With over 15 years in the legal services industry, what initially drew you to this field, and how has your journey from initial years evolved to leading practice at your current company shaped your professional outlook?
From my childhood, law was almost a family tradition. My grandfather, my father, and my uncle were all lawyers. Growing up surrounded by legal discussions and a home office full of clients made it natural for me to follow that path. I never doubted that I would become a lawyer. On the way I adapted a bit and embraced tech along with solving legal issues for my clients.
You completed your LL.B from India and an LL.M from the University of Leicester. How did studying law in both India and the UK shape your perspective, and what aspects of each system have influenced your approach to legal practice?
After my LL.B in India from Madhusudan Law College at Cuttack, I wanted to broaden my horizons. I first considered Australia, but a friend encouraged me to go to the University of Leicester. It turned out to be the best decision. I immersed myself in arbitration, met amazing mentors like Camilla Anderson and Martin Hunter, and gained an international perspective that I still have with me. I spent a lot of time studying and preparing for the vis moot competition at Vienna, although I don’t regret it a bit, but I wish I had networked more and built more contacts. I advise youngsters who reach out to me before embarking on their masters journey to spend more and more time networking with people and building those meaningful relationships. I wish someone would have told me this. While you won’t realize the power of networking in your 20s, it will certainly come to your aid in your 40s when you are in a leadership role and your friends are all leaders at various organizations across the globe.
Having worked across diverse industries telecom, technology, automobile, and banking what common industry specific challenges do clients face in contract management and eDiscovery, and how do you navigate these challenges?
As a legal services professional our role is always industry agnostic but in all the major industries like telecom, tech, banking, and automotive, clients often struggle with large amounts of data. This is where we become a bridge between law and tech. I use technology to simplify that complexity. It’s about making things clear and efficient so they can focus on their business rather than the legal maze. My other area of focus has always been on Contracts Lifecycle Management and I see a lot of clients across industries struggling to manage their contracts. I have developed a deep expertise in Contracts Lifecycle Management (CLM) helping clients streamline their contracts by creating standard playbooks, doing industry benchmarks and helping them with preferred and fallback positions.
Your international experience spans the US, UK, Canada, and Southeast Asia. How have differences in culture, legal frameworks, and business practices across these regions influenced the way you manage cross-country teams and navigate work in diverse jurisdictions?
Working in the US, UK, Canada, and Southeast Asia taught me that while legal frameworks differ, people and culture drive action. The US focuses on clients and results. The UK puts importance on governance and structure. Canada mixes process with teamwork, while Southeast Asia values relationships. Managing teams across countries means adjusting communication styles, decision-making processes, and delivery methods. For instance, I find a balance between being efficient and respecting hierarchical norms in Asia. These experiences improved my ability to switch between frameworks, honor cultural differences, and still achieve globally consistent results. This skill is essential when handling matters in multiple jurisdictions.
As Director of Forensic and Financial Crime, you lead operations, client management, and business development. How do you balance the strategic aspects of growing the practice with the day-to-day demands of execution, and what does a typical day in your role look like?
My role is really about balancing two worlds including driving the growth of the practice and delivering for clients. On any given day, I might be working on market strategy in the morning and then jumping into a client call by the afternoon and taking a Global call in the evening. The key is prioritization and making sure the team feels empowered so both sides run effectively. By God’s grace, I’ve been fortunate to be part of some very large, even unicorn-level matters in both eDiscovery and CLM, and I’ve navigated the deep lanes of execution along the way. But what truly shaped me was the shift into strategy and that only comes with experience and tenure. I’ve learned that being perfect at one thing will take you far, but to move further you need to embrace imperfection, broaden your scope, and take risks. One of my mentors once told me, you are not an avenger, you will not get a single chance to save the world, you are a common man, make sure you do small things and do them well every single day. This has remained with and has shaped how I look at leadership and growth.
You’ve been at the forefront of integrating technology, including GenAI-powered review solutions and accelerators, into legal processes. What role do you see technology playing in reshaping contract lifecycle management and eDiscovery over the next few years?
For me, technology isn’t just a tool anymore, it’s central to how we provide legal services. With NavigAite ( a GenAI tool developed by my team), for example, I’ve seen how GenAI can change reviews by making it faster, more accurate, and easier for clients. It goes beyond just spotting PII or privilege. It helps teams build facts, create timelines, and make decisions with confidence. In CLM, GenAI is taking away the tedious tasks of clause extraction and risk checks. This allows people to concentrate on negotiation and strategy. I often tell clients that the real change is moving from tools that support to platforms that actively guide outcomes. What excites me the most is seeing teams that were once doubtful now asking for more demos. They can feel the difference. That’s when you know technology is changing how we work. It is a matter of time that embracing tech will no more be an option, it would become a necessity for survival.
Having handled high-stakes matters such as global outsourcing contracts and multi-jurisdictional cases, what has been your most challenging project so far, and how do you navigate the pressures that come with such complex work?
Interestingly, my most challenging project wasn’t a large one; it was a 4 day long review which literally decimated my brain into pieces. The client was pushing us hard, and we had to adapt every few hours. It taught me that change management is crucial in our field. If you can handle constant shifts, you can handle anything. Handling changes while balancing risks is key to our profession and someone who masters this, is poised for success. Sometimes you will be in a situation where you feel “that’s it, I am done” but remember everything changes and it changes for good, just hang in there and have some patience.
For young professionals aspiring to build a career at the intersection of law, technology, and project management, what skills and mindset should they prioritize to succeed in today’s globalized legal services environment?
For those aiming to work at the intersection of law, technology, and project management, building a diverse skill set is key. Legal knowledge is essential, but being comfortable with technology is also important, especially in AI, contract tools, and data analytics. Strong project management and client engagement skills set good professionals apart from great ones. In terms of mindset, curiosity, adaptability, and resilience are must-haves. The industry is changing quickly, so the ability to learn, unlearn, and relearn is crucial. I often advise young professionals to focus not only on technical skills but also on understanding the business side, knowing how legal solutions contribute to business results. I follow this 80 and 20 rule where in your early years 80% is your subject matter knowledge and 20% is your soft skills, but if you don’t focus on the 20% early in your career, it will be extremely difficult to adapt when you move into senior levels where the 80 becomes 20 and the 20 becomes 80. Soft skills are equally important to hone along with other aspects. Focus on listening, drafting business emails, elevators pitch, speaking with confidence and being persuasive at an early stage.
