Additional professional qualifications cannot be barred by notification when the parent Act permits their acquisition and strict construction applies.

A statutory body cannot, by notification, prohibit a Chartered Accountant from acquiring or holding an additional qualification such as CFA where Section 7 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 restricts only the use of descriptions and permits another qualification where entitled. The Act could not be expanded through administrative notification to treat mere acquisition of that qualification as professional misconduct, and the penal provisions required strict construction. The impugned notification was also held to travel beyond the parent statute and to impose an unreasonable restraint on professional freedom, making it ultra vires and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Section 7 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 permits a member of the Institute to acquire and use an additional qualification such as CFA and whether the impugned notification could prohibit such acquisition by treating it as misconduct; (ii) Whether the notification dated 03.08.1989 was ultra vires and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Section 7 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 permits a member of the Institute to acquire and use an additional qualification such as CFA and whether the impugned notification could prohibit such acquisition by treating it as misconduct.

Analysis: Section 7 prohibits a member using the designation of chartered accountant from using any other description, but the proviso permits addition of another description or qualification where entitled thereto. The expression relating to "other qualification" was construed as a qualification other than one conferred by another institute of accountancy, and in any event Section 7 speaks to use of a qualification, not its acquisition. The Institute, being a statutory authority, could act only within the statute. Section 22 defining professional misconduct could not be expanded by administrative notification to treat the mere acquisition of an additional qualification as misconduct. Section 24A, being penal, was held to require strict construction and could not support the impugned restraint.

Conclusion: The notification could not validly prohibit a Chartered Accountant from acquiring or holding the CFA qualification, and such acquisition did not amount to professional misconduct under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification dated 03.08.1989 was ultra vires and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The restriction imposed by the notification was found to go beyond the statutory scheme and to operate as an excessive restraint on the freedom to practise a profession and enhance professional qualification. A statutory instrument that transgresses the limits of the parent Act and imposes unreasonable restrictions is liable to judicial review. The notification was therefore inconsistent with the guarantees of equality and professional freedom.

Conclusion: The notification dated 03.08.1989 was ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the impugned notification was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory body cannot, by notification, convert the mere acquisition of an additional qualification into professional misconduct where the parent Act only restricts the use of descriptions and the penal provisions must be construed strictly.

---