9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the constitutionality of Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Regulation, 1988 and Regulation 48 regarding stipend payment to articled clerks. Analysis: The writ petitions challenged the constitutionality of the Chartered Accountants (Amendment) Regulation, 1988, particularly Regulation 48, which mandated payment of stipend to articled clerks. The petitioners argued that the regulation was ultra vires the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and imposed financial strain on Chartered Accountants. They contended that the regulation discriminated based on population and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners also claimed that the regulation should only apply to apprentices taken after the amendment's enforcement date and not retrospectively alter existing commitments. They further argued that the regulation restricted their ability to carry on their profession, violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Division Bench of the High Court had previously upheld Regulation 32B, which mandated stipend payment to articled clerks. The Court found that the Council's power to regulate engagement and training of articled clerks allowed for such regulations. The stipend was deemed reasonable and related to the purpose of training. The Bench upheld the classification of stipend rates based on the location of articled clerks' work as rational and not discriminatory. The current petition challenged the fixation of stipend rates based on population, alleging it lacked a reasonable nexus to the regulation's objectives. However, the Court found that the stipend was intended to cover pocket expenses and remunerate services rendered by articled clerks, facilitating bright students' entry into accountancy training. The stipend's linkage to population-based rates was considered to serve a public purpose and did not unduly burden Chartered Accountants financially. The Court noted that the amendment did not have a retrospective effect and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any contractual hiring of articled clerks, thus obliging them to comply with the regulations. The fixation of stipend rates based on population was deemed non-discriminatory and not violative of Article 14. Relying on the precedent set in a previous case, the Court dismissed the writ petitions and associated applications, without costs.
|