With all the responsibilities at work, how do you balance your personal life with it? What activities do you undertake to maintain work life balance?
Balancing work and personal life in our industry is never easy, but I’ve found it comes down to being fully present where I’m needed. With my son, I make it a point to be there during his taekwondo sessions; with my wife, I support her creative journey; and when it’s time to work, I give it my all. For me, work-life balance doesn’t mean shutting off at 6 PM or ignoring calls on weekends, it’s about knowing when to prioritize work and when to prioritize family. I’m also a foodie, and that keeps me energized. I’m always looking forward to the next meal, where I’ll eat, and who I’ll share it with. It sounds simple, but it gives me daily motivation. The same applies to vacations, I always apply for my next one right after I return. Having something to look forward to, whether it’s a meal or a trip, keeps me positive, focused, and more diligent in my work.
You have built a distinguished career as a Financial Crimes & Corporate Governance Lawyer. What initially drew you to this specialisation, and how did your academic background shape the perspective you bring to your practice today?
I grew up around conversations on business and decision-making, so questions of accountability and systems were never abstract for me; they were part of daily life. That naturally drew me toward financial crimes and governance, because I could see how one weak link could impact an entire organization. My academic journey from JGLS to experiences at LSE and Augsburg University gave me the global perspective I needed. It taught me to look at compliance and governance not just as rules to follow, but as tools to build trust and resilience. That mix of early exposure and academic grounding still defines the way I practice today.
In your experience across developed and emerging markets, what are the most striking differences in investigative and compliance strategies? Which international best practices could be effectively localised for India’s evolving landscape?
I would challenge the notion that the differences in compliance approaches lie solely between developed and emerging markets. In my experience, the real distinction is not geographical; it stems from the ethics, priorities, and compliance mindset of an organisation’s leadership. When leadership is genuinely committed to integrity and transparency, even jurisdictions with evolving regulations can foster proactive and effective compliance. Conversely, where leadership is indifferent or evasive, even the most advanced regulatory systems can be rendered ineffective.
That said, India can certainly benefit from selectively adopting global best practices, such as strengthening internal controls, conducting sharper and more independent compliance audits, and leveraging technology-driven tools for real-time monitoring. However, these mechanisms only achieve their purpose when reinforced by strong leadership and a well-equipped legal and compliance ecosystem that recognizes compliance not merely as a shield against penalties, but as a foundation for building sustainable trust.
Looking toward the next decade, how do you envision the fusion of technology, governance, and cross-border regulation reshaping compliance practice, especially with the rise of AI and digital investigation tools?
AI is certainly going to play an important role in compliance and investigations, but I don’t see it as something that will completely take over. The human element, the judgment, experience, and ethical grounding that specialists in this field bring, remains irreplaceable. Complex financial crime matters often involve nuance, intent, and context that no algorithm can yet fully grasp. It will take AI time to reach that stage.
That said, I view AI as an additional strength in the lawyer’s toolkit. It can help sift through vast volumes of data, spot unusual patterns, and accelerate processes that once took weeks. But at the end of the day, AI is a supporting hand, not the lead investigator. The control, the strategy, and the interpretation still rest with the human professional.
Right now, there is a tendency to overstate AI’s capabilities, almost treating it as magic. But in reality, it is just another tool, powerful, yes, but still a tool. I compare it to how Microsoft Office transformed law practice in the 1990s. Back then, it didn’t replace lawyers, but it fundamentally changed how we worked and made us more efficient. I believe AI will do the same; it will make us sharper and faster, but it won’t replace the human expertise at the core of the legal practice.
The surge in online fraud, cyber-enabled financial crimes, and digital payment scams has created new challenges for regulators, corporates, and law enforcement alike. From your perspective, what gaps still exist in India’s current framework to address these threats, and how can legal practitioners play a proactive role in combating them?
Online fraud is one of the fastest-growing risks, not just for individuals but for corporates and financial institutions. The sheer speed and cross-border nature of these crimes often outpaces traditional investigative and regulatory tools. While India has made strides with measures like the RBI’s fraud monitoring systems and the CERT-In framework, the ecosystem still faces gaps in coordination, reporting, and accountability.
One of the biggest gaps is siloed response—banks, fintechs, law enforcement, and regulators often act reactively and in isolation. A more integrated framework, with real-time intelligence sharing, is urgently needed. Another issue is underreporting; many organisations hesitate to disclose fraud incidents out of fear of reputational damage, which only perpetuates vulnerabilities.
Lawyers in white-collar practice can contribute significantly here: by advising corporates on robust fraud-prevention policies, ensuring compliance with reporting obligations, and guiding internal investigations that meet both legal and regulatory standards. Beyond that, we can help bridge the gap between technology and law—working with forensic experts, fintech players, and regulators to shape practical frameworks that keep pace with evolving digital threats.
As an established lawyer in governance, investigations, and white-collar matters, how do you mentor the next generation? What skills or tools do you recommend for them to thrive in today’s rapidly shifting regulatory and technological terrain?
Mentorship, to me, is first and foremost about giving young lawyers the confidence to keep going and ensuring they don’t give up when the work feels overwhelming. This is a demanding field, and in the early years, it’s easy to doubt yourself. Sometimes the best role a mentor can play is simply to reassure them that discipline, consistency, and patience will carry them through.
Beyond that, I see mentorship as preparing young lawyers not just for today’s challenges but for tomorrow’s uncertainties. I encourage them to cultivate adaptability, strategic thinking, and clear communication, because in white-collar practice, clients look to you as a trusted advisor, not just a lawyer. I also urge them to embrace technology – mastering data analytics, digital forensics, and regulatory tech platforms is no longer optional.
Most importantly, I remind them that tools and trends will keep changing, but ethics, resilience, and statutory grounding never go out of fashion. Regulatory landscapes will shift, but if you stay curious, disciplined, and grounded in the law, you’ll be equipped to thrive at the intersection of law, business, and technology.
Finally, what is your long-term vision for your practice as a Financial Crimes & Corporate Governance Lawyer? And how do you manage the demands and pressures of such an intense field while maintaining personal well-being?
For me, discipline always tops the list. Without discipline, nothing else really sustains. Over time, discipline creates habits, and those habits make it easier to do the workday in and day out. In the early stages of your career, when you’re putting in long hours and truly immersing yourself, that consistency shapes you into a stronger professional. It’s like practice in any field—the more you repeat, the sharper you get.
I also believe the right mindset matters just as much. Keeping the outlook of a leader, taking ownership, thinking ahead, and combining it with the endurance of an athlete helps you enjoy the journey rather than just endure it. This is not an easy profession, but when you bring discipline, habits, leadership, and endurance together, the work becomes something you grow with, not something you burn out from. That’s what keeps me motivated and makes the practice rewarding.
With extensive experience in law, you specialize in financial offences, particularly under the PMLA and the Prevention of Corruption Act. What initially drew you to this area, and how have you seen the landscape of white-collar crime evolve in India over the years?
What drew me to this space and what keeps me here is the fact that financial crime enforcement sits at the crossroads of criminal law, regulatory risk, and constitutional rights. As I see it, financial offences are not just a regulatory issue. They are a fundamental rights issue. When assets are attached, when accounts are frozen, or when public notices are issued, it’s not just compliance at stake, it’s the right to property, the right to reputation, and sometimes the very ability of a client to run their business. Even the presumption of innocence can become collateral in financial crime enforcement. These are fundamental protections under the Constitution, but they get tested in the financial crime context more often than we like to admit.
Over the years, I’ve seen the enforcement landscape shift from reactive prosecution to preemptive intervention. There’s more focus on pattern recognition, on tracing funds, re-examining legacy transactions, and questioning ownership structures. Regulatory triggers have become anticipatory. Regulators are now looking at patterns of conduct, structures of ownership, and financial relationships that may give rise to perceived risk, even before a clear offence has been proven. This means that perfectly legitimate business activity can still lead to enforcement action, especially when cross-border elements or financial opacity are involved. For businesses and individuals, it creates exposure not just to penalties, but to loss of control, reputational damage, and prolonged regulatory entanglement. For lawyers, it demands a different toolkit: you need to defend the transaction, secure the property, and protect the client’s constitutional rights all at once. It requires precision, discretion, and the ability to respond both to immediate crises and long-term structural risks.
Your early career included serving as a law clerk to two Chief Justices of India. How did that exposure shape your understanding of judicial reasoning, and in what ways does it continue to influence your litigation strategy today?
Anyone who clerks with a judge of a constitutional court will have fundamentally altered how they approach litigation because they realize that judicial reasoning is not simply how judges think about the law, but also policy implications, social impact, and the architecture of fairness. At the Supreme Court level, the court is not just applying precedent; it’s balancing competing rights, institutional considerations, and long-term consequences. My clerkship experience trained me to think in layers that while there’s the technical legal argument, there is also the judicial perspective on control, liberty, propriety, and fairness, all of which come into play when dealing with any legal issue, but especially when dealing with financial offence litigation. Enforcement cases aren’t just about statutes like the PMLA or the Prevention of Corruption Act, they often raise underlying constitutional questions, particularly when asset security or personal liberty is at stake. So I always prioritize anticipating what the judicial priority is with any issue. Is it asset preservation, regulatory deterrence, or protecting fundamental rights? My strategy is calibrated accordingly whether that means structuring a case for early intervention, limiting collateral damage, or helping courts find a middle path that resolves the issue without setting unintended precedents.
Having assisted Mr. K. K. Venugopal during your tenure in the office of the Attorney General, what were some of the key takeaways from working closely as a counsel?
Working with Mr. Venugopal has been an exercise in legal craftsmanship. He is someone who can reduce the most complex matters into their simplest legal propositions, without losing nuance. The biggest takeaway was learning how to balance legal acumen with diplomacy. As the Attorney General, you are not just an advocate but also a constitutional advisor. That role requires restraint, judgment, and an ability to see the larger picture.
I also observed the value of preparation. No argument was ever made lightly. Everything was tested, refined, and stress-tested again before being presented in court. That level of rigor has stayed with me.
What are some common blind spots or legal risks that founders and corporations often overlook?
One of the most common blind spots is transactional tunnel vision that founders and boards are often focused on growth and deal-making, but not on the legal structures underpinning that growth. This leads to risks in areas like regulatory exposure, anti-money laundering compliance, or cross-border taxation.
Another overlooked area is relationship risk. Founders may underestimate how interpersonal disputes with co-founders, partners, or family members can evolve into full-blown legal conflicts affecting control, governance, and even asset security.
There’s also the misconception that having a legal team on payroll automatically means risk is covered. Often, the most sensitive risks i.e. reputational damage, regulatory inquiries, or intra-group conflicts require a different layer of strategic legal counsel.
What advice would you offer to young lawyers aiming to build a similar niche in litigation and compliance?
Financial crime, compliance, and regulatory defense are multidisciplinary. What would help is to understand not just statutes but also market behaviour, regulatory intent, and enforcement trends. So one would have to look beyond the black-letter law.
Secondly, building both litigation and advisory skills. The best compliance lawyers understand how enforcement happens, and the best litigators understand where risk begins. That dual perspective is valuable.
Finally, cultivating relationships of trust. In sensitive practice areas, clients don’t just need legal expertise; they need discretion, judgment, and someone who can help them think several steps ahead.
What influenced your decision to pursue law in the first place? Was it a long-standing goal, or did your interest develop over time through specific experiences?
For me, law was a natural choice because it sits at the intersection of language, strategy, and problem-solving. I was always drawn to fields that involve analyzing systems and human conduct. That said, my interest in financial crime and regulatory law evolved over time. The more I saw how deeply legal structures shape real-world outcomes especially for businesses and individuals operating in grey zones, the more I realized this was the area where I wanted to focus.
After working across diverse legal roles, what inspired you to set up your own independent practice? What initial challenges did you face, and how did you navigate them?
It was more a gradual recognition that the kind of legal work I wanted to do was strategically complex, often preventive rather than reactive and didn’t quite fit within the traditional firm or counsel structure. I realized that clients didn’t just need courtroom representation or compliance checklists; they needed someone to map their risk, help them anticipate legal exposure, and work across silos: private, regulatory, reputational. The decision to go independent was more about alignment. I wanted to design a practice that allowed for deep thinking, selective work, and long-term relationships. That came with its own challenges and one of the core challenges has been that the Indian legal and business ecosystem isn’t entirely ready for this kind of role. Many still see legal advisors in binary terms either courtroom litigators or compliance officers. My practice doesn’t fit neatly into either box and it will only be over time that businesses in India will begin to see the difference strategic legal foresight makes. That means only a select group of clients who value discretion, long-term thinking, and trust truly understand its value. But that’s also what makes the work meaningful. I get to work closely with people at critical junctures helping them retain control, preserve reputation, and structure around risk.
How do you balance the intensity of your practice with personal life?
Balance is always a work in progress, especially in a high-stakes advisory role. For me, the key is boundaried availability i.e. being there for clients when it matters, but also carving out space for rest, reflection, and personal growth.
I also find that writing provides a different kind of professional engagement that’s both fulfilling and restorative.
Why is legal writing and scholarship important to you?
I find that legal writing sharpens practice. It forces you to distill complex legal issues into clear arguments, and in doing so, you refine your own thinking. For me, writing is not just about sharing insights with peers, it’s about contributing to a culture of clarity of thought in the legal profession. Besides, practitioners have a duty to engage with emerging issues, test ideas publicly, and contribute to the evolving landscape of legal interpretation. That’s how the profession grows, and how we serve clients better.
With over nine years of experience, what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law? What drove your decision to choose this profession, and how did your journey shape you into a mentor and a leading voice in technology law?
It’s always nice to be asked this question. It gives you an opportunity to pause and reflect. And when I do that, I’m taken back to the time I seriously started thinking about law – probably around Class 8 or 9.
I knew I enjoyed public speaking. I loved talking to people, reading, analysing things, and connecting the dots. Law felt like a natural extension of these abilities.
That was also around the time when internet use was just picking up in India. I remember, sometime in Class 10 or 11, my father got us a desktop computer. I used it to look up what CLAT was, what law school meant, and what this profession was all about.
I also had a clear sense of what I wasn’t great at – I was average at maths. And I remember thinking: if I became an engineer, I’d probably be an average one. I didn’t want that. So I chose law. And looking back, I think that was absolutely the right call.
I didn’t overthink whether I’d succeed or not. At that point, I just knew I’d enjoy it. And that was enough.
Once college started, I found myself drawn to finance pretty early on. That’s what pulled me toward corporate law firms. I began with transactions—PE/VC, mergers and acquisitions. I spent four years doing that at JSA. But I gradually realised that advisory work really resonated with me.
As I moved from JSA to IndiGo, I became more and more certain that the intersection of finance and tech was where I wanted to be. And that brought me to Ikigai Law.
It’s been five years since. And honestly, most days, I’m genuinely excited to go to work. I think that’s rare and I’m grateful for it.
Basically, if you love what you do, you don’t really work, you just do it.
Well, you still work. It’s still hard. That said, there are definitely parts you enjoy. There’s intellectual satisfaction, a sense of recognition, and those moments of achievement that keep you going. Over time, you also start to see a bigger purpose. Whether it’s mentoring others, hopefully inspiring them in some small way or doing something else for the society based on what you have built. All of that becomes a motivator. You learn something new every day. And most days, you walk away feeling good.
We all have our own challenges to navigate, and when it comes to FinTech, especially disruptive tech like blockchain, it becomes even more complex. Since blockchain sits at the intersection of technology, finance, and law, we’d love to hear your views on how companies are planning for this shift and how you tailor your consulting approach. As someone deeply involved on the corporate side, how have you adapted to these evolving technologies? What challenges have you faced, and how are companies responding to them? For instance, how do you navigate legal ambiguities around cryptocurrency, which isn’t legal tender but is still taxable?
It’s a very interesting question. I do work a lot in the Web 3.0 space, along with traditional domains like lending, payments, and Wealth-Tech. The interesting part about being a blockchain lawyer is that it allows you to do the same thing but in a completely different plane. It’s like being transported to another universe where you’re doing the same things, paying, investing, lending, but in a blockchain-based world.
Right now, there are very limited laws in select jurisdictions that apply to such technologies. The exciting part of being a lawyer here is that you apply traditional laws, for instance, those regulating cross-border money flow, like RBI’s foreign exchange regulations or the PSS Act, to this entirely new world. The best part is that nobody has done this before. There are hardly any judicial precedents. So your thought process is as original as it gets.
As lawyers, we rarely get the chance to be that original. And naturally, a corollary to advising clients on emerging tech is that you get pulled into policy-making. So you get to do exciting work that I don’t think the previous generation of lawyers got to do.
But the hard part is, you have to really think originally. You have to know how the law applies in the traditional world. You need experience. Take, for instance, something like the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. You can pull out provisions from it and apply them to blockchain. Or the Collective Investment Scheme, something SEBI has been regulating since 1999. You might apply those same rules when advising a blockchain-based product emulating that scheme.
So yes, it’s exciting, it’s hard, but it’s the right time to be in this space.
You’re helping shape the future for generations of lawyers, and that’s a powerful responsibility. With your experience in suggestive work and public policy at Ikigai, could you share key learnings from that journey and how they’ve impacted your practice? Having transitioned from finance and law to technology, then an in-house role, and now back to private practice, how do you think these shifts will influence your career? How can young lawyers chart their own unique paths by learning from your journey?
In medical practice, unless you understand the human body, you can’t be a heart specialist. Similarly, in law, unless you understand the building blocks, you can’t specialize meaningfully.
So, for early practitioners, I’d say focus on the basics, reading the law, comprehension, analytical ability, and issue spotting. These only come when you’ve been exposed to a wide variety of laws, from IBC to RERA to the Motor Vehicles Act. The downside of specializing too early is that you miss that exposure.
The focus should be on building solid foundational skills, communicating well, writing clearly. Once that’s in place, you can specialize. Then you can apply those general skills to any sector, FinTech, SpaceTech, AgriTech. But if the basics aren’t strong, even in your chosen sector, things won’t work out.
So in sum, get the basics right. Then go with the flow.
The future in TMT space is definitely promising. I’m especially excited about AI, which is changing everything around us. And as lawyers, we play an important role. Who help sets the rules for this new world? We do.
We need more talented lawyers. We need thinkers. Not just people who can read the law, but people who can think about it. If you’re in law school or the early stages of your career, focus on that.
Wow! What a beautiful way of sharing your learning, it’s truly amazing. You’ve worked extensively as a principal associate advising FinTech startups within the Indian legal and regulatory framework. How do you see these startups overcoming jurisdictional obstacles, and what advice do you give them to navigate the Indian system? Do you notice significant differences between national and international regulatory approaches, and how do these impact startup success or failure globally?
That’s a good question. I think we, as a country, are doing well. Because see, UPI is a great success. The other parts of our digital public infrastructure, like account aggregator frameworks, which are ramping up, are all Government-owned and Government-promoted.
So the Government is doing its bit. Regulators are also, I think, trying really hard. For example, for the financial sector, RBI as a regulator not only looks after financial regulations but is also the monetary policymaker. So it has too much to do, but I think despite that, it has done a fair job.
Also, our industry is vocal enough to fight for its cause. We have the right kind of supporters for the industry, the right kind of advisors for the industry, and the regulator is listening. It’s not like the doors are closed. Regulators also understand the importance of having that dialogue with the industry because the time has passed when you can do law-making in silos.
So I think we are doing okay as a country. I’m not too concerned about the future. Now when I compare it to other jurisdictions, well, I would say that some practices are good in every jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions are more forward-looking in their approach. And India can borrow and learn from them.
Thank you so much for being absolutely clear about how the government has supported FinTech growth while also acknowledging its fallbacks. You’ve worked extensively in this space, but transitioning from traditional legal work to technology and law isn’t easy. You’ve mentioned COVID played a role, but what effort did that shift actually take? How did you successfully manage this transition and excel in a new domain?
Switching practice areas can be one of the hardest things to do. So I’ll take a step back and talk about why I made the switch.
I started my career, as I mentioned earlier, with a general corporate practice. I had the privilege of working with some of the most brilliant lawyers in the country at JSA, which was incredibly motivating.
While at JSA’s Gurgaon office, I got the opportunity to go on secondment with PepsiCo. At the time, PepsiCo was transferring all its major plants in India to Varun Beverages Limited – a massive business transfer. And being part of that was exhilarating. For the first time, I experienced what it means to run a business and impact of my advice on it. I was interacting with the communications team, the supply chain folks, plant managers – essentially everyone. My job was to orchestrate and help bring this entire transaction to a close. That experience made me seriously consider going in-house – it just seemed exciting and so much more connected to the business. That’s what led me to join IndiGo after four years at JSA.
IndiGo was just as exciting as I had imagined. I was working on aircraft leases, technology contracts, software that went into aircraft systems. That was my first hands-on experience of how law interacts with technology. And that really piqued my interest in tech. I felt like it was something I could understand and contribute to.
Then the pandemic hit. Around that time, I was already in touch with Ikigai, and stars just aligned.
So, some of the transition happened organically, some of it was by design and I think that’s how most careers unfold.
If I had to leave you with two takeaways from this journey, they’d be these:
First, don’t shy away from change and follow your instinct. Second, when an opportunity presents itself, grab it with both hands. Because chances are, it may not come again.
What a candid way of explaining things, where you had to put in that hard work, and you did. Congratulations to you for making that seemingly impossible transition from one aspect of law to another and making it big. On that particular note, we would request you to share some personal checklists or personal ways of dealing with these kinds of transitions because such broad area transitions are not easy, and many people are unable to do them.
What kind of suggestions do you have for these young lawyers who may start with one area but eventually want to transition? How do you do it, and how can one do it as smoothly as you have, without experiencing that stress of moving from one area to another while fearing the loss of something? Since you’ve done it, you’ll be the right person to suggest this to students and learners.
In addition to what I’ve already said, I’ve just one thing to add. In my experience, anyone going through a good law school, who has joined a good law firm or is working with sharp lawyers is smart and intelligent. That’s why they are where they are. So that is table stakes. What really makes a real difference is persistence, patience and resilience.
So, by the kind of understanding you’ve given us, resilience is absolutely important. Along with that, overcoming challenges is another key aspect. All of this you manage within the same 24 hours we all have. How do you maintain your mental, physical, professional, and personal health while juggling so much? What strategies do you follow, basic or advanced, to keep your sanity intact? As lawyers, we don’t talk enough about the stress we go through, whether in-house, in practice, or elsewhere. So how do you deal with it?
That’s one question I get asked a lot. And honestly, there’s no simple answer. Like most young professionals, work-life balance wasn’t really a priority for me early in my career. There was no fixed schedule – you worked as per the demands of your clients. And I think that’s okay. You’re younger, your energy levels are different, and if you start chasing balance too early, you may find yourself struggling for relevance later. I read that somewhere, and it really stuck with me.
Though, as I’ve grown older, I’ve found different ways to balance my life. And let me just say – I completely disagree with the idea that stress is something you should just get used to or live with because ‘it’s inevitable’. It’s not. Stress management, like lawyering or contract drafting, is a skill. And like any other skill, it can be learned.
You have to self-train. You have to find the right mentors, speak to the right people, and actively work towards it. I’ve done a lot of that over the years.
You also need a strong support system – people who are emotionally present and available for you. My family has been incredible, and I owe them everything. But friends matter just as much – both within and outside the profession. That’s been a huge source of strength for me. And most importantly, my husband is my biggest cheerleader and support system. Having that makes all the difference. Without it, it’s hard.
Another big learning has been understanding the link between stress and physical health. Over the last four or five years, I’ve realised it’s not just a mindset issue – your physical health plays a huge role. And I know this might sound like standard social media advice, but it’s true: you need to move your body. You need to eat and sleep well. That’s what made a real difference for me. In fact, staying fit has now become one of my core interests.
The third piece is having interests outside of work. That’s so important. We actively encourage this at Ikigai.
And finally, reading good books has helped. There’s so much you can self-learn today. As a generation, we’re incredibly lucky to have access to so much information. If we’re intentional about how we use it, we can teach ourselves almost anything.
Thank you so much for your beautiful answers. Just to quickly respond to one of the aspects you mentioned, yes, we are our own leaders, and while we agree we should take command and understand things, it’s not always that easy. Sometimes organizations are supportive, sometimes they’re not. What we take away from this conversation is the importance of understanding what you’re doing, how you’re working, and who you’re working for. If you’re in the right environment, you’ll not only thrive professionally but also personally.
I just wanted to share a few closing thoughts. I completely agree that the environment you work in, especially early in your career, can make all the difference.
I also want to take a moment to talk about what we’re building at Ikigai. At the senior and mid-management level, we’re very intentional about creating a space that gives even our younger associates a lot of independence. There’s a strong emphasis on thinking independently, and we’re a flat and non-hierarchical setup. You can speak directly with the equity partners, the founding partner, with me, or with anyone else on the team.
In many ways, we function like a new-age startup. Just like many of the clients we advise. And that’s something I’m genuinely proud of.
One of the most meaningful aspects of our culture, and something I hope more organizations adopt, is our deep focus on training and mentorship. It’s actually what drew me to Ikigai as a new lawyer. And now that I get to mentor others, it’s incredibly fulfilling. Personally, one of the ways I measure my own success is by how well I support and guide the associates and senior associates I work with.
My hope is that this approach becomes the norm across the industry. I’m excited about what that future could look like.
I’ll start with a very, very prominent question: how did you decide to become a lawyer, and then how did you decide to pursue an MBA as well? And that too, by scoring a staggering GMAT score of 740. Please enlighten our learners and us as well.
So, I’ll be very honest, I never even dreamt of doing an MBA when I was setting out to become a lawyer. But luckily for me, I was born in a family where my grandfather was a lawyer, and that too, he wasn’t a lawyer throughout his career. He became a lawyer after he retired from government services. He was a civil lawyer. You would imagine that a lawyer who would take care of disputes, of people who would take care of disputes for companies, would have a lot of people coming into the house.
So, very early on, from my childhood days, I would see people come to him for advice and assistance, even people who used to stay near our society. I would always see them come with a sense of hope and a sense of gratitude when they would leave, and that feeling, that there’s one person who could give people that hope, that guidance and that comfort that they need at a time which is probably very traumatic or very difficult for them, was something that I took very closely. So, I wanted to become a lawyer from a very early age.
Secondly, I also enjoyed reading a lot, so that went in my favor because I realized that a lawyer’s job is to constantly update his or her knowledge, constantly keep on reading, and I enjoyed reading. So I felt, okay, this is another avenue where I think I can enhance those aspects about me because I also love to read and I love to learn more.
So, I really wanted to become a lawyer since I was 10 years old, and I never really took up any law coaching as such. This is going to segue into my GMAT score. I actually studied for the engineering entrance exams. I got a decent rank in the AIEEE and got on the extended merit list in the IIT as well, but I never wanted to become an engineer. Engineering was always, for me, a backup option.
Once I got a good score in CLAT and then subsequently a score in AILET, which allowed me admission into National Law University, Delhi, I think it was a slam dunk for me because A, it was Delhi, and B, it was led by Professor Dr. Ranbir Singh, who had basically propped up NALSAR to become one of the best law schools in the country. I was genuinely excited about being part of one of the earlier batches of this institution, which thankfully today continues to be one of the best in the country.
So, for me, law was always a very clear path. I would say corporate law was not really that clear of a path. It was only during my time working with different law firms that I developed a fascination for corporate law, and when I joined my first firm, I realized that there is a lot of excitement I find in helping businesses navigate challenges.
I would say that is effectively the mantra that I followed. What do I want to be? I want to be someone who helps companies, businesses, entrepreneurs, and founders solve challenges and help them on the path to growth or to avoid risks from harming that business or harming that proposition. So that’s pretty much how my journey started.
For my MBA, honestly, that’s a whole other answer. I never imagined that I would do an MBA. I never imagined I would go to INSEAD for my MBA, but yeah, I’ll be happy to discuss that once you want me to discuss it.
We would love to discuss this immediately because, while you had initially prepared for engineering, you ultimately chose to pursue law. How did you adapt your mindset while preparing for the GMAT, given that it requires precision and a completely different approach compared to the way lawyers typically write? How did you unlearn certain habits, relearn new strategies, and successfully achieve this remarkable result?
So first, the rationale for why I wanted to do an MBA sort of permeated from me setting up my independent practice. Once I set up my practice, I started engaging more with young founders and entrepreneurs. And because my intention was to help founders and entrepreneurs grow, it required me to deep dive into business and operations with them. I had to understand how they run their businesses, so I had to develop an understanding of business models. I needed to understand how they generate revenue and how they spend that money. I needed to develop an understanding of both accounting and corporate finance, and then I needed to understand what their next step would be.
One example I can give is that I was advising a blockchain company back in 2021, and they wanted to develop a very unique synthetic trading portal on the blockchain. There was nothing similar like that existing either in India or anywhere else that we could find. We needed to create a structure that would comply with whichever laws were applicable in India because there was nothing that uniquely identified how this business would work.
Helping that founder create a regulatory-compliant business model made me realize that there is a lot more value that lawyers can bring to companies and to founders because of our unique understanding of how regulations work and how they are applied, and because of our understanding of how impact and value can be created, having seen other founders achieve that. We can effectively leverage all of that exposure and bring value to founders not just from a legal perspective but also from a business perspective.
All of these things combined started making me think about how I could add more value to these founders, to my clients. I realized that yes, I do have some form of knowledge or experience, but that was all secondhand because it was gained through interacting with C-Suite level executives or founders. There was nothing concrete I could rely on to advise these founders. That is when I started researching more about how MBA programs work, the value-add that someone like me could get, and how I could enhance and leverage the experiences I had in my past.
That effectively started the journey and the momentum toward giving the GMAT, identifying INSEAD as a potential opportunity, applying for INSEAD, and then getting through. So that’s how that trajectory went.
In terms of preparing specifically for GMAT, I can condense it very quickly. Yes, there is a lot of unlearning that needs to happen. You are absolutely right. There is a lot of effort required to understand how to solve problems. The idea is, as Indian students, many of us have a predictable set path in which we solve problems, whether quantitative or verbal. But the GMAT is one exam where the strategy is to find whatever way works to arrive at the correct answer.
This is key in a service industry that relies on a lot of data that must be analyzed, synthesized, and then communicated to a client in a manner the client understands. The GMAT is effectively what you learn in an MBA program, condensed, and ensures that you have that knowledge ready so that you are not lagging behind in an MBA.
So there was a lot of unlearning and a lot of relearning in terms of how to strategically and tactically approach specific questions, and a lot of practice was needed. I think what people forget is that it is not about how much you know for the GMAT but about how much you have practiced in that kind of environment because it is a very intense examination.
For example, when I was giving the exam, there were COVID regulations for the admission centers. We had to give the exam in a room with our masks on. We could not take our masks off at all, and we did not have access to anything, including water. It was very strenuous because you are stressed about the exam, there is a timer running, you have to manage your time, you have to ensure that you answer every question, and if you skip a question, you cannot go back.
So there are many permutations and combinations outside of just pure knowledge. It requires a lot of practice simulated in an exam environment. I think what worked for me was that I pushed myself to simulate that exam environment regularly. And of course, I had the benefit that, since it was my own practice, I could identify time slots every day for practice. But I think being disciplined and serious about what you need to do is the simplest way to achieve a good GMAT score.
Wow! With your independent practice, you also managed to crack this challenging exam. Considering that you pursued your MBA during the COVID-19 period, a time when many perspectives on management evolved, how did this new understanding of management help you build a stronger practice after completing the course compared to the understanding you had before it? You must have done some comparative analysis on this if you don’t mind sharing, what were your key takeaways?
That’s absolutely the perfect question because that is the one question I ask a lot of potential applicants who are in the legal field who want to do an MBA.
That’s the one point I ask them to ask yourself, why are you doing this? What do you hope to gain out of this? Because an MBA is very customized, I would say. It’s a very bespoke course. Because you’ll get a lot of information and a lot of that information is probably available at 100th of the cost. The question is, what do you want to derive out of that experience? So I can say personally for me, there were a few factors that were very critical, which I feel I can leverage today after having completed. The first and foremost, and this goes well for most international MBAs, is the network.
At INSEAD, I think there is a rule that a particular nationality cannot be represented by more than 11 or 12% of the cohort. So it is by rule that you will be interacting with people from a variety of different geographies, different backgrounds, different experiences, and you are forced to be in that situation.
When I say forced, it’s by nature of the groups that are set, the sections that are created. You are constantly interacting with people whom you probably may not have anything in connection with prima facie. Like in my group, you would not have another Indian and you would not have another lawyer. You would have people from completely different backgrounds, and I think that helps in two ways.
Number one, after you graduate, your alumni network is probably one of the strongest in the world. So you can basically look at the alumni directory and you’ll find the who’s who of any industry. So you know, if you are stuck somewhere or you need assistance somewhere, you have an alumni base to rely on and it’s one of the strongest components of INSEAD. Second, you also develop an understanding of how different perceptions can approach different problems. Because when you are given a problem as a group, as an analytical Indian lawyer, I might solve it in path A. Someone who works in the renewable energy industries who’s only worked on offshore drilling, they look at that in another path. Someone who’s worked in hardcore finance, hedge fund, or investment banking, they look at that same problem maybe in my direction, but a different path. Someone who’s an army vet, a Marine operator, they will look at it differently. So when you are interacting with so many different people trying to solve a very similar problem.
You start getting an understanding of how different people think and what their rationale is for them. And when I look back, that helps me also tackle challenges that my clients face in different ways in which I would’ve never thought, because unfortunately, a lot of lawyers are caught in this bubble of thinking in a very pedantic and a very straight cut method.
That usually doesn’t happen in an MBA because you are dealt with problems that span different industries and therefore you have to rely on different ways of thinking. So the mental models, the thought processes, the approach, I think that also helps you understand problems from different lenses. And the last, and another important takeaway for me was how do you value the output more than the process? Because ultimately as a service provider, whether you’re a consultant, whether you’re a banker, whether you’re a lawyer, ultimately your goal is to resolve challenges and solve issues for your clients and do it in a way that they can trust you with their work going on. There’s a very important saying that one of the professors said that you know that you’re a good service provider when your client calls you up for help that is outside your core service. For example, if a client calls you up and says, Hey, Aditya, can you tell me the name of a good pediatric surgeon in Delhi? That means they trust you for things even outside your core competence. And how do you develop that trust is what we learned. How do you build processes that help you create that engine that gives them what they want?
So that was my takeaway, and that’s what’s helping me optimize and make my practice more efficient. More driven towards solutions rather than process, which may become an obstacle for client service
The kind of trust your clients place in you is truly inspiring. It seems this trust stems not only from your legal expertise but also from your problem-solving approach, even beyond traditional legal boundaries. Is this the same trust that has enabled you to handle multi-million-dollar, high-stakes deals? Could you share a story of a particularly complex transaction or negotiation where your combined understanding of law and management helped you find a solution that others might have struggled with?
Sure. So I think the first one, in terms of a complex deal. I think the most complex deal that I did was one of the biggest deals that I did in my independent practice. It was an acquisition of a logistics company from a listed company.
So we were acting for the acquirers. And safe to say that I had gained the trust of my clients to the extent that they would trust me with almost 150 crore rupee deal. In the listed company space, and what I realized later was this was going to be an uphill challenge because unlike any other deal that I had done even in my law firm career, this one required me to have a strong understanding of not just basics of M&A and transactional law, but also accounting.
About how business operations in this industry were, because I had to sit with the client and understand the implications of what the negotiations were going to be, because ultimately those were to be reflected in the transaction document. So having that kind of interaction first with business, then with finance, then trying to understand how those interplay with the legal clauses.
Then, drafting those clauses and then negotiating with a company that has probably a battery of lawyers that are assisting them because they’re a listed company. So that was very, very challenging, and it was complex transactions, primarily because there were a lot of payment driven issues because it was effectively a carve out of the listed company.
They were carving out a business and we were acquiring that business. So how do you create that delineation from now this belongs to us and whatever remains is yours. How the accounting for that is going to be done. And even if there is an agreement on how it’s going to be done in practice, ultimately it’s my job to put it on paper.
So doing that, and this was before my MBA. So I did not even have that kind of a formal understanding of how finance and accounting work. I had a bare bones understanding back then, but it forced me to continuously interact with my client and understand what it is that they’re looking for.
And I think this is the biggest learning I can give to anyone who’s advising clients on M&A. Understand what your client wants out of this transaction. Because not every deal is the same. People have different expectations from that transaction. And your job as a counsel and an advisor is to understand what that requirement is and then put it on paper to either ensure it happens or to protect so that it doesn’t get taken away.
So that deal for me was very challenging because I did not have any assistant, I had another senior lawyer who was working with me. But I needed to understand tax, accounting, employment, labor, and transactional work all on my own. So that was challenging, but very rewarding because we ended up having a very successful team.
To your second point about interesting negotiations, very interestingly, after my MBA, one of the deals that I had negotiated was against my earlier firm where I negotiated with one of the lawyers who I mentored back in the firm, and having that kind of interaction with him, trying to recall and leverage all the business side elements of what I wanted to protect for my client and interacting with him on that point was a very good learning for me.
And it was a very, I would say, smooth process because. I was very proud of the fact that he also came at me with very logical arguments. And this is another very important point because if this is going out to other lawyers who are in this profession, one thing again that you have to realize is please, whatever arguments you’re making in a negotiation, number one, be very well prepared with what you have to say, why you are asking for what you’re asking.
And anticipate what the counterparty might say, putting yourself in their position. Because a lot of time, the only argument you’re giving is, this is market standard. This is what we want. Without giving a rationale, then you’re effectively moving yourself back from the negotiation table and you’re making it break down.
So another very important aspect that I learned, especially for negotiations, is that you really need to put in a lot of effort, a lot of work to support what you are saying, why you are saying and why it makes sense. Because at the end of the day, your job is to ensure that there is a solution that works for everyone.
