Sir we’ll start with a very prominent question of why and when you decided to do law after UPSC examinations, and what were the decisive moments that may have led you to choose law instead of what you were doing already. What ways do you think that all that experience that you garnered over the years influenced your approach towards the legal profession?
The reason for me, for doing law after I was not able to qualify for UPSC, the main motive for even preparation for the UPSC was to serve the nation or serve the people of the country, and law is another field where in other ways we are able to serve the society, serve the people, either appearing on behalf of the defense side or on behalf of the prosecution side.
Basically, we’re there to help the society. If any person is involved in any legal trouble, they approach the lawyer. In that way, we are helping the people. The purpose and the objective for doing law was only for to help the people at the grassroot level.
“Sir, how did you cope mentally when your UPSC plans didn’t work out, and what motivated you to continue serving society? Could you also share some key challenges and successes that made a real impact on both the people and your own life?”
I completed my law in the year 2011 and then thereafter from 2011 to 2021, I was mainly a defense counsel on the criminal side of the bar. I was defending the accused persons in cases of Delhi Police, CBI and ED. So, in that way while I was representing the people I also came to know the challenges that the prosecution faces, what type of legal requirements are there to even build up for fool proof cases is the first one.
So, in that context, the first thing that I came to understand that the nuances of the criminal practice are very demanding and it requires one to go into the nitty-gritties and to get into the details on each and every aspect of the case. The second thing that I have experienced so far is that people are going through so much pain, so what I was trying to do so far was to actually help those people in a proper manner to the best of my capability, and that’s how the journey started first.
Since 2011 to 2015, I was an associate with my Senior Rajesh Anand and I have learned lot from him about the nuances of the criminal law.
2015 onwards, I started as an independent practitioner and I will say my first big case as an independent lawyer was the Coal Scam case wherein, I represented one of the Sitting Director, Mines, Jharkhand Government. I was also one of the youngest lawyers amongst those who were representing the other co-accused in the same case and that case was the first in all of the coal scam cases that came to be registered so forth. So that’s how my journey as an independent lawyer started.
Prior to that as well when I was working with my Senior Rajesh Anand, I got the opportunity to work in some very good cases, one of those cases was the TWG scam, Commonwealth game scam. So that was my first case, I will say, where I got an opportunity to represent the accused in which the CBI was the prosecuting agency and I would say the bulkiest cases in terms of the volumes of the documents, in terms of the volumes of the accused and in terms of the magnitude of the case.
So that’s how my journey started, and even before that, with my Senior Rajesh Rana, I also got an opportunity to learn from him the nuances of the cross-examination, which I will say is the root thing or the most important thing for any criminal lawyer to understand. The problem is that sometimes there are people who don’t want to get the trial experience.
However, in my individual opinion, cross examination is the most important aspect for any criminal lawyer, and that is the evidence on which the superior courts whether it be magistrate trial, session court trial, the Honourable High court or the Honourable Supreme court finally decides at the stage of the appeal, either filed by the accused person by the state. Therefore, the most important thing for the purpose of any criminal trial is the recording of the evidence, either by the prosecution or the cross-examination. So, for a defense counsel to learn the art of the cross-examination is the most important thing, and for that, I give my all thanks my Senior Mr. Rajesh Anand.
There was a time when I was doing most of the MCOCA case for the defence side that being from 2015 to 2021.
Thereafter, I got an opportunity to represent the Delhi police in one of the case, State Vs. Sukesh Chadrashekhar, where the accused persons were booked under MCOCA and I was approached by the Delhi Police to represent them as a Special Public Prosecutor.
So that’s how my journey started, being a special public prosecutor to represent the Delhi Police. Thereafter, I represented Delhi Police in a number of cases as a special public prosecutor, the Parliament security breach case being another one. I am also representing the Delhi Police in Norco terrorism cases. Primarily I’m representing Delhi police in cases where MCOCA has been involved against a number of the organized crimes syndicate.
I’m also representing the Delhi Police in another peculiar case with the Khalistan front angle, where local terrorist and local gangster along with some of the gangsters sitting abroad who have formed a nexus and were indulged in terrorist activities within the territory of India.
So effectively I’m representing Delhi Police in multiple cases as a Special Public Prosecutor and I’m trying to give my level best.
Sir, given the intense nature of the cases you’ve handled, how have they impacted your understanding of human psychology, and how do you protect your own mental and moral well-being while staying professionally involved?
The problem with being an advocate is the work-life balance, and I totally agree with that. There is no hesitation in accepting that. I totally agree with the fact that we as lawyers are able to devote very less time to our family from what is required. Every profession has its own demands. Every profession has its own pros and cons, but once I chose this field, my priority has always been the work along with the life aspects.
And yes, at times one thing takes a toll on the another, but it shouldn’t be so on the cost of another thing. Secondly thing regarding maintaining, yes, we hardly get time to sleep. I will totally agree with that, but yes, we need to be physically and mentally fit. And the most important thing is the presence of mind, particularly in the court room, because sometimes a query comes from the honourable court on a specific aspect and if we are not able to keep ourself physically and mentally fit, there can be a situation where we will not be able to respond properly, and the ability to respond to such queries comes from the aspect that how much you are prepared with your file.
My understanding about the criminal law is that every time when you go through the file, you learn a new thing. Because see, there is always everything in the file. I will say that is, in my opinion, either you appear on behalf of the state or either you appear for the defense, file is everything, and reading the file is the most important thing.
The number of the times you read the file, your orientation or your perspective or you’re understanding about the file changes at instances because maybe there can be an occasion at times you miss certain very important things on the facts of the case. I was doing a drug-trap case, anti-corruption ban, Delhi police case and I was representing one of the accused who was caught red handed, there was also the recording of the entire trap, so for the first time when I read the file, I was unable to gather as to how or in what manner I’m going to represent the accused because being a criminal lawyer we also need to strategize our cases.
But yes, after going through the file again and again and again and again, finally I got some legal aspect on the ground of which finally I got the video of the trap inadmissible before the honourable court in terms of the evidence.
I will say my understanding about the reading of the file, my understanding about how to approach the case, and in my opinion, that’s how I tackle the file can be one, but I am also open to my associates because, I need to be receptive with their opinion as well because I am not the person who can say that knows everything.
Maybe my associate who is less experienced than me in terms of the years in practice, can also have a brilliant idea. He can have a different understanding about the same subject matter in a, which is more helpful to me. So, in that way, we basically go through the file, all the associates, to whom the specific files are marked are open to share their own opinions, ideas, or their understanding about the file. I am ready to share my opinion, ideas with them as well.
Thereafter, finally we come to the conclusion or strategize how to approach any of the cases. So that’s how I approach any of the case. The same approach is applicable even when I am appearing as a special public prosecutor in any of the cases.
Any case is dependent upon two things. The first thing is that the fact, facts cannot be changed. But the law is not dependent upon the fact, however the fact is dependent upon the law. Therefore, we have to approach or search for an appropriate law on that subject matter and as and when the situation arises.
In 2015, you represented an accused in a high-profile coal scam case as the youngest lawyer on record. How did you strategize to stand out among senior advocates, and what key lessons or experiences did you take away from securing your client’s acquittal?
In 2015, I was representing a client in the name of Vipin Bihari, who happened to be at that point of time, the sitting Director of mines and mineral department, government of Jharkhand, so in that case, I was one of the youngest lawyers of all the counsels who were representing the different accused, and that case was basically registered by the CBI.
So, for me, the best way to understand the case was from the perspective of the client and I would say that I was quite blessed that my client was also very, very keen to share the nuances of his case.
Since he was also a learned person. He has also worked in various departments on behalf of the government of Jharkhand and for the entire 2 years – 2015-2017, I worked almost on every Sunday also. I can say that, because my client used to come from Ranchi to Delhi, so he used to come on Saturday. Then on the entire Sunday, we used to basically discuss about the case and prepare about the strategies and I will also say that the co-operation from the honourable court was also immense. I’m very thankful to the honourable court and also to the presiding officer at that point of time for giving me the confidence to represent such type of case. And I’m quite thankful to you and my way to approach the case was, again, read the file repeatedly because everything is in the file, either for the prosecution side or from the defence side.
We need to have a command on our file. There is no other way to approaching any file, and if you have a command over your file, you are always one step ahead with your opposition. That is my way to approach the case.
Sir, it’s eye-opening to hear how deeply you engage with case files something many overlook today. You’ve handled landmark cases like the Unnao rape, Commonwealth scam, and the parliamentary breach. How did you manage such high-profile and sensitive matters simultaneously? Specifically, for the Unnao case, what key factors guided your approach? Could you share an example of a major challenge you faced while maintaining confidentiality and ensuring justice?
When I started appearing on the Unnao Case, the biggest challenge facing was the time management, first thing. The reason for that is that the Honourable Supreme Court had basically passed an order to complete the trial within a timebound manner. So what we were basically doing, when we were there in the court, cross-examining the witness at some time, even at 7 to 8:00 AM till the night also. That case started from September, 2019, and finally the judgment came in the month of March, 2020.
The Unno rape incident follows 5 cases. Just for your knowledge. One case is the rape case. One case is the death of the father of the prosecutrix. One case is where the police personnel were charge sheeted for falsely implicating the father of the prosecutrix. Another case is the gang rape case, which was the fourth case. And the fifth case was regarding one accident case, which basically triggered the transfer of all of the cases, bunch of the cases from the state of UP to the city of Delhi. So, I was representing in the murder of the father of the prosecutrix case.
And in that case, I was representing the Investigating Officer of that case who was basically charge sheeted by the CBI for falsely implicating the father of the prosecutor. I will say it was one of the most challenging cases of my career being a defence counsel, where on a daily basis. In the evening, at around 7 or 8:00 PM we would come to know that these are the two or three witnesses who were summoned for the next day. So again, from the Tis hazari court, we have to rush to our office. At that point of time, my office was in a defence colony, so we had to rush to my office and thereafter, again, entire midnight burning of the oil.
Because only in the late evening we would come to know that these are the three witnesses, who have been called for the next date for the purpose of the deposition of the witnesses. And within that period of time, we had to prepare. We had to go through the statements recorded under 161 CRPC or 164 CRPC, and further prepare for the purpose of the cross-examination.
But yes, that gave me a very good sense of the satisfaction, though there was a conviction against my client, I will also say that, but it was one of the most challenging and it also helped me to learn how to tackle the situation where there is extreme urgency, where there is extreme level of involvement required.
I can say I got a lot of help at that point of time, from all of my associates, from my family members also to that extent I’m thankful to all.
Sir, you mentioned how deeply these cases impact an attorney’s psyche. Your shift from defense to becoming a Special Public Prosecutor for Delhi Police was a major turning point. What inspired this transition, and how did you adapt to the change in role? How different was your approach when handling cases from the prosecution side? What was going through your mind during this shift, especially after years of defending clients?
I’ll say that was the biggest challenge for me when I moved from the defence side to the prosecution side, because all of a sudden, I was defending a client on a legal aspect. Thereafter I had to oppose the same purpose, but standing on a different side on the same legal aspect, so that was a very good challenge for me.
But what attracted me or what I will say pushed me that there is a, in my opinion, a very good sense of satisfaction. When you represent the state and the state is imposing a faith on you, and the duty and the responsibility on your shoulder is increased by many more, because you are there to basically represent a state in those cases where the government has imposed faith on you, despite being the availability of the regular prosecutor, so my job was to work much more harder and to go represent the state to the best of my capability.
Being a special public prosecutor, there is only a single person who represents the state, but in the same case, there are 10 accused, 11 accused, 5 accused, and for every accused, there are different counsels. So, I had to basically, legally counter all the multiple counsels for those accused persons just for example, there is a case, my first case of Sukesh Chandrashekhar, presently, in which there are 22 accused, so 22 accused are represented by the different counsels.
So, at the same time I have to, counter those 22 legal opinions or legal arguments, which are advanced by those people in the court. So that requires more preparation, more going into the depth of the issue.
Sir, you transitioned from conventional criminal cases to complex ones under UAPA and NDPS Acts. What drove this shift, and how did your thought process evolve with such uniquely challenging laws? These cases are quite different in structure and sensitivity how did you approach them? Could you share some of the specific challenges you faced? And how did you manage handling such high-stakes matters?
By representing the state as a special public prosecutor, it is my duty to help the state in the best of my capability, that’s the first thing. Whenever I get appointed, in any case, the first thing that I do is have a meeting with the investigating officer. Understand the case firstly from their perspective, thereafter understand the case from my perspective.
Thereafter we strategize as to how to represent that evidence before the honourable court
Due to this, at some point during the trial the defense council can take benefit of instances where the evidence was not placed properly before the court. So, the first step is to help the investigating officer prepare the case, to the best of their capability.
Every special act has a different procedures and requirement, for example, requirement under the MCOCA is different, requirement under the UAPA different and the requirement under the NDPS Act is also different.
So, the understanding of the subject matter of special cases in which I am doing, it’s my first duty to understand the subject matter.
Thereafter, I will only be in the position to help the state or to represent the state in the best of my capability. That is my way to approach any case to date.
So, sir throughout your career you have demonstrated a different kind of commitment towards justice. An impressive understanding of complexities is also involved in the kind of high-profile cases that you have gone through. After these many years of handling such intricate and emotionally challenging cases.How have you kept your motivation and passion for criminal law, not only alive, but moving forward as well?
First of all, I will say that the first day when I entered into this field, I’ll say that I was blessed that I joined that office where most of the cases were pertaining to the criminal law.
And since that day, I developed a keen interest in the criminal law. And till date, I have never felt as to why I am practicing the criminal law. In my opinion, criminal law is the most challenging, and there is always something more because understanding of the criminal law attracts me. To understand the nuances of the criminal law further motivates me. The best thing with criminal law is that there is no two cases are ever similar to each other. Every case has an independent, different fact, which not at all has any bearing on another case.
That is why in the beginning, I stated to first have command over the fact and thereafter upon the law. Legal aspects, judgements are going to help you, but if you don’t have control over the facts of the case, then the judgements are not going help you. So, understanding the facts of the case, understanding the subject matter is the most important thing for me.
There is an inquisitiveness which motivates me to read the file, to go through the judgment passed on a day-to-day basis by the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable High Courts and the same attracts me. It cannot be expressed in words, but yes, something’s there.
Sir, having seen both defense and prosecution sides, I’ve noticed how deeply criminal cases affect one’s psyche. With cases involving serious mens rea and disturbing circumstances, how do you mentally stay strong and not let fear or negativity from such cases affect your daily life? You play a key role in protecting society where does that inner grit come from? Also, with your experience in high-profile cases like Unnao and white-collar crimes, have you ever thought about writing a book exploring the psychology behind such crimes?
Book will come when it has to. But yes, something is definitely in the pipeline. The second thing, I only get attached to the file. I am least bothered about names of the people which are mentioned in the file, and that is the foremost thing I need to do because if I start getting affected by the names of the accused, either on the defence side, and specifically on the prosecution side, then I would not be representing the state or defending any accused. Because I am there to represent the state according to how case has been filed, I need to be totally disassociated and detached.
I am not even expected to know why they have committed crime. I believe that if the crime has been committed then, justice should be delivered to people. The thing is that my duty is to represent the state as per requirement of present legal system. For me, any accused is only X, Y, Z, nothing beyond that. So, this is how I get myself psychologically disassociated with any of the accused persons.
How did your academic journey from earning a B.A., LL.B. at Karnataka State Law University to completing an LL.M. in Business and Finance at The George Washington University Law School shape your approach to international transactions and corporate advisory work?
By my third or fourth year of law school, I knew that I wanted to be a corporate transactions lawyer. I didn’t know much about the field back then, but I knew this was the path for me. Interning with top-tier Indian law firms during college gave me a strong foundation and later working in those firms helped sharpen my skills.
When I decided to pursue an LL.M., I wanted to expand my horizons. At George Washington University, my focus was Business and Finance Law, but the university also had a strong International Law program. This gave me the perfect blend. I studied U.S. corporate law and international investment law side by side.
The exposure I got there, especially learning from professors who worked with major international companies and firms, helped me develop a more global, practical, and mature approach to law, something I continue to apply every day at Team Counsel.
In the early phase of your career at a law firm, what were some of the key experiences that enhanced your understanding of the law? How would you describe those formative years in practice?
The early years were intense but transformative. I was in the trenches doing due diligence, legal research, drafting contracts, and attending negotiation meetings, all of which helped shape my legal thinking.
One lesson stood out: the 10,000 hours matter. There’s no shortcut, you have to show up, keep your head down, and learn the craft patiently. Those formative years were very impactful, they shaped who I am today. They also gave me the foundation I needed to make the most of my LL.M. and continue building a better, more thoughtful practice.
While working as a research assistant to Mr. Marcelo Vázquez-Bermudez at the United Nations’ International Law Commission, what insights did you gain that shaped your perspective on international investment law and cross-border legal frameworks?
Assisting Mr. Marcelo Vázquez-Bermudez, the Special Rapporteur for the UN International Law Commission, provided invaluable insights into international law. I contributed to a landmark research project on general principles of law under Article 38(1)(c) of the ICJ Statute, focusing on their application within the Indian legal system as both a domestic and international source of law. This experience deepened my understanding of how legal frameworks are developed and influenced across different jurisdictions.
During the same time, I was selected for a semester-long externship at the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), part of the World Bank Group, where I was exposed to investment guarantee transactions in Asia and Africa. To better understand the real world implications of my research project, I also had the opportunity to help organize a discussion event at MIGA with the Special Rapporteur.
All these experiences helped me understand international law and investments from a global, systems-level perspective, something that continues to inform how I support clients navigating cross-border issues today at Team Counsel.
After working with various top-tier law firms and international organizations, what motivated you to establish your own practice? What was your vision behind founding Team Counsel, and how do you see it evolving in the future?
I always knew I wanted to start my own consulting practice, but I thought it would happen much later. Life had other plans.
