Supreme Court Strikes Down 25-Year Experience Requirement for Chartered Accountants as Tribunal Members
- REEDLAW
- 58 minutes ago
- 3 min read
REEDLAW Legal News Network reports: In a pivotal clarification delivered on 19 November 2025, the Supreme Court held that Chartered Accountants cannot be compelled to possess 25 years of professional experience to qualify for appointment as Technical Members in tribunals such as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court ruled that imposing such a threshold was unconstitutional, as it would delay entry into tribunal service until the age of 50, mirroring the very barrier previously struck down for advocates.
The Bench of the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran issued the clarification after the issue was mentioned by counsel representing the professional body for Chartered Accountants. The submission highlighted that the Court had already invalidated age-linked restrictions applicable to advocates and argued that the 25-year experience requirement imposed an equally arbitrary barrier for Chartered Accountants. Accepting this parity-based reasoning, the Court extended its earlier holding and declared that such a requirement was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court observed that Chartered Accountants cannot be compelled to possess a minimum of 25 years of professional experience to qualify for appointment as Technical Members in tribunals, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Supreme Court Bench clarified that such a requirement is unconstitutional as it effectively restricts CAs from entering tribunal service until the age of 50—an eligibility barrier already struck down for advocates in the earlier ruling.
The clarification came after counsel for the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) mentioned the matter before the Bench, pointing out that the Court had already invalidated the stipulation requiring advocates to be at least 50 years old to be appointed as Tribunal Members. It was argued that insisting on 25 years of experience for Chartered Accountants was equally arbitrary and would produce the same effect, delaying their entry into service until the age of 50. The Court accepted this parity-based submission and proceeded to amend its judgment accordingly.
The Bench observed that the reasoning applied to advocates squarely extended to Chartered Accountants as well. It noted that a minimum experience threshold of 25 years would render qualified professionals ineligible for tribunal service for an unreasonably long period and would defeat the constitutional principles laid down in the Madras Bar Association line of cases concerning tribunal independence, accessibility, and rational service structures. The Court held:
“We are in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the ICAI. If such a provision is held to be valid, it will permit the CAs to enter into service only after they attain the age of 50 years. We have already held that a similar provision may not be sustainable in the case of advocates. There should be no difficulty in applying the same analogy — the CAs would be considered for appointments as technical members.”
Declaring the 25-year requirement unconstitutional, the Court directed that its clarification be read as an addition to the judgment delivered earlier on the same day. It also noted that the Union Government must bear this finding in mind while drafting fresh legislation or amendments to the Tribunal Reforms Act framework in compliance with the Court’s decisions.
This clarification marks another step in the Court’s continuing effort to ensure that tribunals remain accessible and that eligibility norms for members are rational, non-discriminatory, and constitutionally sustainable.
Mr. Arvind P. Datar and Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior advocates, represented the Appellant.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Porus F. Kaka, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Mr. Balbir Singh, Mr. Gagan Gupta, Mr. Puneet Mittal, Mr. Sachit Jolly and Mr. B.M. Chatterji, Senior Advocates and Mr. Ninad Laud, Advocate, appeared for the Applicants.
Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, appeared for the Respondent-Union of India.
This is premium content available to our subscribers.
To access the full content related to this article — including the complete judgment, detailed legal analysis, ratio decidendi, headnotes, cited case laws, and updates on relevant statutes and notifications — we invite you to subscribe to REEDLAW’s premium research platform.
Click here to Subscribe and unlock exclusive access to structured legal analysis, judicial summaries, and a comprehensive legal research database.
REEDLAW Legal Intelligence & Research is India’s most trusted legal publishing and research platform, empowering professionals with structured judicial insights and authoritative legal intelligence since 1985.
The platform offers comprehensive resources spanning Corporate Insolvency, Bankruptcy, Company Law, SARFAESI, Debt Recovery, Contract, MSMEs, Arbitration, Banking, and Commercial Laws. Through curated journals like IBC Reporter and Bank CLR, and an advanced Online Legal Research Database, REEDLAW simplifies complex legal research for professionals, institutions, and academia across India.
Comments