Delhi High Court Sets Aside ICAI NIRC Member's Seat Vacation: Procedural Infirmity in Meeting Notice Proves Fatal
Background and Context
A significant ruling has emerged from the Delhi High Court concerning the procedural requirements for convening meetings of the Northern India Regional Council (NIRC) of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). The case of Gaurav Aggrawal vs Institute of Chartered Accountants of India brought into sharp focus the interplay between automatic seat vacation provisions under Regulation 135(3) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 and the mandatory notice requirements stipulated under Regulation 142 of the same regulations.
The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant elected to the NIRC for two consecutive terms (2022–2025 and 2025–2029), challenged a communication dated 06.11.2025 through which the Council informed him that his seat stood automatically vacated on account of his absence from three consecutive meetings without obtaining leave of absence. The core legal contest was not merely about whether he had attended the meetings, but whether those meetings had themselves been convened in accordance with the law.
The Impugned Communication and the Meetings in Question
The communication dated 06.11.2025 informed the petitioner that he had remained absent from the following meetings without seeking leave of absence:
| Meeting | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 70th Meeting of RC | 15.04.2025 | Absent |
| 71st Meeting of RC | 28.04.2025 | Absent |
| 71st Meeting of RC (Adjourned) | 01.05.2025 | Absent |
| 72nd Meeting of RC | 08.05.2025 | Absent |
| 72nd Meeting of RC (Adjourned) | 12.05.2025 | Absent |
| 72nd Meeting of RC (Adjourned) | 14.05.2025 | Absent |
Relying on Regulation 135(3) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, the Council declared that the petitioner's seat was deemed to have been vacated with effect from the date of the third consecutive meeting from which he remained absent.
The petitioner challenged not just this communication but also sought a declaration that all six meetings held between April and May 2025 were illegal, along with a prayer to quash a subsequent notice dated 06.11.2025 convening the 73rd meeting on 13.11.2025.
Arguments Raised by the Petitioner
The petitioner, represented by Dr. J.K. Mittal, raised several grounds in support of the challenge:
Inadequate Notice: Under
Regulation 142(1)of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, every member of a Regional Council is entitled to receive written notice at least 14 days before any meeting. Given that at least three meetings were conducted within a 30-day window, it was argued that compliance with this requirement was a physical impossibility.Health Grounds: The petitioner asserted that he was suffering from serious health issues and had communicated his inability to attend the meeting on 15.04.2025 to the Secretary of the Council. As a further precaution, he had also requested another Council member to convey his absence.
Delay as Mala Fide Indicator: The petitioner pointed out that the communication informing him of the vacation of his seat was issued nearly six months after the last meeting in question. This delay, he contended, was a clear indicator of mala fide intent on the part of the respondents.
Absence of Hearing: The petitioner argued that he was not afforded any prior notice or opportunity of hearing before his seat was declared vacated, rendering the entire action void.
Computation of Notice Period: Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Saketh India Limited vs India Securities Limited, the petitioner submitted that when computing the notice period, the date on which the notice is dispatched must be excluded.
The notice timeline presented by the petitioner demonstrated that the 70th meeting was scheduled on 15.04.2025 with notice issued on 08.04.2025 — giving effectively only six days of notice rather than the minimum seven.