Just before the pandemic, I was finishing up my LL.M. and preparing to take the New York Bar, with plans to join a global law firm abroad. But COVID changed everything. I returned to India and joined a top law firm, amazing team, big-ticket deals but deep down, something felt off.
Shortly thereafter, I left Big Law, and joined a global venture capital fund, supporting venture growth investments across India, Southeast Asia, and the U.S., which gave me deep insight into cross-border deals and the startup ecosystems around the world. I helped close over 45 investments worth USD 12 billion across India, Southeast Asia, and the U.S within a period of a year or so.
It was exciting work, but I realized I wanted more. I wanted to work with startups and use my experience to help them grow. And, I wanted to build something of my own.
But most importantly, I wanted to disrupt legal for the startup ecosystem with innovative and client centric service models.
That’s how Team Counsel was born from two clear goals:
1. Make world-class legal support accessible to startups without burning their budgets.
2. Build transformative legal solutions that help startups operate more efficiently and grow sustainably.
The startup ecosystem has been so welcoming. Today, we have supported 20+ startups and investors, guiding them from start to finish, and we are just getting started! Most importantly, we have built a passionate team that’s hungry for more wins. Much like in my favorite poem, “The Road Not Taken”choosing the road less traveled and starting Team Counsel has made all the difference for me.
You’ve closed over 80 high stakes deals across multiple jurisdictions. What has been the most complex transaction you’ve worked on, and how did you overcome its challenges?
Over my decade-long career, I have worked on numerous complex high-value M&A, PE, and venture-growth deals, closing almost 90 transactions worth USD 20 billion across 8+ jurisdictions, including India, Southeast Asia, and the U.S.
But honestly, I find the most challenging deals are often the early-stage ones. That’s because founders and investors are new to the game. There’s a lack of clarity, experience, and sometimes, even awareness. A big part of my role is to educate both sides, helping founders understand investor expectations and
guiding investors on what really matters at that stage. It takes patience and step-by-step effort to bring everyone on the same page.
With your membership at New York Bar Examination and experience in cross-border transactions, how does dual qualification enhance your ability to advise clients on international legal matters, especially between India and the U.S.?
While I’m not yet a New York bar qualified Attorney, I am eligible and had planned to take the exam before COVID hit. Travel restrictions delayed everything and I got busy with work, but it’s still on my list, hopefully next year!
That said, my U.S. education and work experience already help me a lot. At Team Counsel, we work with clients in the U.S. and other jurisdictions regularly. Being familiar with both Indian and U.S. legal systems gives me an edge in handling cross-border matters more effectively from understanding regulatory expectations and deal structures to anticipating potential risks across jurisdictions.
There’s real value in being dual-qualified, especially in today’s global economy where startups and investors are constantly crossing borders. It builds trust, adds credibility, and allows me to bridge legal systems with confidence.
You’ve advised across a wide range of sectors, from renewable energy and pharmaceuticals to media and education. When working with startups both domestic and international, what do you see as the major legal challenges they face in navigating regulations, particularly in India?
Startups face a very different landscape compared to large corporates. When I worked with global enterprise clients, they typically had experienced legal teams and established processes in place. But for most startups, especially in India, the reality is quite different, there’s often a lack of awareness about legal obligations, limited access to quality legal support, and no tailored regulatory framework designed specifically for early-stage businesses.
One of the biggest challenges is helping founders recognize that legal compliance isn’t just about avoiding problems, it is a key driver of long-term value. At Team Counsel, we work closely with startups to simplify the complex, break things down into actionable steps, and guide them through building a strong legal foundation. Our focus is on making them investor ready, helping them scale with confidence, and ultimately supporting the creation of sustainable, high impact businesses.
Outside of your legal career, you enjoy reading and spending time with your pet. How do these personal interests help you maintain balance and resilience in such a demanding profession?
I love reading and spending time outdoors with my boy, Rocky. These simple joys help me stay balanced. They allow me to disconnect from the day-to-day rush, clear my head, and come back with a fresh perspective.
In a profession that can be all consuming, it is important to have something that grounds you. For me, these moments are a reminder that there’s more to life than just deadlines and deals and that clarity makes me better at what I do.
What advice would you give to young lawyers and law students aspiring to build an international legal career like yours? Are there any specific resources or habits you’d recommend for staying ahead of the curve in this dynamic field?
As a first-generation lawyer, I started out with no roadmap, just a lot of questions and a strong sense of curiosity. What made the difference was staying committed, being open to learning, and finding mentors who guided me along the way. If you are passionate and ready to put in the work, you absolutely can build a successful international legal career.
My biggest advice is to be proactive, read industry reports, keep up with global legal and business trends, and show up at events that push you out of your comfort zone. Also, the legal profession is evolving rapidly with the rise of AI and tech, so it’s crucial to always plan with a long-term mindset, think five years ahead. And most importantly, don’t be afraid of your weaknesses; if you embrace them, they can become your greatest strengths. That’s where your edge lies.
What inspired you to pursue a career in law? Was there a particular moment or influence in your life that steered you in this direction?
During my school years, I developed interests in Social Studies, particularly History and Political Science. I was always intrigued by topics like civil and political rights, the Constitution, and the legal and regulatory framework that governs societies. However, when it came time to choose my stream in Plus-2, I opted for Science. This decision was heavily influenced by my parents, who believed that a background in Science would keep more academic and career options open. They often said that while one could shift from Science to Commerce or Humanities, the reverse was much harder. At the time, I wasn’t entirely happy with that decision. I felt disconnected from the subjects I was passionate about and often regretted not pursuing Humanities. But in hindsight, I now appreciate the wisdom behind my parents’ advice. Studying Science has given me the ability to grasp scientific and technological concepts with relative ease—an advantage I now value immensely. As I progressed through my Plus-2 education, it became increasingly clear that my true interests did not lie in Science. I found myself disengaged and uninspired, and I realized that continuing in this field would not fulfil me intellectually or personally. Transitioning to legal studies felt like a natural and inevitable step—a return to the subjects I was genuinely passionate about. Some of the then contemporary developments garnered my attention towards law, policy and governance. I was fortunate to have studied at JSS Law College, Mysuru, as it opened up many opportunities to explore along with like-minded friends and classmates.
What drew you to specialize in Energy Laws during your LL.M. at the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun? And now, as you pursue a Ph.D. at Gujarat National Law University, how has that academic journey shaped your legal perspective?
My inquisitiveness towards learning law led me to explore emerging and specialised areas which were niche and still developing at that point in time. After completing my graduation, I found my interests and inclination towards International Law and Diplomacy, Dispute Resolution like Mediation and Conciliation, Financial Markets, Energy laws among others. Very few universities in India, at that point in time, offered courses beyond the traditional subjects and Energy laws garnered my interest and drew me to explore and learn more about it. Continuing with the studies, I understood the legal framework in the energy sector, specifically Oil and Gas, Power sector has tremendous potential for professional practice and in academic research. Under the guidance of my supervisor Prof. (Dr.) Shanthakumar, Director, GNLU, I am working on a Regulatory framework for the Upstream Hydrocarbon sector in India, by re-examining the present framework.
Reflecting on your early years in the legal field, what formative experiences deepened your understanding of the law? Are there any moments or mentors that continue to resonate with you today?
After completing graduation and post-graduation, I gained varied and meaningful experience working under the guidance of my senior – Mr. S. Srinivasa Murthy, in Bengaluru. This foundational experience got me acquainted with nuances of litigation and client interaction. After working for a year, I had an opportunity to do Clerkship at the High Court of Karnataka. I was fortunate to work under the mentorship and guidance of Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna (now judge of the Supreme Court), then Judge at High Court of Karnataka. This Clerkship marked a major turning point for my career. It offered intricacies of judicial decision making, including interpretation of law and assessing its applicability in varied factual context. The most profound learning however, was, understanding how a judge approaches any matter, the temperament required to listen and analyse many cases on a daily basis. Clerkship opportunities, both at the High Courts and the Supreme Court, offers unparalleled insights for law graduates. The work entails preparing synopsis, case briefs, research and identifying applicable precedents, assisting in preparing articles, speeches among other duties. Clerkship fosters a deep sense of judicial discipline, highlights ethical boundaries, procedural clarity and broader appreciation of the role that courts play in delivering justice across broad spectrum of matters.
During your time at CEERA, NLSIU, you were involved in high-impact research and consultancy projects for institutions such as the MoEFCC, ISRO, and the Directorate of Municipal Administration. Could you share some insights into your experience there, and how your contributions influenced these projects?
Working as a Teaching Associate at CEERA, NLSIU, Bengaluru, I had the privilege to work in legal academia and research. Under the mentorship of Prof. (Dr.) Sairam Bhat and Prof. (Dr.) M.K. Ramesh, I was involved in workshops, conferences, classroom teaching, legislative drafting, and legal research. This hands-on experience, including client consultations and litigation work, enriched my academic delivery and deepened my understanding of law in practice. Collaborating with government departments such as the Directorate of Municipal Administration (GoK) and contributing to major legislative projects like the Climate Bill and Municipalities Bill provided valuable insights into policy and governance. CEERA has actively contributed in legal and policy reforms, implemented by the Government and its various departments. My time at CEERA was instrumental in shaping my perspective as a legal academic and researcher, and I was fortunate to learn from a diverse network of dedicated peers and professionals.
What motivated you to establish your own legal practice? What were some of the major challenges you encountered, and how did you navigate them?
Since 2022, I have been managing my independent legal practice in Jayanagar, Bengaluru, alongside my partner Mr. Vivek Raviprakash and our team of associates. Having been actively involved in client interactions early in my career, establishing my own chambers was a natural progression aligned with my passion for litigation. A key challenge has been building and sustaining a reliable clientele—an aspect many in independent practice will recognize. While acquiring clients is challenging, maintaining long-term relationships truly reflects a firm’s strength and professionalism.
Another systemic issue is the judicial backlog or ‘docket explosion,’ which has increased delays in case resolution. This challenge, however, has catalyzed the growth of alternate dispute resolution methods like arbitration and mediation, offering more efficient alternatives.
Drawing from both academic and litigation experience, I see a clear need to bridge the gap between legal education and practice. Initiatives such as moot courts, law fests, and intercollegiate sport events offer valuable platforms for students to gain exposure, build networks, and enhance their understanding beyond classroom learning. Encouraging such engagement fosters holistic growth and better prepares students for the realities of the profession.
You’ve appeared before a range of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, from the High Court and other Tribunals. In your work on matters involving education and reservation policies, is there a particular experience that was challenging for you? How did you approach its legal and constitutional aspects?
Litigation, by its nature, involves addressing both simple and complex issues that often arise from the friction between societal expectations and the existing regulatory framework. Two important cases stand out, as it ultimately led to changes in laws and guidelines. One such case is Sripathi G. v. Union of India and Others (2024:KHC:43993-DB), where the petitioner, a former member of the District Consumer Commission, was barred from practising before any Consumer Commission in India under Rule 11(2) of the 2020 Model Rules. This restriction was arbitrary and without justification. Upon challenging the rule, and shortly after notice was issued, the Central Government amended the provision, effectively removing the prohibition and restoring professional rights to retired members.
Another notable case was Priyanka Patil v. Kendriya Sainik Board and Others (2023 SCC OnLine Kar 1), which involved constitutional issues of gender rights and discriminatory policy. The petitioner, daughter of a martyred ex-serviceman, was denied employment reservation benefits due to a clause that restricted ESM identity cards for female dependents only “till marriage or disability,” while no such condition applied to male dependents. The Karnataka High Court struck . down Clause 5(c) of the Guidelines as violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Following the judgment, the Kendriya Sainik Board revised its guidelines, establishing a more gender-equitable policy.
When approaching any matter, it is essential to strategize and compile all relevant documentation. Tools such as filing RTI applications for procuring official records, effective coordination with authorities, and timely communication via letters, emails, and notices are vital in building a strong case. In matters involving the constitutional validity of central guidelines, ensuring all necessary parties are included helps prevent procedural delays and keeps the focus on the core issue.
With your extensive background in both litigation and academia, what key advice would you give to young lawyers starting out, especially those who aim to bridge courtroom practice and policy engagement?
Based on my experiences since law school, I would like to reassure students who feel anxious about their future that a legal education opens up a wide array of opportunities. It is essential to take internships seriously, using them not just for exposure but also to develop key professional skills. In today’s evolving landscape, the legal profession is incredibly versatile and intersects with almost every sector of society. Career options range from traditional paths like the judiciary, advocacy, and clerkships, to roles as policy and legislative consultants, members of the armed forces through the JAG branch, corporate legal professionals, in-house counsels, Academics and Teaching, and ADR specialists such as arbitrators, mediators, and conciliators, Insolvency Professionals and freelancing. Emerging fields like legal tech, energy laws, AI and data privacy among other upcoming areas present promising prospects.
The key lies in staying vigilant and proactive in identifying and pursuing these opportunities. My own journey over the past years in practice has been both fruitful and enlightening. I firmly believe that maintaining an academic inclination enriches one’s understanding of the law and enhances professional growth. It also enables legal practitioners to engage meaningfully with stakeholders beyond the courtroom, contributing to broader conversations in their areas of interest. I am a firm believer that Academicians must be permitted to practise and appear in courts, as that would enhance the academic standards throughout the country.
Given the high-pressure nature of legal work, especially when balancing court cases and government consultancy, how do you take care of your mental health and sustain your well-being?
One of the key lessons I have learned through my professional journey is the importance of coordination, team-building, and effective delegation. These elements are crucial not only for achieving sustained performance but also for long-term growth. The support of family plays an equally vital role in navigating the demands of the legal profession. I am fortunate to have the unwavering support of my friend and wife, Geethanjali K.V., an IP law practitioner, with whom I often engage in enriching discussions that broaden my perspectives on both law and life.
To manage the pressures that come with the profession and life in general, I have found it essential to maintain a balanced routine. Personally, cooking and working out serve as meaningful outlets that help me de-stress and stay grounded. Ultimately, I believe that when one is committed to the profession, it has a way of giving back—providing purpose, resilience, and fulfilment.
While you reflect on your diverse career you are certified as a PoSH trainer, also a certified mediator, policy consultant, analyst, and IPR enthusiast, as you have done your PhD in that what was the reason behind you choosing law as your career? And while you were doing so, while you were pursuing your legal career, how did you plan on becoming such an ardent academician as well as legal researcher? We would love to hear that.
I guess this journey is more of a cinematic type of journey.
The reason for taking up law—and I’ve said this on various forums, I guess that’s how my first introduction usually goes too—is that I come from a family of lawyers. My blood group is LLB positive. And the reason for saying this is very clear: I’m a fifth-generation lawyer. I’m a first-generation academician. So, from my great-great-grandfather to everyone else, my father is currently practicing in the Gorakhpur district courts—it’s been more than 42 years of his practice.
My brother is in the Allahabad High Court; he’s practicing. So that was the first step for why I took law. I guess the answer is very plain, clear, and simple. And yes, as everybody thought—being the youngest in the family, with my father in the district court, elder brother in the High Court—Deevanshu’s gateway to the Supreme Court was already opening by the end of his final years.
But that made me take a point: okay, everybody in my family has done this. And being the youngest, it was like what everybody’s doing, and it came to me as a baggage itself—oh, you’ll have to practice because your father is there, your elder brother is there. Your way is too easy for those things.
And then I came to know of this subject called intellectual property rights in my fourth year—thanks to my teachers then. At that time, I was the first in my entire family to pursue an LLM. So I wrote my CLAT examinations for the PG and I got an All India Rank of 49, and, at that rank, I was able to get into top nationals
But the reason for opting for NLIU Bhopal was because I had already spent five years in Bhopal for my graduation, and the subjects of intellectual property rights were very much fascinating to me. As I said, during my graduation, I was inspired by the articles and words of Professor Shamnad Basheer Sir, who unfortunately, is no longer with us physically.
But I guess his way of teaching, how IPR took a place, is something that still stays with us. And that helped me take up IPR in NLIU Bhopal under the guidance of Professor Dr. Ghayur Alam sir, another stalwart of IPR. And that is how I felt fortunate to be under the guidance of Professor Alam and Professor Dr. Mona Purohit Ma’am, under whom I pursued my PhD in intellectual property rights. These are the two people who not only inclined me toward intellectual property rights but also toward becoming an academician. The purpose of law, as we all say, is only to convince.
Rather than being the king, it’s better to be the kingmaker. So now, with so many years—more than a decade—coming up on that, I can proudly say that there isn’t a district court left in Madhya Pradesh or in Uttar Pradesh where my students are not present—as advocates, judges, or legal officers.
So through them, I relive this particular domain, and intellectual property rights are again one thing I still say I am a student of. I can never say that I am an expert in IPR, but being a student has helped me not only to do research but to understand the nuances of how even in the coming times, technology is evolving and how these things are developing.
All these things come together.
You’ve been deeply involved in IPR, AI, and cyber laws—fields that weren’t as prominent when you started. What challenges did you face in choosing such a niche area at that time? How did you handle the uncertainty around whether to go into practice or academia? What helped you stay confident in your choice despite limited awareness and acceptance of the field? How did you convince both yourself and your loved ones that you could succeed in this path?
Thank you so much for that question. I could just say one thing: what majorly turns out to be a challenge, I guess in my case, was more of an opportunity. I guess no law school in our country is left out of the scenario where, in your third year or fourth year, one of your professors comes in really pissed off at the entire batch for making noise or not doing something, and they say, “You know, each year 10,000 advocates come out of the country. Where do you see yourself?” and all those things.
So I’ll tell you honestly, by that time I was deeply and madly in love with IPR. This was, again, during my two years of LLM—and in my days, it was a two-year LLM. I guess I was part of the second-last batch before the two-year LLM was on the verge of being phased out.
By then, research had already taken a hold of me. I felt that research and IPR were going together. And the best part—my PhD in IPR, in law—was titled Online Infringement of Trademarks. I’m talking about having chosen this topic in 2013–2014. Now imagine that online Infringement of Trademarks makes sense to everyone in 2025.
