Looking back at your career and the successful practice you’ve built today, what were the key experiences that initially led you toward pursuing law? What moments or influences made you choose law as a career? Additionally, how did your time at NLU Gujarat shape and deepen your passion for the field?
I was drawn to law after witnessing how legal complexities often overwhelmed individuals and businesses, creating unnecessary barriers to their goals. A defining moment came during my undergraduate years when I saw a family dispute escalate simply due to lack of proper legal guidance. This showed me that law isn’t just about statutes, but about people and relationships.
NLU Gujarat was transformative. The practical learning approach, diverse legal exposure through moot courts and internships, and exceptional faculty mentorship developed the critical thinking skills that guide my practice today. The institution’s emphasis on real-world application deepened my understanding of law’s potential to create positive change.
In the early years of your practice, what experiences helped you build a stronger understanding of the law and laid the foundation for your career? Could you share some key lessons from that period that would benefit our young readers?
Working across different practice areas initially provided invaluable insights into how various legal disciplines intersect. A pivotal experience was advising a struggling startup on restructuring, which required understanding corporate law, employment regulations, and tax implications simultaneously teaching me that modern legal practice demands interdisciplinary expertise.
Key lessons for young practitioners: embrace every learning opportunity regardless of how mundane it seems; develop strong communication skills to translate complex legal concepts into actionable business advice; build relationships based on trust and transparency; and stay curious; the law evolves constantly, and successful practitioners evolve with it.
What inspired you to establish your own practice? What were some of the challenges you faced in the beginning, and how did you navigate those obstacles?
I wanted to create a practice that delivered personalized, innovative legal solutions while maintaining the highest ethical standards combining the expertise of larger firms with the agility and client focus of boutique practices.
Initial challenges included building credibility, establishing a client base, and managing financial constraints while maintaining service quality.
I navigated these through strategic relationship building, delivering exceptional results on smaller matters to build credibility, and focusing on becoming specialists in chosen practice areas rather than trying to be everything to everyone. We never compromised on quality to win business – a principle that ultimately distinguished us in the market.
Cross-border transactions often involve navigating multiple legal frameworks and jurisdictions. How do you manage the complexities of these deals? What are the critical legal considerations businesses must keep in mind when engaging in cross-border transactions, and how do you ensure compliance with international legal standards while advising clients?
We manage complexity through systematic due diligence across all relevant jurisdictions, collaborating with trusted local counsel worldwide. Our framework maps regulatory requirements, tax implications, and compliance obligations for each jurisdiction involved.
Critical considerations include foreign investment regulations, tax treaty implications, currency exchange controls, sector-specific restrictions, dispute resolution mechanisms, and enforcement challenges across different legal systems.
We ensure compliance through jurisdiction-specific checklists, regular regulatory updates, and maintaining relationships with qualified local counsel. Our approach emphasizes early identification of potential conflicts between legal systems and structuring transactions to minimize regulatory friction while ensuring comprehensive documentation that anticipates cross-jurisdictional enforcement challenges.
With the evolving landscape of CSR compliance, what trends do you foresee emerging in the near future? Additionally, could you share how you guide clients in aligning their CSR strategies with both domestic and international laws?
Emerging trends include mandatory climate disclosures, supply chain responsibility requirements, and stakeholder-centric reporting. We’re seeing convergence between ESG standards and domestic CSR requirements, with increased focus on measurable impact assessment and integration with business strategy.
We guide clients by conducting comprehensive assessments of applicable domestic and international obligations, then developing CSR strategies that exceed minimum compliance while creating genuine business value. Our approach emphasizes robust documentation, impact measurement systems, regular compliance audits, and integration of CSR considerations into business decision-making processes.
Start-ups face several challenges when it comes to establishing their legal foundations. What are the most common legal hurdles that start-ups should address early on? How do you assist them with crucial aspects like intellectual property rights, employee agreements, and business structuring?
Common hurdles include inadequate business structuring, insufficient IP protection, poorly drafted founder and employee agreements, and underestimating regulatory compliance requirements.
Our approach begins with comprehensive business structure analysis considering investment plans, tax efficiency, and regulatory requirements. For IP, we conduct thorough audits and establish protection strategies including trademark registrations and robust confidentiality frameworks. Employee agreements require balancing company protection with talent attraction—we draft comprehensive contracts and establish equity participation frameworks.
We emphasize establishing good governance practices early, including board structures, decision-making processes, and compliance systems that become crucial as startups scale.
Given your expertise in handling family estate disputes, what aspects of family law do you feel need more focus or reform? How do you approach succession planning for high-net-worth families, especially when dealing with complex cross-border elements?
Family law needs greater focus on alternative dispute resolution and preventive legal structures. The current system often exacerbates conflicts rather than resolving them constructively.
For high-net-worth succession planning, we begin with comprehensive family and asset mapping, then develop flexible structures adaptable to changing circumstances. Cross-border elements require careful jurisdiction selection, appropriate trust structures, and documentation that anticipates enforcement issues across different legal systems.
Our methodology emphasizes family governance frameworks including family constitutions, communication protocols, and dispute resolution mechanisms, with regular plan updates to reflect changing family circumstances and regulatory environments.
Trust formation is often a delicate issue, especially for business families. Could you elaborate on your approach to setting up trusts and advising clients on succession planning? What are some common misconceptions businesses or individuals might have about trust formation, and how do you address these?
Our approach begins with thorough understanding of family dynamics, business structures, and long-term goals, then designing flexible trust structures that serve multiple purposes while maintaining adaptability.
Common misconceptions include believing trusts provide absolute asset protection, assuming trust formation means loss of control, and underestimating ongoing compliance requirements. Many don’t understand differences between trust types and their specific applications.
We address these through comprehensive education about trust mechanics, clear explanation of rights and obligations, and realistic assessment of benefits and limitations. For business families, we focus on structures facilitating business continuity while providing appropriate family financial security, often involving multiple trust vehicles and governance frameworks for family participation in business decisions.
Your commitment to fostering diversity in the legal profession is commendable. How do you ensure aspiring lawyers have the mentorship and opportunities they need within your firm? What qualities do you look for when mentoring young lawyers, and what advice do you offer them as they navigate the legal profession?
We ensure opportunities through inclusive hiring practices, structured mentorship programs pairing senior and junior lawyers across practice areas, meaningful work assignments, and regular professional development workshops.
In mentoring, I look for intellectual curiosity, ethical grounding, strong communication skills, and resilience. Technical skills can be taught, but these fundamental qualities determine long-term success.
My advice focuses on building strong foundational skills, maintaining ethical standards regardless of pressure, developing business acumen alongside legal expertise, and understanding that successful careers are built on relationships and reputation. Most importantly, find meaning in your work – legal practice provides unique opportunities to make positive differences in people’s lives.
With your demanding career and leadership role, how do you personally manage work-life balance? Additionally, how do you encourage your team to maintain a healthy balance while excelling in their roles?
I maintain balance through disciplined time management, prioritizing high-impact activities, delegating effectively, and protecting family time. Sustainable success comes from managing energy, not just time.
For the team, we’ve implemented realistic project timelines, adequate staffing, flexible work arrangements where possible, and measure success by results and client satisfaction, not hours worked. We encourage time off and maintain open communication about workload concerns.
Most importantly, I model healthy balance myself. Teams take cues from leadership, so demonstrating that it’s possible to excel professionally while maintaining personal well-being encourages others to do the same. We celebrate achievements and recognize that sustainable careers require attention to both professional and personal development.
To start with, why and how did you choose law as your career? And if there was any specific inspiration or anything that you feel made the change in your mindset to choose law, being in India, having those kinds of challenges, we would request you to share those insights with us.
In response to your specific question, I do recognize—having grown up in India, having spent almost the first 28, 29 years of my life in India—that, at least when I was growing up, law and the study of law were not seen as a very attractive career option.
Let me put it very simply: people were more interested, as I recall, in studying the sciences, engineering, medicine, and architecture. Those kinds of professions were seen as more lucrative and more rewarding, from what I recall growing up.
So, law was definitely not an attractive career option. Having said that, I was someone who was always interested in the study of social sciences, in the study of politics. You could say that that’s something that was bestowed upon me by my father, who is a professor of history. He is basically a social sciences academician himself. I was always surrounded by these books that were in the house—about world history, about ancient history, Greek history, Roman history, Indian history obviously. So, I used to be very fascinated by reading those books. Those used to be like coffee table books, from what I remember.
My father used to bring them a lot. There used to be encyclopedias, so I was always interested in politics and history. And although I was a good student in science and maths as well, I always wanted to do something more related to how our society works, how our social systems work, how our political institutions work.
And by the time I entered high school, I realized that studying law was probably the best way to understand it, because the law governs most of our political and social institutions. That was my motivation. I did not have any specific role models growing up, although I knew very well as a student of history that most of our leaders during the freedom movement—not only in India but almost all around the world—were lawyers. I realized that there must be something about the study of law that makes good leaders, that makes these leaders, these very cherished leaders of not just our freedom movement, as I said, but if you take the history of any country.
You will see that most of the people who have risen to the top have studied law in some form or the other. So that was my interest, and that’s why I ended up being a lawyer. I did not have any specific branches or any specific disciplines in law in mind when I entered the legal profession. I just wanted to understand how, as I said, our society and our political institutions were.
And that’s how I ended up being a lawyer.
You were also equally interested in politics and that made the way towards law career because yes, all over the world, most of the politicians and leaders are lawyers also, and really in every country they have brought in a lot of changes. So was that the reason that you started your career from a leading Indian law firm which was specially focused on trade policies and government affairs. And later you also served as legal advisor to the Department of Economic Affairs, government of India.
How did you end up there? First, my curiosity is that, and another thing, how did that form your perspective towards moving ahead and getting into international practice?
That’s obviously a very relevant question that your listeners might be interested in hearing about.
So, as I said, I did not have a specific practice of law in mind—whether it’s international law or arbitration, or litigation or transactions—when I started my life as a law student, because, from what I recall, in those days we did not even have this kind of information about the various disciplines and branches of law and the various types of legal practices or law firms. I started studying law in 2003, and the internet and the information age at that time were very much in its infancy.
I was just fascinated, as I said, by the concept of law and how we make laws, how the Parliament makes laws, how our Council of Ministers works, how the Cabinet works, from what sources they derive their powers—things like that. I did not have anything in mind, but as I started my student journey, there were a couple of events that shaped my career towards a more international practice.
The first was that, you know, at that time—and I think even now—as law students, we do a lot of moot courts. So I was given an opportunity to do a moot court that was an international moot court on WTO Law. And this was organized by the European Students’ Law Association, ELSA, and our team at that time qualified for the world finals that were held in Geneva. I think this was in 2006. So I went to Geneva and argued before a tribunal a case that was related to the WTO, or the World Trade Organization, and the various laws that constitute that organization.
I think that was a very prominent factor in shaping my career because I realized that law doesn’t just govern our national institutions but also governs international institutions—how countries trade with each other. There are defined, specific rules about how you trade, how much subsidies you can grant, what kinds of duties you can impose, what kinds of anti-dumping and countervailing measures a country can undertake against another country. I realized that law as a discipline is far broader than I thought, and I was just fascinated by the international aspect of it.
And then, I think we had a professor at some point in my university career who was a professor from the University of Vienna. He was a professor in international law and a visiting professor for a semester. I developed a very close relationship with that professor who came to our university and taught us public international law, and he basically served as a mentor at that time in shaping, again, my career and my understanding of public international law.
Again, public international law governs how states interact with each other on the international sphere. So that was again a very big motivating factor. So I think those two factors shaped my understanding of this international practice that I developed. And then we had specializations at that time.
In our university, they used to have honors courses, so I chose an honors course in international law and trade. And that is how I specialized in what I do right now. And that is also how I ended up joining Amarchand in 2009. Amarchand had a very small practice of trade policy and government affairs, which was focused towards, again, working with the Government of India—obviously in Delhi—but also with other governments around the world on how they negotiate trade agreements, how they negotiate bilateral investment treaties.
I joined that practice, and I can answer more, but that’s how I ended up at Amarchand. And one thing led to the other, and I’ve been doing this for almost 15, 16 years.
Wow, that’s an amazing journey. You later pursued your LLM at the prestigious NYU School of Law and received notable scholarships like Vanderbilt and Inlaks. What do you think helped you secure these, was it your work, your clarity of purpose, or your passion for international law? How did these recognitions shape your professional path? And how have they contributed to establishing you as a prominent international law practitioner today?
Again, a very relevant question. I did my stint with Amarchand & Mangaldas in New Delhi. Then, as I said, I moved on to the Government of India, where I worked as an in-house lawyer in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, helping the government again negotiate bilateral investment treaties, free trade agreements, as well as manage disputes with foreign investors.
So I had that kind of experience, and when you’re in the government, the government works with all kinds of people—whether they’re lawyers, policymakers, or people in international institutions. So I interacted with people from all around the world when I was working as an in-house legal counsel in the Ministry of Finance. And that shaped my thinking in terms of taking up advanced study of international law, because I realized that international law is a very academic discipline—perhaps more academic than other disciplines—because you need to write a lot.
There’s a lot of critical research and critical thinking. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen in other branches of law, but in international law, perhaps it happens a lot more. So I realized that I needed an advanced degree because it was a very academic discipline, based on my interactions with the people that I met at that time.
So yeah, I applied to a lot of universities. I was accepted into many universities—Harvard, Columbia, and Berkeley. But I ended up choosing NYU because I think New York is the hub, the center, probably the global center of international arbitration as a practice. And that is what I was interested in.
And I also received this very prestigious scholarship, which you just mentioned—the Vanderbilt Scholarship at NYU—which covered a lot of my tuition and expenses. And I received that scholarship because I think I had a very clear sense of purpose about what I wanted to do. I think these kinds of scholarships are awarded by universities to people who are keen to learn, who absolutely show in their applications that they’re going to be at the university—it’s a very short time, the LLM is only for a year—so in that one year, they’re there to actually learn something new, and then utilize the instruction that they received or the education they received to do something more meaningful. So I think I was able to very clearly explain in my application what I wanted to do—not just with my time at NYU for a year, but beyond that.
I was also awarded another scholarship in India, which is called the Inlaks Scholarship, I think, which is also very prominent. And from what I recall, I was able to bring forth to the selection committee for that scholarship as well how my career in law had been up until that point, what were the kinds of things that I hadn’t done, and what it was that I wanted to do beyond my LLM at NYU. And I think they were also very, very impressed by the fact that I had worked in the government for about two and a half, three years, because that’s not something very common—especially if you are working in a big Indian law firm.
Most people generally move to another law firm or do something else—they don’t generally go to work for the government or take a pay cut. So I think I was able to explain that I went to the government because I think in international arbitration, if you see, one of the biggest defendants—one of the entities that is sued the most—I mean, it’s obviously common in domestic litigation as well, but in the international sphere too, governments are sued and also sue very often. The government is a huge, huge stakeholder in the international arbitration system—not just the Government of India, but governments around the world. I again wanted to understand from the institutional perspective: what are the priorities, what are the policy interests that governments have in these kinds of disputes?
And I also knew that there are lots of law practices, especially in the West—in the United States and in Europe—that are focused on the defense of sovereign governments in these kinds of disputes. I knew that if I worked in-house as a government lawyer, that experience could help me find a career at an international law firm or an international institution which values that kind of experience. Again, all of this was brought forth, probably in my application, which is why I was lucky enough to be selected for these scholarships.
And then I had a great time at NYU, and after that I joined Foley Hoag, which—as I think was explained in the introduction—is an international law firm which specializes in the defense of sovereign states and state-owned entities in international arbitration and international litigation. So that is the kind of work I do. When I was in India, I obviously did a lot of work for the Government of India, but now I’ve done work for governments all around the world.
I can name a few—I’ve defended Croatia, Ecuador, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand, Nepal, Mauritius. There are so many countries around the world that I’ve been fortunate enough to work for and defend.
So I think I am still very much a student and a learner, but what I’ve been able to do is utilize my experience that I obtained while I was in India—working in a law firm and in the government—and now I’m applying and using that experience to further and broaden my legal career and legal perspectives beyond just India.
After listening to you, I cannot stop myself, but ask, as I understand learners will also be very much interested, that how did you make move from one of the top law firm private practice to the government of India work because it’s not easy transition and you do not get such kind of work or as a legal counsel, you do not get appointed without having certain amount of experience, the kind of portrayal of your practice, what was the process that you followed maybe that will help our learners?
And next, like you explained that I wanted to get into international arbitration and international law, by then you had already decided. How helpful was being with the government of India? Not only to get the scholarships, but also get the right kind of subjects being chosen?
Because as far as I understand, LLMs, you choose as many subjects as possible in the US, and you are allowed to have a lot of interactive subjects also. So how did you do that? How helpful was your stint with the government of India in doing all of this?
It was very, very helpful to put it mildly.
I don’t think I’d be where I am today if not for my experience with the Government of India. Now, as I said, it’s not a common transition from private law firm practice to the government, and it’s not an easy transition. But as I explained a while ago, at Amarchand we were already working with the government and various government institutions on things like negotiation of free trade agreements, negotiation of bilateral investment treaties.
We were also working on various law reform initiatives. I remember, at that time, we were working, for example, with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on the redrafting of the legislation called the Societies Registration Act 1860. From what I remember—I don’t know if that’s been done—but those are the kinds of things we were working on.
I was already very familiar with government institutions in my work as a private lawyer with Amarchand. And that also was not a very common practice. But we had set this up in Amarchand with a very small team, just three people, and we were doing this kind of government public policy work.
I was already very familiar with government institutions, and what happened was that the government at that time was facing a lot of these international disputes. It was receiving notices from a lot of multinational companies, which had grievances and disputes with regard to various measures that the government—not just the Government of India, but also various state governments and local governments—had undertaken.
The people, the relevant powers that be in the government, were very familiar with our firm and very familiar with me and my work. They liked what they saw, and they felt that they needed someone not as an external—I mean, of course they would hire external lawyers—but they also needed someone in-house to manage these disputes and manage these treaty negotiations for them.
And they really liked my profile because at that time I was quite new, relatively new. And they needed someone who was a doer, who was a worker, who could actually sit and draft things. And they probably liked my passion for international law and international arbitration.
It’s not something that I actively sought, but it was something that I was offered—a chance. And this was, again, not very common even for the government, because as you know, in the government they don’t generally hire people from outside. I know there are some initiatives that have been taken in the last four or five years where they have hired people, but in 2013, there were virtually no people from outside being hired.
There were a few people hired as consultants. But I think those were people who were retired or had a very significant amount of experience—which in my case, there was not, because I had barely three or four years of experience. It was a very significant and groundbreaking initiative undertaken by the ministry at that time to hire an external, young professional, which was me at that time.
And they offered me the opportunity. I did not actively seek it. And that’s how I ended up there—because they were very familiar with my work, and I think they saw me as the right person who was going to be managing these cases for the government. And I managed all kinds of disputes with foreign investors generally, because the Ministry of Finance at that time—there was a body which has been abolished by now—but it was called the Foreign Investment Promotion Board.
