The dispute between CA and CMA audit mandates is a high-stakes legal and professional fight within India’s financial sector. It primarily revolves around the exclusive right to perform audits of companies. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) upholds its longstanding statutory monopoly under the Companies Act, 2013, while the Institute of Cost Accountants of India (ICMAI) contest this dominance, asserting that its own legislation grants its members the authority to conduct audits. This conflict involves not just legal interpretation but also issues of professional jurisdiction, market dominance, and the future direction of the accounting profession in India.
What is the Dispute About?
A legal dispute has arisen between India’s accounting institutes over the exclusive right to perform financial audits. The ICAI cites the Companies Act, 2013 to assert that only its Chartered Accountant (CA) members are authorized. In contrast, the ICMAI contends that its Cost and Management Accountant (CMA) members are also qualified, as their legally mandated “cost audit” function under a separate 1959 Act requires extensive verification of financial records.
Arguments From Each Side
The CMAs’ Position: The ICMAI contends that its members’ comprehensive education in accounting, taxation, and compliance equips them fully for audit responsibilities. They are actively lobbying government ministries and committees to amend the law to formally include Cost and Management Accountants as authorized financial auditors.
The CAs’ Position: The ICAI maintains that the specialized and rigorous training of Chartered Accountants makes them uniquely qualified for statutory tax audits. They argue that this function has historically and legally been their exclusive domain and should not be diluted by expanding the mandate to other professions.
The Government’s Stance
Historical Stance
Traditionally, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has consistently supported the exclusive right of Chartered Accountants (CAs) to perform financial audits as prescribed by the Companies Act.
The 2018 MCA Circular (The Flashpoint)
This long-standing position was formally reinforced by the MCA in a 2018 circular. The circular explicitly stated that Cost and Management Accountants (CMAs) are not authorized to conduct financial audits under the Companies Act, 2013, affirming that this right remains solely with CAs.
The 2023 Madras HC Interim Order
In a significant interim development in 2023, the Madras High Court issued a stay order, temporarily suspending the MCA’s 2018 circular.
Meaning of the Interim Stay
- This is not a final ruling on the case’s merits.
- It indicates that the court finds the ICMAI’s arguments substantial enough to deserve a full hearing.
- The stay prohibits the MCA from enforcing the circular, meaning it cannot take action against CMAs performing financial audits while the case is ongoing.
- The final outcome will be determined by the court’s ultimate verdict.
Recent Developments (2025)
- The Lok Sabha’s Select Committee, aided by an EY curriculum review, rejected proposals from ICMAI and ICSI for inclusion.
- Political divisions have emerged, with BJP members supporting CAs and Congress figures advocating for CMAs and CSs.
- ICMAI is planning further legal action and is seeking amendments to relevant acts to assert audit rights for CMAs.
- The new law, which is likely to take effect from April 1, 2026, will maintain CA exclusivity unless future legislative changes arise.
Audit Mandate Status
| Profession | Audit Mandate (2025) | Official Status |
| Chartered Accountant | Tax audits, statutory audits | Authorized |
| Cost Accountant | Cost audits only | Excluded |
| Company Secretary | Secretarial audits only | Excluded |
Implications
CAs will remain the only professionals authorized to conduct tax audits under the new Income Tax Bill, affecting the professional scope and career opportunities for CMAs and CSs.
The decision has reignited debate regarding professional boundaries, recognition, and future amendments in India’s audit ecosystem.
At its core, this dispute is a struggle for professional legitimacy and economic opportunity. It underscores the shifting responsibilities of accounting specialists in a modern economy and reveals an urgent need for legal frameworks to be updated to reflect these evolving roles. The issue remains a pivotal regulatory battle, with future developments likely as professional groups continue to advocate for expanded recognition.
