- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
The Supreme Court on June 26 sought a response from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) on a petition challenging its notification giving an “opt-out” option to aspirants in the backdrop of the on-going Covid-19 pandemic.A bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari sought a response on the matter by Monday. The PIL filed by the President of the...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court on June 26 sought a response from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) on a petition challenging its notification giving an “opt-out” option to aspirants in the backdrop of the on-going Covid-19 pandemic.
A bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari sought a response on the matter by Monday. The PIL filed by the President of the India Wide Parents Association sought quashing of the notification issued by the ICAI allowing chartered accountant (CA) aspirants to op-out of the exams this year. The counsel for ICAI contended before the bench that the notification does not lead to prejudice against any student, and the petitioner is occupied with false assumptions.
The May CA exam cycle has been re-scheduled between July 29 and August 16, and a notification was issued with the opt-out option on June 15 and June 20. The petitioner termed this a discriminatory move. The ICAI has sought time to file an affidavit in the matter.
After a brief hearing, the apex court listed the matter for further hearing on Monday. “Respondent No.1 ICAI has notified that for the students who choose the OPT-OUT option, this attempt (May 2020) will be treated as cancelled/not counted. Thus, such students will be deprived of the May, 2020, attempt, as compared to other groups of students, who choose OPT-IN option”, said the plea filed through Alakh Alok Srivastava.
The petitioner urged the apex court to quash the notification with the opt-out option on the grounds that it violates the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.