And the Foreign Investment Promotion Board was responsible at that time for the entry and admission of all foreign investors in India. So I used to work with that cell, managing disputes with foreign investors—whether it was before domestic courts or whether it was an international dispute. And so that’s how I ended up there.
And again, I think that was a very relevant experience because, as I already said, in international arbitration—especially when you’re talking about investor-state arbitration—it’s literally called “investor-state.” One party is the investor; the other party is the state. Working for the state is a very, very relevant experience that any young professional can have, and I would encourage people to get that experience, especially if you’re keen in this field, because 50% of the dispute is about the state, and 50% is about the investor. You get a wide perspective about how state institutions work, what the policy priorities are—things like that. I gained that relevant experience and then used it to advance my career in the ways that I could at that time.
You have represented, as you said, many, many sovereign and private clients across the globe within arbitral work. In your view, what kind of procedures do you look forward to, or what kind of strategic restrictions have you seen while working with these kinds of forums in different jurisdictions? How do you see those differences and how your study in India and your study as an LLM student in the US has shaped your understanding and has helped you build such procedures, such strategic points to develop those drafts?
Because they are the only ones which we are privy to and we learn from those. So how have you worked towards these concepts and aspects to make sure that it is understandable by the layman I would say? Also how do you make sure that governments make it easier for the society, in any jurisdiction whatsoever you have worked with?
Each case, each country, as you said, it’s very different. I mean, obviously there are certain common international law rules and standards which all states have to abide by.
There are certain normative standards in any international treaty—whether it’s a bilateral treaty or a multilateral treaty—there are common standards that have to be followed, whether it’s by the state or by a foreign investor, whether it’s by an international institution or individuals.
That is there. But I think what I’ve learned is that each case and each dispute, in your capacity as a practitioner—probably if you practice dispute resolution in any form—you would’ve realized and understood that each case is different.
I think it’s about understanding and applying the specific facts of each case, because these are complex disputes. The moment a state is involved in a dispute, it gets more complicated than any other private dispute, because when you’re talking about a state—and let’s take the example of India, or we could take the example of any state, honestly, in my view—even a small state, like a small country, relatively small like Mauritius, because I’ve done a lot of cases for the Government of Mauritius, it’s an island. But the government in any country is a very large machinery. It’s probably one of the largest employers. It has many organs, it has many departments, ministries, and the government under international law is not just the central government, the federal government. Under international law, state responsibility arises not just for the actions of the government at the central level, but also at the state level, also at the municipal level. Any actor, any person who’s acting on behalf of the state or exercising governmental authority—the actions of such a person or entity—can give rise to state responsibility under international law.
So what you’re dealing with is a very large and complicated institutional mechanism. You have to understand how it works, and it works in different ways in each system, each country. Now, there are certain common threads. For example, one common thread that I’ve learned in all of these cases is that each government has an interest in protecting its policy space, protecting its regulatory space.
So, for example, one of the earliest cases that I did while I was here in Foley Hoag was a case for the government of— I mean, I was not directly involved in that case, but I know of that case. We did a case for the Government of Uruguay. And this case was a challenge by a very big international tobacco company called Philip Morris against the laws that were passed by the Government of Uruguay mandating that all cigarette packets should only have plain packaging—like you cannot have any advertisements or logos or any form of branding on a cigarette package that is out for sale in a supermarket or in a shop. And I think, for example, India also has some kind of similar laws, because you need to display on a very wide and big scale on any cigarette pack that it’s injurious for health. And you have all these kinds of gross photos and everything that show what cigarette smoking can lead to.
So foreign investors—not just in Uruguay, but I’m aware that in other countries around the world—also challenge those kinds of actions because they said that it is an attack on their intellectual property, because as manufacturers, they have a right to advertise and to display their brand on cigarette packets.
But the government’s position was that no, this is something that is undertaken in public interest. This is something that is undertaken to protect public health, because the government has an interest in protecting the health and environment of a wider degree of population. So the argument is that the public interest of the state in promoting health and promoting the non-use of cigarettes takes precedence over the intellectual property rights of a foreign investor. So that’s the tension. That was the tension in that dispute.
So, as I said, all governments have some sort of policy interest and regulatory interest that they want to protect. And whenever that clashes with the interest of the commercial—mostly commercial—interest of the foreign investor, that gives rise to disputes.
And that is the challenge that you have to understand in each case. Each case has different facts, and you have to first understand the facts—what are you dealing with? And then obviously, there are certain common standards and norms that you have to apply to those facts.I think that’s the challenge that I faced in every case or every dispute that I handled.
You are also admitted to the bar of Washington DC, New York, and New Delhi as well, which is in itself an achievement. How has this multi-jurisdictional licensing for yourself helped your legal practice? And how do you see that managing all of these demanding practices across different legal systems has helped you not only understand as a person how much you can influence public policy making, especially keeping in mind your strength in India and the way you are working internationally as well. We would request you to share some nuggets about those so that we can understand how one can plan their future the way you have done?
Firstly, let me take a step back. If you want to practice as a lawyer in the United States, you have to be admitted to the bar. So I don’t think it’s something very revolutionary. I mean, you have to pass an exam, which I think is a very tricky exam. I’m not gonna say that it’s a tough or a difficult exam—it’s quite tricky because it’s quite unlike what students of India must be used to taking in the form of exams.
It’s a very practically oriented exam, and it’s an exam that is focused more on your legal writing and your practical skills—bringing out your practical skills as a lawyer. So you have to pass that exam to be able to practice as a lawyer in the United States, like it is the case in India.
I passed that exam, which, as I said, was a very tricky and different kind of exam. And then, when you practice as an international arbitration lawyer, you practice in various jurisdictions—because it’s literally international. The dispute or the parties or the elements of the case could be from anywhere around the world, which is why I am also admitted in DC, because Washington, DC is a very relevant jurisdiction. We have the World Bank here, we have the DC Circuit Court and the DC District Court where a lot of these lawsuits by foreign investors are filed—whether it’s for the enforcement of awards or whether it’s for set-aside.
I think, as an international arbitration lawyer, you have to have a very international profile, and it always makes sense to be admitted and recognized in these various jurisdictions so that people know about your profile. That also helps with attracting more work, and people again know about you.
And so that’s why I’m not just admitted in DC, but for example, I’m also—I think it was mentioned in the introduction I’m a fellow of the Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators. So again, what I try to do is cast a very wide net, because in terms of building my international profile, it’s very important that I am visible and present in various jurisdictions—and which is why I’m admitted.
Thank you so much. I know it’s very important to be admitted to the bar just to practice, but as you’ve said, it’s very tricky in the US unlike to what we are accustomed in India, there is a huge difference between the way we take this here and how it is there, so definitely it’s a super achievement. I want to say. Although it’s mandatory, it’s still a big achievement.
But I just wanted to add one more thing for people who may listen to this interview. I don’t know how many people would, but if you want to practice and come here in the US, one very, very important thing—as lawyers in India, at least from the time that I was studying—is that there’s a significant amount of difference in legal writing. I mean, the US is also a very common law-based system. Although it’s developed in a very unique way, India is still very rooted and very similar to how the English legal system has traditionally been. But the US is also a common law system.
So, understanding the laws here and understanding how institutions work is not an issue, but the practice of law—the practical aspect of practicing law—is very, very different. I do not think, and I do not recall from my time in India, whether it was as a student or a practitioner, devoting enough attention to and developing my skills as a writer.
But as opposed to that, in the US, writing is probably the most important skillset you will have as a lawyer. Of course, oral advocacy is important, and in India, I think we are very good oral advocates. We are brilliant orators, and we are good debaters. That is something that comes naturally.
But I don’t think there’s enough attention paid to legal writing. I think even the bar exam is a test of your legal writing skills, because I think there’s one day—from what I recall now, this is 10 years ago—but one day is devoted specifically to writing essays. And in India, I remember when I used to write essays in exams, it was all about filling the number of pages. You just write as many pages as you can in the shortest time possible and cite as many cases as you can. If you do that in the US, you’re most certainly going to fail. There is absolutely no doubt. The professor or the evaluator is not even going to read your paper.
They’re going to throw it away in the bin. So it’s not about filling the pages—it’s really about being succinct. Being precise and being concise is very, very important. There’s a famous quote that “brevity is the soul of writing.” I don’t know who this quote is attributed to, but this is very, very important.
Brevity is very important. In the US, you have to be able to write and convey things in a very simple, in a very layman sort of way. Unlike India, where we sometimes use these heavy proses, complex words, and very long paragraphs. That doesn’t sell. Even if you look at the judgments of the courts in India—sometimes we have Supreme Court judgments—I remember reading some of these constitutional law judgments of 500, 600 pages. I remember there was a case, a famous case called Indira Sawhney versus Union of India. This was a case on reservation. This was like some thousand pages. It was a very landmark case. But if you take a landmark case here in the US, written by the Supreme Court, it would no longer be more than 30, 40, 50 pages.
So, if you want to come here and practice as a lawyer, think about developing your writing skills. Think about being concise. Think about being precise. And do not think about just filling in the number of pages, because then you’re going to not just do poorly in your master’s or whatever other legal studies you pursue, but also not do well on your bar exam.
I think that’s a very important lesson that I learned—and I’m still learning—because it takes time to adapt between different legal systems.
Thank you for honestly highlighting the need to unlearn and relearn, especially around precision in legal writing. As we near the end of this conversation, I’d like to ask, how have you managed your work-life balance while engaging in high-intensity arbitration, academic writing, and speaking at global forums? What practices have helped you maintain your mental, physical, and professional well-being? Could you share your checklist with our learners?
That’s again a very relevant question. I think, especially in this age where there’s so much intense competition and there are obviously work pressures everywhere.
I think that’s something I don’t think I’ve mastered, but I’m happy to share what I do. I’m still a learner, and I think most of us are learners. So, one thing that I certainly have is the capacity—the mental capacity—I’ve developed to be able to switch off and on. When I’m working, I’m fully focused on working, but I do know that at some point during the day or during the week, I’m not going to be working. So I have the capacity to switch off and focus on my personal life. I have a family, I have kids—I have two young boys—which I think helps. I’m not saying it’s going to be the same for everyone, but people could have different motivations and things to do in their personal lives.
It could be a hobby, it could be anything, but I think it’s important to recognize that your life extends not just to your profession or your practice—it extends beyond that. There are important things beyond that. So I have the mental capacity to switch on and off, and it doesn’t take me a long time to do that.
I’m very, very flexible, and fortunately, I mean, work is very intense, but my colleagues and my employers are very flexible in the sense that I can switch off at any time. For example, on a day when I do not have a lot of work and I have sufficient downtime, I can completely switch off and focus on my family—take my kids out to play soccer or football, as you call it in India—or do something with them, or just read a book or watch a movie.
So I think I do that. The second thing I’ve very much learned—and I think this comes with age; for very young people, this may be difficult because you’re still trying to develop and establish yourself—but I think it’s very important to focus on your physical health, because we ignore that.
I certainly have learned in the last, I would say, three, four, five years to focus on my physical health. I at least take out like 30 to 40 minutes in the day—not much, because you don’t get more than that—to just focus on my physical health. I get up early in the morning, do some sort of physical activity, eat the right kind of food. I think it’s very important, because sometimes as lawyers—I remember, especially when I started my career—we used to eat all kinds of junk food. I have realized, I think these are very small things, may sound insignificant, but again, all of it is connected and affects your mental health and your physical health.
I think eating the right kind of food, getting enough sleep is very important. You will have days and you will have zones where you will not be able to do these kinds of things. For example, when I’m in a hearing—in arbitration, especially in international arbitration—hearings are held in a block.
It’s not like in India where you have a court date, and then you get another date two months later, and then you come back. Our hearings are like 5- or 10-day hearings, and they’re held in a block, in a consecutive period. So, for example, when I’m in a hearing or preparing for a hearing, there would be two or three weeks when I’m not able to do any of this.
When I’m not able to do any exercise, when I’m not focusing on eating the right kind of food, when I do not have any personal downtime. But that’s something that you have to accept, because it’s a very intense and demanding practice. And at the end of it, there is a reward.
When you finish your hearing, when you finish these intense periods, then you know that you will get a downtime. So, you focus on that downtime, you work hard during that period, and then you switch off once that is over. I think switching on and off, eating the right kind of food, physical activity, and recognizing that there is a life and there are important things to do beyond the law and beyond your practice—
I think these are the three or four things that I have recognized as important. That said, again, as I said, I’m still learning, and it’s not like I’m in peak physical health or anything, but mentally—I think also mentally—it’s very important. Sometimes mental health is ignored—I would say more in India than in the US.
It’s very important that if you have an issue or if you have a challenge, you speak to your peers, you speak to your colleagues. You don’t hesitate to speak out. If you’re facing a particular issue in your workplace, you speak to your family. Don’t keep it within yourself.
Don’t be lonely. I think go out and make friends, make acquaintances, and recognize that law is just—ultimately—it’s just a career, right? You know it’s going to get over at some point, and then you’re going to do something different. So find something different.
Becoming an Advocate-on-Record is a notable milestone. How has this role influenced your practice, and what added responsibilities and opportunities has it brought with it?
At the felicitation event for the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) cohort I was part of, one of the office bearers remarked on how many current Supreme Court judges and successful senior advocates once held the AoR designation. I fully agree, it is indeed a significant milestone. From the very beginning of my legal career, I have been involved in matters before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even as a law student, while interning with a Senior Advocate who was then the Additional Solicitor General of India, and another renowned Advocate-on-Record, my interest in practicing at the Supreme Court grew substantially. The allure of working at the apex court and daydreams of arguing before a Constitution Bench inspired my aspiration to become an AoR. Professionally, becoming an AoR has had a profound impact on my practice. A significant portion of my clientele comprises corporates, PSUs, and government bodies, many of whose matters ultimately reach the Supreme Court. Knowing that I am an AoR provides them the assurance that I can seamlessly handle their cases from initiation to conclusion. Furthermore, the AoR designation has opened new avenues, particularly access to appeals originating from courts outside Delhi, which make up a large portion of the Supreme Court’s docket. This has allowed me to engage with unfamiliar legal terrains, such as matters relating to mining or religious endowments, that are not commonly litigated in Delhi, thereby broadening both my exposure and expertise.
You began your career with some of the top law firms in the country. What were some of the most impactful experiences during that time that significantly shaped your professional trajectory?
Looking back, I feel quite lucky to have started out at some of the leading law firms in India. Making the shift from law school to a Tier-1 firm was a bit of a shock to the system at first. One day you’re attending lectures and the next you’re handling serious matters for big companies, many of them multinationals with huge stakes involved. There was a real sense that everything had to be perfect from the get-go, especially when it came to drafting and research. As a junior associate, that kind of pressure can either rattle you or sharpen you.
In my case, I think it did the latter. The fast-paced, high-stakes environment taught me to be meticulous and put in the work, right from day one. That habit stuck, and it’s something I still carry with me, no matter what kind of matter I’m dealing with.
One memory that stands out from those early days was when I was asked within my first week to brief Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, on a writ petition related to service tax. I won’t lie, I was nervous. I stayed up most of the night going over every detail of the case so I’d be ready. It was a trial by fire, but somehow, it went well and gave me a real boost of confidence.
Beyond individual moments, what really shaped me was the overall work culture particularly during my time at AZB & Partners and Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. I got to work with international clients and interact with foreign lawyers, which gave me a fresh perspective. One thing that really stood out was how structured and transparent their approach was; frequent updates, clear timelines, and detailed billing were the norm. I’ve tried to bring some of that structure into my own work now, and it’s definitely helped in building better client relationships.
Having worked with both reputed law firms and Senior Advocates, what key differences have you observed in terms of work environment, nature of responsibilities, and overall approach to legal practice?
The common aspect of both law firms as well as senior advocates is that as associates/juniors there is an expectation of high level of professionalism. Working in a dispute resolution team at a law firm entails a lot of team work and coordination. Law firms also have a hierarchical structure and within a few years an associate upon getting promoted is expected to lead, guide and train junior members of the team as well. It is also noteworthy that in full service law firms we often worked with lawyers from corporate, transaction and tax teams where their clients got into matters of litigation. This is an advantage of working at full service law firms where even though you may be in a litigation team, there are instances where you get to experience and work along with peers from different practice areas which broadens your horizon. In contrast, when you are working with a senior advocate, there is no hierarchy as such and juniors are expected to directly assist the senior. In turn, however, you get to learn directly from the senior who has decades of experience in the field. There is also no expectation or requirement to lead or supervise other chamber members as each of them would assist the senior in their individual capacities. As far as the responsibilities are concerned, there is a clear distinction in role one plays as a lawyer at a law firm in contrast to a junior in the chamber of a designated Senior Advocate. Most of your readers would already know that Senior Advocates do not engage with litigants directly and the solicitors are their clients essentially. Further, Senior Advocates chambers do not draft pleadings and do not file matters. The aforesaid tasks are to be executed with great sincerity and precision in a law firm. I was lucky to have incredible mentors like Ms. Roopali Singh, Former Senior Partner AZB and Partners and currently the head of dispute resolution at Vritti Legal. I learnt the basics and nuances of drafting under her tutelage. In the initial years of practice at law firms, all filing related tasks are handled by the junior members of the team in collaboration with the court clerks. It is an art to file a petition with minimal or no defects and in cases which are time sensitive and urgent in nature, it can be a make or break thing. I think my experience in law firms also helped me gain proficiency in filing procedures dealing with the registry which is often overlooked as a rudimentary task.
In contrast, working with a senior advocate is totally focussed on mastering the facts and the law of the case and working with the Senior to bring out the most impactful and precise arguments for addressing the court. My Senior, Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Senior Advocate is a product of Dr. AM Singhvi’s chamber and the first thing I learnt from him was a particular style of preparing a note for arguments which he had learnt from his senior, Dr. Singhvi. This consists of a list of relevant dates, submissions and response to contra points. I still follow this format for matters that I argue on my own and even for briefing other Senior Advocates in my matters. Working in a senior’s chamber also means more number of cases to deal with on a daily basis for hearings as compared to a big law firm where the number of hearings per day would be significantly lesser.
With a background in Computer Science (BTech), what inspired your transition to a career in law? How did your experience in law school shape your journey, and in what ways has your engineering education contributed to your legal practice?
A career in law was never on my list. I had started preparing for MBA exams like CAT in my final year of engineering and scored well in my first attempt. I decided to improve my score to get into a top IIM and dropped a year after completing Btech to reappear in CAT. In the meanwhile, on a friend’s suggestion, I gave the Delhi University, Faculty of Law entrance and cleared that. I enrolled and started attending classes out of curiosity. As fate would have it, I liked what was being taught in law college and jettisoned the plan of doing the MBA, leading to a switch in a career to law.
