Bombay High Court Upholds Restriction on Certificate of Practice to Fellow Members of Actuaries. Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Regulation 10 of 2017 and Section 12 of the Actuaries Act, 2006

Case Note & Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Divvela Ramaiah and another petitioner, challenging the Institute of Actuaries of India's refusal to issue a Certificate of Practice (CoP) to Associate Members. The petitioners also questioned the constitutional validity of Regulation 10 of the 2017 Regulations and Section 12 of the Actuaries Act, 2006. The court upheld the constitutionality of these provisions, emphasizing the rational basis for distinguishing between Fellow and Associate Members based on qualifications. The court found no merit in the petition, affirming the legality of the regulations.

1. Introduction The writ petition was filed by Divvela Ramaiah and another petitioner against the Institute of Actuaries of India. The petitioners challenged the refusal to issue a Certificate of Practice (CoP) to Associate Members and questioned the constitutionality of Regulation 10 of the 2017 Regulations and Section 12 of the Actuaries Act, 2006. 2. Constitutional Validity of Regulation 10 The petitioners argued that Regulation 10, which restricts the CoP to Fellow Members, was unconstitutional. The court upheld the regulation, stating that the distinction between Fellow and Associate Members was rational, as Fellow Members possess higher qualifications due to additional examinations. 3. Proportionality and Article 19(1)(g) The petitioners contended that the restriction violated their rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court rejected this claim, stating that the regulation was reasonable and proportionate, falling within the permissible restrictions under Article 19(6)(i). 4. Comparison with Other Professions The petitioners compared the situation with other professions like Chartered Accountants and Company Secretaries, where Associate Members are allowed to practice. The court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that each profession has its own regulatory framework, which cannot be directly compared. 5. Conclusion The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the validity of Regulation 10 of the 2017 Regulations and Section 12 of the Actuaries Act, 2006. The court's decision supports the Institute's policy of granting CoP only to Fellow Members.

Issue of Consideration