Back in 2013–2014, everyone was like, “Okay, this topic hasn’t yet been taken.” I said, “Thank you so much for validating that. Okay, my PhD topic is good to go.” Second thing—I did a comparative study. This comparative study was on the US, India, and China. By the end of 2017, I submitted; by 2018, I was awarded.
By 2018, I was very clear about the laws relating to online infringement of trademarks—a provision that is absent in the Indian Trademark Act of 1999. There isn’t much talk about online infringement. This is similar to how there’s no express provision for e-contracts under the Contract Act of 1872.
They say we are guided by the same principles, wherever the contract happens. And the same thing was told to me—that wherever trademark infringement happens, whether it’s online or offline, the rules remain the same. Now, this was the point where I felt out of the league because I wasn’t taking constitutional law or criminal law.
So that was one thing—and a very funny story I’ll share with you: there were only five students in my LLM specialization of IPR and Business Law—just five. Out of a batch of 60 students, only five took this. The rest were in criminal law or constitutional law.
So I’d say 90% of my batchmates were either in criminal law or constitutional law. And the rest? “Okay, IPR? Are you sure?” And believe me, the syllabi at that time for the two-year LLM—that’s why I’m still a big advocate for keeping the two-year LLM—was comprehensive and beneficial.
Then came the journey of PhD with research. It helped me understand the laws of countries we are already engaging with. As we say, China and the US are nearly 15, if not 20, years ahead of where India currently is. So, this helped me work on something we knew would eventually come to India, because the US, EU, China, and other countries had already adopted it.
As always, something that comes to the world first reaches India later. But I guess the perspective is changing. Today, at par, when I look around—that foundation helped me. Even recently, as we speak, I completed my second arbitration, which was in the domain of IPR.
So IPR has always been the core, and I’ve kept aligning everything else around it. This is also one of my messages to all of you out there: never feel that just because you’ve chosen one domain, you can’t explore others. This was something I told my students the year before last, when the three new criminal laws were introduced in our country.
They asked, “Sir, what will happen to us? We haven’t studied them.” I said, why are you seeing it as a challenge? Why not see it as an opportunity? A 20-year senior lawyer who studied IPC, CrPC, and the Evidence Act is now on the same footing as you when these new laws are enforced.
So, it’s not about the laws—it’s about how well you’ve understood the jurisprudence behind them, and how well you’re going to take that forward. Anything that is posed as a challenge—if you are capable enough to identify an opportunity in it—I guess you’re already in the right place, irrespective of where the crowd is going.
So, don’t follow the crowd. Stand at a point where the crowd will follow you. And that, I guess, would be the best way to conclude my answer.
You’ve clearly shown how IPR aligns with many fields, and your academic journey reflects that.But while doing all this, you also became the founding head of the Jagran School of Public Policy and International Affairs.How did that transition happen from a core legal and IPR background into public policy?What key challenges did you face as a lawyer stepping into the public policy space?
Sure, I’ll just tell you one thing very clearly. For me personally, I’m saying this—there were only two positives out of COVID. One was that I took the headship of the Public Policy School, and the second one was online platforms, which I generally say, thanks to COVID—Zoom interactions and other things increased significantly at that point.
And as I said in my previous answer, I’ll relate it here as well. I’m not saying that I’m ahead of time. I’m just telling you that 2019 was the first time I came across the concept that there is something called a think tank. Now, a think tank for me at that particular time was a very fascinating term.
The reason is, I’m a very big fan of arcade games, PS5, and playing assassination games and all those things. So I said, “Okay, think tank—well, tanks do not think.” And then I came to know about law and public policy. That’s how I came across PRS Legislative, the LAMP fellowships, and other things.
I was too late for it. But as a teacher, you are never too late. The reason is very clear—because I get to relive that through my students. And I’ve always been a follower of one particular statement in my entire life: you should be the version of yourself that you want to be with. So whether it’s a PhD, whether it’s any small IPR subject to be understood, whether it is good eating joints, whether it is good places to move around, things to do in Banaras, places to eat there—whatever it is—be a person who, if I was alone at that place, could help myself out.
So with this, when it came to think tanks and public policy, I thought there is a very, very close-knit relationship. I wouldn’t even call it a first cousin—it’s more like a sibling to what law as a domain entails.
And even today, if you look at the major think tanks in our country—you name them, you’ll find vacancies—and the people working there are majorly from political science, law, or economics backgrounds. Major assistance given to Members of Parliament today comes from people with these academic profiles.
Because we’ve all studied that a law exists. But the question always popped up for me—why do we need a law? And that’s how the policy angle always came into play. For example, there’s a debate today about revamping colonial laws and introducing new criminal laws with desi Hindi names.
What about students from the South who can’t even pronounce those names? A good friend of mine, when she was an HOD at Central University in Tamil Nadu, mentioned a new act called Bhartiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam. And she asked, “What is this all about?”
She questioned why they couldn’t include both names, or alternative English terminology. If you look at Article 1 of the Constitution, it says “Union of India, that is Bharat.” So they were giving similar formats. Yes, Hindi is one of the prominent languages of our country, but we must acknowledge there are nuances. I’m not getting into the language debate or what Tamil Nadu thinks about Hindi, but the key is understanding where these things are coming from.
As law students—and this is my message again—you need to understand the context. For example, it’s always said: to understand why something was made a fundamental right, read the Constituent Assembly debates. That will absolutely help you.
That’s why, when we saw the Waqf Amendment Bill being introduced and a late-night debate happening in both houses, these debates held importance to understanding the text. The reasoning behind them is often mentioned in Supreme Court judgments.
This helped me understand how laws are made—identifying a problem and reaching the root cause—and that’s where public policy comes into play. So it was an opportunity for me.
By that time, I was already immersed in the legal domain. But with public policy, the major challenge—especially in Central India—was that people didn’t consider it a proper subject. They thought public administration was fine because it’s an optional in UPSC. But public policy? “You’ve created your own subject,” is what some parents told me.
In response, I reformulated the course. At the undergraduate level, the course was called BA in Public Policy and Administration. My way of explaining it was: in one course, I’m giving you two degrees—public policy and public administration. That’s the advantage of being in a private university, I would say.
The master’s course was an MA in Public Policy and International Affairs. Both these courses were unique in Central India. No other university or institution in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, or Uttarakhand was awarding these degrees.
That’s how it started. Yes, it began in July 2020, during the first phase of the pandemic and lockdowns. It was affected, but I’m proudly saying this today: when the first batch graduated and the first postgraduates completed their course, the students were either serving with the government or pursuing higher education abroad.
These efforts helped them. We also introduced a very important component—something we, as law students, know as a dissertation in the final year. We introduced, for the first time, a capstone project. This project involved identifying a root problem and formulating a policy to address it.
It was majorly a fieldwork-based study, and the students learned these intricacies before moving forward. That’s how I transitioned into public policy, and then eventually returned to law. That’s how things unfolded.
Now that you’ve started as the Dean and Founding Dean of GL Bajaj, do you think India is ready to allow academicians to actively practice law and practicing attorneys to take up full-time teaching roles, not just as visiting faculty? In developed countries, this dual role is common and beneficial. Wouldn’t such a model greatly enrich student learning and bridge the gap between theory and practice? Given your experience launching innovative programs, do you foresee such a shift happening soon? Especially now, with rapid changes in law due to AI, IoT, blockchain, and other disruptive technologies?
Okay, so I would like to answer that, I’m not going to tell you something that has not been happening.
So all credit, and I’ll just take you back with something called as the National Education Policy. We all have been hearing this NEP 2020, if not many, then once in a day. That comes across to our ears as well. Also, I’ll really compliment what you just asked me, that I’m not the first person to answer that.
UGC, the University Grants Commission, has introduced a concept of professor of practice. There is an entire portal which is available on UGC’s site and there are two particular sub-tabs to it. First, any professional who has completed a minimum of 15 years—one five years—of his practice in the field, which excludes teaching.
So this automatically, like for example, I’m an academician. I have retired after serving for more than 30 years. Now I cannot go back as a POP to an educational institution. Completely banned. But what has been there is that a person who has been in the industry—and this industry can be private practice, served as a judicial officer, served as a legal officer in any of the companies, served as a corporate lawyer in any of the law firms—with a minimum of 15 years of practice can enroll on that portal as a professor of practice, and major universities can adopt them with that particular thing.
As a professor of practice, the POP thing that comes onto, number one. Number two, now you asked me the flip side of the question was that you being an academician, don’t you feel like, so I’m also telling you that I have seen, and a couple of my teachers have been, and I’ll name one who’s presently the Vice Chancellor of National Law University Delhi, respected professor, Dr. G.S. Bajpai, sir, he served as an amicus in one of the Delhi High Courts. So what I’m trying to let you know is that this venue is also getting open now. And one critical thing that I’ll say on that point, for example, any advocate, I’m just giving an advocate because I posed this question to my own father who has been practicing for more than four decades now.
So more than 40 years, 43 years on the civil side. So I have seen him put a bookmark without any note on it. And I have my own library where I put a bookmark and I scribble a note on it. Okay, why am I putting this bookmark here? Is it a case law? Is it something valuable? And he puts a blank bookmark even today.
And I just randomly said, why a blank bookmark? Because I know what is written on that page. I said, is it? So he says, Yes. So it’s just a blank page that I can remember why you’re seeing the AIR of 1978. This is why I would’ve taken that. Now, I asked him, why don’t you come and teach them? My law students will require you.
And he is like, look, I only have 24 hours in a day, where I’m spending more than 12 hours or nearly 10 hours in the court and then coming to my chamber and spending more than 4 hours there, you give me more than 24 plus anything hours, I’m ready to come and teach for that plus hours in your law school.
So it’s not like I can’t, I have to sit with my client. I have to study the file. And as I’ve been always saying to my young people who are in their 11th and 12th and are planning to take law and medical, the only answer is why are these practices called as a practice—because you never become with this practice as a perfect, and you have to study your entire life, whether it’s medical, whether it’s legal, so whether it’s case laws, whether it’s new law books, whether it’s precedents.
You name it, you’ll have to study it. So I’ve seen my father, even after having his dinner late, he goes back to the chamber. I see my elder brother. Okay, no, I have to prepare a brief for tomorrow and it should go like this. And I guess that is also one of the ways I’m answering that will AI change the perspective and you’ll not be requiring—the answer is a big no.
So the only perspective to see that if a successful advocate, whether it’s in a corporate law firm, whether it’s a private practice, asking them to come back to the law school, they can only dedicate a small time because they cannot leave their plan A first. And that is why they have earned that stature where we are requesting, yes, retired judges, a lawyer never retires.
So this is one thing that my father has always told me. I have asked him various times. Look, now your son is a dean, your elder son is a practicing Advocate in Allahabad High Court. You leave your practice, you come and live with us. And he said, no, no, no. I have more cases than what you people would combinedly ever have.
I still have that. And that’s how the point is very clear that yes, if you are growing, the purpose of introducing such a system by UGC is yes—to bridge that gap between industry and the academic colleges. And this is not merely limited to law, but open, inclusive of law, which includes engineering, management and all those things.
So yes, it is already prevalent and I’m pretty confident next five years you will find more of it. And I’m so happy. A couple of my very good friends in the law firms today who are at a senior partner level and they’re like, Deevanshu, enough of what we have done, now we’d like to come. Your life is very easy.
We’d like to become an academician. I said, the grass is always greener on the other side. I would like to live a life of a law firm partner as well. So they say, yeah, we understand that payment-wise we might be on a very higher scale, but ask us—is it the payment or, in the end, the relaxation or the comforting thing that we come onto?
We generally do a thankless job, but you are surrounded by gratitudes and other things. And that, I guess, is something that we require in our lives as well. So answering your query and to cut it short again, to conclude—yes, the opening of professors of practice, and not merely as guest faculties, adjunct professors and all those things.
Even the Bar Council of India has allowed us that we can have the people from the local bar, from the bench, to be part of our law schools. And that definitely is not only shaping up a good law student but also a young lawyer for that particular perspective.
The UGC has introduced many reforms, but real change is needed at the grassroots level, especially in a populous country like ours. Moving on, I’m curious how you managed to publish 43 papers and present at over 60 conferences. Your topics are cutting-edge and highly informative—how do you tackle and anticipate these challenges? Since foresight is your strength, especially in your niche PhD field, how do you maintain this momentum? And how many more papers and books do you have in the pipeline?
Again, one thing I’ll say that every time you pose a question, which is revolving around challenges, I’ll answer you as an opportunity with that.
So I’ll tell you honestly, the base of writing a good research or base of doing a good research, I have said it, and I know many of your viewers who have been my students or who have heard me at various forums. Would re-agree to me by saying, if you read well, you write well. Plus whenever I get a newspaper in my hand and I still get a newspaper in this era of digital, where all my apps are there, so I have a Times of India app as well. I have all my apps ready, but I still get a newspaper in my hand. That’s the first thing that I would really want and I search as I was told, and I recall again, an IPR thing.
So I was told by my professor, which was surrounded by IPR, right in the morning, the toothbrush and the toothpaste that goes in your mouth is an IPR. And by the time you go back to your sleep and you switch on your AC, it itself is an IPR. So you are surrounded by it. I urge and I request young minds, young legal fellows here to have this habit of searching law right at the front page news to even the sports news.
To even the editorials that you wrote and you missed out. I’m now writing more of the editorials for newspapers. Now this is helping me because I have to read it, I have to read it well, I have to understand, I have to curate it well, and then I need to focus that particular thing ahead as well. So if you read well, you get these ideas, don’t just stop it there.
Have that habit of jotting down those ideas. And sooner or later, today or tomorrow, you might get to expand those particular ideas as well. So this helps me to write, parallelly I’ll be very honest, and if you’ve asked me how many are in pipeline, so I’ll tell you honestly, this afternoon itself, I presented a paper.
And it’s not like I have become a dean. I should do that. I guess this is only and I recall that I’m still a student. Don’t let that student and a young researcher inside you ever die. So the moment I’ll see, okay, I’ve already done this, what’s the need of it? So I’m not presenting in conferences for certificates.
I’m not presenting that thinking I should write that in my CV. But I’m presenting because I get peers. I get some ideas from my peers who are presenting. I get some wonderful chairs to share those ideas. And I get some critical analysis as well.
One more, and a very special request to all of you out there. Be open to criticism and do not take it as how dare somebody tell me, okay, I’m a dean and he’s an assistant professor here and he told me that I should incorporate this, what he thinks or what she thinks. No, take it gracefully and you should ideally thank them that he or she has given you that idea.
That can be a next research paper or a research idea for you. And as it has been said, nobody copyrights the idea. It’s the expression of the idea which is copyrighted. So parallelly you and me might be thinking on the same idea, but the expression of Divya ma’am and expression of Deevanshu, would be completely too copyrightable items on our table as well.
So read well to write well, and just don’t read and do not write. So when you’re reading whatever idea is coming to you, and I have said this thing as a researcher as well, that the easiest thing to start for a young law student as a research is to write a case comment. And why I’m telling you this is that gives you a leverage, that you can criticize based on reasoning that this judgment could have been a better one.
Borrow the minority judgment. Read the entire judgment, not half of it. Read the entire judgment. Nowadays, the young lawyers are blessed with apps like Live Law and Bar & Bench, and I do not take any such thing. They’re doing a fabulous job in what is happening at Supreme Court at 2.30 is being reported at 3.30 or 4.
What else can we ask for? It’s not like us where we have to report that when the SCC or AIR would come, then only I’ll come to know for that particular matter. So that is very, very helpful. The e databases like Manupatra, LexisNexis, be it Supreme today with AI versions of it, have enhanced the researchers as well.
So time is being saved, things are getting onto, I even promote usage of AI. So believe me, there is hardly any AI app, which I have not used in my personal life. You name it. And I have been using it at all above level, like Chat GPT 4.0. Perplexity, Gemini, you name it, I have used it all. So the purpose is when I go and teach that thing in the classroom, I need to be up to date.
And I have always said it. And with your forum, I’m also utilizing it, and I know you are a big fan of AI, so I say it is a tool and let it be a tool. Do not let it become your master. It’s not like you’ve given the command. Whatever output comes, you copied and you pasted it. Don’t do that. Take ideas from it.
Okay? And that is what I’m saying. It gives me varied opinions. Okay. On this line, I can also think on this line, I can also think, and on this line, I can also think. So read well and write so that you can write well. And that is the basic motto for me to do these researches. And I don’t count with numbers, it’s just one point.
I know major of them have not been reflected in my CV as well, so it’s not about putting numbers in the CV, it’s more of how and what I’m learning about it.
Thanks for the insightful response! As a policy consultant for Cyber Peace Foundation, how do you see emerging fields like cybersecurity and digital law shaping public policy in India? Given rapid global developments, how do you ensure these advances are integrated into both theory and practice? How effective are Indian think tanks compared to international ones in influencing legislation? And how do you bridge this gap to prepare students for real-world challenges?
Thank you so much for that particular question because the answer that I’m going to tell you is exactly what we have been practicing.
So the entire thing that I’ve told also in the past or in the coming time is not that I’m just a creature for that particular matter, it’s all have been practiced and been taken around. Now just understand, I’ll take a minute to make people understand the concept of think tanks is what I have seen.
So think tanks are the catalysts. Think tanks are basically research agencies. And what are the basic two objectives? Number one, is to do that ground research about something, to something that I call a base of a policy, and to bring it ahead, number one. Number two is to create awareness. So these are the two majors of what a policy or a think tank is generally revolving around.
Now, it’s not merely the legislative that is taking on. Now, why I’m saying this, yes, the think tanks submit their report, which is taken by a member of parliament, whether it’s opposition, whether it’s from the government. The new trend in India is that even these prominent think tanks reports are cited by the judiciary as well.
Now, this is something when in a judgment, the base of such a thing is being done. So think tanks are, as I used the word catalyst, and we all know what catalysts do. Catalyst just enhances the reaction in a faster time. And that is what these important think tanks in our country are doing.