The Delhi University 3 year course experience is quite different from 5 year BA LLB residential programs. Even though we had excellent professors, there was a lack of guidance regarding career options post law school. So I decided it was best to intern as much as possible and get a taste of different practice areas and offices. Being in Delhi helped because there were several options from law firms to reputed chambers where one could look to land an internship. After interning extensively in various offices, I felt that being a first generation lawyer, the best option for me was to join a law firm preferably a tier one firm which pays well ;). I was lucky to intern a couple of times at the AZB and Partners Delhi Office and had offers to join the capital markets team and dispute resolution team. Given my interest in litigation I chose the latter. That was the formal start of my journey in litigation which I thoroughly cherish.
My science and engineering background has helped me immensely in practice. This was felt particularly while working on matters of interstate river water disputes where I was on the legal team from the State of Andhra Pradesh, led by Mr. R Venkatramani, Sr Adv and presently Attorney General of India. Water disputes require advocates to understand highly technical concepts related to hydrology, cropping etc. which in my humble opinion can be grasped better, faster and deeper by a student of science and technology as compared to someone who hasn’t received training and education in sciences. Even in my construction arbitration practice I have reaped the benefit of my science background, particularly on disputes arising out of issues relating to design and specifications in a construction contract.
You’ve advised and represented construction and project management firms in high-stakes arbitration involving contractor and subcontractor disputes. What are some of the recurring challenges in such matters, and how do you approach them to secure effective outcomes?
A lot of claims in construction and infrastructure disputes arise out of delays. Delays can be on many accounts, Invariably, when there is a dispute between a private party and government entity, it is the latter who is blamed to cause delay. Delays could arise on various counts such as lack of statutory approvals, late handover of site, change in scope of work and delay in delivery in drawings and designs, which are out of the contractor’s control. On the other hand, if a contractor defaults in its obligations and causes a delay, claims for liquidated damages (if already specified in the contract) or damages for breach can be made against the contractor by the principal. These are situations which should be handled tactically at an early stage before an aggrieved party precipitates the issue to become a legal dispute. A lot of these disputes can even be avoided by careful drafting of contracts which eliminates ambiguity. Proper contract management and risk mitigation is another aspect that parties must consider to avoid and reduce potential liabilities in the event a dispute arises. Once a dispute has been referred to arbitration, the first thing I would try to achieve, in case I am representing a claimant, is to identify if there are special equities in its favour which might result in getting interim relief in the form of stay on bank guarantees and forfeiture of security deposits. This is extremely difficult, albeit, not impossible and can go a long way in securing some level of financial relief for a party at the very inception of a dispute. I also believe that bringing on board experts can prove critical for the outcome in complex arbitration matters. The impact that experts make is greater in cases where there is a sole arbitrator who is trained judicially as a judge or an advocate. Expert reports along with oral testimonies can often bring the desired clarity to an arbitrator’s mind which can tip the scales in such disputes.
Another great challenge that counsels may face is the ‘Arbitrator’. Today we have a lot of talks, conferences and events centred on the arbitration practice. Every month something would be organized where lawyers, judges, in-house counsel, people from the law ministry come and give speeches about making India a hub for international arbitration, how challenge to awards and court interference should be limited etc. However, a topic which is often overlooked is the quality of arbitrators we have in our country, particularly with respect to their integrity. Unfortunately, if a party is pitted against an arbitrator who is deciding the matter for extraneous reasons, an effective immediate solution may not always be on the cards. In such cases it may be wise to come to a reasonable settlement.
Representing the Union of India and UPSC before various judicial forums, including the Supreme Court, involves complex litigation. How do you manage the legal and strategic dimensions of handling high-stakes public and service law matters on behalf of the government?
In my humble opinion, the most important part about litigating on behalf of the government is to get proper instructions from the concerned officers. I have been lucky to have worked with incredibly competent and energetic officers during my tenure as a panel counsel with various government entities which has helped me in effectively representing them before Courts. In the Supreme Court, the critical cases involving the Union of India are led by the Additional Solicitor Generals, the Solicitor General and the Attorney General. Briefing such stalwarts on matters which involve questions of interpretation of the constitution, issues related to national security, legality of policy decisions which has implications of thousands of crores is like doing a masters of law on these subjects with real life implications. Working closely with these Seniors on 300 + matters in the Supreme Court, often handling 5 fresh cases a day has helped me develop an instinct to identify what is most important in a petition to highlight and show to the Court. This experience has helped me with the skill to manage client expectations and offer better advice regarding the reliefs that are likely to be granted in their favor, rather than what is initially requested and prayed for. This is an essential part of advocacy whether you are representing the government or a private party. Sometimes our instincts may not be accurate enough, and the client may benefit from providence and get the relief they expected rather than the conservative outcome predicted by their advocate, however, such victories also taste sweet.
Looking back, what has been one of the most challenging cases in your career so far, and how did you approach and resolve the complexities involved?
Well, every case is challenging and has a certain degree of complexity involved, we wouldn’t be in Court otherwise ! I will, however, talk about a couple which came first to my mind when I read this question. This is a recent one where I was appointed as an amicus by the Supreme Court for an accused to whom notice could not be served and accordingly, he didn’t appear before the court. As we know, criminal matters cannot proceed ex parte, so I was appointed to assist the court on behalf of the accused. The allegations in this case were very grave which attracted provisions of POCSO. The challenge here was that I was representing a client who I never interacted with, which was a first for me. Upon thorough and meticulous examination of the trial court record, I successfully presented a defence that was accepted by the Court, resulting in the confirmation of his acquittal against the prosecution’s case.
A second very challenging case was one where I appeared on behalf of the revenue authorities before the Supreme Court and the question of interpretation of a customs and excise circular was involved. The other side was represented by Mr. Arvind Datar Sr Adv. After Mr. Datar’s arguments were concluded, the bench was convinced that I had no case, in fact the question put to me was – “what is left to argue now ?”. It is only because I had extensively prepared the matter, made a comprehensive note for arguments which had all the relevant page numbers cross referenced and had a compilation of judgments which was again numbered with an index which indicated the relevant paragraphs, that I could persuade the court to consider my submissions which lasted for around 45 minutes. It involved rigorous grilling from the bench as well. The judgment was reserved and the opposite party got the relief sought, but the experience I gained was something remarkable and gave me the confidence to have faith in myself irrespective of the stature and calibre of the counsel on the opposite side.
Given your diverse expertise across litigation and arbitration, what guidance would you offer to young lawyers who are just starting out, especially those aspiring to build a robust career in litigation?
Today a fresh graduate who wishes to pursue litigation has 3-4 different kinds of workplaces to start out. It could be the chamber of an advocate or senior advocate, a law firm, an in-house role where substantial litigation work exists or as a research associate/law clerk with a High Court or Supreme Court Judge. Out of these, 3 roles are transitory and one cannot continue in that position or establishment for their entire career. Law firms are one such place where you can start as an associate and rise up the ranks in a fairly structured and predictable manner. I would suggest someone who is a first generation lawyer without significant financial support from their family who does not have a great appetite for risk and uncertainty (which is certain in private practice), should try and join a law firm. It will give them financial stability, reasonable exposure to courts along with other advantages of working in law firms which I have already touched upon in some earlier questions. People who are passionate about law and want to build their own practice in the future should join a busy chamber and then look for a good senior’s chamber to polish and sharpen their skills further. Another thing worth noting in litigation is that one should be ready and available to work everyday of the week for long hours on a consistent basis under mentors and bosses who are strict and demand the highest standards. Going through such rigours is the best thing that a budding litigator can do for themselves. A quote attributable to a great figure- Abraham Lincoln may give my suggestion more context, which goes – “You can’t sharpen your razor on velvet”
Is there a core philosophy or guiding principle that you’ve followed throughout your legal career? Looking ahead, how do you envision the growth of your practice in the evolving legal landscape in India?
I have been a lawyer for a decade now. A core philosophy or guiding principle which has been there through and through is absent as far as I am concerned. But along the way I have learnt a few things which guide me now and I view them as beneficial generally.
There is one quote that I picked up from a book called “The 38 Letters from JD Rockefeller to his Son”. In one of the letters JD Rockefeller tells his son that – “To eat an elephant, you need to eat one bite at a time. The same goes to when you are doing something. If you want to accomplish everything in one go, you will only let the opportunity slip away.”
So, this field is a big elephant, you have to eat it one at a time. We cannot be an expert in every field of law or build a great network or have a great team or accomplish several other things which are essential for a successful practice, all at once. If we attempt that, there will be chaos which would lead to anxiety and nothing will be accomplished. Therefore, my 2 cents on an approach to a career in law would be to gradually advance, be patient, and take actions which are planned, structured and precise. This will slowly build into something very impressive and worth cherishing.
The second would be to be bold and ready to get outside your comfort zone. When I observe, read and hear about the great individuals who have been in this profession, the thought which comes to my mind is that if they could do it, why not me. This thought keeps me going when the chips seem to be down and doubt arises.
Third and last one is – to prioritise learning and upskilling. Look out for the latest trends and take the first mover advantage in this highly competitive market.
We are a rapidly growing firm led by two partners and one tax consultant. Apart from the conventional practice areas we are also looking at the future and emerging fields such as law and regulations surrounding AI, its impact on intellectual property, cybersecurity, energy law and data privacy. These fields are interesting from an academic as well as practice stand point. Jurisprudence on these subjects will rapidly develop in the future. As I have said before, there are opportunities for the early entrants which is golden for new firms like ours as the entry barriers are less. It goes without saying that we will build upon our strengths and continue serving our existing clients with top notch tier one level service in a cost effective manner, while we strive to grow by expanding our teams and clientele.
With a specialized academic background in Intellectual Property Law and experience in arbitration, what first sparked your interest in these fields, and how did you chart your path toward building a niche?
My interest in Intellectual Property (IP) Law and Arbitration developed early during my legal education, as I observed how legal structures could facilitate innovation and enable efficient dispute resolution. The interplay of creativity, commerce, and protection within IP law captivated me, while arbitration appealed to my inclination toward structured, time-bound mechanisms for conflict resolution. Recognizing their growing relevance in a globalized, technology-driven world, I pursued a specialization in Intellectual Property Law and complemented it with a Diploma in Cyber Law and a Diploma in Alternate Dispute Resolution. Early in my career, I had the opportunity to work on both IP-centric transactions and arbitration matters, particularly for technology and media clients. This exposure helped me build core competence in these areas. Over the years, I have advised and represented clients in complex IP disputes, as well as high-value arbitrations, thereby developing a niche, multidisciplinary litigation and advisory practice.
With over 12 years of diverse litigation experience across multiple domains, what inspired you to establish your own independent practice? What were some of the initial challenges you faced, and how did you overcome them?
The decision to establish my independent practice was a natural evolution in my professional journey. After years of working with reputed law firms and handling high-stakes litigation and arbitration, I felt the need to channel my experience into building a practice that reflects my values and strategic approach.
Presently, I am regularly engaged by clients and fellow advocates for representation and strategic assistance in matters before the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Delhi, the NCLT/NCLAT, NCDRC, and Arbitral Tribunals. My practice spans a wide range of civil, commercial, and arbitration matters, with a strong emphasis on tailoring strategy to suit the forum and the nature of the dispute.
That said, the transition to independent practice came with its own set of challenges, particularly as a first-generation lawyer. Unlike those with family legacies in the profession, I did not inherit a chamber, a network, or a ready set of clients. Every brief, every introduction, every recommendation had to be earned through consistent effort and credibility.
One of the most immediate hurdles was building a reliable and cohesive team that aligned with the standards and expectations I had set. Another was gaining visibility and establishing credibility in a competitive legal ecosystem where institutional names often carry weight. Financial unpredictability, especially during the initial phase, was a very real concern.
But persistence, the trust of long standing clients, and the support of peers in the profession helped me navigate those early hurdles. Looking back, the absence of a safety net made the process harder, but it also made every milestone more meaningful.
You’ve represented various corporates and associations before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. What are some key strategic and procedural considerations when preparing matters for the Apex Court?
As an Advocate-on-Record, I am closely involved in ensuring procedural compliance at every stage, whether it is curating the record, certifying pleadings, or meeting filing timelines. The smallest procedural oversight can delay a matter or, worse, affect its prospects, so attention to detail is non-negotiable.
Strategically, it’s essential to identify and frame substantial questions of law that warrant the Court’s attention, especially when seeking special leave. The task is not just to argue well but to demonstrate why the matter deserves to be heard at the apex level. This often involves a careful study of precedents, anticipating the judicial approach, and distilling complex factual matrices into crisp legal propositions.
When representing corporates or industry bodies, an added layer of responsibility arises, ensuring that litigation strategy is aligned with their internal governance, compliance protocols, and long-term commercial outlook. In such cases, the objective is not only to secure relief but to do so in a manner that reinforces institutional credibility and legal preparedness.
Ultimately, preparation for the Supreme Court is not about volume of material, but the clarity of thought and brevity in presentation. Every word counts and every argument must serve a precise purpose.
With the rapid rise of technology including AI and digital platforms, how do you see the landscape of dispute resolution changing, particularly in the realms of IP and commercial litigation?
The rapid evolution of technology, particularly artificial intelligence, and digital platforms, is fundamentally reshaping the legal landscape. In the realms of commercial litigation and arbitration, we are already seeing an increased reliance on digital evidence, virtual hearings, and AI-enabled legal research tools.
In the context of intellectual property, technology has created both opportunities and complex challenges. Issues like digital piracy, AI-generated works, and automated infringement detection demand legal interpretations that go beyond traditional IP frameworks. The pace of innovation often outstrips legislative response, placing greater responsibility on lawyers and Courts to bridge that gap with well-reasoned, forward-looking arguments.
From a procedural standpoint, the integration of e-filing systems, hybrid hearings, and digital evidence management has significantly improved access to justice and case efficiency. These changes, initially introduced out of necessity during the pandemic, have now become institutional features, and rightly so.
Looking ahead, I believe technology will not just augment dispute resolution but redefine it. Online dispute resolution (ODR), smart contracts, and AI-assisted decision-making are likely to become more mainstream. For practitioners, this underscores the need to stay agile, continually upgrade their understanding of emerging technologies, and reimagine advocacy in a digital-first environment.
Having said that, while AI can assist in streamlining legal tasks, it cannot substitute the nuanced reasoning, ethical judgment, and strategic insight that human intelligence brings to the legal process. Law is not only about rules, it is about context, persuasion, and the ability to interpret human conduct. These are areas where human advocates remain irreplaceable. It will likely take considerable time, and fundamental shifts in legal philosophy, before AI can meaningfully replicate that depth of analysis and discretion. For Advocates today, the challenge lies in integrating new-age tools without losing the craft of advocacy.
In advising international clients, especially in technology-related matters, how do you navigate cross-border legal systems? Do you feel India’s evolving legal framework is now aligned with global standards in this space?
Advising international clients requires not just legal expertise but also cultural and regulatory sensitivity. I ensure that our advisory is aligned with both Indian legal requirements and the client’s jurisdictional obligations. This involves collaborating with foreign counsel, staying updated on global developments, and contextualizing advice for transnational operations. India’s legal framework, particularly in arbitration, data protection, fintech, and IP, is increasingly converging with global best practices, though there is room for further harmonization. With the evolving jurisprudence in arbitration law, cyber and tech law, India is on the right path to becoming a robust jurisdiction for global business.
Having handled numerous high-stakes arbitrations, what are the key challenges you’ve encountered? In your opinion, how is Alternate Dispute Resolution shaping the future of dispute resolution in India?
Arbitration, particularly in sectors like construction, infrastructure, and real estate, often brings with it layered complexities, voluminous records, overlapping issues, technical details, and multi-party coordination. One of the foremost challenges I have encountered is ensuring that the presentation of evidence remains streamlined and digestible for the arbitral tribunal, especially when dealing with expert reports, engineering documents, or financial data spanning several years.
Coordinating with technical experts, be it structural engineers, accountants, or valuation professionals, also demands careful calibration. Their inputs must be integrated in a legally coherent manner while preserving clarity. Additionally, procedural inefficiencies, such as fragmented hearings, delayed cross-examinations, or challenges in securing timely interim relief, can dilute the effectiveness of arbitration if not proactively managed.
Enforcement remains another practical concern. Winning an award is one part of the battle; ensuring its timely execution, particularly in cross-border contexts, can often test both patience and strategy.
That said, I firmly believe that Alternate Dispute Resolution is no longer just an alternative, it is becoming central to the evolution of commercial justice in India. With institutional arbitration gaining maturity, greater judicial support for party autonomy, and statutory amendments aimed at reducing timelines, ADR is now seen not only as a faster route to resolution but also as one that offers confidentiality, flexibility, and sector-specific expertise.
In my own practice, I have seen clients grow increasingly open to ADR mechanisms, not only for dispute resolution but also for pre-dispute risk management. The shift is encouraging and, in many ways, necessary for a modern, efficient legal ecosystem.
What guidance would you offer to young lawyers who aim to develop a multifaceted practice in litigation and advisory, especially in specialized areas such as intellectual property and arbitration?
Young lawyers have more access today than ever, judgments are online, mentors are more approachable, and the legal market is broader. But with this comes pressure to specialize early.
My advice is to not to rush it. Spend your first few years building a strong base helps immensely. Attend court. Observe. Take notes. I still remember sitting in the back row of a courtroom during my early days, watching a senior counsel argue a simple interim application. The way he positioned facts, paused, and responded taught me more than any classroom could. That moment stayed with me.
Do not hesitate to ask questions or seek feedback. Invest in courses, read beyond textbooks, and keep your curiosity alive. Most importantly, find mentors who do not just teach the law, but help shape how you think. I have been lucky in that regard and I try to offer the same to juniors in my chamber.
Honestly, there is no one-size-fits-all formula. But if you stay honest with your work, remain open to learning, and surround yourself with people who push you to grow, the law has a way of rewarding your efforts.
Being enrolled as an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court is a significant professional milestone. How has this achievement influenced your practice, and what additional responsibilities does it entail?
Becoming an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court has been one of the most defining moments of my professional journey. It has brought me honor and repute. It is both a privilege and a significant responsibility, one that has deepened my involvement in constitutional, commercial, and regulatory litigation at the highest level.
The designation has brought with it the ability to independently file and conduct matters before the Supreme Court, which naturally expands both the scope and depth of my practice. It has also instilled a heightened sense of accountability, not just to clients, but to the institution of the Court itself. Every filing under my name carries the weight of professional integrity and procedural precision.
As a first-generation practitioner, the journey to clearing the Advocate-on-Record examination and earning the trust of clients in this capacity has been particularly meaningful. The recognition has not only enhanced my standing within the legal fraternity but has also opened doors to more complex and high-stakes litigation assignments, often requiring strategic foresight, coordination with senior counsel, and deep research.
Managing a demanding legal practice, especially as an AOR, can be intense. How do you maintain personal well-being amidst professional commitments? What does unwinding and relaxation look like for you?
Managing a demanding legal practice, especially in the role of an Advocate-on-Record, requires more than just professional discipline. It calls for conscious balance, perspective, and self-care. The pace can be relentless, with high expectations and tight timelines, but I have learned over the years that sustainability in this profession depends on how well you manage your energy, not just your time.
