An election visiting card carried a chartered accountant's photo and certificate courses. Only fellow members saw it.

A Hisar chartered accountant stood for a seat on his regional council and put his credentials on a card for the voters who would decide it. Another member forwarded that card to the Institute's ethics watchdog, asking whether an election candidate was allowed to do that.¹

What happened#

His account of the card shifted along the way. At first he said it merely stated his name, address and qualifications and was not advertisement or solicitation (para 3). Later, in his written statement, he went further and denied circulating the image himself at all, suggesting it might have been leaked by others during the election "possibly with an intent to harm his goodwill and electoral prospects" (para 4).

What decided the case was not his account but two absences in the record: the Election Panel never sent back any view on whether the card breached the Election Code, despite the Board having asked for one (para 14), and no complaint over the card had ever been filed before the Election Cell or Election Tribunal — the forums built to hear exactly that kind of dispute (para 13).

The two clauses#

Both sit in Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

• Item (6) — soliciting professional work: any approach, direct or indirect, that asks a client or the public for an engagement.²
• Item (7) — advertising professional attainments or services, including describing oneself by a designation other than "chartered accountant" on professional documents.³

Neither clause turns on the fact of a photograph or a certificate course by itself — both ask whether the material amounted to touting for work. The Board held that, on these facts, it did not, and found the charge not established under either item.

What the respondent said#

His counsel argued at the hearing that the card was not a visiting card in the professional sense at all, but an election communication meant only for members of the Institute, for the limited purpose of putting his candidature and credentials before them during the election process. It carried no firm name and was never used to solicit clients (para 12).

Earlier in the proceedings, his position had been narrower still: that the card was simply factual, and, separately, that he was not even sure he had released it — it may have surfaced through someone else during the campaign (paras 3-4).

What the Board held#

The Board found nothing on record to show the card had been used as a tool for advertisement or solicitation of professional services, and noted that it had been addressed exclusively to the chartered accountant fraternity in the context of an election, not to the general public (para 13). It also noted that, despite its own direction to seek the Election Panel's view, "no material or opinion from the Election Cell had been placed on record indicating that the Respondent's conduct amounted to a violation of the Election Code of Conduct" (para 14).

Taken together:

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, the nature and purpose of the card in question, the limited audience to whom it was addressed, and the absence of any complaint or adverse finding by the Election Cell or Tribunal, the Board is of the considered opinion that the conduct of the Respondent does not amount to professional misconduct as alleged. (para 15)

The order#

the Board of Discipline holds that the Respondent Not Guilty of Professional Misconduct under Items (6) and (7) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and the matter is disposed of accordingly. (para 16)

No punishment stage follows a not-guilty finding. The Board closed the case under Rule 15(2).⁴ Seven years had passed between the ethics board's first look at the card and this finding.⁵

Why it matters#

This section is ours, not the Board's.

Whether material counts as advertising turns on its audience, not the content alone. The same photograph and certificate courses that the ethics board itself said did not belong on a visiting card were still held not to be professional misconduct here, because the card went only to fellow members already deciding an election. Treat that as a narrow, fact-specific outcome, not a general licence for election material.

An institution's silence can work in your favour, but do not plan around it. The Board asked its own Election Panel for a view and got none, and the absence of an adverse finding counted for the respondent. A differently timed answer from that Panel could just as easily have gone the other way.

Keep your account of events consistent. He first defended the card as harmless, then denied releasing it at all — and still prevailed, but only because nothing on record contradicted him either way. Settle on one version and be able to support it.

This summarises a public order and links the primary source. It is general information, not legal or professional advice.