Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of NFRA Rules and Section 132 of Companies Act: “Transparency and Accountability in Auditing Profession Are Essential and Neither Arbitrary Nor Ultra Vires”

1. Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Section 132(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, and the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) Rules, 2018. It dismissed all challenges raised by the petitioners and ruled that the provisions were neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional. The court emphasized that these rules were essential to enhance transparency and ensure accountability in the auditing profession, thereby serving public interest.

The court clarified:

• Section 132 and the NFRA Rules operate prospectively and do not impose retroactive penalties for audits completed before October 1, 2018.
• The NFRA’s structure, despite combining investigative and adjudicatory roles, does not violate Article 14 or the principle of separation of powers.

2. Facts:

• The writ petitions were filed by chartered accountants and auditing firms challenging Section 132(4) and Rules 3, 8, 10, and 11 of the NFRA Rules, 2018.
• These provisions allowed NFRA to investigate and initiate disciplinary action for “professional or other misconduct” by individual chartered accountants and auditing firms.
• The petitioners argued that NFRA Rules unfairly empowered the authority to penalize professionals for audits conducted before the enforcement date (October 1, 2018).
• Petitioners also alleged that NFRA’s dual role (investigator and adjudicator) violated principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

3. Issues:

The court was tasked with resolving three primary questions:

1. Constitutionality: Are Section 132(4) and the NFRA Rules arbitrary, ultra vires, or unconstitutional for being retrospective in application?
2. Separation of Powers: Does the NFRA’s structure violate the principle of separation of powers by allowing the same authority to investigate and adjudicate?
3. Procedural Safeguards: Are the procedural safeguards provided under NFRA Rules sufficient to ensure fairness and compliance with due process?

4. Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioners raised several legal and constitutional concerns:

1. Retrospective Application:
   • They argued that NFRA’s powers to penalize audits conducted before October 1, 2018, amounted to retrospective application of law, violating their fundamental rights.
   • The petitioners sought clarity that Section 132 applies only to audits conducted after its enforcement.
2. Conflict with the CA Act:
   • The petitioners argued that disciplinary proceedings for misconduct were already governed by the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (CA Act), which provided comprehensive procedural safeguards.
   • They claimed that NFRA’s powers undermined the authority of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) under the CA Act.
3. Violation of Article 14:
   • They contended that NFRA’s combined role as investigator, prosecutor, and adjudicator violated principles of fairness and due process.
   • They argued that this structure created a “predetermination of guilt,” making disciplinary proceedings biased.
4. Lack of Procedural Safeguards:
   • The petitioners highlighted that NFRA Rules failed to provide adequate safeguards, such as independent adjudication and fair opportunities to present a defense.

5. Respondent’s Arguments:

The Union of India and NFRA defended the provisions as follows:

1. Public Interest Justification:
   • They argued that Section 132 was introduced to address the lack of accountability and transparency in the auditing profession.
   • NFRA’s establishment aimed to prevent corporate fraud and enhance investor confidence, especially after accounting scandals in India and globally.
2. No Retrospective Application:
   • The respondents clarified that Section 132 only applies to audits conducted after October 1, 2018. It does not impose penalties retrospectively.
3. Supplement to CA Act:
   • They argued that NFRA’s role was complementary to the ICAI under the CA Act and did not undermine the ICAI’s powers.
4. Adequate Procedural Safeguards:
   • The NFRA Rules provided sufficient procedural safeguards, including opportunities for the accused to respond to show cause notices and participate in hearings.

6. Analysis of the Law:

The court conducted an in-depth analysis of the legal framework and its application:

1. Legislative History:
   • The court examined the purpose behind introducing Section 132, which was to establish an independent regulator to oversee accounting and auditing standards.
   • The NFRA was created to ensure public confidence in financial reporting and auditing practices, especially in light of corporate frauds and accounting failures.
2. Retrospective Application:
   • The court rejected the petitioners’ claim of retrospective application, clarifying that NFRA’s powers apply only to audits conducted after October 1, 2018.
3. NFRA’s Role and Structure:
   • The court upheld NFRA’s quasi-judicial powers, noting that combining investigative and adjudicatory roles is permissible for specialized regulatory bodies.
   • It held that NFRA’s structure does not violate Article 14 or principles of natural justice.
4. Procedural Safeguards:
   • The court observed that the NFRA Rules provide adequate safeguards, such as opportunities for hearings and responses to show cause notices.
5. Public Interest Consideration:
   • The court emphasized that Section 132 and NFRA Rules serve a larger public interest by ensuring higher accountability and preventing financial malpractices.

7. Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to several precedents upholding the constitutionality of quasi-judicial regulatory bodies. It emphasized that specialized regulators are often granted wide powers to address specific public interest concerns.

8. Court’s Reasoning:

The court reasoned:

• “The NFRA Rules do not violate Article 14 or the principle of natural justice. They ensure accountability in the auditing profession.”
• “Section 132 enhances transparency and oversight, critical in preventing corporate fraud.”
• “The retrospective challenge lacks merit as the NFRA’s powers are prospective in nature.”

9. Conclusion:

The court dismissed all the petitions and held:

• Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the NFRA Rules, 2018, are constitutionally valid.
• The provisions are neither arbitrary nor ultra vires.
• They serve the public interest by strengthening regulatory oversight in the auditing profession.

10. Implications:

This judgment has several significant implications:

1. Enhanced Oversight: NFRA’s authority to regulate and discipline auditors has been reinforced, ensuring higher accountability in the profession.
2. Clarity for Auditors: The judgment clarifies that Section 132 and NFRA Rules apply only prospectively to audits conducted after October 1, 2018.
3. Public Confidence: The decision is likely to enhance public and investor confidence in India’s auditing and financial reporting standards.

Also Read – Supreme Court Holds Termination of Daily-Wage Workmen Illegal: “Employer Cannot Use Recruitment Ban to Deny Regularization; Sections 6E & 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act Violated”—Orders Reinstatement with Back Wages and Regularization Process