The unwavering support of my family has been the bedrock of that balance. Their patience and encouragement, especially during peak court seasons or when critical matters are listed back-to-back, provide a sense of stability that anchors me amidst the intensity of litigation. Knowing that there is understanding and reassurance outside the courtroom makes the pressures inside it more manageable.
I also try to be deliberate about switching off. Reading, particularly outside of law, is something I turn to regularly. Even a short walk or a quiet break during the day can bring a surprising amount of clarity. Setting boundaries around work hours and consciously unplugging when possible has helped me stay mentally alert and emotionally steady.
Ultimately, it is the combined support system at home and at the workplace that sustains consistent performance and personal fulfillment in this profession.
Coming from a different academic background, what sparked your decision to pursue law as a career? How did your law school years shape your perspective on the legal profession?
To be honest, I never intended to pursue a career in law. I come from a completely non-legal background. I’m a first-generation lawyer with no one in my family, even distantly, associated with the legal profession. When I moved from Assam to Delhi, it was with the goal of preparing for the UPSC examinations. However, my father, who always believed in the value of having a professional degree, strongly encouraged me to pursue law first. At his insistence, I enrolled in the Faculty of Law at Delhi University, while simultaneously preparing for UPSC.
In the beginning, I had little understanding of how the legal system functioned or the vital role it played in shaping our democracy. That changed during my time in law school. As I started reading landmark judgments in our course materials, I began to understand the transformative role the judiciary had played in protecting rights, interpreting the Constitution, and ensuring accountability. For the first time, I saw how the law could be used to empower the weak and uphold justice against power.
This intellectual shift deepened during my internships when I visited the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi. Watching senior advocates argue passionately on behalf of their clients was a defining moment for me. It became clear to me that as a lawyer, I could make a meaningful impact.
That realisation shaped the course of my legal education. I decided early on to focus on litigation rather than corporate or in-house roles. Thus, throughout law school, I interned exclusively with practicing advocates and senior counsels to better understand the courtroom and the craft of advocacy. That foundation continues to guide my journey in the legal profession today.
After years of working with several reputed law firms, what inspired you to set up your independent practice? How has the transition been, and in what ways have your prior experiences enriched your current approach to litigation?
When I started out as a junior counsel, my senior, who primarily practiced before the High Court, assigned me matters before trial courts in Delhi. This early exposure to trial work which included arguing applications, conducting cross-examinations, and making final submissions proved invaluable. It allowed me to develop a strong foundation in procedural law. I learned how to adapt during cross-examinations, think on my feet, and refine strategy in real time. More importantly, it taught me how a case is built from the ground up, starting from when a client walks in with a set of facts and documents, to seeing it through to its conclusion.
My trial court experience shaped the way I approach litigation, even later during my years at law firms. At the firms, I worked on complex, high-value disputes and was mentored by seasoned partners. I developed a better understanding of client management, commercial awareness, and the importance of structured preparation. The exposure to varied matters and corporate clients broadened my perspective and added discipline to my practice.
As for my decision to start an independent practice, it felt like a natural progression. Most litigators, at some stage, aspire to have their own practice. Moreover, clearing the Advocate-on-Record examination served as an additional catalyst as it strengthened my resolve to build a practice in the Supreme Court alongside my existing work in other forums. The transition has been both challenging and fulfilling since it demands not just legal skill, but consistency, judgment, and the ability to run both the legal and operational aspects of practice. My prior experience has helped me maintain clarity, structure, and strategic thinking, qualities that I continue to rely on in my current practice.
In the early stages of your career, you worked with various advocates and law firms. Could you share a few pivotal experiences that significantly influenced your legal thinking and helped expand your expertise across diverse domains?
A range of matters across forums has shaped my legal thinking and approach to litigation. Working on construction and infrastructure arbitrations gave me hands-on experience in drafting pleadings, framing cross-examination strategies, and arguing before arbitral tribunals. These technically complex and document-heavy disputes helped me develop a structured, detail-oriented approach to fact-intensive cases.
In arbitration-related litigation, I have drafted and argued petitions under Sections 9, 11, and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, dealing with issues of procedural fairness, jurisdiction, and the scope of judicial review. I have also handled cross-border disputes involving foreign parties in infrastructure and shipping disputes, which required navigating enforcement, foreign law, and complex contractual structures.
My broader civil and commercial work has included recovery suits, partition and specific performance claims, landlord–tenant disputes, defamation, banking, and insurance matters. All these experiences have enabled me to develop a forum-conscious, legally rigorous, and strategically adaptive litigation practice.
You’ve represented both Indian and foreign clients in civil matters and commercial matters ranging from salary disputes to high-value recoveries. How do you bridge the differences between the international legal system and the Indian legal system while navigating such cases?
In cross-border disputes involving foreign parties, it is important to ensure that the legal strategy is not only consistent with Indian procedural norms but also communicated in a manner that is clear, accessible, and contextually appropriate for clients unfamiliar with the Indian legal system. My central consideration in such matters is to meet domestic procedural requirements while also reflecting upon the broader commercial and contractual context from which the dispute arises. Foreign clients often approach Indian proceedings with assumptions shaped by how similar disputes are handled in their own jurisdictions, whether in terms of timelines, document disclosure, or court processes. It therefore becomes essential to bridge that gap by managing expectations and crafting a legal strategy that acknowledges those assumptions, while remaining firmly within the framework of Indian law.
You’ve been part of both ad-hoc as well as institutional arbitrations. What do you believe are the main reasons institutional arbitration has not flourished in India as it has in other jurisdictions?
Institutional arbitration in India hasn’t taken off as it has elsewhere largely because the ad hoc proceedings remain the default in commercial contracts. Many parties simply insert a bespoke arbitration clause, viewing that as more directly under their control and cost-effective. At the same time, there is limited awareness of institutional rules and best practices among contract-drafting teams. As a result, institutions seldom feature in the underlying agreements. Moreover, institutional arbitration has struggled to gain traction largely due to preferences for ad hoc proceedings, concerns around cost, and a historical lack of trust in domestic arbitral institutions. Many parties, particularly public sector bodies have opted for ad hoc mechanisms, believing them to be more flexible and cost-effective.
However, recognising these systemic hurdles, the Government in the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 has made an effort to strengthen institutional arbitration. The bill proposes clearer recognition of arbitral institutions, limits judicial interference during the pendency of proceedings, introduces enforceable emergency arbitrator provisions, and empowers institutions to manage certain procedural aspects that were previously routed through courts. These reforms are a step toward creating a more credible and self-sufficient arbitral ecosystem in India, but institutional arbitration will only become the norm when users, both private and public, begin to see these changes reflected in actual practice.
With a practice spanning commercial litigation, matrimonial cases, and consumer disputes, what has been one of the most challenging or personally memorable cases you’ve worked on, and what made it stand out?
For me, every case is equally challenging and personally memorable. Once you put your name to a matter, you inevitably invest a part of your professional identity in its outcome. Since I have to mention one, I would like to speak about the first case I was independently engaged in during the very first year of my practice. The client had filed a suit for recovery of damages against a courier company for the loss of machinery in transit. The advocate representing the client had, for some reasons, missed multiple hearings and by the time I was engaged, the court had already closed the plaintiff’s right to cross-examine the defendant’s witness and listed the matter for final arguments.
At first, I considered filing an application to reopen the defendant’s evidence and recall the witness. However, upon examining the record, I figured out that nothing much was going to come out of the cross examination as the Defendant in his defence primarily relied upon a term at the back of the invoice which limited his liability to Rs. 100/-. Hence, I decided to proceed with final arguments as I had a strong case legally. The court ultimately decreed the matter in favour of my client, despite the defendant’s evidence remaining unrebutted.
You’ve worked with clients across sectors like infrastructure, pharmaceuticals, and technology. How do you keep pace with the constantly evolving regulatory landscape, and what tools or resources would you recommend to young legal professionals to stay informed and ahead of the curve?
I primarily rely on Lexology for its daily sector-specific and jurisdiction-specific newsletters, while Mondaq offers in-depth insights into emerging regulatory trends across industries. For real-time updates on Indian law, I follow Bar & Bench and LiveLaw, which provide reliable coverage of all legal developments in the country. Young legal professionals may subscribe to these resources which are largely free and develop a routine of reading beyond their immediate areas of work. Over time, this habit not only sharpens legal awareness but also builds the contextual understanding needed to advise effectively in a fast-evolving legal landscape.
Clearing the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) examination is a major milestone. What aspects of the AOR exam did you find most challenging, and what strategies did you use to prepare effectively for this prestigious qualification? Additionally, how has the AOR designation influenced your professional practice?
The most challenging aspect of the AOR exam for me was managing the subjectivity and time pressure, particularly because I opted for the handwritten mode of the exam. Having worked on the laptops for so many years, I had lost the habit of writing for extended periods, and improving my writing speed became a real challenge. In terms of strategy, I began with the papers on leading cases and professional ethics, as these required substantive reading. I made notes, knowing I might not have time closer to the exam to revisit lengthy judgments and texts. This also helped me get back into the habit of writing regularly. For the papers on practice and procedure and drafting, prior experience in the Supreme Court was definitely helpful, as I was already familiar with the format of petitions and procedural nuances. I also relied on the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the Supreme Court handbook on practice and procedure for the preparation. Citing relevant case law in the practice and procedure paper also added value. For the drafting paper, I focused on solving previous years’ questions within the stipulated timelines to build both accuracy and speed.
The AOR designation has long been regarded as a mark of credibility and respect within the legal community, and earning it has been both empowering and confidence-building. Since becoming an AOR, I’ve seen a shift not only in the nature of work I receive but also in who approaches me since my clients now include not just litigants, but also lawyers who are not AORs and seek assistance with filing and pursuing matters before the Supreme Court. The designation has added a level of professional trust that has meaningfully expanded both the scope and responsibility of my practice.
Finally, what guidance would you offer to law students and aspiring litigators hoping to chart a path like yours? Is there a particular mindset, skill set, or approach you believe is essential in today’s dynamic legal environment?
I find that today’s law students are far more informed and situationally aware than I was during my time in law school, which is truly encouraging. However, I also see many of them constantly under pressure, whether it’s the next moot, internship, or securing a PPO. While these things are important, I would urge them not to lose sight of the bigger picture. It’s equally important to enjoy the process, make memories, and meaningfully engage with the subjects taught in law school.
For aspiring litigators, I would add that law is a demanding field. If you don’t allow law to become a part of your life, you’ll always struggle to find the so-called work-life balance. Even the most celebrated senior advocates who have reached the very heights of success continue to work as hard, if not harder, than those just starting out. That says something about what this profession demands. Those who approach it purely as a source of income often find it difficult to sustain in the long run. I also believe that spending time in trial courts is invaluable as there is no better way to develop procedural clarity, practical judgment, and courtroom instinct. That is where a litigator truly understands how a case unfolds. Lastly, building relationships and nurturing a professional network is just as important since law is a people-centric profession, and the connections you make often shape the opportunities that come your way.
Coming from a lineage of four generations in the legal profession and having been raised in both legal and military environments, what pivotal experiences or influences led you to pursue law as your career? In what ways has your military background shaped your legal perspective and practice?
To be honest I was also one of those confused teenagers who couldn’t decide what direction to steer towards, one day I wanted to become an archeologist and the other day I wanted to become a fashion designer. But when you have so many lawyers in the family, that’s usually the safest option since you have someone to fall back on. I still remember the day my grandfather suggested to my dad that bring her to Law, and since my dad was the black sheep amongst the lawyers in the family, granddad had a sense of pride to have convinced me to pursue law as a family tradition. Being an Air Force kid, born in Bangalore and being brought up all over, I have lived and breathed the blue uniform life, from changing 9 schools in 12 years of school life, I was also taught to adjust and adapt to change almost every 2 years. I started my practice in 2014, with a military upbringing and a legal legacy I somehow felt the need that both had to be utilised to its max potential, and as if the universe had a plan all laid out, I started practice in an office which did military law and service laws as a major field of practice, and 11 years down, there has just been no looking back! Earlier I was fighting for the faujis against the fauj and now I’m proud to be fighting for the fauj instead, from private practice to being a Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India.
What inspired you to pursue an LL.M. in International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights at Europa-Universität Viadrina in Germany? Could you share how your academic experience there enriched your understanding of law and influenced your professional journey?
The subject of Humanitarian law encouraged me to pursue my masters in the middle of my practice, in 2019. I suddenly took the decision to step aside and study, with an intention to gain experience on an international level and for self growth. Learning International law and understanding its applicability in your country gives you a macro prospective of what you do in court rooms daily, specially in military law, learning how the military law functions internationally changes your prospective and brings a better geopolitical understanding of your country. For a subject like this, I picked a university which is one of the oldest University of Germany, it has seen all the major wars of the world from the Napoleon War to being the centre of the World Wars, the university in fact became a shelter for refugees during the world war, so it could not have been any better than this for a subject like this, with professors from all across the globe, it has certainly had a great influence on both my professional and personal life.
During the initial phase of your career, you worked closely with a senior who later was elevated as the Delhi High Court Judge. What were some formative experiences or lessons from that time that helped build your legal foundation and sharpen your skills as a practitioner?
Every boss teaches you legal expertise but one of the main lessons that I learned from my senior, was the balancing act. We were all women in the office being led by a woman senior, as a lot of people say that a career driven woman usually loses sight of her homebound responsibilities, no matter what women have to cater to work, home and self.. I personally do feel it is a woman CAN do it all! Over the years I have learnt that litigation is one field where a woman can balance things, be the boss on her own terms, be the boss at home and also be your own boss! We were not only taught to be efficient at work but also to be responsible back at home and at the same time celebrate every small accomplishment which is needed for one’s sanity, and I still live by the same and try passing that on to my associates and even interns.
What motivated you to establish your independent practice in 2017? What was the vision behind taking that step, and how has the journey unfolded since then?
I guess, in litigation one has to take that leap of faith and jump, starting your practice is the ultimate milestone, sooner or later one has to just take the plunge and swim without the life jacket. It was a tough call, especially during covid, it was difficult to sustain and build the clientage, but I guess most of us went through the same struggle. 11 years in practice this year, every day is a new day, with a variety of matters on hand, it’s been all about brainstorming and eventually counting accomplishments, and thus, there has been no looking back!
As the Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India at the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, what types of matters do you typically handle? How do you approach cases that involve high levels of confidentiality and complex military legal issues?
So Armed Forces Tribunal has a variety of military related issues it caters to, I have personally been handling cases related to the Disability pensions of officials in forces, matters pertaining to policy decisions of the forces, Cases of NOC and early discharge from service, Agniveer being one of the newest cadre in the forces has its own challenges which has been a part of my expertise before the AFT. I was recently handling a case filed by an Agniveer who was denied appointment due to a criminal case against him before a Juvenile justice court, and we dealt with it in accordance with the Agniveer recruitment rules. Some matters which are filed against the Court of Inquires and General Court Martial proceedings are extremely interesting, where you are not just dealing with procedural aspects but also dealing with the very personal acts and actions of the person involved in the said COI and GCM, now these are matters which may bring in a bit of complexity due to its nature. On the private side I remember dealing with cases involving sexual harassment at workplace by women in uniform in the paramilitary, those issues involve military laws and dealing with the disciplinary inquiries while also making sure the women before the courts are given the due respect they deserve being in women in military fighting for their own protection.
You’ve handled matters involving the Indian Air Force, Navy, Army, and Para-Military Forces, including inquiry proceedings and policy-related issues. What are some of the unique legal and procedural challenges in dealing with cases related to the armed forces, particularly concerning Short Service Commissioned Officers?
One of the most important matters that I truly will always be grateful to be a part of are the right to Permanent Commission to women Short Service Commissioned officers of the Army and Indian Air Force. I joined the profession in 2014 when this legal battle was ongoing in various legal forums and I had the opportunity to assist my senior in these landmark matters and eventually take these matters ahead. We had several designated (rather legendary) seniors who led the show in the Apex court to restore the right to women in forces. When it comes to matter pertaining to the forces, the larger issue might remain common, however the policies around it keep changing, with regards to PC matters in the IAF, I was the first to challenge the 2019 policy for grant of PC to SSC officers, this policy incorporated all that had happened in courts up to date, with new avenues to challenge, in fact in the midst of covid I remember running pillar to post from AFT to Delhi High Court seeking relief for an IAF lady officer, who was denied PC and was to be released from her service while the courts were on a winter break, and I still the remember the feeling when the matter was heard by a vacation bench in HC and the judgement was stayed, we had 2 days in had before our release, and suddenly at 11 in the night the next day, i got a call from the court staff saying her release had been stayed and the order is uploaded online, she was to hang her uniform the very next day. Another such empowering issue was in the initial years of my practice, when I was approached by a young girl who came from a conservative muslim family, but was very passionate to join the paramilitary forces, due to the struggle to convince her family she was delayed and was denied entry to the forces, and I can never forget J Hima Kohli, (who headed the service db in Delhi High Court that time) felt every emotion and passion of this young girl and directed the forces to grant her a joining, and that, was my first reported judgement and my first news article, certainly a major motivational boost for a young counsel. I was also appointed an amicus curiae just 2 years into practice in a matter which laid down the law on delay and latches with respect to the Right to Information Act.
Since 2022, I have been a senior Panel counsel for the Union of India at both the Delhi High Court and the Armed Forces Tribunal, the switch from being against the Union of India to representing the Union has been quite drastic yet full of gratitude, representing the forces and defending them holds a different meaning for me (being a fauji kid). I have been representing the forces in a mixed bag of cases, from issues related to the disciplinary proceedings against officials, which involve Court of Inquiry proceedings and Court Martials which are intense yet interesting at the same time. Recently, I argued a matter before the HC which related to the fast track promotions through a special exam conducted by the UPSC of a para military force, and it was basis a legal opinion I had made, that the entire rule position of the said force changed and assented to by the highest authority, now in implementation. I have been grateful to have been a part of another landmark matter which relates to the disability pension to the personnel of the forces, there are many more policy and disciplinary matters which I have been truly glad to have handled.
What advice would you offer to young lawyers who aspire to work on legal matters related to the Armed Forces? Were there any specific habits, values, or resources that played a significant role in shaping your professional growth in this field?
The advice for young lawyers wanting to enter the AFT practice would be to firstly understand your defence forces’ uniforms, its important to learn their ranks, understand the hierarchy of these ranks and most importantly feel the pride of our country’s forces. Its genuinely upsetting to see the youngsters not even recognising the colours of the uniform of their armed forces, one should just begin with this value and respect, rest the seniors of the profession will teach you.
Legal practice is often incredibly demanding, requiring long hours and intense focus. Given your active involvement in public speaking and participation in DHC Bar Elections, how do you manage to balance these professional responsibilities with your personal life? Are there any routines, habits, or strategies you follow to stay grounded and maintain your focus?