And to name a few, they have identified their areas. Now, I was a consultant with the Cyber Peace Foundation. How institutionalized and why they are getting educationists as a part of their think tanks as well is number one, how these awareness would be gone. And I’ll tell you small examples. For example, the maximum number of cyber frauds.
And one small thing as a caller tune, which was a very well acknowledged initiative by TRAI that you’ll get these things have created an awareness, talking on those things that these are the new ways how these things are being taken up. Now what I’m trying to tell you is that these think tanks alongside institutions are also launching.
And we have launched, we have done international conferences. We have done international working paper series, podcasts. And launch certificate courses in addition to law and other perspectives. So at my institution, it’s not merely a BA LLB or an LLB that a student would get, but during the tenure of that five years or three years, in the case of a three year LLB, the student is also earning two certifications in each semester.
And that is an all choice based thing. So I know that is not possible. But if Divya is coming as a student to me, I know her inclination is towards IPR and AI. And in her three years law course, she can have an LLB course plus a difference of six certifications in the parameter of six semesters that you can have, number one.
Number two, if she’s not interested and it’s more of a criminal law and other perspective, how additional certifications in the criminal law perspective can be given . So the think tanks are in collaboration and all have to work not in silos, but in collaboration. So think tanks in collaboration with academic institutions, think tanks in collaboration with NGOs and together how they are bringing it on.
Nowadays, the think tanks have also collaborated with national law schools to establish a dedicated center for research at their law school itself. And these are the small initiatives which are on the verge of togetherness, they are bringing a change of practical changes, which no law school is teaching.
The Bar Council of India and I must acknowledge and applaud the efforts of The Bar Council of India, in May, 2024 they came out with a regulation, which is a mandate to all law schools, to teach subjects like AI and tech law and financial laws, FinTech laws. Their law schools. I understand, and I know that smile on your face is so they came out with a regulation, but how many law schools in the country have actually followed it?
And my answer to you Divya for that would be one step, even as I say in my classroom as well, when I go and teach a subject in a batch of 60 students. And even if six have grasped and they’re on a good path, I guess my role as a teacher gets fulfilled. Similarly, not all but few who will do and believe me, it’s not many times the teacher or the body who will be directing and the people who do it, but it is always with the peers.
So out of 1800, if 18 institutions in the country follow that regulation or that compliance from The Bar Council of India and couple of years down the line, they come out as the Centers for Excellence in this particular matter. Out of the major 1800, at least 180 would again be inspired to do and to bring that thing.
And you see, forensic labs. So the National Forensic Science University, a great initiative again by the government of India. Each state should have one. They should have a forensic law lab, something we would’ve never thought of. I was very happy in seeing that In FBI, there was a series that used to happen, way back when no Netflix and other things were there and I was very inspired.
Oh wow. And then we had the Indian version of CID happening. So our aspiration was not of that of forensic doctor. You are a good example again that from an engineer background doing law and then taking AI law or FinTech law, I guess that’s the best example that I can cite right now in front of me as well.
So similarly, the newer avenues, the bodies like The Bar Council of India, who are the parent body for legal education, I would say they are the guardians of legal education in our country. And the establishment and the way they’re taking it up is something which is commendable. I know major law schools in our country are lacking, but I’m on a very hopeful and a very positive approach that yes, coming years are going to be where we are going to have unified systems of teaching.
Couple of things are coming on a very good prospect for legal education. These things are no more, something that will be kept on a background, but something that the student would demand on his own. So while choosing a law school, it’s not merely an LLB course or a BA LLB course, but how well the industry driven certifications and add-ons, skill add-ons are given to a law student should also be taken.
And I guess where think tanks would be coming above the catalyst role and would be an equal partner in disseminating these particular subject knowledge.
Your clear explanations could transform at least 10% of law schools, creating a more international and skilled legal workforce. This shift will likely encourage greater global collaboration and intervention. As you mentioned, it’s not just about think tanks, but also understanding why lawyers need these tools to enhance their practice. The Supreme Court’s adoption of AI, thanks to the former Chief Justice, is a great example. This progress reflects how technology is becoming integral to the legal field.
I’ll just add, sorry, I’m pausing you in between. So I came across this, so I’m a big, big fan of DYC. And it’s been like four occasions where I’ve met him, such a down to earth person. Now one very important instance that I’m sharing, yesterday, he rolled out a junior associate and in brackets, it’s written retainership , for his own office. So it’s the office of DYC. And I’ll tell you, a junior associate, Divya, guess the salary. The salary is one lakh rupees per month. And you know it, I know it, his tenure at the Supreme Court, the young researchers, something that we used to call it the Articleship, the legal clerkship thing.
They were young and number of publications that were out. Whether it is the Supreme Court handbook on addressing women, what words should not be used , even for that smallest thing that I’ll say. And he shared that thing. I was a part of it last month itself, and he said even addressing the issue of women washrooms at the Supreme Court, he was one of those particular things, the standard of food items at the Supreme Court.
He made sure that those things were there. The corridors had chairs for juniors to sit there. Now, as a chief justice, if he’s thinking about junior advocates, I guess something, if all of us can imbibe onto to that particular thing, and I’ve learned it, I might be the dean and other such things, but I still see, okay, if my student is walking, it’s very warm, like it’s on 41 right now in Delhi. Can I have a closed path for them to walk from the gate to my building? Now I know this is not a big thing, but yes, this is making you apathetic. This is making you humble and this is making you think about the future and you’re raising it through your teaching itself. I am sorry that I interrupted you in between, but I guess this was one point whenever DYC’s name comes, with all respect, like, I can say a fanboy moment again, for me, when it comes with Justice DYC, for that matter.
I’m a huge fan, not just for his work but for his focus on gender sensitization, which is essential for everyone. Despite his legacy as a 5th generation lawyer, he remains grounded and humble. How does he ensure his messages truly impact not only lawyers but also everyday people who often don’t know their legal rights? In India, awareness of the Constitution and rights is limited, so how does he address this gap? Lastly, how does he stay calm and humble while handling such diverse responsibilities?
Okay, so I’ll answer that part first. How to keep yourself humble and calm. So I’ve always been a big advocate of a fact that there are only two teachers, which a student generally faces.
So first of all, you’ll have to believe you are a student. The moment you start believing, okay, I have crossed this age, I’ve crossed that student thing, I guess your learning stops. So for me, I was blessed. To have teaching both with my parents and my elder brother. And I really like to mention my elder brother because what I see today, myself as a dean or as a student of law, and the best part, we share common among me, my elder brother and my father.
We have our own libraries and we hate sharing books. So each book, the moment it comes, the first thing that we used to do is to put an OM on it and write our names there. So that’s one thing because we hate it, like it’s my book. It needs to be there in my library. And the reason is I have my own habit of underlining and reading.
And his books are very neat and clean. He said, why to make the books dirty. And I said, this is not dirty. It’s like, I’ve read this book. So that’s how, so we disagree. So what I’ve learned is from my parents, my elder brother and my teachers, and the lot that I took the name as, and many more to add to that, they are all humble.
And so what I have learned is what I was trying to tell you, that not all things are taught with textbooks. Some things are by your gestures as well. Fortunate enough, when I started teaching, fortunate enough, the law firms that I went for my internships, I met people who were very humble.
They’re still, I just mentioned about DYC, that why am I a fanboy thing? It’s not like I’m a regular practitioner to the Supreme Court. But there would be hardly any judgment of his, if it’s his name, I’ll have to read it. This is as simple as this. He has always said, and I will quote him again.
He was speaking and he said, I know you all would love to buy the books, and I can see at your background as well, you love to buy the books of your own choice. We all have our own genres to read. This type of book is something I want, this, that, and all those things. But always have this habit of what somebody’s gifting you as a book.
Because it is, and this is where I’m putting a base of my next answer, the second part of your question as well, how you make things understand to people, whether it’s legal, whether it’s non-legal or something like that, is when somebody gives you a book, he actually is giving his particular genre to you, which is an area for you to explore because you have already cleared and mastered your own genres.
And you asked me what is the best way to understand a person’s perspective, so I’ll be very honest and these questions were not pre shared with us that we are trying to script it up and bring it out. These things are not paid enough by either part of us.
So the point which is very clear, is that the questions that Divya, you are posing to me. I am trying to step into your shoes to make you understand that answer and that satisfaction with a smile on your face is something that I’m achieving as well. Now this, whether it’s my student around the table corner, it’s my elder brother, it’s even his daughter.
When she asked me why this Disney character has longer hair and why I do not have that long hair. I’m standing at the first floor of my balcony and my ponytail should go at the ground floor. Now these are exactly the things are, and then the other day she was watching my favorite cartoon Popeye.
And so she asked me why Popeye is called Popeye. Now, this is where my research would come into place. I said, look, his eyes popped out and that is why it’s Popeye. And she was convinced. And this exactly is where I’m not made that cartoon favorite of mine, only because of the fact that it is my favorite.
But I have to research about it. So interested in those particular things. And my answer would be the same. So whenever you are asked something, try to step into the shoes of that particular person, whether it’s your client, whether it’s your student, whether it’s your friend, whether it is anybody for that matter.
And humility and humility I guess, goes hand in hand. So it is nothing like, it is one dinner that I had and I’m more humility, or I can mix it with Horlicks milk in the night, drink and in the morning I’ll become a humble person . So be humble is, again what I’m saying, it’s not by learning from me or you, but we have grades in our country.
In legal domain one again is again, I’ll repeat his name,Justice DYC . So these are people who are existing and being on the top position of the country. And even if you meet him today, if it is not that crowded, he’ll not hesitate to shake hands. He’ll come sit right next to you without any such thing.
And that speaks volumes about him. And again, one thing I’ll tell you, and this was one challenge that I faced when I was a POSH trainer and I got my certification. I went for my first training. Everybody was like, you are a male, and will you be a good POSH trainer?
And I said, okay. So where it is written that only females can be a POSH trainer. No, I know your reaction is saying everything to me, Divya. But again, this is where the point was coming on, and this is where I’m answering the third part of your question: that I was a student in my class eight.
We had compulsory subjects like civics, which was clubbed with history at that particular time. And civics was nothing but preamble, the constitution, part three, part four. And that is how law was something that we’ve taken off. Even today, I ask each of my students who all remember the preamble. And this is, again, I could have posed this question to you Divya, as well.
So you need not open a book and tell me the preamble. And this is simple. So it’s not about the people of India. There is one wonderful line that I’ve always like I have opened that line clearly to everyone, is the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship. Now, as an English student let’s say liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship.
So belief, faith and worship are synonymous terms. And in law we do not have synonyms. So when the words are used, they are used for a proper intent. And tell me, and this is again, I’m giving some homework, as a good teacher, even if my interviews do not have homework, I guess I’ll not be a good teacher.
I just want the students to understand what is this expression of thought, belief, faith, and worship. So they need to understand why this particular thing is there. And the preamble uses the term liberty. The entire constitution lacks the term liberty. This converted into freedom. Now, what’s the difference between liberty and freedom for that matter?
Now these are small things that we as law students should dive into. Okay? If this word is used, why this word is used? And my advice to all young law students out there, two books that I would definitely recommend. One, please buy a Government of India legal Glossary. Don’t buy a legal dictionary.
And there is a difference between a glossary and a dictionary. Glossary never gives you the meaning. Glossary would put you to the place where the word is defined. For example, consideration, which is in Hindi and the best part of legal glossary, government of India, gives you the exact legal Hindi out of it, which is helpful for my students who are preparing for their main exam for judiciary, where you get a Hindi English translation.
So consider, the meaning is pratiphal in Hindi. And it says Section 2D, Indian Contract Act 1872. So as a law student, you know that you need to open the Indian Contract Act, section 2D to understand the definition of consideration, and this is exactly how the glossary and dictionary differs. So answering all the three parts, I guess I have answered all three parts for you as well.
You are being a true academician, true teacher, professor, doctor, everything. Amazing! I’m loving the interview with you. One last curious question. How do you nurture your students not only better and good professionals, but the best human beings as well?
Number one, I never ask my students to follow what I am saying.
I know I might be criticized on this particular line, but we at law schools, we are a buffet provider. A buffet of what is kept on the table and where I know all my 60 students in one particular batch, that’s a maximum that I’m talking about are not of the same likings.
And this is also one of my messages to all my young students. Don’t just take it up because your best friend is taking it up, and think okay we are going to the same intern place so that one month we can be together. No, try, see what suits you and what doesn’t suit you. And this again, as I say, we see our favorite actors wearing a particular outfit.
We go, we try the same outfit on our own and we are not satisfied. That was looking good on that particular person. Now you need to identify your own path. The only thing that I create to my students is whichever path you are taking. And I have said that if I wouldn’t have been in an academician, and as rightly said at our times when we were scolded by our parents, that if you can’t do anything, at least run a samosa stall..
I’m telling you very honestly, if that would have been my career objective, I would have been the best samosa sales person in my entire locality. Now, the reason I’m saying this is only to achieve your excellence, whichever domain it is. Whether it’s criminal law, whether it’s civil law, whether it’s IPR, whether it’s, I do not know what new laws are coming up as well.
Today anything that we are talking about will involve a law. And I came to know, somebody asked the other day on aviation, it was a good talk that birds fly. There is no law governing them. When humans fly, there is a law governing them.
And he said, wherever you’ll find humans, you’ll find a law, simple. Now, when I say this, what I mean is very clear that if it is human anything that we as humans see books, water, air, laptop, technology, whatever it is, it would be accompanied with a law. Just identify your domain. There is no obsolete domain in law.
Law can never be obsolete and there is no thing which many are taking. Even if many are taking, you are the competitor. And that’s where I conclude by saying we only practice in the legal domain. Whether it’s forty years of practice, whether it’s five years of practice, whether it’s one year of practice.
If you practice it well, you can practice well. So that would be all from my end.
Get in touch with Prof. (Dr. ) Deevanshu Shrivastava –
What inspired you to take up Law? Did you have to deal with any resistance from your family while making that decision?
My father wanted me to pursue CA like the rest of my relatives, since it was considered as a good earning prospect, especially in Kolkata. For him, law meant running around court rooms, which was mostly the case back in 2011. While there were law firms like Khaitan in Kolkata, in-house roles were minimal.
I somehow tried to convince him that I don’t want to pursue litigation, and am willing to work as a corporate lawyer, which I believe will have an enhanced scope in 5 years, by the time I graduate from law school. However, he was so reluctant that he even got me the CPT exam form, which he said would be a backup in case I am unable to clear CLAT.
During that time, NLU Odisha, NLU Delhi and JGLS were just newly launched, and the entrance exams for these institutions were held separately. I was not able to fill up many forms due to the resistance at home, thus, my options were quite limited.
Later, I spoke to a relative staying in Kolkata that I am desirous of moving to Bangalore, and he helped me with the admission process at Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies.
Would you say your law school prepared you for the practical work which you had to do at work?
I think the curriculum at traditional non NLUs do not prepare you for a corporate job. Neither the intricacies of due diligence nor contract drafting are taught; you learn them while at work. When I visited NLSIU for their intra college client counselling competition, on a special invite, I realised that these things are so much helpful and I missed out on so much.
The only advantage I had was of staying in the city of Bangalore- I could intern at some prestigious law firms, and I was able to avail the benefit of the NLSIU library for conducting research work for moot competitions.
In deciding between corporate and litigation practice, what are the parameters that you considered?
My internship experience was a mix of corporate and litigation, however, given the state of courts in India, the number of adjournments; I decided against litigating.
You have interned with former Justice Indu Malhotra, Supreme Court. Can you share the experience with our readers?
When I had applied for an internship with Ms. Malhotra was a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court. I had procured two internships for the same period; another one being with Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, the then Additional Solicitor General of India (who also was elevated as a Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court later). I searched for their email ids on the Supreme Court Bar Association directory, which provides open online access on contact details of all advocates registered with the bar association of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and followed up my application with calls.
The juniors at the office of Ms. Malhotra were extremely helpful and welcoming, and assigned me work like preparing a list of dates, research work on service matters, etc. In fact Ms. Malhotra also personally assigned me research work on her book on International Commercial Arbitration, which she was editing. I also visited the Apex Court regularly during my internship period, and was lucky to witness other eminent counsels like Kapil Sibal, Pinky Anand, Arvind Datar, etc arguing in court.
How was your time interning at law firms like Krishnamurthy & Co. (K Law), Majmudar and Partners and Tatva Legal?
Most of the law firms do not hire interns until 3rd or 4th year, and therefore, I could only intern with firms at the later part of college life. In Karnataka State Law University, the curriculum is designed in such a way that in a B.A. LL.B. course you are not taught core law subjects until 4th year.
While many of my friends complained that they were not assigned proper work during internship, and were given clerical tasks such as lifting of files or printing, surprisingly, for me, this wasn’t the case; my first internship with a law firm was at Tatva Legal, where I was conducting research on corporate laws, and was also involved in preparation of due diligence report of a company. At K Law also, the associate partners were kind enough, and I was assisting them in preparation of opinions, drafting of agreements and legal notices.
Majmudar & Partners offered me a long term internship during my final year, and therefore, I declined the internship offer at Bharucha & Partners (Delhi), however, later I realised that the decision was misplaced. Majmudar’s Bangalore office was very small, with only 1 partner and 2 junior associates. The partner directly assigned me work relating to review of agreements and drafting of advice, however, no proper feedback was provided on the same. Also, he kept assuring me of a PPO, which never happened.
After your education, you moved back to Kolkata, your hometown. Many stayed back in Bangalore or moved to Mumbai/ Delhi for better opportunities and bigger pay packages. Was this a conscious decision to move back to your hometown? If so, why? How challenging was it?
It was more of a personal decision for me; I had stayed out of home for 5 long years, and I wanted to be close to my parents. In fact I had a job offer from Wipro Legal and Compliance Team, Bangalore, as a Legal Executive, which I declined.
