ICAI Cannot Cancel CA Result Over Pre-Exam E-mail: Raj HC

ICAI Cannot Cancel CA Result Over Student’s Pre-Exam E-mail Under Regulation 41: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court quashed the ICAI Examination Committee’s decision cancelling a CA Intermediate candidate’s result over a pre-examination e-mail to its office bearers urging online exams during the pandemic. Regulation 41 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 reaches only disorderly behaviour in or near an examination hall or unfair means, and the e-mail had no such nexus. The notice never proposed cancellation; the action was arbitrary and against natural justice (paras 53-54, 57-61).

Key holdings

An e-mail urging online examinations, written before the candidate sat them, had no nexus with the examination hall; Regulation 41 proceedings were void from inception (paras 57-59).

Cancelling a result when the notice never indicated cancellation breaches natural justice and Article 14 (paras 52-54).

Review by the Council under Regulation 176(3) was no bar where the Committee exceeded its jurisdiction and the Institute defended its decision (paras 46-48).

Having warned the student only against further communications, the Institute was estopped from acting on her single earlier e-mail (paras 50-51).

Showing ‘adopted unfair means’ on the website, contrary to the actual facts, was beyond acceptable limits (para 55).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, a CA Intermediate candidate, e-mailed the Institute’s President and office bearers on 20.11.2020; its thrust was that all CA examinations be conducted online (paras 8-9). On 22.11.2020 the Institute’s counsel told her to refrain from any further such communication (para 49). She opted out of the November examinations and wrote the papers held from 22.1.2021 to 7.2.2021 (paras 11-12). On 22.2.2021 the Deputy Secretary (Examinations) put her result on hold for ‘derogatory remarks’ and sought her explanation; she apologised that evening (paras 13-14). After a hearing at Jaipur on 10.3.2021, the Institute’s website showed her result cancelled as ‘adopted unfair means’ (paras 15-18).

Court's Findings

The e-mail went to the President and office bearers, not the Examination Committee, which could take cognizance only on the President’s direction (para 36). Nothing in it was derogatory, and after her apology the Institute should have abstained (paras 37-39). The 30.3.2021 e-mail was only an intimation, so a prayer to declare the result lay, and omitting the 22.11.2020 notice was an oversight (paras 44-45). Review before the Council under Regulation 176(3) was no bar: the Committee exceeded its jurisdiction, the Institute defended its decision in court, and the remedy would be illusory (paras 46-48). Bound by its own notice, the Institute was estopped from acting on an e-mail never followed by another (paras 50-51). The 22.2.2021 notice never indicated cancellation, so the penalty breached natural justice under Gorkha Security Services and Article 14 (paras 52-54). Regulation 41 covers disorderly behaviour in or near an examination hall or unfair means; an e-mail written before she sat the examinations had no nexus with the hall, so the proceedings were void from inception (paras 57-59). A statutory body treating criticism as a challenge to its authority violates Article 19(1)(a) (para 60).

Legal Principle

Regulation 41 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 allows the Examination Committee to discipline a candidate only for disorderly behaviour in or near an examination hall or for unfair means; conduct with no nexus to the examination, such as an earlier e-mail, falls outside it. A show cause notice must state the action proposed (paras 53, 57-59).

Precedents Relied Upon

Gorkha Security Services v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi (2014) 9 SCC 105
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 53
Though a blacklisting case, it makes clear that a show cause notice must state the action proposed to be taken against the noticee; the cancellation of the result without any such indication was held contrary to natural justice and to this law.
Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana AIR 1985 SC 1147
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 48
An alternative remedy before the authority whose decision is defended with full force would be illusory, like challenging Caesar’s order before Caesar’s wife; review before the ICAI Council was therefore no bar to the writ.

Statutory Provisions