In a significant clarification to its ruling in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, which invalidated portions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, the Supreme Court has confirmed that Chartered Accountants cannot be compelled to complete 25 years of practice to qualify as technical members in tribunals, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
A Bench led by the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, sitting with Justice K. Vinod Chandran, issued this clarification after the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) sought a mention. The ICAI pointed out that the Court had already struck down the requirement mandating advocates to be at least 50 years of age for tribunal appointments and urged that similar reasoning be applied to the experience criteria imposed on Chartered Accountants.
Responding to the submissions, the Bench acknowledged that enforcing a 25-year minimum practice requirement would effectively render CAs eligible only upon crossing the age of 50, mirroring the very restriction the Court had already rejected for advocates. The Court noted that the rationale used to strike down age-based limitations for lawyers applies equally to Chartered Accountants.
Agreeing with ICAI’s contention, the Court added an important clarification to its November 19 judgment. It observed that requiring Chartered Accountants to complete 25 years of practice before being considered for appointment as technical members is arbitrary and creates an unreasonable barrier to tribunal entry.
The Bench noted that such a condition would effectively push eligibility to around the age of 50, mirroring the very restriction previously struck down for advocates. The Court emphasised that a similar 25-year threshold for lawyers has already been declared unconstitutional, and therefore there was no justification for retaining this requirement for CAs.
The Bench held that there is “no justification to maintain an onerous condition for Chartered Accountants when a similar requirement for advocates has been invalidated.” The Court therefore declared the 25-year experience provision unconstitutional.
The Apex Court further underscored that the Union Government must factor in these observations when formulating the legislative framework for tribunals pursuant to the Court’s directions.
Picture Source :
