ICAI’s ₹2,950 Complaint Fee: Who Benefits More From The Complaint, The Person Seeking Justice Or ICAI? Is This A Professional Regulator Or A Toll Booth For The Aggrieved?

Imagine a case where you’ve been treated wrong by someone in the workplace. You gather your evidence, brace yourself to make your argument, and go to the body that is in charge of them to lodge a complaint. And then arrives the shocking price tag of ₹2,950. Voila! Your pursuit of justice has just hit a paywall.

This is not even a hypothetical situation. This is what occurs in real life when you wish to lodge a complaint against the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). You need to pay a fee first before you can lodge your complaint. The ICAI justifies this fee as a payment for “administrative costs associated with processing and investigating complaints.”

Can ICAI explain how charging ₹2,950 helps encourage complaints, not silence them? Since when did filing a complaint become a ₹2,950 luxury at ICAI?

But let’s consider what this actually means. When regulatory bodies impose financial barriers before the process of complaining even begins, they establish a system where there are two types of justice: one for those who can afford, and one for those who cannot. As the saying goes, “Justice delayed is justice denied,” perhaps we should also add, “Justice with a price tag is justice denied to many.“

The principal problem is not the amount per se, though ₹2,950 is not a lesser amount for the common man of India. The problem is more about the way we define responsibility within the workplace. Organizations such as the ICAI are designed to uphold standards and ensure that professionals adhere to ethical practices. If such organizations cap the complaint process at a monetary level, they may be undermining their own primary aim.

Complaint filing is not directly stated as a fundamental right in our Constitution, but it is a legal right that is very important in seeking justice as Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) protect this right. The idea is straightforward: everyone should have the right to seek help when they are wronged. Public authorities cannot arbitrarily put obstacles in this matter.

But here, things get a bit murky. Can such a fee be challenged as an “unfair trade practice” in the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) of 2019? The answer is unclear. The Consumer Protection Act states that an “unfair trade practice” is “a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or services, adopts any unfair method or deceptive practice.” So can this be used to call ICAI under CPA?

The answer is NO. Because the ICAI could argue that they are not selling services or goods to consumers in the normal manner. The complaining individuals are not “consumers” of the ICAI, at least not in the legal sense the Act has in mind.

This creates a peculiar scenario in which something is grossly unjust but does not meet the criteria for a “trade practice which is unfair” in the law of consumer protection. There are means of challenging the fee where it is established to be arbitrary, unjust, or intended to occlude access to justice.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines service as anything provided for consideration (except under a statutory or sovereign function). If ICAI has charged a fee for registering a complaint, the complainant may argue that  it is a legal right and integral to access to justice, which is protected under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). However, ICAI may counter-argue that it is a statutory body performing regulatory functions under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and regulatory functions are generally not subject to consumer law.

Regulatory bodies like ICAI, MCI, and Bar Council have often claimed immunity under consumer law, arguing that their functions are statutory and not commercial services. Courts have, at times, ruled that if a statutory body charges fees for a particular service (such as conducting an exam or processing complaints), it may be subject to consumer law. However, ICAI’s disciplinary proceedings are considered a regulatory function, and courts have been hesitant to interfere in professional misconduct matters via consumer courts. So yes, this is a challenging situation. While a consumer complaint could be attempted, the ICAI is likely to challenge jurisdiction, and courts may rule that disciplinary proceedings are a statutory function, not a consumer service.

This creates a confusing legal environment where nothing is certain, and what happens next is not always clear. It illustrates how bureaucracy creates complicated systems that the common man has to attempt to navigate, usually at considerable personal expense.

One might reasonably ask: What is the point of a complaint registration fee? If it really pays for administrative costs, couldn’t these costs be included in the regulatory body’s regular budget? After all, dealing with complaints is not an extra task but a main duty of any regulatory agency. It would be like a police station asking for money to file a report or a court needing payment before taking a case; things that would rightly be seen as unfair to justice.

The comparison with other professional regulatory bodies is revealing. Not every professional regulatory body charges to register complaints. Those that do explain it as a way of deterring pesky complaints. But the rationale has its flaws. A decision on whether a complaint is justified or not should be made after investigation, not before the complaint. A fee as a disincentive presupposes guilt prior to investigation and puts the cost disproportionately on those who have legitimate complaints but limited resources.

It is said that “The law does not protect people from harm; it protects interests from harm.” When there are financial obstacles ahead of the complaint process, we need to think about whose interests are really being protected; the public’s interest in accountability or the institution’s interest in restricting accountability?

The psychological impact of such charges is significant to contemplate too. To the majority of individuals who would grumble, particularly those less affluent, a fee of ₹2,950 is not only a cost, but it is also a message that their grievance needs to be worthwhile and they must also have sufficient resources. It discourages numerous valid grievances from being filed because the individual cannot afford to initiate the process. As the adage says, “The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine,” but they do not turn at all for those who cannot afford to initiate.

From a social perspective, barriers to the complaint process eventually damage public trust in regulatory institutions. If citizens perceive that accountability mechanisms are only for the financially well-off, it undermines confidence in the system in general. This loss of confidence has a ripple effect beyond the particular cases not dealt with; it undermines the social contract on which democratic governance rests.

So, what is to be done? Challenging the fee structure in the courts as an unfair trade practice under the CPA will not be easy. Although it is not technically an unfair trade practice under consumer protection law, it is an unfair obstacle to justice that disproportionately burdens the less well-off. In an equality-before-the-law society, obstacles like this must be scrutinized carefully and changed if need be. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Justice for sale is not justice; it is something purchased, available only to those who have sufficient funds. From a professional responsibility and ethics standpoint, this is a price our society is not prepared to pay.