In a significant development impacting tribunal appointments across the country, the Supreme Court has struck down the rule that mandated a minimum of 25 years of practice for chartered accountants (CAs) to qualify as technical members of tribunals, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Why the Rule Was Unconstitutional
The Court held that the 25-year practice requirement was arbitrary and unreasonable, as it effectively meant that only those CAs who had crossed the age of 50 could even hope to be considered for these posts. This, the bench noted, created an unjustified barrier and lacked any rational connection with the objective of ensuring competence.
Importantly, this decision came just a day after the Court struck down an identical restriction imposed on advocates. Maintaining consistency in approach, the bench observed that the rationale used to invalidate the rule for advocates must apply equally to chartered accountants.
ICAI’s Plea for Parity Accepted
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) had approached the Court seeking parity between CAs and advocates regarding eligibility norms for tribunal appointments. The Supreme Court accepted ICAI’s submissions, emphasizing that arbitrary distinctions cannot be upheld when both professions discharge comparable quasi-judicial and representational roles before tax and regulatory tribunals.
Direction to the Government
The Court further clarified that its observations will form part of its earlier judgment on tribunal appointments. It also directed the Union Government to consider these principles carefully while framing new laws governing the structure, composition, and appointments of tribunals.
Implications
This judgment is likely to:
- Broaden the pool of eligible CA candidates for technical member positions across various tribunals.
- Strengthen the independence and expertise available to bodies like the ITAT.
- Ensure consistency and parity between different professions involved in tribunal practice.
By removing an artificial barrier, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that eligibility should be based on competence and not on an excessively long practice requirement.