NFRA Crackdown: Outcomes, Challenges, and Legal Pushback

The NFRA’s Audit Crackdown: A Critical Appraisal of Outcomes, Enforcement Challenges, and Legal Pushback

By Sesh Kumar Pulipaka

New Delhi, April 20, 2025: The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) stands at a critical juncture, wielding significant power to curb audit misconduct yet grappling with regulatory overlap that hampers its authority. Amendments to the Companies Act or the Chartered Accountants Act are imperative to clarify jurisdictional boundaries and eliminate conflicts with existing frameworks. Until such legislative reforms are enacted, the NFRA remains a formidable but constrained enforcer, fighting not only to uphold audit integrity but also to cement its undisputed authority in disciplinary matters.

The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA), since its operational ramp-up post-2018, has initiated an unprecedented crackdown on professional misconduct in the audit sector. It has debarred 85 chartered accountants, and penalized 103 auditors between 2022 and 2025.

While these actions mark a significant regulatory assertion in India’s financial oversight landscape, their long-term impact remains contested due to a parallel rise in legal and jurisdictional pushbacks, especially after the Delhi High Court’s landmark judgment on 7 February 2025 and the subsequent partial stay by the Supreme Court.

This note critically evaluates the real-world enforcement of NFRA’s decisions, examines the contested scope of its jurisdiction and fairness and assesses whether India’s audit regulatory environment is witnessing genuine reform or is mired in legal ambiguity.

The NFRA’s Enforcement Drive: Breaking with the Past

The past three years have witnessed what is arguably the most assertive phase in India’s audit regulation history. By debarment of 85 Chartered Accountants and monetary penalties on 103 professionals, NFRA has positioned itself as an autonomous, assertive watchdog, often unafraid to go after even the most established players in the auditing ecosystem.

Notably, the punitive actions, ranging from six-month to ten-year bans, were not issued in isolation but followed detailed investigations into high-profile corporate failures such as Coffee Day Enterprises Ltd (CDEL), Seya Industries, and DHFL.

In the Coffee Day case, NFRA found gross violations including non-compliance with engagement quality control review (EQCR) norms, overlooking critical red flags, and violations of key statutory provisions under the Companies Act.

Similarly, in the Seya Industries case, penalties were imposed not just for audit failure but also for obstructing investigations, which NFRA deemed tantamount to misconduct under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

In the DHFL case, a staggering 18 auditors were found guilty of failing to report fraudulent transactions in one of India’s largest non-banking financial companies before its collapse.

These enforcement actions, rooted in the clauses of the First and Second Schedules of the Chartered Accountants Act, signal a move away from past leniency.

NFRA’s decisions seem designed not just to punish but also to instil greater accountability across the audit ecosystem.

Pushback from the Profession: The Jurisdictional Knot

Yet, these enforcement actions have not gone unchallenged. A considerable portion of NFRA’s penal orders, particularly those concerning audits conducted before its formal operationalization in October 2018, have run into legal headwinds.

The turning point was the Delhi High Court judgment dated 7 February 2025 in XYZ & Co. vs NFRA, where the Court held that NFRA’s retrospective action on audits conducted prior to 1 October 2018 — when its regulatory framework became effective — violated principles of natural justice and ultra vires the statute.

The judgment also critiqued NFRA’s claim of unfettered jurisdiction over past misconduct, noting that such expansive interpretation risks trampling due process protections embedded in the Constitution.

While the Delhi High Court did not invalidate NFRA’s existence or powers per se, it imposed a clear line between cases where NFRA can initiate new investigations and where such cases may fall under ICAI’s traditional disciplinary framework.

The judgment thus effectively clipped the wings of NFRA, creating a regulatory vacuum for pre-2018 audit lapses unless the ICAI chooses to act.  This ruling quashed show-cause notices issued by the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) to audit firms and individuals, but also upheld NFRA’s constitutional validity and its power to investigate audit-related misconduct.

The court’s decision highlighted concerns about the separation of functions within NFRA, specifically between the audit quality review and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

Quashing of Notices:

The Delhi High Court quashed show-cause notices issued by NFRA due to procedural violations regarding the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The court found that NFRA’s executive body, which conducted audit quality reviews, also made decisions to initiate disciplinary action, lacking a separation of functions.

NFRA’s Powers Upheld:

While quashing the notices, the court upheld NFRA’s constitutional validity and its power to investigate audit firms and chartered accountants. This included the ability to initiate proceedings retrospectively, even for audit reports predating 2018.

Separation of Functions:

The court emphasized the need for a clear division of functions within NFRA, requiring a separation between the review of an audit and the formation of an opinion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. This implies that the body conducting the audit review should not be the same one making decisions on disciplinary actions.

