Observations and Procedural Updates
The Court noted the unfortunate demise of Mr. Purav Middha, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 541/2020. The Bench permitted Mr. Ashish Middha to implead himself as the petitioner to continue the challenge against Section 432 of the Companies Act.
The Bench has directed the counsels to file or modify their written notes of arguments at least two weeks before the next hearing, ensuring that copies are exchanged between the parties.
The Decision
While the matter remains part-heard, the Court emphasized the significance of the issue and the need for a final determination.
Adjourning the matter to March 16, 2026, the Bench clarified:
“It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted in these matters. These matters shall be treated as part-heard.”
The final outcome of this case is expected to define the boundaries of professional practice and the exclusivity of the legal profession in India’s expanding tribunal system.
- Case Title: Bar Council of India vs. UOI [with connected matters]
- Case Number: W.P.(C) 2360/2005
