Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(d) The decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corpn. of India v. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah AIR 1993 SC 171 was cited for the proposition that it was manifest from article 19(2) that the right conferred by article 19(1)(a) was subject to imposition of reasonable restrictions in the interest of, amongst others, public order, decency or morality or in relation to defamation or incitement to an offence. The Supreme Court held that it had always placed a broad interpretation on the value and content of article 19(1)(a), making it subject only to the restrictions permissible under article 19(2). Efforts by intolerant authorities to curb or suffocate this freedom have always been firmly repelled. More so when public authorities have betrayed autocratic tendencies. (See paragraph 10 of the judgment).

21.2 The Code of Conduct which is declared by the Council as a regulatory statutory body created to safeguard the interests of the profession, is members and the general public is nothing but an adoption of principles of decency and morality which the members are expected to follow. The duty to carry out the provisions of the Act including the duty to exercise disciplinary powers conferred by the Act vests in the Council. Therefore, when it takes disciplinary action against a member, who commits serious violation of ethical norms which, according to the Council, amounts to misconduct, it simply exercises statutory powers. The statutory provisions empowering the Council to take disciplinary action against a member of the institute who violates ethical norms and encourages commission of serious economic and other offences would clearly be a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in the interest of decency and morality and in relation to incitement to an offence. It is however, pertinent to note that the disciplinary power is, in the present. case, primarily exercised for removing the respondent from the membership of the institute after being found quilty of misconduct and does not directly prevent him from exercising right to freedom of speech and expression under articles 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The provisions of the said Act enabling the disciplinary action being taken against a member committing misconduct which may include advocating tax evasion would clearly be a reasonable restriction imposed by law, in the interest of general public on the exercise of right to freedom of practising profession guaranteed by article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. When the restriction is justified under article 19(6), membership of the profession cannot be claimed as a fundamental right for carrying on the profession. The position so lost cannot be retrieved by resorting to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, because, the impugned action primarily has an impact on the membership of the professional body from which be could be removed for a professional or other misconduct as statutorily provided.

21.3 The statutory power to take action in respect of misconduct is not meant to curtail freedom of speech and expression, but to ensure proper conduct of the members of the institute and to protect the interest and prestige of the profession of Chartered Accountants. If the member commits misconduct by committing breach of the Code of Conduct and does anything detrimental to the interest and prestige of the profession, he is liable to disciplinary action under, section 21 which is not designed to restrict in any way the freedom of speech or expression. It is primarily designed to regulate the profession of the Chartered Accountants. It cannot, therefore, be called in question as violating of article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Misconduct may consist of writing an offensive articles or delivering a foul speech which are not in the interest of general public or are contrary to decency or morality or amount to inciting an offence or any other unlawful activity. Any action which is detrimental to the interest or prestige of the profession of Chartered Accountants, clearly undermines disciplinary standards set up by the norms of ethical conduct. The provisions of disciplinary action against the members can be better looked at from the point of view of the fundamental right guaranteed by article 19(1)(g), read with restrictions that can be imposed under clause (6) of article 19 as reasonable restrictions in the interests of general public.