Honestly there is no one way of doing this, elections were a taxing few months, balancing election campaigns, work, and home, did take a toll on me on some days, but I kept telling myself that I need to do it because I CAN do it! Winning or losing was never on the charts, the process of elections changed me in so many ways.. it got me so close to so many seniors, colleagues, juniors which would have not been possible without this process, it’s all win-win by the end of it. Litigation is one profession, where the same set of people who have seen you step into this Black & White life will also see your rise and fall both professionally and personally. The same set of people are also going to be with you in your good and bad phase of life.. I really appreciate how the entire Bar reaches for your weddings, your kids’ weddings, your designation celebrations and they even stand by you in your hard times.. we meet them everyday for years.. this family is here till your last day in practice.
What initially drew you to the field of law? Was there a defining moment or experience that solidified your decision to pursue it as a career?
They say ‘Blood is thicker than water’, well this proved true in my case and there were significant circumstances and events in my life that had drawn me towards the field of law. Later on, as a child as I grew up, I came to know my grandfather was also an advocate and somehow his stories and the cases he advocated motivated me to seek logic and reason in everything and life at large therefore making me question ‘Why?’
My grandfather Late Nirad Behari Sikdar who passed law in 1942 from Calcutta University had a great influence on me but I didn’t have the good fortune to see him but I had heard his stories which made me realise and achieve my destiny later in life and pursue a career in law. I think not seeing him was something I wish I had but then I realised by carrying forward this noble profession, this way I could be a part of him and yet pave the legacy he had made.
As an advocate, he was a senior counsel who had done some impressive landmark cases of that era like against the North Frontier Railways in the year of 1966; as he was a hardcore civil practitioner. I slowly developed a passion and love for law as I tread on my journey, as each day I consider myself to be an apprentice learning and improving the craft of practising law.
What motivated you to pursue an LL.M. in Corporate and Financial Law, and what drew you specifically to this area of specialization?
Well, my internships and clerkships were all aligned towards general corporate practice in Corporate Teams of law firms and organisations because from the onset of my law school, I was much interested in commercial laws and corporate laws. Slowly, I developed a sweet spot for this niche area of law.
I think it is very important to discover and understand your path at an early stage because then you can focus and decide your stream line in the field of law and hence carve your practice area. As a law student and even till now I was always focused on academia and research because better research means better practice and vice -versa. My main objective to do an LLM was to focus on research and academia pertaining to my practice area that would enhance my analytical reasoning and articulation on general corporate and commercial laws. This is a myth that masters are done to have a hike on your payslip or promotion in your organisation. NO, it doesn’t work that way, masters are done simply to have a niche area of intellectual understanding and to develop an expertise of knowledge in a certain specific practice area for those who like to pursue it.
Once I had asked my law school senior in my final year, “Should we do a masters”, his blunt reply was “Yes if you are rich”, well both my masters programs, I had been offered scholarships for the tuition fees because of my precedent academic credentials and entrance exam score also for the second one I didn’t take it because I was working(had taken a sabbatical from the firm), also so that a student who really needed the financial support would get it, hence higher education is not always necessarily only for the rich I suppose.
This area of specialisation is very dynamic as the regulatory, compliance part of the practice keeps on evoluting throughout the world and the best part is that the application is not necessarily bounded by the jurisdiction and surpasses borders and becomes universal for the application part of the law at most times.
In the early stages of your career working both in corporate roles and later with a law firm what key experiences helped hone your legal skills, and how did they contribute to building a strong foundation for your current practice?
Well, during my early years I remember that I was very curious, I wanted to solve problems, I asked ‘why’ till I was satisfied with the answer given. I always did my homework. I did more than what was asked for not because of my senior’s satisfaction but for the fact that I wanted to deliver. I remember asking myself “What can I give? ” and what I am bringing to the table.
I was punctual and I had an eagerness to learn. I think discipline played a strong foundation in building myself for the lawyer I am today but that doesn’t mean I don’t know how to have fun and a good time. Balance is the key and with the right momentum and a little bit of luck the world is your oyster. Just like a lot of lawyers when I worked at law firms, clients were my main focus. Also when I worked in-house, stakeholders were my primary focus.
There is a saying that if a good in-house counsel takes care of the stakeholders, then the stakeholders would take care of you. As a lawyer I think it is very important to build relationships and that’s exactly what I have done in most places I have worked till now.
What prompted your transition from working in the corporate sector to practicing with U.S. & Co (Advocates & Solicitors)? How would you compare the roles and working environments of both settings, and what unique insights did each offer?
After a certain point of time, I think change is inevitable, I took the jump trusting my instinct being the right time to do so. I think the best way to cater as an in-house lawyer is to understand the business because the organisation is your one client and your sole purpose is to make every effort to retain legal sanctity and regulatory legal compliance for the organization also to defend when necessary. Over here you dawn many hats but touch upon almost every available practice area but in a limited spectrum for your day-day work also you have to learn to efficiently manage your stakeholder and have good stakeholder management skills because they are not necessarily lawyers or have studied law but can be people from different verticals in the organisation. You have to be patient, diligent and research-oriented practitioner catering to your stakeholders.
Whereas, in private practice every client possesses a new challenge and there is a need that you got to have the client’s best interest at all times and do what is possible in offering the best possible legal service. Now, it becomes challenging when stepping towards the senior roles in a law firm because you are not only supposed to cater to clients but also bring in business and have a book as a partner which would be mostly about business development in the firm.
Each role has its own appeal and sets of unique challenges as the seniority increases, the complexity increases and the role becomes proactively engaging in different ways for both in-house and law firm lawyers.
As a Principal Associate handling a diverse portfolio of corporate clients across sectors such as IT, pharma, and infrastructure, you’ve led several high-value transactions, including mergers, acquisitions, and investor rounds. Could you share insights into a particularly complex or high-impact deal you’ve worked on and how you navigated them?
One of the most challenging high value transactions was a cross-border acquisition in the technology space. The deal was a high value deal and our client was a mid-sized Indian technology company acquiring a European database company.
Now there were some key challenges we needed to focus on the deal:
Regulatory Issues across Jurisdictions- We had to navigate both Indian regulatory requirements of FEMA, SEBI and RBI Approvals and EU compliances including GDPR.
There was a heavy due diligence on the IP Risks done by the team.
We had to do Investor coordination, the transaction had multiple investors including PE funds and strategic investors with varying expectations. Aligning all the stakeholders required careful drafting of the SPA and waterfall structures.
For the cultural and operational integration, we closely worked with the client’s internal team and foreign external team for minimum disruption and retainment of key talent in the organisation. The deal closed after six months successfully resulting in a significant boost in our client’s global footprint.
While dealing with matters relating to data privacy compliance under the DPDP Act, 2023, how do you balance legal innovation with compliance in today’s fast-evolving corporate regulatory landscape?
Having an equilibrium in legal innovation with compliance under the DPDP Act, 2023 in India’s vigorously changing fast paced corporate regulatory environment requires a proactive strategic and multi-disciplinary approach.
It is very important to understand the spirit as well as the Letter of the Law. The DPDP Act emphasizes consent, purpose, limitation, data minimization, and accountability. It is very important to interpret the law holistically. To designate individual rights while enabling business innovation. Design should be made on the onset of privacy by design principles into products, services, and internal systems.
For better judicial interpretation regulatory landscapes e.g. India’s DPDP, EU GDPR, etc are mostly dynamic. It is very important in having a practical governance framework in place as a centralized privacy governance model. To conclude it should be understood that innovation and compliance are not mutually exclusive. In accordance with the DPDP Act, organisations should have a momentum towards an ethical innovation, to have solutions futuristic but privacy oriented. Thus, developing frameworks that are transparent, adaptable, user centric that supports the business which can promote in this evolving legal environment.
What are some common legal pitfalls startups often encounter during early-stage funding rounds, and how did you proactively address or mitigate these while managing the legal aspects of a technology startup?
Navigating startup early-stage funding rounds can be quite tricky and this may lead to derail progress or damage in the long run.
Some common pitfalls for startups (Early-stage funding) are:
Wrong entity in corporate formation and structure
Incapability in protecting and securing IP Intellectual Property
Chaos on Cap Table
Non-compliance with Securities Laws
Improper Due Diligence
Ambiguous Drafted Founder’s Agreement
Violation of Employment Laws
To manage these legal aspects, it is required to have an active startup focused mindset to set up the company properly and duly advise fundraising. There should be a clean obligation of IP, use safe templates and investor friendly terms, do equity management from issued founder stock. Commit to a structured well planned due diligence flagging risks. Also, last but not least there should be proper scrutiny for supportive compliance with corporate governance and employment law.
What advice would you offer to law students and young professionals aiming to explore corporate law, particularly in areas like M&A, data privacy, and legal compliance? Are there any specific resources or approaches you’d recommend to help them stay ahead of the curve?
I think for law students and young professionals it is very important to have sound knowledge because there needs to be a marriage between theory and practice, that’s where excellence happens. General awareness of recent deal structuring in the market and the tactics followed is always helpful; it helps us understand the latest trends in deal structuring M&A. Also, it’s very important to stay updated with the latest regulations and the statutory norms.
In data privacy one should have a clear understanding of GDPR and DPDP 2023 also one must keep in mind data privacy is not just theory its operational. It is cardinal to understand privacy and compliance are implemented in practice. One can get certified through CIPP/US, CIPP/E these are law focussed privacy certificates from IAPP.
Legal Compliance goes beyond because it acts like a bridge between legal, operations and ethics. Nowadays, businesses try to build a strong legal and regulatory foundation by developing practical, business – facing skills in Anti-Corruption laws: FCPA, UK Bribery Act, AML/KYC in Banking and finance, Anti -Trust Laws (Competition), Environmental & Labor regulations, corporate governance & SEC rules also sometimes there are industry specific compliance. For law students and young law professionals it is also important to make tailor made internship choices from an early stage and take special attention to corporate law classes, white-collar crime, regulatory law or ethics.
For M&A some recommended reads are: Mergers & Acquisitions and Other Restructuring Activities by Donald DePamphilis, The Art of M&A by Stanley Foster Reed, Alexandra Lajoux and H. Peter Nesvold. It also is important to read industry reports Like the Financial Times, Bloomberg M&A News, Reuter Deals etc.
For Data Privacy I recommend EU Data Protection and the GDPR by Christopher Kuner, Privacy Law and Society by Anita Allen & Marc Rotenberg, comprehensive research can be done through Westlaw, LexisNexis and Bloomberg Law.
It is advisable to do some certificate courses as well on these practice areas which helps to stay ahead of the curve and also equips with the latest trends and focus of the industry at large.
Legal Compliance is something where one needs to keep abreast with the latest regulatory laws and focus on the industry trends that provide valuable market insights to delve much further to understand the concepts and safeguarding it. It is recommendable to take one or two internships in an in-house legal department of any good organization to gain a much more mature practical understanding.
Balancing the demands of a legal career with personal life can be challenging. How do you maintain this balance, and what are your go-to ways to unwind or recharge outside of work?
Yes, indeed it is challenging and always has been and would be. Well, maintaining a balance is difficult as it is all about managing workflow and if there is work then it has to be done with maintaining a certain standard, that’s all. I try not to work on a Sunday most times because Sundays, I try to keep for my family and myself.
I try to rejuvenate from work by listening to all kinds of music under the sun and I myself play the piano since childhood for the last 24 years. Since my seventh grade I had been interested in Equestrian activities so I did learn In India and UK now also occasionally I go for pursuing this hobby at the Polo Club when I have the time. I like to travel when I have the time and also, I do love driving, I take out time for going on long drives. Off late, I don’t get to read much outside law these days but I do like to read novels and autobiographies.
Let me begin with a very basic and very important question as in what shaped this particular thought process of pursuing law as a career and what kind of a vision actually evolved over these many years while you are practicing law. After doing it from National Law University, Jodhpur, what kind of perspective or aspirations were there when you started and where it has moved? What kind of challenges have you faced? We would love to hear that story.
When I was in school, I was not very much aware that there is something like a five-year law course. I had heard about National Law School, Bangalore in way. I had heard that there is one legal institution in Bangalore, which produces high quality professionals in law, but law was not my first choice, primarily because I never thought in that direction.
So, I did my higher secondary, 11th and 12th with commerce as a specialization. And my first focus at that point in time was to get through to a good college in Delhi University, colleges like the Hindu College, SRCC, or St. Stephens, or similar colleges if possible.
So that was my first aim, to get into good institutions at Delhi University because Delhi University is one of the best institutions in Asia actually. And especially when I was completing my 12th in the year 2001, it was one of the best in India, in fact, the best in India in terms of the number of colleges it had, number of courses it had and the quality of students it had drawing good resources from across India. So that was my focus. When I was in class 12th, around six months before I was to sit for my 12th exam, I got to know that there is someone I know who is in National Law School, Bangalore, but I had not spoken to him as such.
But I got to know that he’s from National Law School, Bangalore. And that is where I started finding more institutions of such nature in India. At that point in time there were only three or four National Law Universities in India. One was National Law School, Bangalore, the other was NALSAR, Hyderabad. The other NLU was National Law Institute University, Bhopal and NUJS had just started, I think in the year 2000 itself. There was limited visibility of these institutions also. I’m from Jaipur, the capital city of Rajasthan. Maybe students from metro cities like Delhi, Bombay, Chennai, Bangalore, would know more about these institutions. Students from tier two cities did not know much about it.
When I was in school I was not very much aware that there is something like a five year law course. I had heard about National Law School, Bangalore. I had heard that there is one legal institution in Bangalore, which produces high quality professionals in law, but law was not my first choice, primarily because I never thought in that direction.
When I got to know there were three or four institutions, I filled up my forms, applied to National Law School, Bangalore, and applied to NALSAR, applied to Bhopal, and wrote their entrance test also. While I was doing so, there were a lot of talks about an NLU to be set up in the state of Rajasthan.
There were a lot of parallel discussions between the government officials about when to set it up. So NLU, Jodhpur was to be set up in the year 2000, but for certain reasons it could not be set up. And it was decided very, very close to, let’s say, April and May, 2001, that NLU will be started in Jodhpur, in the new academic session. Next three months actually. And it was there in all local newspapers, et cetera. I also read about it. I had already given a couple of entrance tests for other national law schools at that point in time. I also gave an exam for NLU, Jodhpur. I was successful in securing a rank there and getting selected
And that is how my journey began. In parallel, I had taken admission in one of very good colleges in Delhi University. I withdrew my candidature there and went with Jodhpur. There was a reason I went with NLU Jodhpur. You know, the institution just started. So, there was no legacy for the institution as such because the 2001 year was the first batch of the institution. And the prospectus of NLU Jodhpur, a very small, 10-page prospectus was written by our first vice chancellor- NL Mitra. And I can tell you that the 8- or 9-page prospectus spoke volumes of what that the institution (NLUJ) could be.
It was worth a 100 pages prospectus. And in fact, one of my close ones who was senior to me, he read that prospectus in his free time. He told me, if you get a chance to join this institution, do join this institution because the way the prospectus is written, I think this institution will be a very good institution.
And exactly that happened. I got through NLU, Jodhpur and there I started my journey as a law student. Mind you, I never thought that I would join a legal profession as such, but it happened. And initially it was very, very difficult. We had two shifts of classes in NLU, Jodhpur. The first shift was from 8:00 AM to 12:30 PM and then there was a lunch break.
We did not have our own campus for the first three years. So, there was a transitory campus in the local university campus, basically, for us, a small campus. And then we were living in a hostel, which was far away from our university campus. So, we will come back to our hostels and then there’ll be a second shift of classes from 4:00 PM. The timetable said it was up to 7:30 PM in the evening, but it’ll stretch to 8:30 PM or 9:00 PM. And the second session classes were undertaken in the canteen area of our leased building.
We had no infrastructure as such. No physical infrastructure as such. The only thing we had with us at that point in time was that all of us, over a period of time, were mentally united. Subconsciously united over a period of time that we are going to create an institution of great eminence.
And we take pride in ourselves that we are part of the first batch of the institution. Otherwise, being part of the first batch of any institution is in a way an experimental step If things go well, the institution becomes well known. If things don’t go well for three, four batches, institutions take time to actually grow over a period of time that way. But as I said, our batch, we had a very limited number of 41 students. Over a period of time, we got subconsciously united and took pride that we are part of the first batch, and saw that as an opportunity.
That first batch is the most important batch because this is the batch, which is laying down the foundations for years to come.
But there was a great opportunity for all of us and that is where I would use this platform to also thank my first vice chancellor, professor, Dr. NL Mitra, a great man. He had the vision right from day one, how he wants that institution to be and only, and only because of his vision. Our institution started doing well right from the first batch. And his vision, we were able to imbibe to some extent over a period of time.
There is no one who can guide you generally or guide you how to apply for LLMs. There is no one who can guide you on how to crack into tier 1, tier 2, 3 law firms or top legal jobs in companies. And that is where we got a lot of exposure because there was no one to guide us.
We were our own torch bearers. So, we did a lot of trial and error. Actually, we studied a lot at that point in time, processed more information, that is something which really helped all of us. It also helped me a lot because by the end of my second year and the start of my third year, I knew what areas I should specialize in, and how I should take it forward.
I knew it like other students also subconsciously, because we have already tried and tested a lot of things. A lot of things didn’t work out. Only a couple of things worked out for us. So, we knew. It’s like saying, you know 1000 ways a thing will not work, indirectly you know one way the thing will work.
This was my experience at NLU, Jodhpur. I was very interested in corporate laws to start with because I had a commerce background in my 11th and 12th class that really helped me, and I was from ICSE board, so I don’t know now, but at that time ICSE board, some subjects were highly specialized.
For example, the economics that I read in class 11th and 12th was that time very similar to BA economics honors student was doing in Delhi University in second year or in the third year. So that was the level of certain subjects. I had a lot of interest in economics, commerce, and accounts.
That is something which really gave me a head start, an automatic head start when I was reading corporate laws, actually, because corporate laws are all about companies, companies actions, how company is dealing with stakeholders. I had done a bit of it already when I was in higher classes of my school, so that gave me a head start, and that gave me a lot of confidence.
It’s not only about confidence. Confidence has to be backed by substance over a period of time. How to generate that substance? Now, a lot of good students are writing blogs. They’re doing podcasts, they’re making videos on discussions, etc.
They’re joining panels or contributing to panels. But in my time, there were only limited avenues that were available. As far as your visibility is concerned, there was not much branding for legal institutions that time as much as it is today. There were no rankings as such other than some India today ranking and a couple of them.
That also came later on, I think in 2005, 2006, 2007 but 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 there were no rankings as such, like we have today. We have a lot of rankings, a lot of brand building exercises. In fact, I go to a lot of networking events. I see representatives of legal institutions also being present there and networking there, branding their institutions.
So those things were not there. The only thing you could have done on your visibility on your institution was winning moot courts or writing articles. Even writing articles. They will select journals like All India Reporter, Criminal Law Journal, Company Law Journal and a couple more, and they will primarily prefer practitioners for article publications. Practicing advocates, a lot of practicing advocates and retired judges wrote in All India Reporter that was very famous and very esteemed. And must be even today, I presume so and so room for us as a student, for any student that point in time was less.
Again, that’s an opportunity. You see, mental perspective is very, very important. Very important. So, if you have a positive mental perspective, you see everything as an opportunity. Some of us had informal groups within our batch. In our batch only 40 students were there. So some of us decided that we will try to publish articles in criminal law journals, company law journals, et cetera.
We tried; we were failing. Then suddenly, a couple of us got published in Company Law Journal, Criminal Law Journal, All India Reporter. That gave us a huge impetus that now a journal which publishes articles of practicing lawyers, retired judges, or some judges also. Has published our article. That is a big confidence boost for us.
Others also started trying, then we had a lot more people trying, there was a lot more traction. More traction, possibility of getting positive results is more. If there are two people trying for something, and then there are a hundred people trying for the same thing, the chances of success are more with a hundred people as opposed to only with two people, right?
So that is something which really helped us, that also helped us to create an ecosystem of excellence. That is important because initial years with the first batch, second batch, third batch, and fourth batch law is not a simple course of study. It is very difficult. It is not like any other courses. It is very distinct. It is spread over five years and each year, each semester is different from another semester. So it cannot be that you have done very well in the first four semesters and next six semesters you will do well. No, it is also not that you have not done well in the first five semesters, that you will also not do well in the next five semesters.
You can always come back. That helped us to create a positive ecosystem for ourselves and indirectly for the institution also, because initially what happens is an institution is known by the students. Later on, students are known by the institution because so much of batches, so much of hard work has gone into the foundation over the years’ time and again.
And to motivate us at that point in time we were also trying to follow what other students, very, very good students of like institutions are doing in their fourth year or maybe in their fifth year, so that we can also emulate them, learn from their experience.
If somebody from NLS got into the World Bank, it also gave us a hope that we can also do so. If somebody wrote a book in another institution, it also gave us hope and motivation that we can also publish a book while we are in our fourth year and fifth year. Who is stopping us? That five years shaped all of us, shaped me a lot. When I started my journey as a first semester student, to be honest, I was not sure that I was going to survive for five years.
I thought I may have to drop out after the first year because it was not easy. There was a lot of regimentation at play. You had classes right from 8:00 AM to 9:30 PM effectively, it was too difficult for us actually. Typically, when people go to college, people think that they will have more free time.
That’s how people think of going to colleges of any university anywhere in the world, but when we went into college, it was upside down. We had less time. We had no time actually. So I did not think that I would even survive one year. But somehow, we kept on moving together. And being part of the first batch, I think was the most beautiful opportunity that all of us got. I’ve completed 18 years since I’ve graduated. All those trees, all saplings were planted by us. The first batch, second batch, and the third batch. So, it gives us more identification with the university that way. And the university also recognizes us.
I have a lot of gratitude for that institution. Moving from institution to practice of law, as I said, I was always very interested in corporate laws. I used to read a lot of articles on international forums, I think its Practical Law today, that point in time it was West Law.
I used to read a lot of journals, corporate law related topics or articles and used to follow them. That time there were a lot of changes in the Indian corporate law sections also, like there was a lot of talk about corporate governance in 2003, 2004.
I still remember Narayana Murthy Committee report, Naresh Chandra Committee report, Cadbury Committee report 1999. So again, it gave us a lot of impetus to actually use these changes to our advantage. For example, I wrote 20 plus articles when I was in my fourth year and my fifth year. And all those things helped me. They gave me a lot of topics actually. I was very well aware of what is happening around me in relation to corporate laws, corporate governance, securities law, and I took that as an opportunity to write about them, build my visibility, talk about them, and try to get the right internships.
Once you have known your ecosystem, you have known your ground well then you know what is your next step? What is your way forward? Without it, it is very, very difficult. So, I know that I’m very interested in corporate law, securities law. I was trying for an internship within college when college applied. Nowadays scenarios have changed a bit, but at that time, the College Replacement Association was doing.
I wanted to intern at SEBI, for example. I got a chance to intern at SEBI, and again, I was fortunate. It was a 4-week internship. The day I joined, I was given a task to make a compendium of orders passed by SEBI for the last three years. I did this internship in 2004. So, when I went onto the intranet website of SEBI, we had access because we were interns there, I saw that there were around 550 orders that SEBI had passed.
I had to summarize those 550 orders in a tabular format given by my senior, who was assistant legal advisor at that point in time. And I did that day in and day out. I used to enter the SEBI office like everybody else, and I used to stay in that office till 9:30 or 10:30 PM. By 5:30, 6:00, 6:30 everybody would’ve left.
So, either the office caretaker, et cetera, were there, or I was there. Or maybe a couple of seniors, those who had urgent deliverables also, because it’s a regulator, those were there. So, I had a chance to analyze more than 500 orders passed by SEBI. It gave me a wonderful exposure.
I could not have gotten that in my entire career because I do not think any lawyer or anybody in a particular stream would analyze 500 cases at one go, because you don’t. Because you go by what is your client requirement? What is the nature of the case? You see select precedents, you don’t see 500 cases as precedent, but I was very, very fortunate.
So, while I was doing that it augmented my learning in corporate laws. When I came back to college, I knew inside out about all SEBI regulations, the sections, the provisions, which SEBI order got overruled by SAT in the last three years because of the work I have done. So, I was very fortunate in that way.
I carried on my learning. I read more on securities law, for example, more on corporate laws. In our institution, one thing also which really helped me, I am part of the first batch in India of a five-year integrated law force in law and management, BBA LLB, and then Jodhpur started that course in 2001.
That also gave me an impetus because I had commerce as a background, and BBA was a natural next step to commerce background. So, whatever was to be taught in law school.
Because you see, law school focuses more on law. As opposed to BA or BBA or BSC, et cetera. The BBA part I had already done in my school, more than 90% of it. So, I could focus more on law in the later years to come. And somehow my internships were such, they helped me to explore myself as a person also and myself as a future professional also.
I did my first internship with Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, MKSS. MKSS is the pioneer organization in right to information in India from early 1990s led by Aruna Roy. I did an internship with them, a ground internship with them in a village. In the outskirts of Udaipur district.
There was no conveyance, et cetera. It was a national highway; these national highways were not like express highways of today. There were two lane national highways and you had to take a lift. There were no buses, you had to take a lift on a lorry or a tanker or a truck passing by.
And I did my internship in that village. It was the year 2002, I lived with them, I also carried out what they had started, actually social audit. What they will do, they will form a team, they will go to different districts, monitor the development project there, and actually do a social audit of what is written on the paper and what on ground development has been done.
And there I also met Mr. Arvind Kejriwal. Because at that point in time his organization was working for right to Information in Delhi. So, I was with him as a part of his team. We were four or five team members in formal groups doing different parts of social audit, et cetera. So I was fortunate that way also, if I see, so now. And if you remember, 2002 was also a time of Gujarat riots, and this organization, what they were doing, they were trying to inform people about the riots going on, so that people are actually aware. It was May and June in Rajasthan, in the outskirts of Rajasthan, Udaipur. And we had a cycling project wherein we’ll go to different villages.
We had targeted, I think 50, 60 villages. We’ll go, we’ll interact with them, spread awareness, also talk about the right to information, et cetera. So, we would cycle along with 50, 60 more people along with us in the daytime in May and June in Rajasthan for the entire day. And we did that for seven days. And those bicycles were not sports bicycles, if you remember that black and yellow, those bicycles. So, these kinds of challenges, we do not know when we are in them. We do not understand or actually know how they are shaping us, but our experiences are actually shaping us. So, my internship in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan also shaped me. Shaping me in terms of leadership skills, spreading awareness, having a team moving along with the team is all about leadership skills.
Otherwise, unless you are on the ground, you don’t get to learn leadership skills, team skills by doing a management course. You have to be on the ground. You have to connect with people. You have to relay what you want to relay to them.
Now, spreading awareness in the remote village of Rajasthan is very, very challengeable because forget about English, you will not find people, those who will even speak Hindi, they’ll speak Marwari or different languages because different areas have different nuanced languages also. Interacting with them, relaying to them how right to information relevant for them, they will not understand, right?
Because what they are concerned about is three times the food and clothes to wear. That’s the basic and all requirements. In remote villages, that’s the reality even today. And talking to them about the right to information, if you are successful doing that, I think you are the best salesperson in this country if you can do that.
So, I got exposed to these kinds of leadership skills, experimentation also, practical experimentation also. I did my second-year internship with Prashant Bhushan. So, you can see the trail. I was with Aruna Roy, Arvind Kejriwal and my next step was with Prashant Bhushan. So, Prashant Bhushan, I interned. We worked a lot on public interest litigation. Again, a very, very good experience, because law is all about well-rounded professionals. You may be practicing in a particular stream, but if you are well-rounded, your knowledge base is wide, your receptivity is wide, your perspectives are more, and that is what helps you in differentiating between yourselves and others, basically, this is your USP.
Any lawyer or any student who has more perspectives is a couple of steps ahead than any other knowledgeable student. Any professional who has more perspective is two steps ahead of any other professional having a host of degrees, host of experiences, best of salaries, does not matter. It’s all about developing perspective over a period of time.
In that way, my internships also helped me. Then I interned at KPMG, Bombay in my fourth year. I learned how accounting firms are important for legal practice or corporate law. Because when you think about law, you think about law in isolation or in silos, actually, it doesn’t happen.
Law requires a context to operate. Without the context, we will not be able to apply law. Very famously, our vice chancellor used to say, and I think there is a question on that also in subsequent discussion pointers, he used to say, you have to be master of fact rather than to be master of law.
If you are a master of fact, you will know how you will apply the law known to you. If you’re not a master of facts, you don’t have expertise on your facts or a subject matter, then how will you apply law? How will you get desired results? It’s all about doing a very nuanced interpretation or nuanced practice.
How do you nuance it when you are able to filter through a lot of information? How do you get more information? You have to know more and more about your facts, and then you get to know that these two statements are the most material statements. I’m basing my case on this; law is applicable on this.
So, before you become a master of law, you have to become a master of facts. I was actually judging one client counseling competition in National University Aurangabad. And I really love that concept because as lawyers, we forget about as a law student, as lawyers, we take years and years to learn the art of client counseling.
What does the client want? How is the client placed? How can he get relief? What should suit him? All this is client counseling, and we take years to actually understand this. I’m very happy that some of the institutions are taking the lead and organizing something like mediation competitions, client counseling competitions, because these are very nuanced initiatives as compared to the moot courts.
Because moot courts, you have a problem at hand. The facts are already with you. The problem statement is already with you. You don’t have to do anything. You have to read the problem statement. You have to apply law and argue. Moot court is all about that. But in a client counseling competition, or a mediation competition, you have to take out information from your client as much as you want, as much as it is relevant, and then use your knowledge to actually supplement.
That is why these initiatives are excellent initiatives. Some of the institutions are doing. I think all institutions should do it. They should have a course in client counseling. We have courses in mediation, but we should also have mock trials and courses in client counseling, because that is what we do as professionals, right from day one. Because day one, when you join as an associate or a zero, your senior may tell you if you’re practicing in the M & A department of a law firm and can tell you, okay, we require X, Y, Z information from the client. Why don’t you call him and take information from him? When you call the client and take information for him, you have to have certain basic knowledge so that you can tell the client why this information is relevant so that he’s more forthcoming and seamless to give you information.
Otherwise, clients would think that person is only asking for information, time and again, time and again, and time and again. The art of asking relevant information. And nuancing your interpretation and practice around it is the legal practice for me, be it contentious, be it litigation, be it non-litigation. Non-litigation at times can become even more difficult actually. So, if you are an M&A lawyer, private equity lawyer, or venture capital lawyer, it’s not about representing your client on the table. It’s also understanding what are the expectations and interests of other stakeholders. Reading the room. And after understanding the interest of other stakeholders, how do you actually manage the stakeholders together to cut the deal?
What happens if something is of much interest to your client, something else is of much interest to another client. And the same is the case with other stakeholders. You will never crack a deal together. There have to be middle grounds, there have to be nuanced positions. How do you do it? You have to have that mental perspective to understand the interest of other stakeholders.
Like we say, a good lawyer is a lawyer who understands the mental framework of judges as if he’s the judge, as if he’s asking the questions, so that he can preempt the questions and include it beforehand while arguing and in his pleadings. The same thing applies for corporate lawyers also. Also thinking from the mental perspective of the other stakeholders.
Counterparties also, because you see, you are saying X and you are not moving an inch at all. The other party is saying Y he is also not moving an inch. What is happening? The time is getting wasted for the clients, the clients may love you for your skills, for a couple of meetings, three meetings, four meetings.
After that, they would want to see how you actually solve this problem. And that’s what the practice is all about. Nobody is hiring lawyers, for example, to not do the deal. They’re hiring lawyers to do the deal, to act as a fulcrum, to act as a catalyst. So as a lawyer, if you’re reading the room well, understanding everybody’s expectation and the interest well understanding your client interest as well.
Then you know in your head that what is good to have for you and what it must have for you, good to have will have 30 items, for example, must have, will have only two items. You do a trade between good to haves to get much must to have. You have to close the deal. My idea talking about this at length is that law students and early legal professionals should focus on developing as much as mental perspective, definitely, and as much as interpretations, other perspective, nuanced perspective as possible. And, it comes with an interactive set of people.
Also, it comes when you take interest beyond your call of duty or beyond your work. So in our transactions, we have financial advisors, we have tax advisors, then there is a client who is talking about commercials. We, as the corporate lawyers advise on, let’s say 70% on commercials and 30% on law.
This is how corporate law transactions work actually, to be honest, now, if you only focus yourself to law and don’t understand what is the objective of the parties commercially. Then it may be very difficult for you to close the deal because you are on the table, on a deal table, you see important people are there. From the key managerial personnel to the directors and the senior managing director. Those are the kind of people there on the deal table. And as a lawyer, you are also on the deal table. That means you have to contribute. Not only with the knowledge, but providing a nuanced solution. Because knowledge will give you a lot of information.
But out of that information, what you pick as a solution is your capability. And that is why some legal professionals are more famous, command premium. Because if you hear their argument, be it in non-contentious practice or in contentious practice, they’re very focused.
They know five counterarguments for one argument and vice versa. They know five arguments for one counterargument, because first they think what the counterparty will think, or thinks. This is what he may tell us. I’ve got my arguments already ready. And to top it up, I also have my own arguments.
I also understand the commercials of the parties. Not only law. Again, we spoke about master of fact and master of law. Here master of fact means understanding the commercials of a transaction for a corporate lawyer because you are expert in law. And you have to ensure that there is a marriage between law and commerce.
That’s how the deal will get done. And that is what should be your capability. So, coming back, we were discussing internships. I was very lucky doing internships at very, very good places.
Then I sat for a campus interview. I was successful in getting selected into various law firms. I joined the Luthra and Luthra offices. It was a very good legal organization having top marquee work in India. I got a lot of opportunities to work on some outstanding transactions which also helped me to understand the relevance of a legal professional.
I understood the relevance of a legal professional is not only about drafting agreements in your laptop or your desktop. Relevance of an illegal professional is actually to get all the parties together and agree on a common solution. That is more important because once that is done, anything can be documented.
Otherwise, the mental perspective, which early lawyers have, new entrants have, law students have, is that they think of documentation first, agreements first, law first, and requirements of the client later. It should be vice versa. Understand the requirements of the client first, requirement of the stakeholder first, and then documentation, then comes legal knowledge, so that you can give a very nuanced and to the point USP, which is your legal opinion or your legal interpretation that you are taking. Your clients will love you for that. Stakeholders will also be happy with you.
Then I worked at different other law firms also. Now you see law firms, two law firms. What my experience was in corporate law, for example, M&A, private equity venture capital. The work stream may be common, but different lawyers and different law firms have different approaches towards their work.
A lot of people say in law firms, it is very, very difficult to have work-life balance because you tend to work long hours, because the transactions are so, they require your last-minute involvement, et cetera. You are the one who gives comfort to other counterparties to your clients as well. So, you have to be involved. But I tell you one thing, there’s nothing like work-life balance in law. Because legal practice is a very difficult and different practice. In legal practice, you don’t have to deliver what you are expected to deliver. You have to deliver what your client thinks you can deliver, and you have to top it up with a premium or with your USB.
This is how it works. So, it is not like drafting a clause a client wants, but while drafting the clause and deciding the contours of that clause and agreement. Also discussing with the clients, the advantages and disadvantages and how different scenarios can actually play out because the document you are drafting is the document which is not useful for good times because in good times nobody opens the documents. The documents get locked up in the cupboard. A lot of our clients also used to tell me that the best document we want to use so that we don’t open it. Absolutely. You should not open a document because once the deal is done, the relationship should be good. Practically also speaking. But what about those rainy days? When there are differences of opinions, disputes and interpretation, then you have to open the document and then you open the document and see whether you had actually thought about it or not.
So, for example, as a lawyer, if you only follow the instructions of your client, it is to get the work done as early as possible because any client would want that. If I’m a client, I will also want it, but at the same time, it is important for you to discuss the nuances of that with your client. And tell him how these frameworks can play out in different scenarios. And that is what you have to document in your agreement. So that your document is fungible and is to an extent futuristic. I’m not saying that all lawyers come together and draft a document for two years.
You cannot think of, there can be innumerable scenarios, et cetera. You cannot actually document it, but you can document what you have learned. This is your experience. So like, I have done 200 plus M&A deals, private equity and venture capital deals. I have had a lot of learning, for example. So, I’m carrying that learning when I’m doing my 251st deal.
I’m carrying out the learning of 250 deals that I have done in the 251st transaction. And I’m also telling my client to also include this scenario. What if this happens, what will you do? Let’s include that. Because you never know. Because commercial transactions in India are increasing.
We are almost a $4 trillion economy and we are moving to a $8 to $10 trillion economy in 25 years. In the last 75 years, we have added 4 trillion in the next 22, 23 years, which is 2047, we’ll add more than 4 trillion, which we could only add in 75 years. The pace of growth will be faster. There’ll be a lot of opportunities, but at the same time, there’ll be a lot of complications also. So, five, seven years back when the startup community in India started in 2015, 2016, now it is at a different level. If I had to discuss the founders’ agreement with my founder client, they would say, no, we are best of friends.
We are family friends; we are thick friends. We are school friends. We’ll not need it. Let us build the company. We’ll see it later on. But today you see there are a lot of founder disputes also. Now the same founders today, their first checklist is having a founder’s agreement.
You don’t have to educate them; they already know it. So, what happens there is more commercial traction. There are more disputes also, and that is where as a legal professional in this time, and in times to come in next 20 years, we have to work at a different level. At a very advanced level. It cannot always be a precedent based learning or a precedent based practice.
In litigation, it can be a precedent based practice. You know what the Supreme Court has viewed in such a scenario, et cetera. But in corporate law, M&A transactions, private equity, venture capital transactions, there are no court judgments that are applicable, it is up to the parties.
What is the nature of the parties? What is the nature of investment, amount of investment, nature of business, of the company? All these things play a very important role when you’re dealing with both the parties, your client as well as the counterparty. And how do you stitch the deal? To me, is the real premium you give to your client and that is something they pay you for. They’re not paying you for regular work. They can get it done from anybody else also, and then there is artificial intelligence also in the picture, which will draft a shareholder and share subscription agreement.
But what you give based on your previous learning is something no automated platform can give because there are a lot of practical nuances you handle while doing so. So that is why, it’s very important that today’s lawyers, today’s law students also think in those terms. Wear both hats, wear a legal hat and also wear an entrepreneurial hat because you don’t have to be a deal breaker, you have to be a deal maker.
You have to ensure, come out with structures, come out with opinions and arguments and practices, which enhances the chances of getting the deal through and not stalling it. Because you see clients have already made up their mind of doing a deal, and that’s why they have got you here. Very important because you see the top client, the principles have already been discussed between themselves, okay, we are going to do this.
They’re getting their advisors in the picture as a next step is to see, just in case there are no deal breakers as such. But they have not got you here to create an issue when the issue can be resolved. So, it’s like something which is of your best interest to your client. Can we oppose it to the other side?
And how you navigate that scenario is your role actually. And it’s continuous learning. You are never a complete lawyer. You are always learning, you are always understanding, you are always meeting new people with new perspectives.
If you have a positive bent of mind, a growth mindset, then you are progressing, then you are always progressing. And that is what I want to suggest to all new entrants in law. Any lawyer as well as, definitely law students have a growth mindset, a positive mindset where you see the counter arguments against you, not as counter arguments, but as an opportunity to develop further.
Give an even more nuanced solution because in a non-contentious practice, typically it is not that one party loses, the other party wins. Both of you win together. It has to be a win-win scenario for every stakeholder. And that is important. And over a period of time, how do you as a law student think how law works? You think of documentation, you think of law first, but when you become a legal profession, you understand how the client is placed? What are the expectations of the client? How can you deal with it? What can you suggest? This takes precedence over this agreement drafting. That comes actually later on. So that’s the mental perspective one needs to work, one needs to understand a lot of commerce, a lot of commercials. That also really helps because then you can read into the mind of your clients and the counterparties what they want to achieve?
Why are they doing so? How can I aid this, how can I facilitate this? Can I come up with a structure? Because in law there are a lot of gray areas, there are not many black and white areas in corporate law, for example, in M&A transactions, there are a lot of gray areas also, and that is where you have to take a call, you have to help your client to take a call.
You have to know market practices. How are other people doing it? Learn from others. So this is how the journey has been. I have always believed in learning as much as possible, learning as many perspectives as possible, trying to become a different version of myself each year, each couple of years, and trying to understand my clients more and more.
So this whole journey has been very fascinating, now I would like to ask you, as in when you start or when you enter these kind of deals, when you are trying to negotiate these big M&A transactions and you are drafting those deals, how do you make sure that you are a problem solver for your party, as well as you are not a problem creator for the other party as well? Second, while you were in your law school, I’m pretty sure that you may not have decided at that point of time that after five years I’ll become this, this, this, it became with learning. What kind of learnings were those?
Also, how did you navigate yourself towards this particular sector of getting so much into corporate law? Obviously, those SEBI 500 files were also very helpful. How have you made sure that that passion of yours, of reading still is there?
So, answering your last discussion point first, how did I decipher it when I was a law student and how I could continue. We just spoke that law is a very different profession, it is not only a deliverable based profession.
Actually, it is a way of life. Now, just try and understand one thing when I said, there is no work life balance as such in law, I did not mean that in a negative sense. I actually meant that in a very positive sense. In legal practice, more important, you are, people will want your more time, you’ll have more clients.
Clients will want your more time. You’ll be developing more trust with your client. This is how it actually works. You work, let’s say for 12 hours or 13 hours before it becomes a work life question. It is a question of your importance because you are important. Why is your client calling you and wants to talk to you at 12:00 AM in the night?
He wants comfort from you. Clients may have decided on something, we have a lot of clients, who are brilliant, people with management backgrounds from Harvard business schools. But still, at times they will discuss with me, they have already made their decision, but still, they will give me a call.
I’m thinking in these directions. Do you have any thoughts? You see how valuable you are to them. Because your one word, your one input can give them comfort or discomfort. In fact, discomfort can maybe give them lighter, more options to think on the decisions that they already wanted to make. Your importance here is inversely proportional to the time you have at hand. Because as a normal employee in any other profession. I go by the clock. Legal profession is a way of life, which doesn’t go by the clock. It’s a way of life. This is how you live, and you are able to manage everything together.
A lot of pieces in our lives move together. It is not that when we are at work, we are at work. Other pieces are not moving; other pieces are also moving. When we are traveling, we are also taking calls. When I’m on a holiday, for example, if a client wants to have a quick call, I’m taking that quick call. That does not take away my holiday leisure plans. In fact, it makes me more important. If you want to command a premium, both in terms of monetary privileges as well as non-monetary privileges, like you want to become famous for that, you have to become an important person. To become an important person, you have to be a trusted advisor to your client.
And why would any client chase you? He thinks you are relevant in the system and you have to give him time. That is why you see a lot of lawyers, top lawyers, they’re working for 18 and 19 hours a day. They still have a great life, great travel around the world, within India, outside India, great family life, great professional life.
How are they doing so? And why are some 9-to-5 people not able to do so? Because we don’t go by the clock. I’m talking to you right now. I’m also learning. It is also giving me an opportunity to express myself. Now I have two ways to think about it. Either think this as an opportunity of viewership.
A lot of people will listen to me, see my videos, and also give me a chance of an audience. Having good communication, developing my communication skills as I’m talking to you with examples or thinking, oh, we have already crossed one hour. Okay, let me see. Another 15 minutes.
I’ll complete it. There are two ways to look at it. A growth mindset looks at things very, very differently and that is where I have seen a lot of difference in my own life also. In my initial years, when I was a junior, I wanted to complete my work as early as possible, which even today, I want to complete as early as possible.
But, once the work is completed, move on to the other work and that is a pattern with lawyers which do not believe that law is a way of life, but once you believe and have a positive mindset, that law is actually your practice. Your profession is your way of life.
You operate very differently. You’re doing 5, 7, 8 transactions together. Doing 5, 7, 8 transactions together mean you are interacting with 50 plus people together at one point in time. 50 people know you directly, in meetings, in calls, and see your emails every day.
Those 50 people are talking to another 50 people about you. Some way, directly or indirectly. Look at your reach, look at your aura is wider. Because you believe in law, your profession and what you’re doing, your actions are the way of your life. That is how it is happening. Otherwise, there could be someone who can say, I cannot handle more than one transaction or two transactions. He is limiting himself. So this is something which when I was a law student, I took a lot of interest in corporate laws. Corporate governance was the flavor of the year at that point in time. As I said, the Naresh Chandra Committee report, Narayana Murthy Committee report, were very helpful to me.
I happened to read both the committee reports inside out and, if you read any of these committee reports inside out 200 pages, you know everything about corporate law practical, because they are the people with great experience in life. And if they’re doing some tasks, they are drawing on the experience of 20,000 people they have met in life, in one committee report.
And I also understood the importance of how the legal market is shaping up. As I said, knowing your ground is very, very important. And if you know your ground well, then you also know what are the movements happening in your ground, in your practice area or your to be practice area. So, I knew when I did my internship in SEBI, I did a lot of work there. When I came back I knew there were a lot of movements in securities related law. A lot of other judgments are coming. Many new laws are coming. Not only in India, but also outside of India with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
I also started reading about the Securities and Exchange Commission and see how SEBI is different from SEC. How did I create my interest? I created my interest by further developing the work. I did an internship when I came back to my college. Otherwise, what happens when you go to internships, you do work there. Once you are back to college, you forget everything. Your internship is as good as nothing. It’s only a statement on your resume. That’s it, because you have not further developed it. But I was somehow fortunate, had that growth mindset, that point in time, which helped me to actually develop on my knowledge.
When I came back from my internships, I read a lot of corporate governance stuff, I started writing articles, getting articles published, which gave me lots of motivation. Gave me a lot of fame within the university also. I was always thinking of cracking something, doing something well. So, my whole focus as a student in my fourth year and fifth year, every utilization of every second I’ve done was about creating something good for me, so that people know me. So that people talk about me. Nothing comes for free. It comes with a lot of hard work, but I never felt my hard work because I was in that momentum. Once you are in this kind of a growth momentum, positive mindset momentum, you are not doing any hard work, you aren’t required to do any hard work at all.
It automatically flows in that way because you are in that momentum. Somehow, I was lucky to be in that situation and having created that momentum for myself that I was only moving forward. That really helped me. And this is what I want law students of today or young lawyers of today to do. Get into that momentum. Give yourself a chance. Because the legal field, if you don’t have passion for law, can get very difficult actually. You have to have a lot of passion for law, a lot of passion for the work that you are doing, and it’ll show in the solutions you are giving to your client, in the discussions you’re doing with your client. And that is where the client will appreciate you. He will not think of you as a kind of another nut or bolt in the system. He will think of your entire setup. And that is where over a period of time the clients have become our friends.
If they’re buying any car or any vehicle or their sons or daughters are getting admitted in any law schools, they’re also talking to us. Because they have become friends. Trust has increased. How has trust increased? Because of the inputs that we are able to give and why we are able to give, because we are in that momentum, in that positive framework, mental setup.
Otherwise, it is not possible. Because law can actually drain you. Drafting a complicated agreement can drain you for days. You can get buried under work. If you have passion, then the scenario is totally different. I felt both I’ve been on both sides, where I’ve been buried under work, I’ve been on the other side also where I’ve done way more work than I was doing and did not feel any heat of what I was doing, I was really, really enjoying it. I was enjoying my time with the clients. I was enjoying talking on the conference call when a lot of people were listening to me.
That’s important. I was able to somehow give a better argument. The client is texting me on WhatsApp, oh, very good, very well done. That gives you a lot of impetus and that is something which keeps you going. It’s like fuel to the machinery. So, my advice for all law students and early lawyers is to somehow create that ecosystem for yourself.
Think out of the box. Today there are innumerable opportunities that are available to everyone. In my time, there were a couple of journals. Then the moot court, that’s it. Now, the number of moot courts and the client counseling events, mediation events, et cetera, has multiplied because we have 20 times more law colleges today, maybe more hundred times, I think. We have students making blogs, we have students making video podcasts, students having their own channels. There are so many avenues available wherein you can do your brand building. While doing brand building, you can augment your experiences and your work on a particular subject over a period of time.
So, SEBI, for example, from time to time or gift city regulators are coming out with consultation papers. As a law student, a sincere law student has done securities law, and has a lot of interest in securities law. Even if I don’t have any, I think I can do something, I can read up more. I can send in my comments to the regulator, who is stopping me?
The regulator is inviting public comments; you can send it. What is stopping me? So, there are lots and lots of opportunities in today’s time that are available with the students and young lawyers. There are a lot of good certificate courses going around. I happened to speak at a lot of good certificate courses. When I was a young lawyer or forget about being a student when I was a young lawyer.
These things were not there as much as they are today. There must have been a couple of certificate courses. Way too expensive. But today there are certificate courses, two hour sessions for 700 rupees, 800 rupees. And that too a partner from a tier one law firm actually doing so and sharing this experience.
So, my advice to all students and young entrants in law, get into that ecosystem, create a momentum for yourself, then you are absolutely unstoppable because you will see more and more meaning in what you are doing, which you may not be seeing now because you are not thinking in that direction. And, your first question is how do we actually strike a balance when on the negotiation table or trying to be part of a transaction? It is very important especially for corporate lawyers to understand what is good to have in a transaction and what is must to have.
If you’re clear on this, I’m telling you, 80% of the job is done. Now, if somebody doesn’t understand this, now, good to have a bucket list is a thirty-item bucket list and must to have a bucket list is the three to four items. If somebody really does not understand difference between good to have and must to have, he has bucket list of thirty five items, he is discussing item by item, by item by item, and the transaction, which should have been done in let’s say six weeks or eight weeks, is not getting done in four months, because he is trying to discuss each point and not trying to solve the points, not trying to understand the other side perspective also. So the best approach is while you put your best foot forward for your client, try to negotiate each point with him, but also see when it is not workable.
It is not working around. If it is not working easily with other stakeholders also, straight away have a couple of middle grounds to solve those problems. What will it do? It’ll make your deal more efficient. Save the deal time. Deal time at times is very important because you may be in a scenario wherein your client is investing in a very fast-growing startup at a X valuation.
You have done the term sheet and now deal with negotiation going for four months. That startup can tell you; the founders can tell you, look, boss, we are getting other suitors also at a higher valuation. Either you close the deal or we are moving ahead with somebody else. Because you cannot be endlessly trying to negotiate points on transaction documents for another four months or three months.
Very important, it doesn’t matter which side you are, the company side or the founder side or the investor side is to work on the middle grounds. If things are not shaping up positively, then work immediately on the middle grounds. See what is the expectation of all the parties and how all the stakeholders could be protected at the same time how your client can be protected, because what happens a lot of things are practical in nature also. You may want to document it in a certain way, but practically it happens with coordination between the shareholders.
This is how it happens and that is something we will need to understand. So, clarity on must have and it’s good to have and is very much required. And that is why I tell you very, very few lawyers have this clarity. They have acquired it over a period of time, and they are called deal lawyers because they make deals happen.
They act as a fulcrum or a catalyst to the deal as opposed to only doing knowledge sharing with their clients. This is how we are able to strike a balance between our client interest and the interest of the stakeholders on the deal table. While there are multiple other points.
It may not be possible to discuss that in video because that can go into some multiple hours of discussions. There are multiple points at play, but once you’re clear on good to have and must to have, 80% of the job is done.
What a journey, sir. It starts from this, that you entered NLU, Jodhpur and you decided to do your five-year law and then chose corporate law, did internships with a variety of legal patterns. Not only corporate, but I’m amazed that you did it with public interest litigation with going to the villages to understand how nitty-gritties work when it comes to fighting the system with the government and against the government, everything, it’s a fascinating story that you have shared. It is a long journey and it should be with the learners because you really have done almost all. From ground to up. And with so much passion. And it’s absolutely a beautiful interview.
We don’t learn at the cost of somebody else. All of us learn together. This is a kind of a win-win scenario. When I share my thoughts and you share your questions, I also learn along with your questions. Because your questions, your nuanced questions and different questions.
Put me in a scenario where I have to come up with something good, deliver. And this is common learning. And that’s why I am associated with a lot of the student community. I go to a lot of legal institutions, judge even in fact, there are even moot courts, et cetera, and take certificate courses also. Again, quoting professor Mitra here, he used to say that teaching is the best way of learning. So that’s my motto. As much as I can share my experience and learn at the same time, and all of us keep moving forward, keep moving together. So that’s my motto.
With a practice that spans commercial litigation and international arbitration, and a skillset that cuts across multiple domains, how do you stay motivated amidst such professional breadth? What drives your sustained commitment to engaging across disciplines, jurisdictions, and complex legal systems?
Someone I worked with once told me that they looked for three criteria in an attorney: are you decently smart, are you sincere, and do you have a fire in your belly to learn. Keeping that ambition is important, particularly in disputes. Commercial litigation and international arbitration require a high level of grit, because in addition to being passionate about your work, you require sustained patience to be good at what you do. Learning to write storytelling briefs, legal research, and being comfortable appearing before judges all require immense dedication and passion to this profession. It’s simply a longer learning curve than most other specialized areas of law. My motivation lies in knowing that there’s no real end to this learning curve, and there’s always space to grow.
Engaging in different jurisdictions and legal systems allows you to move away from a myopic view of learning. While India and the US are both common law systems, they have different legal principles and more importantly – cultural dynamics. Taking the time to understand both markets (culturally and legally) and being curious has kept me committed to serving clients in both jurisdictions.
You recently completed an LL.M. in International Economic Law, Business, and Policy from Stanford Law School. Why did you pick Stanford over other law schools, and how did this academic experience shape your perspective on the intersection of international law, economic policy, and business? You also received the prestigious J.N. Tata Endowment Scholarship and Gift Award, what was that experience like, and what advice would you offer to students looking to apply?
Choosing to attend Stanford Law was one of the best decisions I ever made. I was fortunate to get admission to a few other prestigious law schools, but I ended up picking Stanford because I felt like it was the best personality fit. While picking schools, we tend to make a pros-and-cons excel sheet with what we tend to think are objective criteria: reputation, financial aid, faculty, depth of courses etc. I tried using this approach and didn’t feel comfortable using it. At some level, I felt like I could overcome these objective criteria – I could get a loan, take courses outside the law school, learn online if I needed to – but I couldn’t possibly change my personality to fit into a school. Universities in the United States have a personality too, and it’s important to check if their personality brings out the best in you. I didn’t want to choose a university on a transactional front; I wanted to pick a place where I felt I was a genuine fit and could thrive without having to be anyone but myself. Stanford embodies an entrepreneurial spirit, where despite being highly competitive, there’s a sense to collaborate and create. I’ve always enjoyed building things, and to be given a platform to embrace this side of my personality was pretty life changing.
Stanford undoubtedly changed the way I approach international law, economic policy, and business. While the faculty were obviously great in terms of subject matter expertise, they taught me new ways to think by constantly forcing me to ask questions and teaching me to be comfortable with not finding answers. Doubt is key to learning, particularly in law where we learn to question everything. It was truly a drastic change to move from being a senior associate at law firms where “I don’t know” isn’t an acceptable answer (since it’s your literal job to know!), to once again being comfortable in uncertainty. I essentially had to unlearn many things and be open to relearning what looked like was obvious to everyone around me. I specifically recall when I was explained the Stanford Duck Syndrome. The Stanford Duck Syndrome is the idea that while a student may appear relaxed —like a calm duck gliding across a fountain — they’re actually furiously peddling underneath the surface. The idea was to help students overcome the imposter syndrome and learn to accept that there is a learning curve to getting acclimatized, particularly for international attorneys. It’s safe to say that after a few months in Stanford, I wasn’t a duck.
The J.N. Tata Endowment Scholarship and Gift Award was truly a blessing. Shortlisted applicants need to clear a technical round, followed by an interview round, where you’re questioned not just on technical expertise but given hypothetical scenarios to understand the way you think. I would strongly encourage students to apply for this scholarship. The scholarship is not only prestigious and gives you financial freedom, but it also gave me the privilege of time; I was able to put in time and effort in other extracurriculars at Stanford (particularly when I was running the Stanford International Arbitration Association) which I would have otherwise spent working part-time on campus.
You’re admitted to practice in both India and the State of New York. Could you walk us through your preparation for the New York Bar exam, and how this dual qualification has expanded or enhanced your legal practice?
The New York Bar exam was definitely an experience. I was a practicing lawyer for several years, with court appearances, cross-examinations, and negotiated settlements under my belt, so you wouldn’t think learning law was new to me. But Stanford runs on the quarter system, so everything moves at lightning speed. You’re taking classes, working on assignments, participating in extracurriculars till mid-June — all while preparing for an exam that tests multiple subjects in depth over two days in July. What saved me was accepting early on that this wasn’t a test of brilliance, but rather a test of discipline.