Finding a job which gives you a good exposure and also pays well was difficult. The corporates in Kolkata mostly have real estate work, and there is no departmentalisation (MA, PE, VC, Banking and Finance, and so on) as in most law firms outside Kolkata. I even interviewed for Khaitan, where the work was General Corporate; later, I joined Mr. Vinod Kothari in his financial and resolution services team, which gave me a good exposure both in terms of clientele as well as work. I worked with big corporate houses and NBFCs like Emami, Lux, Motilal Oswal, Poonawalla Finance (erstwhile Magma), Shriram Finance, Srei, amongst others.
You have pursued LLM from Jindal Global Law School. What was your motivation behind pursuing LLM? When did you finally decide that you need to do it? What was your topic of thesis? Why did you choose that subject for research?
I had an inclination towards teaching, and I always wanted to pursue a PhD; the decision to pursue LLM was a just step towards that.
I just didn’t want to leave a full time job to pursue academics, and when JGLS offered the blended LLM program in collaboration with Upgrad, I grabbed the opportunity.
My topic for my thesis was “Lifting of Corporate Veil and Group Insolvency”. I was involved in insolvency related work since its inception, i.e. from 2017, and during my LLM, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India had constituted a working group to develop draft framework on group insolvency, the Videocon ruling was also recently pronounced during that time, it was a burning topic during that time, therefore, the decision.
You’ve advised on market entry strategies across jurisdictions like Australia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia and supported international acquisitions in Singapore. Please share your key experiences?
I worked closely with the global expansion and marketing team of Livspace. My role included the following:
1. to provide a comparative analysis of entry mechanisms abroad;
2. to highlight the risks and restrictions on the marketing approach in various jurisdictions;
3. to engage with foreign lawyers for due diligence of the target company, and to review related agreements.
Laws in common law jurisdictions are mostly similar, and due to the emergence of technology, the relevant statutes are also readily available online, therefore, advisory on Singapore law was manageable. The difficult part was litigation management overseas.
Livspace is into the service industry, and therefore, there were cases filed with the Consumers Association of Singapore and with Small Claims Tribunals every now and then. Since I was not qualified to practice in Singapore, I was unable to personally appear in these matters; but still I managed most of the litigation inhouse, I used to draft replies, assist with filing (which was done online with SingPass), and was also instrumental in training the executives (mostly from operations) to appear in the said matters.
You’ve engaged with regulatory bodies and handled litigation including under IBC and MSME. How do you build legal strategies that balance compliance with business risk, particularly in high-stakes cases?
I am not keen on lengthy litigation and cutting the pocket of my client, I am practical that way and mostly try to conduct a cost benefit analysis for my client, and suggest negotiation or settlement, as the situation demands. However, where the reputation of my client may be at stake for frivolous claims, I would strongly urge for a no settlement policy, and to pursue the matter legally to deter the opposite party and also to set a precedent.
Please share your journey as an adjunct faculty at Neotia University. You have taught a number of legal subjects and the trending ones from alternative dispute resolution, contracts, company law, intellectual property law and international trade law. Tell us about your teaching methodology. What advice do you share with your students on scoring higher grades?
The experience was great. I had complete flexibility on the way I wanted to conduct classes. The teaching methodology varied depending on the subject- for instance, (1) for ADR, my focus was on practical aspects of mediation and negotiation through extensive role play sessions, where students were also provided feedback; (2) ITL is more of a theoretical subject, but I was not very keen on delivering notes, since that makes the class very monotonous, therefore, I used the reverse teaching methodology, where each student was assigned a topic on which he/she had to give a presentation, and then any part left unanswered was addressed by me; I believe that the flipped classroom approach enhances the presentation and speaking skills of students; (3) classes for contracts were a bit theoretical where the emphasis was teaching the essentials of the contract law and the key terms of contracts, with a blend of problem-solving and collaborative assignments.
My advice to law students (esp to non NLU students) would be to study for knowledge, not for exams. Most of the time I hear that the students should mug up sections and case laws to pass the exams; and in some cases, students may not understand any part of what they are writing, but that seemingly does not matter for the exams. I would instead advise students to be inquisitive and ask the most important question “why”.
Our readers will also be curious to know about your love for writing?
My former employee Mr. Vinod Kothari is a renowned author of several books, and I was fortunate enough assist him in his books- 27th Edition of Tannan’s Banking Law and Practice in India (2017) and 6th Edition Lexis Nexis’s Securitisation, Asset Reconstruction and Enforcement of Security Interests (2020). He was the one who encouraged me to write.
When I was working with Mr. Vinod Kothari (who is also an Insolvency Professional), I used to write mostly on practical issues we used to face with the newly launched Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and the gaps therein along with my suggestions; later my write ups were quoted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Spade Financial Services Limited & Ors. (February 1, 2021) and by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the case of Jayanta Banerjee vs. Shashi Agarwal & Ors. (June 4, 2021), and my writings have continued ever since; with the most recent one being on the “Co-Lending Arrangements” published by SSRN.
Now, I feel writing for me is more of a way to express my thoughts on any recent amendment/ judicial pronouncement.
Is it easy to have a work-life balance in this profession?
Well I would say that’s a decision you have to make. I have seen people quitting the profession to focus more on personal life, mostly after marriage, or to raise their kids. While I am in favour of having a balanced life, I did not want to take a career break, and continued to work even post maternity, however, with a more flexible work environment in-house.
Looking back at your diverse legal journey, what advice would you give to young legal professionals aiming to transition into in-house roles?
I would say a good mentor plays a pivotal role in shaping one’s life, and in enhancing the thought process. I was fortunate enough to work at places where I was provided complete autonomy in work. I also believe strong interpersonal skills, analytical and problem-solving abilities, research skills, and a keen attention to detail are important not only as an inhouse counsel but for any lawyer.
What inspired you to pursue a career in law? Was there a defining moment or influence that steered you in this direction?
Having an analytical mind, I tend to find reason in, and a solution to everything. From my early-teen years, the idea of problem-solving always seemed appealing. When you add to that my love for reading, language and interpretation, a career in law was an easy and natural decision.
What was your experience like at Georgetown University Law Centre while pursuing your Master of Laws, and what motivated your choice to specialize in Energy and Antitrust law?
A year at Georgetown was an immensely fulfilling and transformational experience. I had only two years of work-experience under my belt at the time, and I was able to exponentially build on that experience. Most of the courses I studied were based on discussions around practical issues and current affairs. Solution-oriented thinking and discussion was not just encouraged but mandated. Additionally, as most of the students in the LLM course were also international students with several years of work experience, the discourse was truly informative and enlightening not just professionally, but culturally as well. It was especially interesting to engage in conversation with people of different nationalities and learn how their culture shaped and continues to shape the legal landscape in their country.
The choice to pursue energy and antirust at the time was motivated by several factors; I had prior experience of working in those sectors in India, the principles of energy and antitrust remain similar through the globe, and the robust regulatory framework in the United States. It was my intention to continue working in commercial law, so it was an apt choice. Since then, even though my area of practice has evolved beyond energy and antirust, the learning and experience from Georgetown are constant aids in my work.
You began your career working on matters before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, particularly involving tariff disputes and State Electricity Regulatory Commissions. What were some of the formative experiences during this time that deepened your understanding of the energy sector and shaped your legal career?
The energy sector was a completely unknown domain for me when I began my career, which meant that every aspect of the sector was new. However, the most challenging and fascinating aspect was the sheer amount of technical knowledge and understanding of the sector that was required to be able to effectively deliver on a matter. We would often joke that we learn more engineering than law in this sector!
After gaining substantial experience working with leading law firms and Senior Advocates, you eventually set up your own independent practice. What drove this transition, and what challenges did you encounter in the early stages of establishing yourself?
The decision to work independently was a result of wanting to do something different. Having gained experience in chamber practice and firms, I wasn’t ready to go in-house but was sure that I wanted to expand work outside of a typical firm set-up. It definitely has been and continues to be challenging in almost every aspect imaginable! The most interesting challenge I faced in the early stages was getting used to being directly accountable to clients, as opposed to being part of tiered set-up in an office. Additionally, working independently means that you don’t say no to any kind of work, regardless of the fact that you may not have prior experience in similar subject-matter. Therefore, you are almost swimming in the deep-end, as the effort, motivation and discipline are completely different when the responsibility of generating business and delivering on a client’s expectations are solely on you.
Having advised clients across a wide range of sectors including EPC, Energy, Telecom, Software, AI, and General Corporate, any common challenge(s) that unites all the sectors?
The only common challenge that truly unites all sectors is demanding clients! Building client relationships, delivering on and managing client expectations is crucial to the legal profession. Every client is demanding, sometimes without truly understanding the complexities of the issue at hand. Every other legal challenge is simply a puzzle that must be solved, and there’s always a solution!
In your work with the UAE telecom regulator on drafting the policy for Radio Frequency (RF) drive testing, how did you navigate the legal and technical complexities, especially around national compliance, data privacy, and telecom operators’ requirements?
Well, the answer to this is a fairly simple and obvious one, really. We worked in collaboration with a global consulting firm, and the team responsible for executing this project comprised highly skilled experts from the legal and regulatory domain. Numerous discussions and iterations of the policy over months of work lead to policy that is currently in force in the UAE. This, for me, was one of the most exciting projects as a lawyer, as instead of always learning and interpreting the law, I was writing it (albeit for a different jurisdiction)!
For young lawyers aspiring to build a career in law and/or and independent practice, what advice would you offer? Are there specific skills, areas of focus, or resources you consider essential for excelling in this field?
There are several skills that may be useful in this profession, however the most important one in my opinion is the ability to learn. One must always be open to learning from any and every source, especially since law is one of the most dynamic professions ever and affords us the opportunity to not restrict ourselves to one sector only.
Practicing law can be both intellectually demanding and time-intensive. How do you maintain a healthy balance between your professional responsibilities and personal life? What are your favourite ways to unwind after a long day?
The beauty of working independently is that one is only answerable to the client, so as long as work gets done, one can decide their own hours! Many people make their work their identity and that was all I had seen of lawyers when I was much younger in the profession. I wasn’t going to allow myself to do that, so I continue to create a slow, simple and full life that allows me time for hobbies and such! As for unwinding after a long day, it always includes a good meal and some music or a show/movie.
I’ll start with the very, very important, and first and pertinent question, how and when did you decide to become a Barrister and an Advocate? And how was your journey? When did it start and how is it going? What kind of challenges have you faced still now?
Thank you for the question. Coming from Delhi, obviously it being the litigation hub, my school was right near the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.
So it was always on the way to school. I would see the courts, the lawyers. It was very intriguing to me. And then, a funny anecdote, when I was in 11th or 12th, I remember I had taken commerce with maths and I was so traumatized with maths. Then the next question came, where can I make money where math won’t be required and I don’t have to use trigonometry.
So there were few options which came out of which, again, law came, so I thought, might as well. Maybe that’s destiny. So that was the main reason why I started with law. It was a very stupid excuse, I must say, but everything’s written. I went to the UK. I was in University of Warwick where I did my undergrad, LLB. Unlike India, there what you do is you learn the substantive law in your undergrad. That is your LLB. That’s for three years. And then you either become a barrister or a solicitor, wherever you learn the procedural aspects. So solicitors are the ones who work in law firms. They are the ones who interact with the clients who make your witness statements or draft your petition. Barristers are a bit of a different side of the disputes.
Barristers are the ones who have the right of audience. That means they’re the ones who argue in court. So the training to be a barrister is quite different. It’s more about reading skills. It’s more of technicality and more into law. I mean, I’m sure both require their own sets of skills. Being a solicitor on the original side and being able to deduce that evidence from the client is a separate art, which barristers don’t have to do because then the paperwork already comes to them and you have to apply your brain just towards the right affording suspect.
So I was trained to be a barrister there, which opened my insights a lot. The way of education that we got there was quite different. Coming from a CBSE background where in our board exams, we were required to write probably a 300 word essay and suddenly entering into this university where within the first week I’m given an assignment to write a 3000 word essay.
It was challenging for all of us. I still remember, okay, so I wrote that essay and then they were like, but this is already there in the book. Like, what do you want? Law is already there and I’m giving you the law. And that’s where they taught me what analytical thinking was. And I think it was very important. Honestly, coming from the CBSE background, I did find it a bit disadvantageous, initially.
Took me a year to grasp and understand how this functions, how the essay writing functions, how do you write 5,000 words when you can do the same for 500 words. That’s also an art. Yeah, it was a very different form of education system. Some things I would say they should learn from India and some things I would really suggest India should learn from them.
Like when I was trying to be a barrister, we used to have recorded sessions of cross-examination or examination in chief or client handling. The biggest thing is client handling. What questions do you need to ask your clients while also protecting yourself under the ethical rules?
Like a simple thing if you’re doing mainly criminal trials. You won’t ask him a question, did you do it? Because the moment you say that and he answers that question to you, you can’t now take a not guilty plea. So ethical standards also come around, I’m sure. So these are things I’m not saying people have mal intention or anything, but these are things that need to be taught.
Problem is, I don’t see in Indian law schools that are being taught, I was fortunate enough to have been taught that. And whenever I have interns, I always tell them that when you’re talking to a client, be very careful because it is a double edged sword. Anything and everything that they reveal to you, though it is bound by attorney client privilege, but you also have the advocates Act and you need to be careful in navigating your way through both of them, by using it harmoniously.
So these are a few things that I learned there, how it was different. Then obviously after doing law, I was really motivated to come back to India because I love my country. I love the way things function. It may be chaotic, but I love the chaos. So I decided to take that leap of faith and coming back to India. I remember I was with Mr.Ciccu sir, in Delhi for a couple of years, one and a half years or so, where, I mean, I was exposed to the world of arbitrations, which was a very new ballgame. And, considering I was a barrister, so I had the license to practice in arbitration, so until I get my formal license in India to practice, so that way it was better for me to do that.
A very good experience in international arbitrations. And then I moved to Bombay, took another leap of faith, left my hometown Delhi, and then moved to a completely different city, the financial capital of India. It was an eyeopener. It taught me a lot. AZB was amazing that way. The work was high pressure, I won’t lie, but what you learn in a short span of time is invaluable because you have such volumes of cases and the type of cases.
There are humongous disputes for hundreds and thousands of crores. How a big firm functions, how 20 lawyers put their brain in one case. And, yeah, I mean, it was a very good learning process and that way Bombay has been kind and cruel at the same time. It always uses the carrot and stick story.
If you screw around, you’ll get beaten. If you’re nice, you get that carrot. So yeah, it’s been a good journey so far.
Keeping that in mind, in the early stages of your career, you gained invaluable experiences with Senior Advocate, Ciccu Mukhopadhaya, the kind of challenges you may have faced because you were transitioning from UK to India and the way it works over here, how did these kind of experiences contribute to your understanding of the kind of arbitrations that we do on national, or rather domestic level and international arbitration; so how do you see your transition along with the transition of arbitration itself?
I mean, true, like you said, arbitration has scaled great heights in India.
When I moved from the UK, I remember doing some internships in mini pupilages in the UK especially. The most notable one was Blackstone Chambers that I was there, I was fortunate enough to assist the seniors that time. The Queen’s Council now King’s councils in the Gina Miller case, though, not an arbitration, but it was Gina Miller is the famous Brexit case.
So there I saw barristers sitting one entire month on one case. So as a new law student, that is something very new, how well prepared you all are, and even the competition is as well prepared. India has a very different work game. I’m not comparing the two of anything about competency or quality.
Both require a different set of skills. They are shocked when they see Indian senior counselors appearing in five cases in a day. They’re like how is this possible? Here one barrister is sitting for an entire month for one case. How is this person doing five appearances in one day. It’s shocking to know. It requires a different set of skills to do. When I started litigation, the moment I came back to India, that switch was quite different.
It was shocking. It was amazing how in chaos they are still functioning properly. That was an eye opener how this is happening. Now, specific context of arbitrations. During that time, international arbitrations were growing. Now I foresee a dip in the arbitrations because of a lot of things.
A, how the government is also taking a not so pro arbitration stand now, with more than INR 10 crores of government contracts removing the arbitration clause. Stamp duties being imposed on awards. Very high stamp duties, especially like now, the recent Maharashtra Stamp Act, so it will hinder arbitration going forward. Considering also the list of non arbitrability of disputes being expanded.
It has come to a point. It feels like sometimes nothing is applicable. But yeah, talking about that golden period when I was here with Ciccu sir, very amazing. It was like dust. So anywhere you hit a case law is gonna get settled about different parts of things, be it seat versus venue obligations, be it pre-enforcement deposits.
And then set aside the definition of patent illegality being expanded and then again being narrowed down, the stamping of arbitration issue. These all are really enthralling issues which have been taken the course of arbitration in India. Specifically with Ciccu sir, I was fortunate to assist him in international arbitrations.
The most fond memory I have was when I went to Paris with him for a CIAC arbitration. So the biggest question everyone asked was, oh, why Paris if it’s CIAC? So the seat and venue argument again comes out there that Paris was the venue, that Singapore is the seat, substantive law is theIndian contract Act.
So three 3 types of law, procedural, substantive, and the seat (jurisdictional). So it was enthralling to witness how SIAC functions at an international level. We had all the top arbitrators in the world in that, the biggest names that you can understand, how professionally it was being conducted, how every line was being transcribed, was very important to see.
And the best part was in the night, our job was to inspect if everything’s written is right or not, because by chance there’s an issue. Then how witnesses were cross examined, how the Chinese walls were always maintained regardless of how they are based, that there is no intimidation or anything going on.
It was a very good experience and you learn different facets of law. When you go for enforcement or set aside how Singapore views it and how India views it. India, I would still say has a bit more broader scope than Singapore, but maybe it’s needed because it’s different geographical, geopolitical, demographic issues that we have here.
Considering now that argument, which is going on in the Supreme Court regarding, section 34, that is a set aside application should they be allowed to modify the award. Now that is something which is, I don’t know what the Supreme Court’s going to say because I have views on both sides.
