Whether Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, Cost Accountants can appear before Tribunals

In a significant development concerning the scope of legal practice in India, the Delhi High Court on February 17, 2026, heard a batch of petitions raising the question whether persons not enrolled as Advocates can appear and plead before Tribunals on behalf of clients.

The matter, titled Bar Council of India and Ors. v. UOI and Ors., (2026) taxcode.in 323 HC, was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain.

The petitions raise a significant issue concerning the scope of legal practice, particularly whether professionals such as Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, Cost Accountants and other similarly qualified individuals, irrespective of whether they possess an LL.B. degree, can represent clients before Tribunals. On one hand, the petitioners, the Bar Council of India and the Association of Tax Lawyers, have argued that under the Advocates Act, 1961, only Advocates enrolled with a State Bar Council are entitled to practice before any Court, Tribunal or authority. Senior Counsel Mr. Rajeev Saxena, appearing for the Association of Tax Lawyers in W.P.(C) 4003/2017, took the Court through various provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 and the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, contending that Section 33 of the Advocates Act does not permit anyone other than enrolled Advocates to practice law. He further submitted that Section 30 confers an exclusive right on Advocates to appear before Courts, Tribunals and other authorities, and that unauthorized practice would attract penal consequences under Section 45 of the Act. It was also argued that before any authority empowered to record and conduct evidence, only Advocates can practice and lead such proceedings.

On the other hand, professionals including Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries and Cost Accountants have relied upon Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, along with relevant Practice Directions and Tribunal Rules, to contend that they are permitted to represent clients before certain Tribunals. In W.P.(C) 541/2020, the constitutional validity of Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013 has been challenged.

During the hearing, Mr. Rajeev Saxena sought time to file a written note of arguments. Counsel for the Bar Council of India also requested an adjournment on account of personal reasons. Acceding to the request of the counsels, the Court adjourned the matter and permitted parties to file additional or modified written submissions at least two weeks prior to the next date of hearing, with copies to be exchanged among them.

The matter has been directed to be listed on March 16, 2026, at the end of the Supplementary List. The Bench made it clear that no further adjournment shall be granted and that the matters shall be treated as part-heard.

Access the Judgment