NFRA at a Crossroads: Can India’s Audit Regulator Regain Trust?
NFRA outreach programme (Image NFRA Social on X)
As NFRA’s outreach campaigns grow louder, its legal setbacks and institutional flaws deepen. Experts say only structural reform—separating investigation and adjudication, fixing enforcement, and restoring fairness—can rescue India’s audit watchdog from a credibility crisis.
By P. SESH KUMAR
New Delhi, December 6, 2025 — The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) has rolled out an impressive array (critics call it façade) of reform—from nationwide outreach programmes to upgraded standards on auditing and accounting, from audit quality inspections to webinars, circulars, and its flagship Audit Practice Toolkits. On paper, the 2025 campaign titled “Creating a Better Financial Reporting World” represents a confident regulator leading the transformation of India’s audit ecosystem. Yet beneath this energetic surface lies a regulator struggling with a foundational crisis of legitimacy.
Allegations of heavy-handedness, defective legal architecture, quashed disciplinary orders, and a Delhi High Court judgment insisting that NFRA cannot be investigator, prosecutor, and judge rolled into one have collectively pushed its enforcement powers to the brink of irrelevance.
A regulator that cannot enforce compliance—or whose enforcement collapses under judicial scrutiny—risks becoming a paper tiger.
The Promise of a New Audit Regulator
NFRA was conceived as India’s answer to long-standing criticisms of self-regulation by professional bodies. The vision was clear: a tough, independent audit regulator on the lines of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in the United States or the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) in the UK, capable of disciplining errant auditors, driving audit quality, and strengthening financial reporting integrity across Public Interest Entities (PIE).
And in 2025, NFRA certainly looked the part. Its outreach programmes—from Hyderabad to Indore—attempted to bridge the trust deficit with small and medium practitioners who traditionally felt alienated by top-down regulatory dictates.
Its first-ever Audit Firms Survey 2025 engaged 383 firms nationwide, finally giving India empirical insight into the capacity, constraints, and aspirations of the audit profession beyond the Big 6. Its circulars, audit quality inspection reports, and toolkits appeared to signal a maturing regulator ready to walk the talk on reform.
NFRA’s technical footprint also expanded impressively: It recommended 40 high-quality Standards on Auditing, 47 amendments to Ind AS, a new suite of 27 Accounting Standards for small and medium companies, and issued inspection reports covering both firm-wide systems and individual engagements.
In collaboration with IICA, it launched structured courses for independent directors and audit committee members- an essential step toward strengthening boards, the first line of defence for audit quality. Its Audit Practice Toolkits, rolled out in November 2025, held promise for lifting the competency and workflow maturity of small and medium practitioners who serve India’s vast non-PIE corporate universe.
Had the story ended here, NFRA would today be lauded as the single most transformative audit regulator India has ever seen. But the reality is far more complex.
A Regulator Under Fire: Heavy-Handedness Allegations and a Crisis of Credibility
Even as NFRA tightened its regulatory grip, the audit profession increasingly accused it of being high-handed, hyper-punitive, and intolerant of even technical or procedural breaches lacking financial impact or mala fide intent. Many argued that NFRA’s adjudicatory orders reflected a quasi-criminal tone disproportionate to the contested conduct.
Others complained that its disciplinary orders read more like moral sermons than reasoned, proportionate regulatory determinations.
These concerns took a dangerous turn when several of NFRA’s disciplinary orders began to crumble under judicial scrutiny. Courts repeatedly questioned NFRA’s adherence to natural justice, its rushed proceedings, its failure to supply complete material to charged auditors, and its excessive reliance on ex parte assumptions.
In some cases, appellants had their penalties stayed at the first judicial glance; in others, entire orders were remanded for fresh adjudication.
What began as isolated challenges steadily snowballed into a narrative: NFRA may be ambitious, but its enforcement machinery is legally fragile.
This narrative reached a critical point with the Delhi High Court judgment that shook the regulatory architecture itself.
The Delhi High Court Bombshell: You Cannot Be Investigator, Prosecutor, and Judge
The Delhi High Court held that NFRA’s structure—where the same body investigates, prosecutes, and adjudicates—is inherently incompatible with principles of natural justice. It directed that NFRA must separate its investigative and adjudicatory wings to avoid conflict of interest, institutional bias, and erosion of procedural fairness.