If you allow them to modify it, then very well, because otherwise what happens, the moment you set aside, you go back to clock zero and you stop. But the moment you get the power, the modify, then what’s the point, there is a normal court proceeding where you’re giving appellate powers. So it’s a very difficult thing. The scope in India, and at least in the last 10 years since the amendment has come, the act after 96 close to 18 years, that amendment came 18, 19 years. Since then, a lot of things have changed. Arbitration was booming. Maybe with these recent amendments or the government stand and the highest stamp duty, it may take a hit. But if you want to have India as a very high on the charts on the ease of doing business, we have to be pro arbitration.
So that is my takeaway from the last 7 to 8 years of practice in arbitration.
How did you decide to start your own law firm, your own chambers, and what was the motivation behind it? And the kind of challenges? I’m pretty sure you must have faced. We request you to share some of those with the kind of solutions that you came up with because you started this at such an early age. It’ll be very beneficial for our learners to understand how they can also brush themselves to go through this particular path.
Sure. I mean, I was fortunate enough to become a barrister at the age of 21, 22. So I was quite young when I already had all the accolades. I had an undergrad and I had a barrister degree. I was just 22. So I moved to India at that time. I was one of the youngest in the course also there, everyone else is 26, 27 or 29.
I was the only kid there. So it helped me mature up faster because the people around me are all 5, 7 years elder to me. I was in AZB. Like I said, the matters were so big that 20 lawyers are working on it. But then somehow I just felt that I’m not getting to do the work that I wanted. Because of such magnanimity, you’re not able to do the entire work.
Though everyone is given a specific job, otherwise it’s not going to get done. Only the partner knows the entire case holistically. Otherwise, you all are doing your separate job as needed. So I realized that, let me just understand this. And, I really have the hunger to learn and do cases from start to finish.
I’ll make the index and make the list of dates and draft the petition. I want to argue also. Everything I wanted to do. I want to do it. So I had that little kid in me who never thought things through that time, I was young, so maybe, one day I just decided that no, I don’t want to be a small part of a big project.
I’d rather do the entire project by myself regardless of how small it is. The kid in me never sought advice from anyone also, it was just a pure instinct move and I left. And life taught me a lot of things that way. One case led to another. One thing I learned, you need to be fearless. Fearlessness and stupidity have a very thin line, so you got to be careful there as well.
You got to take your steps slowly, but calculative, but also not be scared. Because the moment you venture out in independent practice, there are a lot of things that you need to be careful of. It’s not just your ego that you want to do it alone. It’s the client’s case at risk. Sometimes it is their freedom if you’re doing bails, sometimes it is their hard earned money if you’re doing a civil case, sometimes it is their house if you’re doing a redevelopment agreement and the issues that come around there, it is their house. If you do it wrong now he’s going to be homeless. So there’s a lot of pressure also, high stake pressure there. You should never be afraid of asking help from anyone. Never think that if you’re asking from help, maybe you’re getting demeaned.
Your job is to ask for help. I remember catching anyone in the Bombay Bar and going and meeting and started talking to them. I still remember 4 years ago, my first office was the High Court library. Because, I couldn’t afford to buy so many books. All these books are very expensive.
Bombay real estate is very expensive. Anywhere you go to rent an office, it’s really expensive. And I was that time around 25, 26, and I didn’t feel right to take money from my father. I’m an independent guy and I had my savings a little bit from a AZB, I thought, let me venture this out. So I’ve seen it from the ground up.
From my days of having my first office in the High Court library with the rotating chairs, whoever sat in your chair, has sat now. So no fixed office that way. So I would think positively, I’d say I have many offices and I have a huge collection of books, which is for free. So that’s where it started.
One thing led to another. You got to be courageous. You got to learn throughout your life. Like you said, I’m very young and I would consider myself to be a student of law forever because law is something where you learn something new every day. Today I may know the law and the other person might come up with a new argument, which is intriguing.
Then I’ll learn something. And the same thing even I have done. Sometimes I might think this is a very foolish argument, but I have won the case on that. I don’t know how judge saw sense in it. Maybe I wasn’t seeing it. So it was a very enthralling experience. Because I didn’t have foresight of which type of case is going to come to me, any client who would repose faith in me and took over that case.
So maybe that way I became fortunate enough to have a very expansive field of practice. I remember doing IBC, oppression mismanagement. I remember having a client who came to me for Armed Forces Tribunal. I have nothing to do with Armed Forces Tribunal, like I’ve been only a commercial litigation lawyer.
It was a very enthralling experience. Then I remember a friend came to me for his share subscription agreement, and lucky for him, he got selected by the Y Combinator and now he has raised a hundred million. So through his journey, like when he was in the nascent stage I did that share subscription, but every round he came back to me because then I understood the startup game, how it is going, what are the common pitfalls businesses face?
What are the challenges founders face? What are the challenges investors face? What are the regulatory requirements that they always overlook? What are the employment law requirements that they generally overlook? And I’m a very big fan of tech, so I keep a note of all of it. So it’s a very good database for me also to sit and analyze across industries so that way the other startups also started.
So they started with the STEM toys and gaming, gambling, then drone tech, health tech. And as lawyers, one thing I’ve always suggested is not just about the law. It is you need to understand the industry better than your client, because then only he’s going to respect you. Only when you know his industry better than him is when he’ll understand, okay, you understand my problem genuinely.
It’s not just the law that you’re telling me. This even online I can see. So it’s very important for you to understand the industry that they’re in. What is the issue in that industry? Because how you say, what is a startup? It’s a innovative or an inventive way of finding solution to a problem. Now, first you should see why haven’t other people done it?
Is it so difficult? Are you Einstein? How did you come up with this? There should be some issue why they’re not doing it. Is there a legal issue? Does the law not allow It? Are the taxes too high? Are the cess too high in that industry? Maybe there’s a high GST. Maybe that’s why it’s not working. Maybe something like Bitcoin where the government is only not clear whether it’s legal or illegal, but yet put 28% tax on it.
So the model is only not viable. So all these things you need to advise clients, even though you’re not expected to know this, but you will only be able to serve your client to the best of interest when you know all these things. So that’s what I’ve learned in my humble experience till now.
It has been a good journey. I hope it gets better.
We would request you to share your experience about how you get called to the Bar by The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn, the kind of things that one has to do in his or her legal career for that particular qualification of getting as a barrister, it’ll also help the learners, and I would request you also, in case you have some insight about the SQE qualifications, which usually Indian lawyers can qualify and register themselves over there and practice in UK because you already have seen that particular world, there is a possibility that we’ll get to know more about it, obviously from the firsthand experience?
Sure. I mean, I can’t comment much on SQE, but SQE is always, that’s a solicitor route. I think they have changed the name also now. They keep on changing names. Can’t help it. Even for a barrister, during my time it was BPTC.
Now it is BVC, BFC. I don’t know. They keep on changing God knows for what reason, but yeah solicitor is obviously the easiest way for Indians. If you’re going to migrate to the UK. You won’t get right of audience. solicitors don’t have right of audience. You can practice in the lowest court that is a magistrate court or the crown court.
But not above that, above that you need to take another exam or something through which you may get a right of audience. But having said that, for Indians, generally people who are going there, if you think a law firm is the safest bet for you, of course, you would rather do the SQE than do the barrister because obviously you have jobs in law firms which are better paying and more secure.
You might have to work a lot. But obviously it’s way more secure and you have a fixed pay. Coming to the barrister side. First, I’ll just give you a highlight of the process, at least during my time how it was. For us, if we had to do an undergrad in the UK, LLB and then do this, or there’s one more thing called GDL, that is a one year, super law course, as I call it. So we do all the subjects in one year, all the major subjects are trust, law, contract law, Tort law, and criminal. These are the major ones, which everyone has to do. There may be some electives you’ll have to take, but all within one year, so very daunting. For Indian lawyers maybe you can write to the Bar Standards Board, that is the BSB, there to seek an exemption, saying that you have studied, that India is also a common law jurisdiction. How contract law is an act given by them. Mostly the principles. The principles are the same everywhere, in any common law jurisdiction. So if we can make an argument and show that you have some years of practice and seek an exemption from doing the GDL or anything, then comes the course or the BPTC course, maybe whatever the new acronym that they have put in now, I don’t know. So in that, what happens is that, A is that you get into that course. Second is you become a member of one of the four inns of court. So that’s Gray’s Inn, Middle Temple, Inner Temple and Lincoln’s Inn. So from Lincoln’s Inn, you have our Jawaharlal Nehru, from Middle Temple you have Sardar Patelji, from Gray’s Inn we have Mr.Ambedkar. That’s why personally, I had chose Gray’s Inn because of that, since it was the smallest and the youngest. Lincoln’s Inn is the oldest and the biggest. There comes your Inner temple where you had Gandhiji. So, I mean, you become a member of these four inns of court. Some people have their interview process also.
It’s a process that you need to apply, get recommendations. Interviews are being conducted and then you are admitted as a member of the inns of court. So now to get the big call to a bar, you need to do 12 qualifying sessions in the inns of court, which can range from dinners to moots to lectures to trial to mock trials, anything. These all happen in their ancient old halls, which are like all 500 years old or 600 years old. Halls like if you have seen Harry Potter, how they dine. So that dining shoot has happened in Lincoln’s Inn. So that’s how we all barristers used to dine. We all used to go on our big gowns.
And then there’s your master’s table where there’s the king’s councilors and the queen’s councilors and the guests for that time dinner or lecturers come and then we all would sit in sets of two students and two practicing barristers. So that way we could also communicate. We would get to know people in the fraternity.
We get to know their experience. They might also impart some wisdom to us. It was nice. Then comes the hardest part, which are the exams. So your course starts sometime in September and till May, so roughly 6 months, 6 to 8 months. During this period from Jan onwards, your exams will start.
So every month expect to have 3 exams. The exams would be like arbitration. And here all the procedural law comes. Like, remember when I told you the substantive as an undergrad, procedure is there, so your CRPC, CPC, arbitration. Then comes your opinion writing, drafting, cross-examination, examination in chief, presenting an application.
Then comes ethics. So these all courses are there, and you have to get a minimum 60% in each to pass. No one gets above 80, so you need to fall in that middle bracket of 60 to 80. They fail you by one mark also. And the first thing that you hear when you enter the barrister courses, look to your left, look to your right 30% will run away by next month. That is a normal thing. But yeah, it’s fruitful. The experience is fruitful and when you come out you also see the change in you, how your skills have been sharpened, how pinpointed questions you ask and how you present yourself in court. Before the course and after the course are a very different experience.
And I can say this because I know lawyers who were lawyers in Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and they have come here and done this course, they’ve been practicing for 10 years. They themselves shared that their skills are now sharpened.
You’ve had exposure to global jurisdictions through your legal journey — what major changes did you notice in yourself through this process, and what motivated your return to India? How did you navigate the transition back, and did your familiarity with Delhi help? Additionally, how did you develop the skill of reading clients and understanding the psychology behind cases and businesses?
So, like I said, these are courses that have to be taught in India. So we were taught this day in and day out, so every week we used to have a recorded lecture, like I’m sitting with a professional actor and doing cross-examination or interview of the client, conducting an interview of when he or she has come and told me like I have to prep them for the cross-examination tomorrow.
So I’m like, okay, come, let’s sit. I’ll ask you a few questions you have to answer. You need to understand what question not to ask. And you’re trained in? These things are very important. People in India always say we will learn through practice. Even if I was in India, I would also like to learn through practice, I can read about it.
But I didn’t know there were books like these. There are very nice books written out there regarding opinion writing or client management or conducting cross-examination, even for pleadings. I remember the first book I bought was How to Plead Without Tears. I’m forgetting the author, but that was the title of the book, the first book I borrowed from the library.
So these are things, like I said, when I was in India, I didn’t know of this. Once I went there and when a professional actor, and usually the teachers are the ones who are practicing barristers, so these are part-time teachers, technically they’re only coming for that one course. And then going back to their practicing scene.
So they would give their personal anecdotes, give you more wisdom, and that is very important in shaping my ideology also. Second thing is how in India people take a lot of their friends, family cases. Though it is not illegal, the Advocates Act only doesn’t allow you to appear for blood relatives.
But generally what they taught me and why I clearly agree was especially in litigation, if not corporate, is you should be fully independent. The moment you have a client in litigation with whom you have a personal relation or anything, it’s not that it is illegal or anything, I would say that your judgment is clogged because then you start taking it personally.
And also you are not being true to the ethical values because if you see your duty towards the court is paramount, it’s above your duty towards the client. That’s what the advocates act also says. When you have somewhat vested interest. I’m not saying monetary only because he’s your friend, maybe you’re a bit more emotional about that case.
Maybe it’s your relative, you’re a bit more emotional. It clouds your judgment. You’re not able to understand the counter-arguments, and that’s when the other lawyer who is totally independent will get the better of you. Because more often than not in court, you can write 10,000 pages of pleadings.
The judge is only gonna listen to you, to the council. So 90% is a council, 10% obviously, you can’t plead facts, which you haven’t submitted in your pleadings, but as to law especially. Unless you are independent, your judgment will be clogged. And that’s my personal experience . And that’s the main thing that I was taught there.
And I completely agree with that.
Over the course of your career, you have appeared in various cases at the Supreme Court of India as well, which are of significant matter. If you don’t mind sharing some of the highlights of a few intriguing cases, also, the kind of complexities and how you navigate through that whole process.
Because as you were trained to do that particular research at length, how have you made sure that you do it in a limited period of time that is given to you, and how have you navigated the whole process?
Actually more than that, I would add one more. Not just a limited period of time, but also the limited period of speaking time that you get in the court.
The Supreme court is a very different practice than any other court, unless you are a very known face of how like the big stalwarts are, the court wants to listen to them. Everyone in the audience also wants to listen to them. When Mr. Sibal talks, Mr. Singhvi talks, all these all these are like songs when they’re talking, we are like please keep going, even if it is for hours because we get to learn so much from them.
When someone like me steps in, who still has only one or two gray hair, they don’t listen to you. They’ll give you probably 2 minutes, 5 minutes if they are generous, or maybe it’s very contentious. The longest I’ve gone is half an hour, and as we know, 9 out of 10 cases are thrown on the pre notice change. In the Supreme Court there’s a very old saying, if you have notice issued then 80% of the case is won. Then you get to know if your true counsel, if you’re able to get the case dismissed after the notice is issued, because getting the notice issue is a very high threshold. Something like the Supreme Court, I mean cases which are very close to my heart is one I remember I argued, Lieutenant’s matter.
I was fortunate enough to appear before the Additional Solicitor General of India. We had a lot of heated arguments. It was a matter of Article 21 right to life. My client was paralyzed and he was being invalidated from service and also asked to leave the hospital. Where will a paralyzed man go?
That was the biggest thing. Where do we let the paralyzed man go? We can’t just leave him on the streets. So that was a very interesting argument. He brought in Article 21. We used a little bit of our own brain process, like they were throwing him out of the hospital. And I started asking for a release, which relates to US surgery.
I took them to the US and the judge, I remember Deepanker Dutta was there and he’s like, you want surgery in the US? Where do you think you are? This is in India, like this, do you think we send everyone to the US? So then I was like, okay sir, please give it to me in AIMS only then. He’s like he is already in a government hospital now, I was like but they’re removing him, and he’s like no, no, he can be there. That’s what I ultimately wanted.
So it was good. So that was one case that I’m really proud of. That was my first pro bono case. I thought at least I did whatever I could for the client, unfortunately he is no more. Then another, I remember my first case was against Mr. M.R.Shah, it was small, I mean, I won’t consider it small that way. It was a very small point of law where the workers were supposed to be given compensation.
Poor workers were being tortured and tormented. Somewhere in 2002 during construction, they fell. One person severed their hand, 20 people fell like that, and the contractor and the agency weren’t giving them their insurance amount. I remember I appeared before Mr.M.R.Shah And no one appeared for the respondents.
He asked me pinpointed questions. And before me, mine was serial number 11, I remember, the first 10 were dismissed. First 10 were dismissed, or no one got notice issued. I was there and the respondents didn’t appear. He grilled me for 10 minutes and I was like, why is this guy doing this to me?
These are poor people. And I was still young. I was just 26, 27 years old. These are poor people, they deserve their thing, unnecessarily this appeal has been filed too after a delay, and the High Court for reasons best known to them allowed the appeal. So after I filed this, he grilled, grilled, grilled.
Then suddenly I saw an order where he has given me, he has issued notice, and he has written some good things about me like counsel vehemently argued. So these small pleasures of life that you enjoy. You like why you are doing this job. Law is something which is…, I mean, sure monetary aspect is there, but you can’t join this profession, especially litigation if you are just looking at the monetary aspect because more often than not, you will have many clients who cannot afford, but you really wanna help them because ultimately they have no other way to get justice.
So council practice is very different, and if you’re only looking at the monetary aspect, I would suggest don’t get to council practice that easily unless you have a lot of monetary support.
I’m pretty sure you must have gone through a lot of these kinds of exciting cases where you not only learn, but others also have learned from you. Can you share your experience about advising the investors and acting as an external legal counsel, especially for drone tech manufacturers, and you are also involved in the agricultural sector, the drone use in the agricultural sector.
How have you approached that? What kind of due diligence is conducted? The kind of agreements that are made, or how do you actually address the issues or challenges in these legal fees, which are actually emerging industries. How have you gotten into this and how do you see that technology is going to be a change factor for legal practice itself?
See, tech is coming and everywhere, everything nowadays tech is being added. Legal tech is there. Drone tech is there. The other day I met someone who was into spiritual tech. I don’t know what that means. I dunno what that means but I’m intrigued to know, like you specifically asked about drone tech.
And actually recently I met another client, which is into anti drone tech. He is like everyone’s making a drone, I’ll make an anti drone. So it’s very interesting what’s going on. Specifically if you talk about agritech in combination with drone tech, a lot of things come in, A, obviously licensing. You can’t just fly a drone.
