High court dismisses ICAP plea against working of ICPAP

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan’s (ICAP) petition seeking an injunction against the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Pakistan (ICPAP), saying that ICAP can avail the remedies available if it finds ICPAP’s actions undermining the relevant subject enactments.

Petitioners ICAP and the Institute of Cost & Management Accountants of Pakistan, professed to be the gatekeepers to the profession of accountancy in the country, had assailed the working of ICPAP, a society working to advance the theory and practice of accountancy in all its aspects in Pakistan.

Their counsel said the petitioners collectively regulate the profession of accountancy in Pakistan in terms of the subject enactments, adding that ICPAP is functioning so as to impart education and training in accounting leading to the qualification of certified public accountant (CPA) without being accredited by any recognised institution or professional body in Pakistan or abroad and without being regulated by any statute.

The petitioners said that imparting training and education in accountancy to students, executives, professionals or any other person by ICPAP leading to a CPA or any other foreign or local qualification in accountancy should be declared unlawful and the institute should be restrained from functioning in the country.

They said ICPAP is acting in violation of Section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Ordinance by granting certificates which indicate or purport to indicate the possession or attainment of an accountancy qualification in Pakistan that is not recognised by the petitioners or any local or foreign body duly recognised by the petitioners.

They added that ICPAP is also acting in contravention of Section 22(iii) by seeking to regulate the profession of chartered accountants by training and imparting education to students, working executives and professionals in the field of accountancy, which amounts to interfering with the petitioners’ mandate.

ICPAP’s counsel argued that his client is not encroaching upon the domain of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever, as it is not offering any certification that purports to be CA (chartered accountant) or CMA (certified management accounting) under the subject enactments, and its members admittedly do not hold or purport to hold either of those qualifications.

He said ICPAP imparts education and training in accounts, finance, banking, computer sciences, managerial skills, management, audit, and corporate and tax laws leading to the qualification of CPA while clarifying that it is not international CPA, so it is not deceiving any student, member or segment of society by providing them education and training as part of that programme.

It was argued that the domain, curriculum and functioning of ICPAP is entirely different from that of the petitioners’, and the persons educated or trained by it constitute a class or category of accounting professionals that falls outside the ambit of the petitioners under their respective statues.

After hearing the arguments of the counsel, an SHC division bench comprising Chief Justice Ahmed Ali M Sheikh and Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed said ICPAP’s counsel clarified that the persons trained and certified by them do not perform any of the functions or claim any of the privileges of a CA or CMA, as envisaged under those statutes, and for his part, the petitioners’ counsel also acknowledges it.

The court said the petitioners’ counsel seeks to advance a case based on perceived violations of articles 9, 18 and 25, with no cogent arguments as to how this is so.

The bench said that where the government or state has not seen fit to regulate a particular activity, such inaction does not constitute a violation of Article 18 of the constitution.

The court said that persons who qualify as CAs and CMAs, and are certified and registered as such under the subject enactments are extended recognition and privileges under various laws that are not available to students of ICPAP, constituting separate classes enjoying different statuses with different rights and obligations, so Article 25 cannot be said to have been violated.

Regarding the argument of the petitioners’ counsel that ICPAP’s actions violate sections 21 and 22 of the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, the bench said that even if ICPAP’s actions are accepted as offending sections 21 and 22 of the subject enactments, the statutes themselves provide the relevant mechanism for appropriate proceedings to be initiated in that regard.

The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, saying that the petitioners can avail the relevant mechanism for appropriate proceedings if they are so inclined.