Facts of the Case

The proceedings arose from a reference made by the Director (Discipline) pursuant to the decision of the ICAI Council at its 352nd meeting held from 17 to 19 March 2016, wherein it was resolved to make a reference against CA Rajkumar S. Adukia, Mumbai, for allegedly making false and defamatory allegations against the then President of ICAI through a series of emails sent to Council Members and other office bearers.

The allegations related to emails dated 06 January 2016, 11 January 2016, 05 February 2016, 01 January 2016, 08 January 2016, and 13 January 2016, wherein the Respondent expressed concerns relating to alleged conflict of interest involving the ICAI President in connection with ISA-AT examination matters and functioning of the Examination Committee.

It was alleged that the tone and contents of the emails tarnished the image of the President and the Institute and amounted to “Other Misconduct” under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Issues Involved

Whether the Respondent’s emails expressing dissenting views and raising concerns regarding governance and conflict of interest within ICAI amounted to “Other Misconduct” under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

Petitioner / Council’s Contentions

It was contended that the Respondent used inappropriate language in his emails, made unsubstantiated allegations against the President of ICAI, and attempted to lower the dignity and image of the Institute. It was argued that such conduct was unbecoming of a member of ICAI and warranted disciplinary action.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondent submitted that the emails were written in his capacity as a Council Member and reflected his bonafide professional dissent on matters of governance, transparency and conflict of interest. He contended that raising issues internally within the Institute cannot be equated with misconduct.

The Respondent further argued that freedom of speech and expression is a constitutional right and that expressing a dissenting view, when done respectfully and within institutional forums, does not amount to professional misconduct. He also contended that the Director (Discipline)’s Prima Facie Opinion was delayed by over four years and was procedurally flawed.

Court / Authority Order and Findings

The Board of Discipline examined the emails in question, the context in which they were sent, the submissions of the Respondent, and the legal position relating to professional misconduct. The Board observed that the emails were addressed to Council Members and functionaries of ICAI and related to matters of professional governance.

The Board held that mere expression of dissenting opinion, even if critical, does not amount to misconduct unless it is abusive, malicious or unsupported by any rational basis. The Board noted that the Respondent’s communications were within the professional ecosystem of ICAI and were intended to highlight perceived issues.

The Board further relied on principles of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and held that professional disagreement or dissent cannot be stifled by disciplinary proceedings. The Board also observed that “Other Misconduct” under the Act is not exhaustively defined and must be interpreted cautiously.

Important Clarification

The Board clarified that disagreement with the views or actions of ICAI office bearers, when expressed in a professional and respectful manner within institutional channels, does not constitute misconduct. Disciplinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked to suppress professional dissent or debate.

Final Outcome

The ICAI Board of Discipline held CA Rajkumar S. Adukia (M. No. 034769) Not Guilty of “Other Misconduct” under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. By order dated 03 May 2023, the Board directed closure of the case under Rule 15(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007.

Source Link- https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1768820777_CA.RajkumarS.AdukiaM.No.034769Mumbai.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.