You need your DGCA license. You need licensed pilots, you need trained pilots. You need a proper training school. You need to make sure that the data that you are collecting, you have taken consent. Consent is most important. And, the DPDP act, though it has come, the rules haven’t come, so you’re not able to enforce it.
Some people have already found loopholes. Some people are like, okay, tech as if it is online, I’m gonna write a ticket for it, and then process the data. So unless case laws come, we can’t navigate through all this. A lot of SPDI rules, information tech. Now drones are also flying. Now a lot of times happened like, had an instance scenario where the drone fell and it burned the entire crop.
Who is liable? Insurance company saying we are not liable to pay because we covered the drone catching on fire and falling while we are not responsible for this crop. And fortunately, unfortunately, everything was dry grass. What do you do? The villagers have tied the pilot who had come to fly the drone.
They’re not leaving him, giving the money back. So these are complex issues which come around. You have to navigate, you have to get proper insurance and such things. You need to make sure that the testing for the drone is right. The pilot who’s been given the drone is safe, secure, properly licensed.
The data that you’re using, you have full consent to, not only to collect, but also to monetize it. Otherwise, tomorrow you might have a claim from the landowner who will say, I’m also part owner of this data. Such complications are always going to come. You need to make sure that there’s a proper title towards those drones as well.
A lot of people imagine that the drone falls where it is, the drone is 10 kilometers away from you. A lot of people take the parts and run away. That also happens. Someone say, this is mine. So security also has to be taken care of. It’s a very niche industry that you need to take care of. I need to also, every time, sit with the founders and see what their vision is.
Is your job just to spray pesticides through a drone? Covering 20 kilometers? Fair. Is your job also to put an infrared camera and see what is the output of this? Where all is the pesticide spraying, where it is spraying, where the output coming is less or more. All these are important issues which need to ask the founders as to how they are gonna navigate.
Do they plan on having this and monetizing this, or they just want to set up a company? So all these questions need to ask in accordingly, different, different acts coming. So it has to do a lot with what the founder’s vision is. If you have very low business capacity and very low investment, maybe just a simple drone with the pesticide you will need to just spray it.
You wanna go through a high tech process, output data, input data, get every small thing about the crop. Is this crop good, viable? What vegetable should grow there? This all requires a lot of SPDI rules. DPDP rules, information tech rules. A lot of things happen.
Given your diverse national and international experience, what advice would you offer to legal aspirants entering tech-related fields, especially in terms of necessary qualities, strategic preparation, and managing mental health alongside the demands of a legal career?
See, obviously, law, especially litigation as a profession, I would suggest only do it if you have the passion for it. And especially when you are independent, like how I am. Work-life balance has no meaning only. If you don’t have work, you’ll be sitting in anxiety.
If you have work, you’ll be very grateful to God and you’ll work till 4 am also. So for me, I just can’t relate to it. Maybe when I was working in a law firm, yeah. I would say, oh, why am I getting called at 2:00 AM in the night? I don’t wanna work, I wanna sleep. Now I get a call at 2:00 AM the night. Yes, of course I’ll be there.
So it’s very different perspectives. The day I left and I saw I’m loving what I’m doing, I work any hour because I get that excitement. Until you’re getting that excitement, everything seems like a chore then I mean, you won’t wanna do it as and when you like. So only enter this profession if you have that passion. Second, you have to keep your diet very well, because the problem with this is we are in a desk job.
This is all a desk job, so use bound to gain weight, especially the way things are out here now. Eating outside, unhealthy, unfiltered, questionable oil food. It’s going to take a toll on your mental health because the only way your physical health is fine is when this is going to be fine. And considering with so much involvement of technology and everything, mental health does take a huge shift.
So always suggest everyone to keep everything disciplined. Learn to work out for at least half an hour a day. Eat healthy, eat home food. Best part, nothing will happen. If you eat home, you eat puri at home, it’s fine as long as it’s home food. The outside oil you don’t know what’s in there, They’re cooking in the same oil for 10 days.
Second, obviously the passion has to be there and everything ultimately flows from the Constitution. I have it right here. This is the father of everything, every time you have a doubt. What is this law? I’m not understand. Read from where it has come. It has to come from the Constitution, only the Constitution gives that authority, the power to make that law. So the day you understand Constitutions. All your issues regarding complexity of laws will go and any new law which also comes, you will know how to understand it if you understand the Constitution. So every law student, I always suggest that constitutional law is not just for someone who practices in the red jurisdictions or only the Supreme Court.
It is for everyone because you could be doing corporate anything, but to interpret that statute, you need to understand the Constitution, and this is the golden rule for everything.
Looking back, why did law resonate with you as your chosen path?
My early inclination toward debate, theatre, and structured argument made the law a natural fit. The profession offered intellectual rigor, stability, and a meaningful way to engage with real-world issues, both theoretically and practically. During my early career, I had the opportunity to work in in-house roles and Litigation Chambers, which confirmed my affinity for litigation. Since then, there has been no turning back.
What truly drew me in was the dynamic and intellectually stimulating nature of courtroom practice. Over time, it became a calling. The constant influx of new challenges kept me engaged and reaffirmed my decision to pursue law as a lifelong profession.
Your initial years in legal practice involved real estate disputes and civil litigation before transitioning to regulatory and commercial litigation. How did those early experiences shape your legal philosophy and prepare you for handling high-stake, sector specific financial regulatory matters today?
Starting out in civil and real estate litigation helped hone essential skills, such as precise drafting, procedural discipline, and strategic planning. Early mentorships were instrumental. I was fortunate to begin at Bhave & Co. and later work under Mr. Mehernosh Pardiwala. Both mentors entrusted me with complex matters early on and encouraged independent advocacy, which helped build courtroom confidence and strategic maturity. It was compounded by the faith reposed in me by Ms. Priyanka Khemani at the then Anand & Anand & Khimani.
Civil litigation, particularly involving title disputes and contractual claims, instilled in me a sense of procedural rigor and the value of legal precision. These foundational skills now serve me well in high-stakes regulatory disputes where the stakes often involve reputational risk, statutory interpretation, and deep sectoral insight.
At Regstreet Law Advisors, I have the privilege of working under Mr. Sumit Agrawal, a leading authority in securities and financial regulatory law. We as Regulatory Lawyers use our nuanced understanding of how law, policy, and financial markets intersect. One may not expect the need to interpret balance sheets or NSE / BSE disclosures in legal pleadings, yet these elements often define the outcome in financial regulatory litigation. For instance, we recently succeeded in a matter involving allegations of non-disclosure of a penalty imposed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal. To secure a favorable outcome, we had to integrate environmental law, civil and criminal procedure, and corporate and securities law, a true example of the 360-degree interconnectedness that defines modern regulatory law practice.
What inspired your decision to begin independent practice in 2017? Could you share some of the key challenges you faced during that transition, and how you overcame them?
As a first-generation lawyer, the desire to build something of my own, grounded in courtroom skill and client trust, was a powerful motivator. Independent practice meant owning every aspect of litigation, drafting, arguing, client relations and even managing office logistics.
I was deeply inspired by senior advocates on both the Original and Appellate Sides of the Bombay High Court. Watching them argue with clarity, depth, and composure reinforced my aspiration to take ownership of cases end-to-end.
The transition was demanding. With no safety net, just grit and a phonebook, I began reaching out to friends and seniors across Maharashtra to offer court appearances, even for simple mentions or adjournments. These appearances helped me gain visibility and build trust. Gradually, I started receiving direct briefs and appellate work.
My first office was a modest 4×8 sq. ft. space in Yeshwant Chambers near Kala Ghoda. I managed everything from filing, setting up a library to client meetings personally. I also appeared in matters across jurisdictions, MIDC property disputes in Ankleshwar, revenue entries before Tehsildars in Jalgaon, and DV Act matters in Vasai. I even had the opportunity to appear in PMLA and Economic Offences Wing matters. These diverse experiences added to my procedural agility before I eventually streamlined my focus on the Bombay High Court and City Civil Court.
Those early years, though uncertain, taught me resilience, the value of consistency, and the importance of professional relationships, all of which remain central to my practice today.
You’ve represented both high-profile individuals and corporate clients. How do you balance legal strategy with media attention and client confidentiality so that the integrity of the case isn’t compromised by public narratives or media trials?
Legal strategy must always be rooted in facts and law. However, in an age of media trials, perception management becomes a necessary adjunct. Often, public narratives overshadow judicial processes, which can unfairly influence outcomes or reputation.
In a world of deepfakes and viral outrage on Instagram, WhatsApp and X (formerly Twitter), courtroom integrity matters more than ever. Public biases whether toward ultra-high net worth individuals or marginalized communities are amplified. Blind faith in authority, or public outrage, can distort the legal lens. My goal is to maintain faith in the judicial process and focus on the courtroom while maintaining a strict code of discretion. The courtroom, not the comment section, is where justice belongs.
In my experience with high-profile matters, media attention peaks during accusations but dramatically drops once a favorable order is obtained. That’s why strategic restraint is often more powerful than a soundbite.
I believe the only legitimate forum for justice is the courtroom. Media narratives can’t be controlled, but they should never dictate strategy. While the clients may feel anxious, a lawyer ought not to. With preparation, discretion, and a client-first focus, we safeguard both legal and reputational interests.
As head of the Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice at Regstreet Law Advisors, how do you approach complex regulatory disputes in rapidly evolving sectors such as competition law, especially considering your involvement in the landmark litigation against Reliance Jio?
Regulatory disputes require a unique blend of legal depth, policy awareness, and sectoral insight. At Regstreet, we adopt a layered approach, combining doctrinal legal strategy with industry expertise and real-time regulatory updates.
I’m supported by a remarkable team of associates whose diligence ensures that factual accuracy, procedural compliance, and early-stage preparation are solid. This foundation allows me to focus on broader strategy and advocacy.
Mr. Sumit Agrawal, our Managing Partner, has been an invaluable mentor. His regulatory background as a former SEBI officer allows him to anticipate the thought process of prosecuting authorities – insight that has shaped my litigation instincts and strategic outlook. Our philosophy is clear: respect the regulator, understand the sector, and advocate with clarity.
In the Reliance Jio case, I represented one of the respondents in the writ petition and the original complainant before the CCI. The matter involved allegations of cartelisation to deny Points of Interconnection (POIs) and delay Reliance Jio’s market entry. Being part of that matter so early in my independent practice and arguing alongside some of the most eminent names in the legal profession was transformative. It reinforced my faith in preparation, consistency, and perseverance.
With growing legal scrutiny on digital platforms, how do you balance the defence of artistic freedom with the legal thresholds of defamation and public sentiment in media law cases?
Balancing artistic freedom with legal thresholds requires a constitutionally grounded yet sensitive approach. A recent matter involved a stand-up comedian who made remarks about a political leader. While some viewed the act as satire protected under Article 19(1)(a), others saw it as defamatory. This divergence typifies the legal tightrope in media law.
In one case, I represented an artist (a well-known comedian) whose show faced an injunction on the grounds of hurting religious sentiments. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the plea, allowing the show to be released. That experience affirmed the strength of our democracy and the judiciary’s role in balancing expression with accountability.
Ultimately, the independence of our courts allows satire and expression to coexist with legitimate legal recourse. In handling such cases, we focus on ensuring the content stays within legal bounds while vigorously defending freedom of expression.
You’ve been actively involved in legal education, teaching business and media law, and engaging with students through workshops and seminars. What is your motivation behind taking up this role and what key advice would you offer young legal professionals entering the field today?
My involvement in legal education stems from a simple but pressing need to bridge the gap between what law schools teach and what legal practice actually demands. The endless debates of NLU vs. non-NLU, Tier 1 vs. boutique, money vs. exposure are increasingly irrelevant. The real game is about learning faster than the world changes. It’s about upskilling every single day.
Statutes and case law are taught well in classrooms. But what about courtroom craft? The silence before an objection? The art of managing client trust or decoding what’s unsaid in a negotiation? These are rarely part of the syllabus, yet central to practice. Through lectures and workshops, we practitioners try to fill in those blanks to make legal education more holistic, grounded, and practice-ready.
Teaching, for me, isn’t just a way of giving back. It keeps me intellectually agile, sharpens my thinking, and refreshes my perspective. Being around young minds curious, unfiltered, and sometimes irreverent is energizing. It also ensures I stay tuned in to emerging thought and even pop culture, which often influences how the law is perceived and applied.
My advice to young professionals? Focus on substance. Master procedural law, contracts, evidence, and constitutional principles. Explore internships widely, be it litigation, corporate or policy to discover your true calling. Build a reputation for reliability, not just credentials. Law is a marathon, not a sprint. Stay curious, stay adaptable and most importantly, stay grounded.
Further, as Artificial Intelligence evolves, legal practice must evolve with it. The issue isn’t the use of ChatGPT or Deepseek – it’s a powerful tool, and we must embrace it. But no matter how advanced technology becomes, it cannot replace the value of human judgment, analysing the source of law or using your strategic insight. We must continue to apply our minds, not just automate our outputs or look for a “template”. The real edge will always lie in how well we integrate emerging tools while staying true to the craft.
Law is a marathon. It requires adaptability, resilience, and lifelong learning. As Steve Jobs said, “Stay hungry, stay foolish” – a mantra that resonates deeply in the legal profession.
With a demanding career that spans high-stakes litigation, teaching, and public speaking, how do you maintain a sense of personal balance and well-being? What practices or routines help you sustain performance without burnout?
Litigation demands mental stamina, emotional composure, and the ability to stay sharp at all times. But clarity doesn’t come from constant motion, it requires deliberate pauses. I make it a point to disconnect periodically. Without that reset, it’s easy to slip into autopilot, and litigation is no place for mechanical thinking. Strategy needs space.
At Regstreet, we believe in celebrating the process, whether it’s watching a film together, attending a play, or unwinding at a concert after a long matter. These shared moments go a long way in keeping the team grounded and cohesive.
Cricket has been a personal outlet. I’ve had the privilege of playing for and leading the Bombay High Court team in several tournaments. It’s more than a game; it’s a way to channel focus, discipline, and camaraderie. I also turn to theatre, trekking, cooking, and cinema to recharge. Saturdays are usually reserved for such pursuits, while Sundays often involve preparing for the week ahead.
Teaching, too, is a form of balance. It renews my intellectual curiosity and gives me space to reflect beyond the courtroom.
Everyone’s rhythm is different. For me, personal well-being isn’t an indulgence – it’s a professional investment. It’s what keeps the passion alive and the performance sustainable.
Your academic trajectory from B.Com (Hons.) to Law, Company Secretaryship, and an M.Com reflects a strong interdisciplinary foundation. What inspired you to pursue both law and the CS qualification simultaneously, and in what ways has this combination given you an edge in advising clients on matters of corporate governance, regulatory compliance, and financial structuring?
From the very beginning, I was drawn to the intersection of law, commerce, and corporate governance. Pursuing Company Secretaryship alongside my legal studies was a conscious decision as it allowed me to build a foundation that wasn’t just legally sound, but also rooted in financial and regulatory nuances. This interdisciplinary approach has been extremely helpful, especially in matters involving corporate litigation, insolvency, and compliance. Clients often benefit when legal advice is well-integrated with an understanding of statutory filings, boardroom dynamics, and financial frameworks. I’ve also noticed that having both an LLB and CS qualification adds to my credibility in the eyes of clients. They feel more assured that their legal matters are being handled with a broader understanding of business and compliance.
During your time with Advocate-on-Record Abhinav Shrivastava, you worked on several significant matters, including cases involving medical negligence, public infrastructure, and high-stakes regulatory disputes. Which of these experiences had the greatest influence on your legal mindset or courtroom confidence, and why?
Each case taught me something unique, but one that stands out was the medical negligence matter which ultimately led the Delhi High Court to direct the Medical Council of India to frame sentencing guidelines against doctors. The case was layered with complex medical facts and touched deeply on issues of public interest and human emotion. Working under the guidance of Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava in this matter was instrumental. He gave me the opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court in the very first year of practise. His clarity of thought, meticulous approach to drafting, and strategic vision shaped how I began to understand litigation at a deeper level. Observing how he navigated the matter and collaborated with senior counsel not only sharpened my legal thinking but also instilled in me the confidence and discipline required in court, something no textbook alone can provide.
You also contributed to the due diligence process for a major international brand like Burger King. How did this corporate compliance role differ from your litigation work, and what insights did you gain into global business operations and cross-border regulatory frameworks through that engagement?
That engagement was eye-opening. While litigation often focuses on resolving disputes, due diligence work is more about anticipating and mitigating future risks. Working at Burger King allowed me to see the meticulous backend of corporate transactions: compliance checks, property evaluations, and regulatory assessments. It gave me a global perspective on how multinationals approach legal risk and localization, which I now carry into advising Indian startups.
Since embarking on your independent practice and founding Maximus Legal , you’ve handled a wide variety of matters before bodies like the NGT, NCLT, and the Supreme Court. What have been the most significant challenges and turning points during this journey? What initially motivated you to take the leap and establish your own firm?
Starting my own firm was less about ambition and more about purpose. I wanted to build a practice rooted in accessibility, integrity, and multidimensional legal service. The biggest challenge was transitioning from being an associate to becoming a first point of contact for clients. The turning point came when I successfully argued for a client in a habeas corpus matter involving child custody, a deeply sensitive issue that reaffirmed my decision to take this path. Founding Maximus Legal has allowed me to offer end-to-end solutions across practice areas, with a team that shares this commitment.
Your experience spans a wide legal spectrum from consumer protection and matrimonial cases to environmental litigation and complex insolvency proceedings. Could you share one particularly challenging case that tested your legal acumen or professional resilience?
One of the most challenging cases was representing a group of industries before the NGT, Principal Bench regarding the air quality of my hometown Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab. Balancing environmental concerns with the economic realities of industrial stakeholders required not just legal knowledge, but nuanced negotiation and strategy. The matter demanded extensive groundwork, collaboration with technical experts, and the ability to argue for sustainable solutions. It was a test of endurance, but also of finding balance in public interest litigation.
