In Brief
A chartered accountant challenged Rule 9(3) of the 2007 Disciplinary Rules as exceeding the Central Government's rule-making authority under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The rule permits the Board of Discipline to proceed against an auditor or refer a matter to the Disciplinary Committee when it disagrees with the Director's opinion that no misconduct occurred, going beyond the statutory option to merely direct further investigation. The Supreme Court upheld the rule as valid, applying the 'generality versus enumeration' principle: although Section 29A(2) lists specific rule-making heads, they are illustrative, not exhaustive. The rule falls within the general delegation under Section 29A(1) and furthers the Act's purpose of ensuring legitimate misconduct complaints are fairly heard and that a subordinate officer's opinion does not become final.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.