Potential Implications:

The Delhi High Court’s ruling may have significant implications for NFRA and its future actions, particularly in how it initiates and conducts disciplinary proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s subsequent intervention, in March 2025, offered a partial reprieve to NFRA. While it did not overturn the High Court’s ruling, the apex court held that NFRA’s investigatory powers—including the ability to request documents, conduct inspections, and issue show-cause notices — were valid for all cases involving companies within its jurisdiction, irrespective of the date of audit.

Supreme Court’s in its interim observations regarding NFRA, emphasized the necessity of separating investigative and adjudicatory functions within NFRA to uphold regulatory impartiality.

However, the Court did not explicitly stipulate that such proceedings must be conducted by NFRA members who were not involved in the initial investigation. Instead, the Court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the principle that one cannot act as both prosecutor and judge in the same case.

The Court’s observations align with concerns raised by the Delhi High Court, which quashed 11 show-cause notices issued by NFRA due to the lack of separation between its investigative and adjudicatory functions. The Supreme Court allowed NFRA to initiate fresh proceedings in cases where no audit quality review was previously prepared, emphasizing that such proceedings should adhere to the principles of natural justice.

In summary, while the Supreme Court underscored in its interim orders, the need for procedural fairness and the separation of functions within NFRA, it did not specifically mandate that proceedings be conducted by members uninvolved in the initial investigation.

This aspect is yet to be decided by the Supreme Court whose focus was more on ensuring that NFRA’s processes align with established principles of impartiality and justice.

Are Penalties Being Enforced or Merely Announced?

This judicial bifurcation has had a chilling effect on enforcement. While the NFRA’s orders against auditors such as in Seya Industries and DHFL remain on paper, implementation, especially the collection of penalties and the enforcement of debarment orders, has in many cases been stalled by interim reliefs granted by High Courts or through ongoing appeals.

Anecdotal evidence from court proceedings and legal filings suggests that several professionals have resumed practice under court protection while awaiting final adjudication.

Moreover, the ICAI has expressed its discomfort with what it sees as NFRA’s overreach. It has questioned the validity of dual regulatory scrutiny, arguing that ICAI’s Disciplinary Directorate retains jurisdiction over audit misconduct unless Parliament amends the parent Chartered Accountants Act to subordinate ICAI’s role to NFRA’s.

The absence of a clear statutory hierarchy between the two bodies has only amplified regulatory uncertainty.

Consequently, while the NFRA has issued more orders in the past three years than the ICAI did in over a decade, their actual deterrent effect is now being tested. Many fear that unless the Supreme Court provides a definitive ruling soon, NFRA’s effectiveness may be reduced to well-publicized but ultimately symbolic actions.

Implications for Audit Governance and Market Trust

The broader ramifications of this tug-of-war are profound. At one level, NFRA’s actions have ushered in a new era of regulatory scrutiny, where auditors can no longer assume impunity for failures. Corporate boards, investors, and market analysts have welcomed this shift as a sign that audit failures will no longer be treated as mere professional lapses but as serious threats to financial stability.

Yet, at another level, the overlapping jurisdictions, legal ambiguities, and inconsistent enforcement have created confusion among audit firms, particularly smaller ones, about the boundaries of acceptable conduct.

This uncertainty could undermine confidence in the audit profession’s regulatory architecture, precisely at a time when India is seeking greater foreign investment and deeper integration with global financial markets.

The ambiguity also weakens India’s argument on audit accountability at international forums. For instance, while the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the UK’s Financial Reporting Council (FRC) exercise undisputed sanctioning authority over auditors, India’s NFRA is now caught in a quagmire that undercuts its claim to similar legitimacy.

A Regulator in Search of Final Authority

NFRA’s aggressive actions against errant auditors since 2022 have marked a watershed moment for audit accountability in India. Through its decisions, the regulator has attempted to signal that serious professional misconduct — whether due to negligence, incompetence, or collusion — will invite real and meaningful consequences.

However, the efficacy of this crackdown has been seriously undermined by jurisdictional challenges, especially those surrounding audits conducted prior to October 2018.

The Delhi High Court’s February 2025 judgment and the Supreme Court’s subsequent conditional validation of NFRA’s powers have left the regulator with investigatory reach but uncertain penal teeth. As a result, many penalties and debarments remain stayed or pending appeal, raising questions about the finality and enforceability of NFRA’s actions.

Going forward, a legislative clarification, perhaps through amendments to the Companies Act or the Chartered Accountants Act, may be necessary to resolve this regulatory overlap once and for all. Until then, NFRA remains a powerful but partially shackled enforcer, engaged in a battle not just against audit misconduct, but for the unambiguous authority to discipline it.

(This is an opinion piece; views expressed solely belong to the author)

Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn

About The Author