Having facilitated over 50 trademark and 25 copyright registrations including international filings you’ve built a solid IP practice. In your experience, what are the most common hurdles startups and individuals face during the IP registration process, and how can these be effectively addressed from a legal strategy perspective?
Many startups underestimate the value of early IP protection. The most common hurdles include inadequate documentation, lack of awareness about global classifications, and conflicts with existing trademarks. I believe the solution lies in proactive education. At Maximus Legal, we guide clients from day one, not just in registration, but in building an enforceable brand identity. International filings also require understanding treaty frameworks like the Madrid Protocol, which many startups overlook. Strategic foresight, coupled with clear documentation, can save significant time and costs down the line.
Now leading your litigation practice and having cleared the Advocate-on-Record exam, what guidance would you offer to young lawyers hoping to build a career path similar to
yours? What specific skills, values, or tools have proven vital to your growth and long-term success?
The most valuable skill is consistency, whether in drafting, client communication, or court appearances. Young lawyers often look for shortcuts, but the law rewards diligence and depth. I would also stress the importance of mentorship, both formal and informal. Working under experienced professionals taught me discipline and nuance. Tools like legal research databases, structured daily schedules, and clear documentation habits have helped me immensely. Above all, maintaining integrity, doing the right thing even when no one is watching, has been a guiding value.
Could you walk us through your experience of preparing for and clearing the Advocate on-Record examination? How has achieving AOR status influenced your professional standing and the scope of your legal practice?
Preparing for the AOR exam was rigorous. It required not just legal knowledge but also the ability to think practically under pressure. I had to revisit core procedural law, refine my drafting, and understand the unique ethos of Supreme Court practice. Clearing the exam has been a milestone. It has enhanced client trust and opened doors to file directly before the apex court. Interestingly, I’ve noticed that people look at you a little differently when they hear you’re an Advocate-on-Record, it carries a sense of credibility and seriousness in the legal community. More than anything, it’s a personal reminder that persistence and preparation truly pay off.
High-stakes litigation is often intense and time-consuming. How do you maintain balance between the demands of your profession and your personal life? Has your approach to well being, stress management, or time allocation evolved throughout your career?
Yes, it has evolved a lot. In the early days, I was constantly on edge, running from court to office and barely taking time off. Over time, I realized that burnout doesn’t serve anyone. I now prioritize structured schedules, take short breaks, and occasionally unplug completely to reset. Being in court almost every day is demanding, but creating boundaries and nurturing personal interests, like travel or spending time with family, keeps me grounded.
Your academic journey has clearly provided a strong foundation for your legal career. Could you kindly share how these early academic experiences influenced your decision to pursue law, and what valuable lessons you gained during that time?
From a very early age, I was fortunate to be surrounded by the world of law. My father, Mr. R.K. Wadhwa, a practicing lawyer, served as a constant source of inspiration and familiarity with the legal system. Law, in that sense, didn’t come to me as a sudden career decision, it seeped into my life gradually. The exposure at home planted the seed, even though, at one point, I had briefly considered exploring a different path.
Thereafter during my days in Modern School, where I made a somewhat unconventional choice to pursue Humanities, at a time when the stream was often misunderstood or even looked down upon. But I had no inclination toward Physics, Chemistry, or Math. I was genuinely drawn to subjects like Political Science and Psychology, which resonated with my interests. It was during this period that my interest in law was truly solidified. My School also offered an intellectual environment. Being surrounded by accomplished alumni, including legal luminaries, only deepened my resolve.
My journey continued at Amity Law School, which was still in its formative years, I belonged to the fifth batch. The atmosphere was dynamic; our seniors had built the foundation for various extracurricular societies, and soon, the baton was passed to us. I was deeply involved in debates, and with encouragement from peers and mentors, I went on to found the Amity Law School Debating Society. My passion for expression and the performing arts led me to also co-found the Music and Theatre Society and become part of the Cultural Society. I actively participated in national-level moot court competitions, and led contingents representing ALS at institutions like NALSAR, BITS Pilani, and Symbiosis Pune.
I also realised that sometimes it’s not the ‘Big Wins’; But, the small victories that matter. Around my Fourth year, Amity didn’t have its own logo at the time—it functioned under the larger Amity University banner. But that lack of identity stirred something in me. I wanted ALS to have its own unique presence. With support from then-Director Maj. General Nilendra Kumar, I conceptualized and designed the official logo for ALS.
Having gained valuable experience through various internships and legal research positions in the early stages of your career. Would you be able to share some of the most impactful or memorable experiences from that period and how they helped shape your understanding of the law?
Internships were where theory met reality for me. I had the chance to intern with a wide variety of legal offices, law firms, individual practitioners, and chambers. Each setting brought with it a unique learning curve, and I quickly realized that no amount of classroom education could substitute for the practical experience of being in court. In courts, you’re constantly thinking on your feet. You’re taught to use every resource at your disposal—even when you walk into a courtroom with seemingly nothing. The unpredictability trains you to stay alert, adaptable, and resourceful.
After graduating, I spent some time working with my father in the trial courts. It was a hands-on experience that introduced me to the ground realities. My father had a purely criminal practice, he was mostly briefed from the defence side to conduct cross-examinations which in a way, gave me deep insights into trial work and how a criminal case is methodically built. It was an education like no other. He used to tell me “Agar aap vakalat ko 2 din chhodoge to wo aapko 4 din peeche karegi.” —if you step away from law for two days, it will set you back by four. And I felt the truth of that every time I missed a day in court. Sometimes, even when you might not have a matter of your own, you still have to come to court even if you spend the day just sitting in the court library or listening to arguments in someone else’s matter; that can at times teach you more than a lecture ever could.
Soon after, I began assisting Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog in the High Court. He had this saying that stuck with me: “If you’re good at law, you hammer the law. If you’re good at facts, you hammer the facts. If you’re good at neither, you hammer the table.” It was humorous on the surface, but layered with insight. The latter is one of the most important characteristics to have in a lawyer, where you put forward your submissions to the Court knowing you might not be very strong either on the facts or on the law. This is where your oratory skills and imaginations are used the most.
The early years are all about being a sponge. You absorb everything, from your seniors, your peers, your juniors, and even opposing counsel. Every moment in court, even the bad one’s like every heated exchange, every procedural hiccup prepares you for tomorrow. At times you might just be learning what not to do the next time around. Whether you’re waiting for your matter to be called or spending time in the Bar Room listening to seasoned lawyers dissect a point of law—it’s all part of your training.
Having worked alongside numerous esteemed Advocates and Senior Advocates, what inspired you to establish your own practice? If you don’t mind sharing, were there any particular challenges you faced when setting up your own firm in the initial stages?
Although I had worked with seniors in the field for some time including my Father, I still had the urge to carve out something of my own. I wanted to build my own practice that reflected my ideals and my name.
Of course, it wasn’t easy. The initial phase was lean, money was tight, clients were few, and everything had to be managed singlehandedly. I didn’t have a team, or even support staff. No clerk, no office boy. I was everything rolled into one; I was managing the files, doing the drafting, attending court, and at times, even cleaning out my office. But that struggle, in hindsight, is what keeps you grounded and makes you realise your worth. Despite those strenuous years, I would not trade it for anything. Having your own practice comes with a sense of freedom which would give me the space to shape my identity as a lawyer.
Twelve years on, I still consider myself a student of the profession. Every single day teaches you something new. What I’ve come to realize is that a litigation office is a lot like a household. While you might think of yourself as the head of the family, it’s the clerk who keeps the house running (who actually governs everything and makes you feel the void if on leave), It’s the seniors who offer perspective and grounding, and Your colleagues (the infamous Juniors, as people call them in this profession); they help you out the most when you’re in an uncomfortable situation before a Judge and teach you things which even a senior can’t teach you. These lessons, some learnt the hard way, have formed the cornerstone of my independent practice. And even with all the unpredictability, I wouldn’t trade this journey for anything.
Your involvement in pro bono work across a variety of legal sectors is truly commendable. What motivates you to take on such cases, and if you would be willing, could you share a specific instance where your pro bono work made a significant difference in someone’s life?
Pro bono work has always held a deeply personal significance for me. I believe that if the legal profession has given you the privilege of a voice in a courtroom, the least you can do is use it for those who cannot afford to be heard. Every human doesn’t come with resources, but everyone needs to be represented; and I do believe that having some degree of privilege, it is our bounden duty to represent their side of the stories and some of those stories stay with you forever.
The least a lawyer can do is give back to the society; because every client/ litigant who is seeking legal assistance cannot afford to spend heavily on counsel. I’ve learned from my seniors that no brief should be refused on the grounds of scale or fee. No matter is too small, and every litigant deserves a chance. That ethos continues to guide my practice.
One such case was that of a man, whose young son, about 21-year-old boy, working as a young air conditioning technician for DTC Buses, was brutally murdered in broad daylight. The father, who was a rickshaw driver, and his wife, had been running from one police station to another, and despite the gravity of the crime, no FIR had been registered. They were absolutely desolate and hopeless and not in a position to afford any legal representation. They came to me through a Local Help who knew me as somebody who would be willing to help them. I wanted to help them in whatever way I could extend. You can’t take empathy out of this profession.
Another matter that stands out was a case involving slum demolition. Entire families approached me, numbers running into 100s; their homes, slums were to be demolished overnight and entire families were to be displaced, without notice or recourse. My entire Team sat through the Night and we got relief the next day. The gratitude and blessings that those people felt is something that reminded me why I did and what I did in the first place. These were more than just legal battles; Situations like these reaffirmed my belief that the law must be a tool for justice, not just procedure.
With your extensive experience working with high-profile clients and handling numerous reported judgments, could you share a particularly interesting or noteworthy case that has had a lasting impact on you professionally?
One of the most impactful cases I handled came just a year and a half into my legal practice. A senior lawyer referred the matter to me, since the client was in an urgent and vulnerable situation. It involved a French national, residing in the UK, who had been in a live-in relationship with an Indian man. They had a child together, and by mutual agreement, the child would visit the Father’s family in India for short periods. However, during one such visit, the father refused to let the child return. The mother, distraught and left with no recourse, flew to Delhi to seek legal assistance. That’s when I was brought on board.
I had never handled a Habeas Corpus petition before, but we knew we had to act quickly. We spent the night researching and drafting the petition. We mentioned the matter urgently the next day. The father eventually appeared before the court, bringing the child with him. One of our other prayers was seeking the custody of the Child for the mother, but the court was initially hesitant, as the scope of habeas corpus petitions is generally limited. However, we showed precedents which recognized that in exceptional circumstances, custody could be addressed within Habeas proceedings.
The court, after hearing our arguments, showed indulgence in the facts; The court also intervened to ensure the mother’s visa extension was considered on priority, so that she could stay in India and contest the proceedings. Within just two to three hearings, the matter was settled in our favour, and the child was allowed to return to the UK with the mother.
The matter gave me immense confidence and encouragement; I realised that there was no substitute for research and preparedness. It was our research that had come to the aid of our client. The emotional weight of that case was also immense, not just for the parties involved, but for me as well.
There have been moments in my career when I was confident of my case, of the facts, of the law and still lost. And then there have been matters where I thought I was fighting a losing cause, only to have gotten a good order. I have learnt something fundamental through all this; sometimes, your job isn’t just to win; it’s to show up, speak up, and stand firm, even when the outcome seems uncertain. You may be fighting an uphill battle, but your presence and persistence can make all the difference. These experiences have been humbling and invaluable. They’ve taught me to never take anything for granted in this profession.
As a Panel Counsel for the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, you’ve made meaningful contributions to welfare initiatives, especially for foreign national prisoners. What led you to focus on this area, and what unique challenges do foreign prisoners face in India? Could you share any insights from a recent case or initiative in this field?
My time with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee has taught me many important lessons and given me an opportunity to work for many causes. One case that stood out involved a convict who had suffered a life-altering accident while working inside a jail-run paper factory. He lost three fingers due to the lack of safety protocols. Prior to my involvement, multiple writ petitions had been filed on his behalf, but no concrete outcome was achieved. When the matter finally came to me, we argued that while prisoners may not be treated at par with civilian workmen under certain compensation laws, they still possess fundamental and civil rights. If an injury occurs while working inside prison premises, there is a duty on the State to ensure compensation and adequate medical care. The Court was kind to accept our submissions and framed guidelines for compensating prisoners who suffer such injuries. In my opinion it was a small but significant step toward justice behind bars. That case was a reminder that dignity and rights do not stop at the prison gate.
Some causes find you before you go looking for them. My work with foreign national prisoners began that way, through my role as a Part of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, I came across cases involving foreign national Prisoners, many of whom faced long incarcerations and still faced uncertainty about their dates of deportation. These individuals faced a unique and often overlooked set of challenges. Most had no local support, no financial means, no access to translators, and in many cases, no consular assistance. Something as basic as arranging for a surety or providing a permanent Indian address became insurmountable obstacles to their release. The legal system, while well intentioned, can become an alien labyrinth when you’re navigating it in a foreign land with no resources or familiarity. Justice cannot be selective. It cannot favour those with access and leave behind those without. If our system is to remain just and equitable, we must ensure that everyone, regardless of nationality or status, is afforded due process and humane treatment.
During my time as DHCLSC, I also had the opportunity to visit the FRRO, we witnessed the Overcrowding in the centre, and saw the deplorable state of affairs, where some foreign nationals are there for more than 6 months, and some for many years altogether, which in my opinion should absolutely not be the scenario. We came across multiple facets that in our opinion require interventions and corrections. In our role, we even made a report and we submitted the same to the DHCLSC.
Your dedication to social causes, including fundraising and various welfare activities, is truly admirable. What inspires you to invest time and energy into these causes, and how do you manage to balance your professional commitments, social work, and personal life?
Giving back has never felt like an obligation; it’s always felt like a natural extension of my work. A large part of that comes from my upbringing. My father was also active in bar politics. I had never seen him turn his back on a cause, on a fellow lawyer in need of aiding the causes he believed in.
That influence shaped my own sense of responsibility. In my limited capacity I have tried to aid causes I could contribute for; from assisting fellow lawyers in need during Covid crisis or organising Blood Donation Camps and contributing to other initiatives. For me, legal work and social work are not separate silos—they’re deeply intertwined.
Of course, balancing your personal lives and litigation isn’t always easy. The days are long, and the stress of litigation can be unrelenting. But having a strong, dependable team makes all the difference. My office operates like a family. In jest, but also in truth, I often say, your clerk is like your spouse, and your colleagues are your children. Everyone has a role, everyone supports the other, and somehow, the whole house runs.
Time management and alignment of values are essential. When you genuinely care about what you’re doing, the work, even the long hours, starts to feel purposeful. And that purpose sustains you. You don’t just show up to win cases, you show up to make a difference.
Social commitments don’t compete with my professional life, they enrich it. In my opinion, this profession requires you to be social, connecting with people is necessary to growing in the profession.
With your wealth of experience across diverse legal fields, you are uniquely positioned to offer guidance to aspiring legal professionals. What advice would you offer to law students and young lawyers who wish to pursue a career in litigation? Are there any resources or approaches that you believe are essential for success in today’s legal environment?
Litigation is not for the faint-hearted. It tests your patience, your resilience, often all at once. You will walk into court with a well-prepared brief and walk out feeling like you know nothing. You will lose cases you believed were great and win cases you had given up on. It humbles you. And it should. Be prepared to consult everyone—your seniors, your peers, even your juniors. I’ve learned valuable lessons from colleagues younger than me, simply because they were looking at the problem from a fresh angle. Don’t let ego get in the way of learning. This field rewards humility far more than bravado.
There will be days when you feel lost, when a judge pulls you up harshly, when you’ve stayed up preparing and things still don’t go your way. That’s okay. As a lawyer, your duty is that of a messenger between the client and the bench. Your role isn’t to take matters personally, but to do justice to the brief entrusted to you, to the best of your ability and conscience. You’re a professional messenger between your client and the bench. You have a responsibility of not upsetting either of the Two.
The courtroom has also taught me to never underestimate the importance of humility. No court is too big and no matter is too small (I guess that’s what they say). It’s a bounden duty of any court to treat all matters at an equal pedestal. We, as officers of the court, our submissions should always be respectful, well-prepared, and mindful of the board of the court. If you’re concise, clear, and courteous, even the busiest bench will give you a fair hearing, every court/judge will have indulgence in your case.
I have learnt an invaluable lesson: litigation is never a race amongst individuals or a sprint—it’s a marathon. Each lawyer begins from a different starting point. It’s a field that will exhaust you, test your patience. Reaching every milestone would again make you realise that you’re still far away from the end point. You just have to keep at it.
As technology continues to evolve, its impact on the legal sector, particularly in criminal law, is becoming increasingly significant. How do you see the future of law unfolding in this regard? In your view, how are courts and the legal system adapting to these changes, and what potential challenges or opportunities do you foresee as a result?
I remember observing how things worked during my father’s time—everything was handwritten, typewriters clacked away in the background, and court files were carried in bundles tied with redband. The charm of old-school advocacy still lingers, but there’s no denying that the tools of the trade have transformed. Today, virtual hearings, e-filings, digital courtrooms, online legal research, and case tracking platforms have become the norm. The pandemic accelerated this shift, making digital competence a necessity rather than a choice. For many of us, adapting to this new normal was challenging, but also eye-opening.
Courts are adapting. Judges are becoming more comfortable with hybrid systems. Filing and listing procedures are becoming more streamlined. But as we digitize, we must also confront the digital divide. A significant portion of the bar, especially in district courts, continues to struggle with basic connectivity, lack of infrastructure, and limited digital literacy. For justice to remain accessible, we cannot allow technology to become a gatekeeper. It must be an enabler.
A fair and inclusive legal system cannot only serve those fluent in English, comfortable with apps, or having high-speed internet. The evolution of legal practice must be sensitive to those left behind. We need infrastructural support, training initiatives, and perhaps most importantly, the will to ensure that no lawyer or litigant is excluded simply because they don’t have access to a screen.
