Sir, I rise today to oppose the Chartered Accountants, the Cost and Works Accountants and the Company Secretaries (Amendment) Bill. I also thank my Party for giving me an opportunity to speak on this important Bill. Let me begin by pointing out, on behalf of the All India Trinamool Congress, that something fundamental has changed in how our Parliament functions. While this particular Bill has been scrutinised by the Standing Committee, the scrutiny percentage of Bills in general has fallen. In the 15th Lok Sabha, it was 71 per cent. In the 16th Lok Sabha, it dropped to 25 per cent. What is the number now? In the 17th Lok Sabha, as of December, 2021, it was a dismal 13 per cent. My question is: Is the Government taking Parliament for granted? This Government is not allowing discussions on national issues which are affecting the masses such as the burning issues of price rise. Bills such as these are important to ensure prevention of white collar crimes and high value fraud, but what about the loot happening to the common people today in the name of fuel price hikes? It is a shameful burden on their livelihoods. More shameful is that we, as their elected representatives, are prevented from speaking on it in Parliament. …(Interruptions)… I would like to state the grounds as to why I rise to oppose this Bill. One, this Amendment Bill proposes a radical change in the composition of the bodies which regulate the functioning of important members of the financial sector. This Bill proposes that the presiding officer of disciplinary boards formed will be a Government nominee and not a member of the institutes. In case an additional board is formed by any of the three committees, the presiding officer and one of the two members must not be members of the institutes, and will be chosen from a roster of persons provided by the Government. Not only does this allow for non-sector experts to influence the functioning of an industry-specific
institute, but also gives the Union Government the power to interfere in the matters of a trade body. This is in direct contradiction to one of the Government’s favourite achievements – Ease of doing business. What happened to the 2014 promise of “Minimum Government, Maximum Governance”? The inclusion of non-domain experts into the body and as the president is detrimental to both quality and morale. While there have been instances of accounting fraud, bringing in an outsider to regulate the sector may lead to situations where the outsider has no expertise and is
unable to understand and suitably check fraud. Sir, my second point is, the Bill does not address the issue of ICAI’s
whimsical censoring. In the recent past, ICAI has used the penal provisions to arbitrarily censor the content that some chartered accountants posted on social media. The new Bill does not address this issue. A suitable middle
ground must be reached between the need to regulate by the Government and to prevent overreach by the members, and the need for domain expertise in regulating such a technical field. In other technical institutions such as the Bar Council of India too, the members are from the field. The Government however, seems to be making a habit of stepping into expert fields, as it has done with the National Medical Commission. While Government-nominated members can provide requisite regulatory oversight, there must be a way of ensuring that they are people with the
necessary domain expertise. Sir, my third point is, the Bill provides for disclosure of pending complaints or actionable information against members and firms. Disclosing details of pending complaints before finding guilt may tarnish their professional reputation and goes against the first principle of grievance redressal that complaints be evaluated and acted upon in a free and fair manner. Any premature disclosure is not only against the judicial decisionmaking process, but also an open invitation to unethical interference. We can’t be living in a country where we shoot first and ask questions later. We live with the rule of law, where people are presumed innocent until proven
guilty. This should apply in financial cases as much as in criminal ones. Sir, I would like to end with one last comment. The ICAI had criticised the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 for leaving the definition of ‘other
misconduct’ open-ended, calling this terminology vague. The present Amendment does not address the ambiguity of this definition. If anything, the proposed changes widen the scope of said ambiguity as any matter could easily be categorised as ‘misconduct’, and now the Government’s nominees are in the body to nudge it towards taking this interpretation. The absence of clearly defined parameters coupled with the Government’s presence within the Institute could set a dangerous precedent for obscure and intrusive functioning. I conclude by asking the Centre what really their policy is. Is it minimum Government and maximum governance, or maximum Government and zero governance? Thank you.
