The Delhi High Court is considering a key question on the scope of legal practice: whether persons who are not enrolled as advocates can appear and plead matters before tribunals on behalf of clients. The issue affects professionals such as Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries and Cost Accountants, and others with similar qualifications, including those who do not hold an LL.B. degree.
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain took up the matter in a batch of connected petitions—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 (filed by Purav Middha). The Bench passed an order dated February 16, 2026, after hearing the parties in hybrid mode.
Advocates Act vs Tribunal Practice: Competing Positions
The Bar Council of India and the Association of Tax Lawyers argue that the Advocates Act, 1961 permits only advocates to practise before any court, tribunal, or authority. According to them, a person must enrol with a State Bar Council to appear on behalf of clients.
In contrast, the stand attributed to other professional bodies and professionals is that statutory provisions allow them to represent clients before certain tribunals. They rely, among other provisions, on Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with relevant practice directions and tribunal rules.
W.P.(C) 541/2020: Challenge to Section 432 and Substitution of Petitioner
The Court noted that Purav Middha, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 541/2020, has passed away. The petition also challenges the constitutional validity of Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The Bench permitted Mr. Ashish Middha to implead himself as petitioner in place of the deceased. It also clarified that he may argue personally or engage an advocate to address the Court.
Submissions for Association of Tax Lawyers
Appearing for the Association of Tax Lawyers in W.P.(C) 4003/2017, Senior Advocate Rajeev Saxena addressed the Court and referred to provisions under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and other material.
He argued, in substance, that:
- Section 33 of the Advocates Act restricts the practice of law to those enrolled as advocates under the Act;
- Section 45 provides consequences for illegal practice before courts, tribunals, or authorities;
- Section 30 recognises advocates’ right to practise before courts, tribunals, and other authorities; and
- where a forum has power to record evidence, only advocates can practise and conduct such evidence.
Adjournment and Written Submissions
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Saxena sought time to finalise a written note of arguments. Meanwhile, Mr. Preetpal Singh, counsel for the Bar Council of India, stated that he was out of station due to a family wedding and requested an adjournment so he could argue in person.
The Bench accepted the request and adjourned the matter. At the same time, it allowed parties to file additional written submissions or amend existing ones, provided they do so at least two weeks before the next hearing and exchange copies.
Next Date
The petitions will be listed on March 16, 2026, at the end of the Supplementary List, and will continue as part-heard matters. The Court also recorded that it will not grant any further adjournment.
Case Title(s): Bar Council of India v. UOI (W.P.(C) 2360/2005) with connected matters including Association of Tax Lawyers v. Union of India and Ors. (W.P.(C) 4003/2017) and Purav Middha v. Union of India and Ors. (W.P.(C) 541/2020).
