Multidisciplinary Partnerships for Advocates: STBA's Formal Call to Amend Bar Council of India Rules

Overview

A significant formal representation was submitted on 11th May 2026 by the Sales Tax Bar Association to both the Hon'ble Union Minister of Law and Justice and the Chairman, Bar Council of India, urging a fundamental reconsideration of the professional partnership restrictions currently binding advocates under the Bar Council of India Rules. The core demand revolves around amending Rule 2 in Chapter III of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, which presently creates an absolute bar against advocates entering into any partnership or remuneration-sharing arrangement with non-advocates.

This representation carries considerable weight, given that it emanates from one of India's most established tax professional bodies, and touches upon the practical realities of modern-day legal and tax practice — particularly in the domains of GST, VAT, and the Income Tax Act.

About the Sales Tax Bar Association

Incorporated in 1957, the Sales Tax Bar Association (Regd.) has grown into one of the country's oldest and most prominent associations of tax professionals, with a membership base of approximately 2,000 professionals. Over nearly seven decades, the Association has played an active role in shaping tax jurisprudence, facilitating knowledge-sharing, and engaging constructively with regulatory and legislative authorities.

Its members routinely handle sophisticated matters spanning GST, VAT, the Income Tax Act, and various allied statutes — engagements that, by their very nature, demand an integrated command of legal advocacy, financial analysis, and regulatory compliance. It is precisely this on-ground reality that underpins the Association's present representation.

Rule 2 in Chapter III of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules

The provision at the heart of this representation reads as follows:

"An advocate shall not enter into a partnership or any other arrangement for sharing remuneration with any person or legal practitioner who is not an advocate."

This rule, framed under Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961, is part of a broader set of conditions governing an advocate's right to practice. While the STBA acknowledges that the rationale behind this restriction — namely, the preservation of professional independence and ethical integrity — remains valid in principle, it forcefully argues that the blanket nature of the prohibition is no longer aligned with the practical demands of contemporary professional services.

For reference, Rule 1 of Chapter III of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules provides:

"Every advocate shall be under an obligation to see that his name appears on the roll of the State Council within whose jurisdiction he ordinarily practices. Provided that if an advocate does not apply for transfer of his name to the roll of the State Bar Council within whose jurisdiction he is ordinarily practising within six months of the start of such practice, it shall be deemed that he is guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of Section 35 of the Advocates Act."

The Multidisciplinary Gap: Why Other Professions Are Already Ahead

Statutory Bodies That Already Permit MDPs

One of the most compelling arguments in the STBA's representation is the regulatory asymmetry that exists between advocates and their counterparts in other statutory professions. Three major professional bodies in India — each established through an Act of Parliament — have already moved to permit Multi-Disciplinary Partnerships (MDPs):

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI)

Under Regulation 53B of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, Chartered Accountants are permitted to enter into partnerships with members of the following professional bodies: