--- title: An election visiting card carried a chartered accountant's photo and certificate courses. Only fellow members saw it. description: A chartered accountant contesting a regional council election handed out a card with his photo and certificate courses. The Board found no misconduct — only fellow members ever saw the card. case_number: BOD 757/2024 file_number: PPR/MISC/590/2018-DD/07/INF/2019-BOD/757/2024 forum: board-of-discipline institute: icai decided_on: 2026-01-16 outcome: Not guilty clauses: Item (6) of Part I of the First Schedule; Item (7) of Part I of the First Schedule order_pdf: https://disc.icai.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/41.-BOD-757-2024.pdf published: 2026-09-07 author: Jainam Shah keywords: bod 757 2024, item 6 part i first schedule, item 7 part i first schedule, solicitation of professional work, advertising professional attainments, regional council election visiting card, board of discipline not guilty source: /icai/board-of-discipline/bod-757-2024 --- # 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.[^parties] ## What happened ```timeline A chartered accountant contests a seat on the Northern India Regional Council of the Institute, and during the campaign has a visiting card printed that carries his own photograph alongside a list of his qualifications and certificate courses. A fellow member forwards an image of the card to the Institute's Ethical Standards Board, asking whether an election candidate may print a photograph and certificate courses on a card. The Board says no to both, citing its own earlier decisions on the point, and refers the matter onward. The Disciplinary Directorate takes up the case and asks him to explain. He says the card is a statement of fact, not advertising or solicitation. The Director (Discipline) is not persuaded and forms a prima facie view that he is guilty of both soliciting work and advertising his attainments. Because the dispute is bound up with an election, the Board pauses to ask the Institute's own Election Panel whether any election rule was broken. No answer ever comes back, and years pass with the file unchanged. When the case is finally heard, the Board finds nothing to show the card reached anyone beyond fellow members already voting in the election, and no election authority ever objected to it. The charge is held not established and the case is closed. ``` 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.[^item6] - **Item (7)** — advertising professional attainments or services, including describing oneself by a designation other than "chartered accountant" on professional documents.[^item7] 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).[^rule] Seven years had passed between the ethics board's first look at the card and this finding.[^timeline] ## 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. [^parties]: *CA. Rajesh Mehta (M. No. 503886), Hisar* was the respondent in this suo-motu ("in Re:") matter, which the Institute pursued after another member flagged the card rather than on a formal complaint. [^item6]: Item (6) of Part I of the First Schedule concerns a member in practice soliciting professional work, whether directly or indirectly, by circular, advertisement, personal communication or interview. [^item7]: Item (7) of Part I of the First Schedule concerns a member advertising professional attainments or services, or using any designation other than "chartered accountant" on professional documents, visiting cards, letterheads or signboards. [^rule]: Rule 15(2) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 — where the Board finds a member not guilty, it records that finding and orders the complaint closed. There is no punishment hearing. [^timeline]: The Ethical Standards Board first considered the card at its 142nd meeting on 20 July 2018. The Director (Discipline) issued a prima facie opinion of guilt on 16 March 2022; the Board sought the Election Panel's view on 23 August 2022; no response arrived, and the Director (Discipline) reaffirmed the same opinion on 9 July 2024 for want of any new material. The findings record the final hearing as 9 December 2025, preceded by an adjournment dated 27 December 2025 — the two dates as printed appear out of sequence in the order, and are given here as they appear in the source. Findings were signed 16 January 2026 by CA. Rajendra Kumar P (Presiding Officer), Ms. Dolly Chakrabarty (Government Nominee) and CA. Priti Savla (Member), all present in person at ICAI Bhawan, New Delhi.