The judgment did not merely point out a defect; it exposed a fundamental constitutional flaw at the heart of the NFRA Act and its rules.
Suddenly, NFRA’s disciplinary universe was thrown into limbo.
The authority appealed to the Supreme Court, but the appeal—still pending—has done little to restore confidence. Until the apex court speaks, NFRA exists in a twilight zone: formally empowered, practically constrained, and institutionally unsure of how to proceed without risking further judicial invalidation.
The Enforcement Paralysis
As orders were quashed or stayed, and as NFRA scrambled to re-do proceedings with fuller hearings and revised processes, a quiet truth emerged: A regulator that cannot enforce discipline risks becoming ineffective, no matter how many outreach programmes, toolkits, or standards it publishes.
Audit quality does not improve merely through public events and surveys. It improves when the cost of non-compliance is clear, predictable, and enforceable. Today, however, NFRA’s enforcement landscape resembles a regulatory minefield—anything it does may later be invalidated for structural infirmities.
The outreach programmes and toolkits, impressive as they are, can at best shape attitudes. They cannot substitute for a strong, credible enforcement backbone.
The Two Faces of NFRA: Activist Regulator vs. Legally Vulnerable Institution
This is NFRA’s paradox: On one hand, it is pushing forward with standards, inspections, surveys, webinars, director-training programmes, and national outreach efforts. It is building toolkits, engaging with stakeholders, and operating with the energy of a young reformist institution.
On the other, its legal foundation is riddled with cracks—structural conflicts of interest, ambiguous statutory powers, poorly drafted regulations, and procedural lapses that courts have flagged repeatedly.
One cannot overlook the fact that the legal imbroglio was more the creation of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) which did not fill up the Authority with adequate number of full-time members till a few months back. And without more such members, NFRA could not have attempted to segregate its investigative and adjudicative powers with hardly 3 full time members in place.
The result is a regulator living in two worlds: one outwardly confident and reformist, another internally battling existential doubts. Unless this contradiction is resolved, India’s dream of a world-class audit regulator will remain unfulfilled.
Roadmap to Rebuilding NFRA
NFRA cannot succeed merely on enthusiasm; it must rebuild legitimacy. The solution is neither to weaken NFRA nor to allow unrestrained authority. What India needs is a regulator that is firm but fair, powerful but procedurally grounded.
A credible path forward would include: A statutory amendment to separate investigation from adjudication, as the Delhi High Court demanded. This is inevitable; resisting it only prolongs uncertainty, unless, the MCA lays great store in Supreme Court overturning Delhi High Court decision that stipulated separation of investigative and adjudicative powers.
A modernised, proportionate enforcement framework, distinguishing between technical lapses, negligent misconduct, and fraudulent intent. Independent appellate mechanisms, free from NFRA’s institutional influence.
Transparent penalty guidelines, ensuring that enforcement is consistent, predictable, and fair. Greater engagement with small and medium practitioners, not merely through toolkits and workshops but through genuine consultative rule-making that recognises resource constraints.
Periodic external audits of NFRA’s functioning, similar to inspections conducted on the FRC and PCAOB. Building trust requires humility from the regulator. Audit quality is not a war between NFRA and the profession; it is a shared public good. NFRA must demonstrate it can enforce the law robustly while respecting procedural fairness and proportionality.
Only then will its outreach programmes, toolkits, and inspections translate into real, systemic improvement in audit quality.
NFRA thus stands today at a crossroads. Its ambitious national outreach and reform initiatives show a regulator eager to lead India into a new era of audit excellence.
Yet its shaky legal foundation, overturned orders, allegations of overreach, and the Delhi High Court’s structural indictment threaten to undermine everything it is trying to build.
Whether NFRA emerges as a transformative force or collapses under its own institutional contradictions will depend on how quickly and courageously it embraces reform- not just in the audit profession, but within itself.
Until then, India’s financial reporting ecosystem continues to await the strong, fair, and durable audit regulator it was promised.
(This is an opinion piece, and views expressed are those of the author only)
NFRA’s New Gambit: Auditor-Audit Dialogue or Judicial Backpedal?
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