I remember creating a simple rule: read everything, be patient, and practice. I didn’t aim to master each topic right off the bat but just focused on becoming comfortable with concepts. Eventually, through hours of repetition and simulation, and weeks of practice tests, I managed to do okay. I also began viewing bar prep as a tool to better understand New York law— and that made it far more engaging than rote memorization.
Being dual-qualified in India and New York has helped me approach client problems with a comparative lens. It signals to clients that I can bridge the gap across jurisdictions, not just on paper, but in lived experience. For instance, when advising an Indian client on a U.S. motion to dismiss, I might explain it through the framework of an Order 7 Rule 11 application (similarities and differences considered). But beyond procedural translation, what makes a real difference is understanding the cultural texture beneath the law — the instincts, expectations, and communication styles that shape how clients perceive risk. That kind of fluency doesn’t come from textbooks. It comes from having practiced and appeared in courts in both systems. Being dual-qualified, to me, isn’t just about knowing two sets of laws. It’s about being able to speak about two legal cultures, and everything in between.
You’ve represented a diverse range of clients from state governments to technology and gaming companies, and you’ve appeared in multiple courts. Could you share an especially compelling case in or matter that stood out to you in India, and how you approached it?
I can share a few I handled, but unfortunately most of the arbitrations are confidential. The ones that strike my mind are a public interest litigation before the High Court of Karnataka in India, a negotiation which I handled for a founder leaving a poker company, and an international ICC arbitration.
The public interest litigation in India concerned the non-implementation of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976. The object of the Trees Act is to prevent indiscriminate felling of trees and maintain ecological balance by establishing a strict procedure and mandating compensatory afforestation. To cut a tree in the State of Karnataka, an application is to be submitted to a Tree Officer, who must assess if there is a genuine requirement to cut a tree and direct the applicant to conduct suitable compensatory afforestation. By filing several right to information requests with the statutory authorities, we discovered that organizations had failed to follow due procedure, and large-scale permissions were being granted to corporates causing a heavy loss of tree cover in the city of Bengaluru. We filed applications to direct government authorities to conduct a tree census in the city of Bengaluru and engage a company to develop an application to make this data publicly available and obtained an order requiring all permissions and applications to be uploaded on an official government website for the first time since the enactment of the Trees Act in 1976. I had the chance to argue a few applications before the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka against the Additional Advocate General and very well-known senior counsel, and these moments reminded me why I chose to be an attorney in the first place.
I also led a mandate of advising two founders on a heated exit from a leading online poker company. The negotiation took almost two years to complete, and I was working directly with the founding partner of my firm and the client on this mandate. We ultimately negotiated favorable terms for the founders’ exit with some assets of the company. This was a lesson of patience, and the client continues to be a good friend.
My most memorable arbitration was when I was a lead associate on a London seated ICC arbitration involving a construction dispute where we were able to secure a comprehensive victory for our clients, with costs. We had to draft urgent pleadings, reports and submissions, prepare for a trial by working with fact and expert witnesses, and I assisted the partner with conducting cross-examination and hearings. The expert was so impressed with our work that we got more referrals for arbitration mandates.
Your writing and conference portfolio spans topics such as international law, international arbitration and contract termination, all in prestigious journals or sources. How do you select the themes you write about, and what role do you believe legal scholarship plays in informing or influencing real-world legal practice?
I wish I could say I had a grand plan when it comes to selecting writing or panel topics. But most of my writing is sparked by curiosity or a moment of friction in practice. Something doesn’t sit right. A client asks a deceptively simple question. Or I notice a growing silence in the literature around an issue that’s rapidly evolving. That’s usually my cue to pause, dig deeper, and ask: “Why is no one talking about this?”
For example, I recently wrote two articles for Bar and Bench and Law360 on the growing legal business need in India, and how foreign firms tend to view these markets. It’s not a typical “law article,” but it does answer a lot of questions that I get from international students who want to make a career in the US regarding how foreign firms make decisions. It also helps foreign firms understand a market that is otherwise considered “tough to crack.” Similarly, when I wrote on contract termination during insolvency, it was because I had dealt with the real-life consequences of clients being caught in the grey zones between regulatory change and contractual rigidity. These were not abstract ideas, but live wires in the matters I was working on.
As for the role of legal scholarship, it can be a place where practice meets pause. The courtroom is fast, reactive, and adversarial, but writing allows you to reflect, to breathe, and even occasionally critique your own assumptions. More importantly, it helps shape the scaffolding of what tomorrow’s disputes might look like and acts as an informative guide to clients, judges, policymakers, students and even practitioners. For me, writing is a form of contribution. It’s how I participate in the growth of the field — not just as a practitioner, but as a member of a global legal community asking itself how to do better.
You’ve continued to judge international moot court competitions such as Oxford-Price Media, ICC and Jessup and often participate in and organize international arbitration panels. Why do you continue to do this, and how important do you feel it is to participate in panel discussions? What are other ways that young professionals can get involved in the arbitration community?
Mooting was a big part of law school for me. International moots taught me the application of law, advocacy skills, brief writing and teamwork; all of which continue to serve me today. I continue to judge some of these international moot competitions to try give back to students what was given to me.
Panels are a great way to naturally network and meet people in international arbitration. It’s a field where there are multiple conferences every year, and you have the privilege to select panels which interest you. When I was elected as one of the Presidents of the Stanford International Arbitration Association, I used that opportunity to organize panels on interdisciplinary topics that were not commonly discussed in international arbitration, e.g., international arbitration and corporate governance disputes. I also managed to organize a one-of-a-kind panel on US-India disputes during the California International Arbitration Week, where some panelists flew in from India. I was also invited to a wonderful AAA-ICDR panel on how silence can be interpreted in arbitration, with each person on that panel having a broad international perspective. Those panels allowed me to meet many fantastic international practitioners, who were then mentors and are now great friends. The arbitration community is small, and it helps to have a trusted group of friends.
I would strongly urge students and young practitioners to join organizations that resonate with them. For instance, I’ve been an active member of CalArb since I moved to the US and have continued to attend the California International Arbitration Week as a moderator for the last two years. I’m also a steering committee member of IWIA and a Peer Reviewer for the GNLU SRDC-ADR Magazine. Being at the helm of organizations really helps you naturally connect with your peers in the arbitration community.
From GNLU to Stanford and your extensive work across litigation, arbitration, and academia, what advice would you offer to young Indian lawyers aspiring to build a global legal career? What mindset or skills do you believe are essential to thrive in international legal settings?
Many young lawyers reach out to me with the same question: “What’s the path?” And my honest answer is that there isn’t one path. But if there’s one mindset I think is essential, it is that it’s okay not being the most knowledgeable person in a room. When I moved from India to the U.S., I had already argued in courtrooms, cross-examined witnesses, and led client negotiations. But in the US, I was always surrounded by excellent — and far better— peers, both at my law school and my current law firm. I was always told not to be afraid of being the least experienced person in the room, because that just means you’re in the right room. Second, detach your identity from titles. I’ve been an associate, a senior associate, a student, a tribunal secretary — and each role taught me something profoundly different. The point isn’t to climb a ladder, but rather to try to expand your vision. Finally, be willing to fail. And more importantly, be willing to fail better. One of the most liberating shifts in my mindset was realizing that failure is not static but rather directional. If you’re failing at things that matter and learn from that ‘failure’, you’re probably moving closer to being excellent at the work you’re meant to do.
A global legal career is built on persistence, perspective, and an openness to being reshaped by the world you’re trying to serve.
Reflecting on the early years of your professional journey, what were some of the most formative experiences that shaped your understanding of the law and motivated you to pursue an international trajectory?
Looking back, I think it was a very natural but not direct progression. I was always inclined towards political science and economics in school, gravitated toward spaces where people debated and defended their ideas, and heavily participated in Model UNs (from Harvard to Doon); all of which gave me a glimpse into how power, diplomacy, and language interact. At law school, I started applying law to defending ideas and participated in international moot court competitions. Jessup and ICC were particularly transformative because they are immensely immersive simulations of international law. I remember spending nights untangling treaties, piecing together arguments on state responsibility, and realizing how layered global law could be. It was also easy to draft briefs because I was simultaneously learning to review drafts while being on editorial boards at journals. Mooting taught me precision and encouraged me to apply for international opportunities.
An international opportunity that stuck out to me was working at the International Law Commission in Geneva for the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. My law school was also very helpful and awarded me a scholarship once I was selected. Sitting in on discussions where international rules were being drafted, I saw first-hand how legal systems tried (and often struggled) to build consensus. That experience gave me the quiet conviction that I wanted to be in rooms like that, where the stakes were high, but there was a strong intent to collaborate.
Those early years weren’t always linear. But they were rich — and they planted the seeds for everything that followed.
You’re a certified Classical Spanish Guitarist, an extraordinary pursuit alongside your legal career. How do you manage work-life balance, and has your engagement with music influenced your approach to stress management, creativity, or sustained focus in high-pressure legal environments?
I don’t think I’ve ever liked the phrase “work-life balance.” It feels like a scale you’re constantly failing to calibrate. I follow Indra Nooyi’s thoughts on this: it’s not about doing it all—it’s about prioritizing what matters most today.
Having hobbies is important not just to reduce stress but also to help you forcibly take a pause. The classical guitar has always been my little escape. It requires discipline, concentration, and most importantly, to enjoy the music you’re playing. You can’t rush through a Bach prelude — your fingers won’t let you and the music makes no sense. Playing music trains your mind to be fully present, to respect silence, and to pay attention to your notes.
In law, especially in high-stakes litigation or arbitration, we’re constantly managing pressure, deadlines, and expectations. It’s easy to lose yourself, and needless to say that your family and friends play a huge role in feeling like you have a solid support system. My mom (who was a fantastic business leader in her own right, much like most women I know), had a huge influence in my life growing up and continues to do so. Luckily, neither my mom nor many close friends are attorneys, and their perspective helps me view work from a less “all-encompassing” lens.
With nearly 12 years of impressive experience in the legal field, what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law? Which aspects of the profession resonated with you the most, and how did your time at NALSAR University of Law shape your legal journey?
I wish I had a more elevated answer to give you on what inspired me to become a lawyer. I think I was 10 years old when I got into a playful argument with my uncle. His son in law watched the entire episode and causally remarked that I should become a lawyer. I said “sure” and from that day I didn’t even conceive of an alternative career. In short, I have my brother in law to credit (or blame, depending on how the day is going).
The way I’ve looked at the profession has changed quite a bit from the time I chose to become a lawyer. Like many other first generation lawyers, my understanding of what a lawyer does was informed by TV shows, movies and books. Of course, NALSAR and my internships during my time in law school made me realise the difference between fiction and reality. During my five years in law school, I was fairly certain that I would litigate – though for the longest time I don’t think I really knew why. Quite naively, I conceived of a career as a lawyer from only two perspectives – litigating lawyer and transactional lawyer. I had tried my hand at corporate law during my internships, and by the process of elimination I knew I did not want to become a transactional lawyer. I also had a keen interest in debating and public speaking, so a career that enabled me to speak to an audience daily for living seemed the right fit.
Your LL.M. studies at the prestigious University of Michigan Law School must have been a transformative experience. How did those studies influence your practice, particularly in the fields of competition law, constitutional law, and criminal justice? Were there any specific courses or professors whose impact on your legal career has been particularly significant?
My LLM program at the University of Michigan Law School was both enriching and perhaps one of the toughest things I’ve done in my life. While I can’t say for sure if the content of the law that I learnt has impacted my career (yet), Michigan Law’s emphasis on teaching you to think like a lawyer definitely has. The professors who taught me the courses were experts at the Socratic method, and each day and each class felt like a very public final exam. Particularly, courses by Prof Don Herzog (Political Corruption), Prof Eve Primus (Criminal Procedure) and Prof Richard Primus (Constitutional Law) were life changing. The professors focused more on making us think of a legal argument from both sides seamlessly and sharpen our legal reasoning abilities. I also got the opportunity to take up courses outside the law school, and had the privilege to be selected for a leadership program by the Stephen M Ross School of Business. So I also got to learn a lot outside the law in Michigan.
Having had the privilege to work with eminent legal figures such as Mr. P.S. Narasimha, the Additional Solicitor General of India, and Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar at the Delhi High Court, what were the key lessons you learned from them? How did these experiences shape your approach to the practice of law, and which habits or skills from these mentors have you integrated into your own professional style?
After NALSAR, I joined Dr. S. Muralidhar, then Judge of the Delhi High Court, as his law clerk for a year. I believe I started to think seriously about the context of the law – and its nuts and bolts – only after joining his office. More importantly, the biggest lesson I learnt during my time as his clerk was that the profession isn’t about me – it isn’t about how I am perceived in court while arguing, how much fame and fortune I get through being a lawyer, or how many important cases I’ve done, but about who I represent and their lived reality.
Carrying this understanding of the profession, I next joined the chambers of Mr. PS Narasimha, then the Additional Solicitor General of India, for two years before I left for my LL.M. In those two years, I had the chance to be part of some landmark cases like the challenge to the NJAC and the challenge to criminal defamation laws. Working with Mr. PS Narasimha — now Justice Narasimha — was a fantastic experience, as I learnt how to at once look at the big picture while handling a case and analyse precedent granularly.
Perhaps most importantly, working under both of them taught me about the value of giving space to a junior lawyer – space to think, to express himself, and to have the freedom to be wrong.
You have represented a Member of Parliament before the High Court of Karnataka in a public interest litigation challenging the orders issued under Section 144 CrPC by the Government of Karnataka in Bengaluru. What were the key legal arguments you put forth in the case, and how did you navigate the complexities and high stakes involved in such a significant matter?
When the client approached us, given the time sensitivities involved, we only had about three or four hours to draft, file, get the matter listed and brief our senior counsel. But despite the short timelines and the pressure of getting the matter heard on time, a bunch of counsel who were representing similar petitioners got together and helped us in the process of filing and listing the matter – exemplifying the collaborative nature of litigation in general, and our bar in particular.
In terms of the merits of the matter, our petition started off focusing on constructing arguments on the values that the Constitution espouses and the meaning of the right to free speech and the right to protest. However, at the time of briefing and during arguments, our senior counsel decided to take a more practical approach to the matter by arguing on administrative law grounds – specifically, whether the orders were issued in a procedurally proper manner, and with reasons. This taught us the value of knowing when to call on a bench to make value-laden calls on the content of rights like free speech and the right to protest, and when to just focus on more objective standards of what the letter of the law permits and prohibits. This approach eventually helped the petitioners win the case, and made me realise the merit of developing tightly reasoned and irrefutable arguments — far from the type that make headlines.
After working with a range of esteemed lawyers and law firms, what motivated you to establish your own practice? What were some of the initial challenges you faced in this transition, and how did you overcome them to establish a successful practice?
Whether I’ve established a successful practice is for time to tell. I suppose I, like most litigating lawyers, always wanted to set up my own practice after working for a few years under someone. And as many litigators will tell you, a big part of being a litigating lawyer is being at the right place and at the right time. Before setting up my own practice, I had the chance to handle some of my own clients while being part of Arista Chambers, run by Promod Nair – now a senior counsel — in 2019. During my time at Arista, I slowly built up a base of clients largely through word of mouth. Then Covid hit and a lot changed. By January 2021, it felt like the time was right to start my own practice.
The real challenge that I faced – and perhaps continue to face – is more internal than anything that involves the actual practice of the law. I don’t know if this is an experience every other litigator has but, for me, I kept (or keep) changing the goalposts. Initially, when I started off, my concerns were about the number of clients and matters I had; this soon changed, and I started to worry about whether I was earning enough to stay on top of things. Very quickly, I moved on to worrying about the kind of matters I was doing and how much of a role I had in various matters. Rinse, repeat. So, essentially, I found myself stressing about different things relating to a career in litigation. Today, I guess I’ve become a bit better at getting some distance from all this, but I would be lying if I said I’ve completely moved beyond these challenges.
You’ve represented an AI startup in the past. How do you see the future of AI and technology law evolving, particularly in relation to intellectual property rights, data privacy, and regulatory frameworks? What challenges do you anticipate in balancing innovation with legal protections in this rapidly advancing field?
This may sound like a cliché, but the biggest challenge, I suppose, will be to see whether the law can keep up with technology that appears to be evolving every few months. We’re already seeing this play out live in the Delhi High Court with ANI taking OpenAI to court for copyright infringement. It’ll be interesting to see how the court applies the current copyright regime to deal with technology that was not even conceived at the time the legislation was enacted. The same goes for data privacy. Machine learning technology is rapidly evolving, and I believe the current consent-based approach to data privacy will be tested. I’m not sure how consent can be practically obtained for every instance of use of data when you consider how Gen-AI repurposes data continuously for new outcomes. We may therefore need to imagine a different, more comprehensive data privacy framework for machine learning – or perhaps a separate regulation policy – which not only accounts for the growth and development of the sector, but also keeps at its centre the individual whom the sector is supposed to ultimately serve.
With your extensive experience spanning constitutional law, commercial disputes, and more, what aspects of the litigation field continue to inspire and drive you? Looking ahead, what vision do you have for both your own career and the future of your firm and how do you balance your personal life with such a demanding career?
Three aspects mainly – firstly, I absolutely love the theatre of it all. I like thinking about the delivery of the argument, what style works before which judge, what the judge is thinking at any given point, how to craft the argument before the delivery, and finally the actual delivery of the argument. Secondly, no two days in litigation are the same. One day we are fighting a contentious shareholder dispute; the next day we are going up against the state to protect a farmer’s rights. I’m not sure there are very many professions that enable such diversity in work. Thirdly, every once in a while, you get to represent someone who has been left out by the system.
My interest in litigation naturally extends to wanting to nurture those who will shape its future (something I’ve gained immensely from thanks to my previous bosses). At Sadananda & Prasad, we’ve been trying to make it a sort of incubation chamber for future lawyers and a safe space to develop as a lawyer. I believe every good litigator eventually has the dream of starting off on their own, and we hope to create a space where lawyers can come, learn, and start to grow their own practice while not being afraid to fail. That is our vision, and we hope in time this vision is realised.
Of course, dedication to this vision, and to the profession as a whole, is demanding. That naturally leads to the question of personal balance. I used to try to unwind by either playing a sport or noodling on the guitar or piano. Now I have a 16-month-old, and I spend a significant chunk of my time pretending to be a monkey for her sake. Truth be told, personally, nothing is more stress-relieving.
What advice would you give to law students aspiring to build a career like yours? What key skills or qualities do you believe are essential for success in these fields? Your journey serves as an inspiration for many, and any advice from you would be invaluable to aspiring legal professionals.
The role of luck is frankly quite underrated. You may be the best legal mind in the room but still not get the opportunities to showcase it merely because it just isn’t your time. I’ve seen far better lawyers than me give up on litigation simply because of this. So my advice to aspiring litigators would be to just wait for it and don’t give up. Be patient and equanimous. Everyone’s time comes in litigation. In the meantime, be prepared for that moment. Observe and learn from your seniors and peers; know the law – the letter of the law, its logic, and finally its actual practice, so that when your chance comes – which it will – you’re ready to take it. And as my ex-boss often insisted, remember, it’s not about you.
