Institute Of Actuaries Of India Regulations | Bombay HC Upholds Validity Of Regulation Disallowing Associate Members From Getting Certificate Of Practice

The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Regulation 10 of the 'Institute of Actuaries of India (Admission as Member and Issuance of Certificate of Practice) Regulations 2017.' Regulation 10 sets out the qualifications required to obtain a 'Certificate of Practice' (CoP). This CoP allows a person to practice as an Actuary under the Actuaries Act, of 2006.

'Actuary' as provided in Section 2(a) of the Actuaries Act is a person skilled, inter alia, in finance modelling, risk analysis and recommending rates relating to insurance business, annuities and pension rates.

The Institute of Actuaries of India (respondent no.2) refused to issue CoP to the petitioners, who are its 'Associate Members'. Petitioners thus challenged the constitutional validity of Regulation 10 of the 2017 Regulations. Petitioners contended that Regulation 10 violates Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Rational nexus and intelligible differentia under Article 14 of the Constitution

The Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla noted that 'Associate Members' are not actuaries as per the Actuaries Act.

Referring to the definition of 'Actuary' under Section 2(a) of the Actuaries Act, it noted that Associate Members are not included in this definition and thus are not considered Actuaries under the Act. It further referred to Regulation 2(b) of the 2017 Regulations, which provides that a CoP can be issued only to an Actuary and thus, only Fellow Members can obtain a CoP.

The Court stated that Regulation 10 of the 2017 Regulations allows any member to obtain a CoP if they become a 'Fellow Member'. Any member, including an Associate Member, can become a Fellow Member by passing the required exams and obtaining the necessary qualifications as provided under Regulation 4 of the 2017 Regulations.

The Court opined that such distinction between Fellow Members and Associate Members under Regulation 10 has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved and that there is an intelligible differentia.

It noted that Fellow Members possess higher qualifications than Associate Members by passing additional exams, the Council of respondent no.2, which manages the affairs of the Institute, deemed it appropriate that only such members should be eligible to practice.

“Thus, there is not only an intelligible differentia between Associate Members and Fellow Members but there is a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the said classification.”

It held that Regulation 10 does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

Reasonable restriction to practice of profession under Article 19(1)(g)

The Court noted that Article 19(6)(i) of the Constitution provides for reasonable restrictions on right to practice any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business as provided under Article 19(1)(g). Article 19(6)(i) permits restrictions on professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession.

The Court found that Regulation 10, which requires only Fellow Members with higher qualifications to apply for a CoP, was not unreasonable or disproportionate. It noted that Regulation 10 does not prohibit any member from getting a CoP, but it merely requires them to be a Fellow Member. It stated that an Associate Member can become a Fellow by passing the necessary exams and then apply for a CoP.

It remarked “In our view, there is nothing unreasonable or disproportionate in Regulation 10 of the 2017 Regulations "making only Fellow Members, who possess a higher qualification, eligible for a CoP. It only ensures that persons who possess higher qualifications will be entitled to practice.”

It held that Regulation 10 does not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

No deprivation of livelihood under Article 21

It also held that Regulation 10 does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution as it “…does not deprive any member of the Institute of his livelihood but only prescribes certain qualifications to be entitled to apply for a CoP for the purpose of practicing, which is expressly permissible under Article 19(6)(i) of the Constitution of India…”

The Court thus upheld the validity of Regulation 10 and dismissed the petition.

Case title: Divvela Ramaiah and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. (Writ Petition No.13205 of 2022)

Click Here To Read/Download Order