Can I Post This?

Describe what you want to publish — where it goes, which service it promotes, and what it contains — and get a straight answer under ICAI's revised Code of Ethics, with the basis cited. Every element is judged separately, and where the Code is genuinely unsettled the answer is GREY rather than a guess.

Revised Code of Ethics, 13th Edition · in force from 1 April 2026 · page built 02 Sep 2026 · website audit added 06 Sep 2026

What does your website show today?

Tick everything that is on the site now. Each item is judged against ICAI's 2020 advisory and against the 13th Edition in force from 1 April 2026.

Firm name Optional — printed on the audit, never stored or sent

Which services does the site promote? The same exclusivity question the other tab turns on

What is on the site? Tick what is actually there.

Record of authorities verified

For a reply, appeal or representation drafted with AI assistance. You fill it in, you sign it, it goes in the file. Nothing is sent anywhere and nothing is stored — print or copy it before you close the tab.

Matter or notice reference

Forum

AI tool used Name it — the record is worth more when it is specific

Drafted by

Reviewed and signed by Member name and membership number

Date

Authorities cited in the draft

One row per authority. Up to twenty-five. The status on each row is computed from your answers — it is not a judgement about the authority, it is a record of what you actually checked.

Citation as it appears	Proposition it is cited for	Source consulted	Exists?	Paragraph read?	Still good law?	Supports it?	Status

What the courts and the Gujarat instruction now require

Paraphrase, not quotation — the Gujarat instruction's own text is reproduced inside the Court's order, and that order's PDF is not machine-readable here.

A decision resting on hallucinated authority is "no decision at all." Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd., 2026 INSC 668 (Supreme Court, 2 July 2026) — zero tolerance; citing unverified AI authority is misconduct for an advocate, and the Bar Council was directed to frame norms. indiankanoon.org/doc/113338666. This is the national source of the duty.
Three ways a citation fails, not one. Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 947 (3 September 2026), setting aside a central Customs officer's order of ₹425.28 crore: the case does not exist · the citation is fabricated · a genuine judgment is cited for a holding it does not contain. The third is the one a careful reader misses.
A GST chain quashed on the same ground. Faiz Enterprise v. State Tax Officer, Unit-67, Surat, [2026:GUJHC:53490-DB], R/SCA 10123/2026 (August 2026) — the Gujarat State Tax instruction of 18 August 2026 was reproduced into the order, and breach of it made contempt and misconduct.
What that instruction requires, paraphrased: verify every AI-surfaced authority against the official source; check it is still good law, not merely correctly cited; read the actual relevant paragraph, and where the AI paraphrases a ratio, locate and reproduce the original; address and distinguish the taxpayer's own authorities on reasons; the order must reflect the officer's own application of mind; and the issuing authority stays accountable for correctness whatever tool was used.
Who it binds, and what it means for you. The instruction binds Gujarat state tax officers. The Supreme Court's duty binds every adjudicator and advocate nationally. ICAI has issued no AI-use pronouncement as at 11 September 2026 — the Ethical Standards Board's decisions page is silent. So for a Chartered Accountant this record is best practice and evidence of due care under the Code of Ethics; it is not a prescribed form.
If the order against you cites badly. An order visibly built on an unverified or overruled citation is attackable on the department's own instruction — a specific, checkable ground for reply and appeal, and one most practitioners do not yet know exists.
Manupatra's Citation Verifier (May 2026) and similar tools confirm that a citation exists. They do not test whether it supports the proposition you are citing it for, which is the failure mode Gadiya puts third on its list.

What changed on 1 April 2026

The Council approved the revised 13th Edition of the Code of Ethics at its 447th meeting on 12 December 2025, including amendments to the Advertisement Guidelines and the Website Guidelines. It took effect on 1 April 2026.

What	Position
Push-mode promotion — pushing your message out to an audience rather than waiting to be found	Now permitted for services that are not exclusive to the CA profession (accounting, consultancy and the like). It remains prohibited for services exclusively reserved to CAs. This is the single biggest liberalisation in the revision, and it is also the point most widely misreported.
Network firm websites	Network firms registered with ICAI may now develop and maintain their own websites.
Write-ups	The scope was widened, giving members more creative latitude in how services are described.
Client names	May be given with the client's permission. For non-exclusive services the nature of the work may also be disclosed; for exclusive services, the client's name only.
App-based aggregators	Listing for exclusively reserved services remains prohibited. Non-exclusive services may be listed. Government portals and ICAI's CA Connect are encouraged.
Solicitation, testimonials, superlatives, banner ads	Unchanged and still prohibited. The foundational rule that a member shall not solicit clients or professional work, directly or indirectly, was not relaxed.

The "push advertising is still banned" headline is a half-truth, and it is costing members a liberalisation they were actually granted. ICAI's own announcement of the revision says members and firms may use push technology for services that are not exclusive to the CA profession. Summaries that drop the carve-out read as a flat prohibition; summaries that drop the exclusion read as a free hand. Both are wrong, and this page follows ICAI's wording.

If you get it wrong

Advertising professional attainments, and soliciting clients or professional work, are professional misconduct under Items (6) and (7) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

First Schedule matters go to the Board of Discipline under section 21A, whose powers are: reprimand; removal from the Register for up to three months; and a fine of up to ₹1,00,000.

This is not hypothetical. The Board of Discipline held three members guilty on 31 January 2026 and reprimanded them on 19 June 2026 — the finding was for soliciting another firm's clients, the plainest Item (6) case there is, and for accepting an audit appointment without first communicating with the outgoing auditor.

You will see larger numbers quoted for this, and they belong to a different section. The power to remove a member permanently and to fine up to ₹5,00,000 sits with the Disciplinary Committee under section 21B, which handles Second Schedule misconduct. A pure advertising complaint does not carry those powers — though the same facts can, of course, raise Second Schedule questions of their own, and a reprimand on the public record is itself a serious matter for a practice.

Sources

Read the Guidelines themselves before you act on anything here. ICAI publishes them; this page only navigates them.

ICAI — Revised Code of Ethics (13th Edition) — the primary source, and the one to read
ICAI Ethical Standards Board — notice on the 13th Edition. The ESB is where a genuinely grey question should go.
ICAI's announcement of the amendments — the source of the push-technology carve-out for non-exclusive services
A clause-by-clause reading of the revised Advertisement and Website Guidelines — the fullest published breakdown of the permitted and prohibited lists
Trade press coverage of the amendments
The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 — sections 21A and 21B, and the First Schedule
StudyCafe — ICAI Board of Discipline holds CAs guilty of client solicitation and improper audit appointments, 31 January 2026
TheTaxCorp — reprimand for client solicitation and audit acceptance without a proper NOC — the order that followed the 31 January finding, reprimand issued 19 June 2026
JurisHour — twelve members removed from the Register, with fines, 31 May 2026 — the Disciplinary Committee's orders published 29 May 2026, showing what the section 21B powers look like when they are used
ICAI — Advisory with regard to the Website Guidelines of the Institute, dated 14 October 2020 (388th Council meeting, 6–7 February 2020) — the source of the website audit tab's 29 items, and of the statement that non-compliance is misconduct under Clause (1) of Part II of the Second Schedule. It predates the 13th Edition, which is why every row on that tab is reconciled against the 2026 revision rather than applied raw. Mirrored at SAG CA Portal

Can I Post This?

What does your website show today?

What is on the site? Tick what is actually there.

What are you publishing?

3 · What does the content contain?

Record of authorities verified

Authorities cited in the draft

What the courts and the Gujarat instruction now require

What changed on 1 April 2026

If you get it wrong

Sources