Delhi High Court Seeks ICSI Affidavit on Authority to Prescribe 26 Practice Areas

Court seeks explanation from ICSI

The Delhi High Court has sought an affidavit from the Institute of Company Secretaries of India on its authority to prescribe 26 areas of practice, including areas involving law. The development places the statutory and professional basis of ICSI’s prescription under judicial scrutiny amid a wider debate over the respective fields of advocates, chartered accountants, cost accountants and company secretaries.

At this stage, the reported development is procedural: the Court has called upon ICSI to explain its authority through an affidavit. It does not amount to a final ruling on whether any of the 26 areas is valid, invalid or reserved for a particular profession.

That distinction is significant. An affidavit will allow ICSI to place its formal position and supporting basis before the Court. The issues can then be considered on the pleadings and material presented in the proceedings, rather than being treated as settled merely because the Court has sought an explanation.

Why the 26 practice areas matter

The immediate focus is not simply the number of areas listed by ICSI. The central question is whether the institute has the authority to prescribe them, particularly where a listed area is said to involve legal work.

Professional assignments in India frequently combine elements of accounting, taxation, compliance, governance, documentation and legal interpretation. A single corporate or tax engagement may require financial analysis, preparation of records, interpretation of legislation, regulatory filings and representation before an authority. That practical overlap can make the boundary between permitted professional services and the practice of law contentious.

The Court’s direction therefore has relevance beyond the wording of a professional list. Its eventual consideration may affect how institutes describe the work their members may undertake and how professionals present their services to clients. It may also influence how multidisciplinary engagements are scoped where advocates, CAs, CMAs and company secretaries work on different aspects of the same matter.

Authority, not professional competence, is the immediate issue

The reported direction is framed around ICSI’s authority to prescribe the 26 areas. That is distinct from a general comparison of the education, experience or competence of members belonging to different professions.

A professional may possess substantial knowledge of company law, taxation, finance or regulatory procedure. The legal question before a court, however, can be whether the relevant institution is empowered to recognise or prescribe an area as professional practice, particularly if the work is characterised as belonging to another regulated profession.

This distinction should remain central to the debate. The proceedings concern the basis on which the areas have been prescribed, rather than a broad contest over which profession is more capable of handling commercial or compliance work. ICSI’s affidavit is expected to address the authority questioned by the Court and place its position on record.

No final determination yet

The direction to file an affidavit should not be read as either approval or rejection of ICSI’s position. Nor does it, by itself, establish that all 26 areas involve the practice of law. The reference to areas of law indicates the point of controversy, but the reported court action is a request for ICSI’s explanation.

A final outcome would require the Court to consider the competing positions and determine the issues arising in the proceedings. Until then, categorical claims that the High Court has barred company secretaries from specified assignments, endorsed every area prescribed by ICSI, or conclusively allocated the disputed work to one profession would go beyond the development reported.

The affidavit may become important because it can clarify how ICSI understands the nature of the 26 areas and the source of its claimed authority. It may also help distinguish professional advisory, compliance and representation functions from activities alleged to constitute legal practice. The precise treatment of individual areas will depend on what is placed before the Court and what the Court ultimately decides.

Implications for multidisciplinary professional work

The case is relevant to firms and businesses that rely on teams comprising legal, tax, accounting and secretarial professionals. Such teams often divide responsibility according to the nature of each task: financial certification may sit with one professional, corporate filings with another, and legal opinions or court work with an advocate.

The present development does not itself alter those arrangements. It does, however, underline the need for clear engagement terms and accurate descriptions of professional services. Firms should avoid treating broad institutional descriptions as substitutes for examining the authority applicable to a particular assignment.

For clients, the practical concern is not merely the designation of the adviser. It is whether the person accepting responsibility for a task is authorised to perform it and whether another regulated professional is required for a distinct component of the engagement. Where work spans several disciplines, responsibilities should be separated clearly instead of being bundled under an imprecise label.

The issue is also relevant to professional communications. Lists of practice areas can influence training, marketing, employment and client expectations. If a listed area uses language associated with legal advice or legal representation, questions may arise about whether the description accurately reflects the work that members may undertake. The Court’s scrutiny puts the basis and formulation of such prescriptions in focus.

What professionals should watch

The next important step is ICSI’s affidavit. Its contents may show how the institute supports its power to prescribe the areas and how it characterises work that intersects with law. Any subsequent observations or directions from the High Court will be important in understanding whether the controversy concerns the entire list, selected areas, or the manner in which those areas have been described.

Advocates, CAs, CMAs and company secretaries should therefore distinguish the present procedural order from the eventual adjudication. The safest reading is narrow: ICSI has been required to answer a question about its authority, and the Court has yet to give a final determination on that question.

For professional bodies, the proceedings highlight the importance of connecting practice-related prescriptions to a clear source of authority and defining their scope precisely. For multidisciplinary firms, they reinforce the value of allocating each part of an engagement to the appropriately authorised professional and documenting that allocation.

Key takeaway

The Delhi High Court has sought ICSI’s affidavit on its authority to prescribe 26 areas of practice, including areas involving law; the direction calls for an explanation and should not be treated as a final decision on the validity of the areas or the professional boundaries among advocates, CAs, CMAs and company secretaries.