You cannot drum things down on the other side unless of course you have leverage. But most times when parties are on an equal footing, you need to come with solid arguments, but also help the other side understand. Look, this works for me and it also works for you because A, B, C, and what you are suggesting doesn’t work because of D, E, F.
So when you give rationale, it is very difficult for the human brain to immediately say no. It makes them think. And once you’re making someone think that, that means you’re moving ahead. So that’s a negotiation strategy that I deployed amongst the other things that I learned. But one thing that I felt very happy about was I could see that what I had learned almost entirely was being replicated by someone who I basically helped and who’s now a very accomplished lawyer in his own right.
So I think it was a good negotiation, and that’s the reason why I remember it so well.
Wow! The way you approach challenges using both legal expertise and analytical skills developed through your MBA is fascinating. How has this combination helped you attract clients like startup founders seeking fundraising and structuring advice? Since law itself demands logical thinking, how did you transition from initially not being inclined toward corporate law to strategically building your expertise in this field? What steps did you take to train yourself to handle these challenges analytically and logically?
I read a lot. The simplest answer is I read a lot. I put myself in situations where I was forced to be the one doing the grunt work. One example I can recall from the first firm I worked at was that we had one of the best corporate law libraries I can think of. There were books on M&A and transactions that I don’t think many law firms in India would have had access to.
When I had access to that library and to some of the best corporate lawyers in the country, I was as inquisitive as a young lawyer could be. I would always read up on different transactions. I would read about how contracts are framed. I would read about best practices in the United States or the United Kingdom. I would read case laws during my off time. I would review transaction documents signed by the firm 10 or even 15 years ago.
So, once I became interested in the business of transaction law—or any subject for that matter—it was always about putting myself in a situation where I could learn whatever I wanted to know about it. I would find resources, read, and absorb as much as I could. And now, this has become 10 times easier because all research often requires is a simple prompt. I think research has become easier, but at the end of the day, it’s about reading the full article or the complete chapter of a book and understanding it deeply.
For me, developing this analytical skillset has always been through reading a lot and talking to a lot of lawyers. Whenever I was on a deal with someone who did things I didn’t understand, I would never hesitate to ask them, “Why did you say that? What was the point you were making in this argument? Why was this so important?” You’d be surprised at how many senior lawyers genuinely appreciate junior lawyers coming up and asking such questions.
I would urge a lot of lawyers, especially those in law firms, to never hesitate in approaching your senior associate or principal associate and asking, “Why is this happening?” This is also a very important point for potential leaders. Whether you are becoming a senior associate, a principal associate, or a partner, whenever you are delegating work, it is imperative that you explain why you are doing it and what you are expecting from the team. This not only enhances their comprehension of the problem but also ensures that they remain focused on the outcome.
For me, developing that thought process was both as a learner and as someone who mentored young lawyers and interns. Constantly engaging in that way made it second nature to me. Whenever a problem statement comes before me, I can immediately identify the key aspects—the fact pattern, the trigger points, and the interests that the client needs addressed.
One of the first things I do when I take on a mandate is to talk to the client and understand what a successful outcome looks like for them. This is something I find many lawyers overlook. Even before my MBA, I always focused on this, but after my MBA, I learned that a successful advisor not only understands what the client needs but also helps the client define what they truly want. Sometimes clients are not equipped to frame their needs clearly. It is your job to guide them—to be like Gandalf for them, mentoring and advising them in a way that helps them discover the most viable solution.
It’s all about constant interaction, continuous updating of knowledge, and being hungry to understand things. In every form of communication—whether on WhatsApp, email, or in conversations with juniors or seniors—you must have clarity in what you are saying and why you are saying it.
Over time, it all becomes second nature. At least, that’s what has happened to me.
Being an avid reader and someone who has never hesitated to question and learn from seniors, how has this curiosity shaped you into an approachable mentor? You’ve guided many aspiring legal professionals, how does it feel to see your mentees succeed, and what key advice or guiding principles do you usually share with them that our learners could benefit from?
I’m very passionate about this, so I’d love to talk more about this. One, how I started, again, my inquisitive nature always made me question everything. And it was not just in a law firm; it was even at home. Why is this the way? Why is that the way? And because I had a background in science, it was always that questioning of why something happens.
Unless you understand the why, you’re never going to understand the process itself. So you need to know why something happens. There has to be a reason behind it. And that prompted me to be very inquisitive. Based on that, I spoke to a lot of people. Sometimes I would be shooed away, but a lot of times I would be given a patient ear.
And also, in a way, because I was instrumental in helping form the internship strategy at one of my firms, it made me interact with a lot of interns. Throughout that journey, I realized that interns also come to a law firm with the expectation of learning. They are not just there as law students who are expected to do a lot of grunt work or research work; they also have an expectation from the law firm. I learned that while interning in some of the best law firms in the country, a couple of them in fact, and there I got a sense of understanding what work goes on in a law firm.
But there is also that learning that happens from some of the senior lawyers, which is absolutely incomparable because they know how things work in practice. What you are studying in law school is a lot of academic knowledge. So it was my role that because I got that, I had to give it forward, and I enjoyed doing that.
I enjoyed speaking with interns one-on-one throughout my time in all the law firms that I worked with, and even now. Now the question is, how do I do it? Again, it’s a very similar way to how I work with clients. My first question to a lot of them is, I need to understand why are you here? Why are we talking?
What is it that you hope to achieve out of this? There are people who come asking me for advice on how to manage toxicity in the workplace, which is unfortunately a very important topic but is very prevalent. A lot of people ask, I want to shift from a law firm to in-house. How do I do that?
The first question I ask is why? What’s problematic in that law firm? What is it that you have identified that you cannot work for? If someone asks me, okay, I’m a lawyer who’s doing disputes, I want to go do an MBA, my first question is why? Have you asked yourself why you want to do this? Is it the money? Do you want to do law, or do you want to do law with that understanding?
So the way I talk to students, mentors, and young lawyers is first I ask them what their motivations are. So it’s sort of like helping them drill down in their own mind what it is that they have to speak about when they come to me. And my role is mostly to help them realize what it is that they want and then give them my understanding with a very clear caveat.
I am not a counselor. I am not a career guide, and I’m not, let’s say, an MBA coach. I can only tell you what worked for me, and there is nothing to say that what worked for me will work for you. So please take what I say with a pinch of salt. But what I can tell you are the principles that I applied; they are very likely to probably be relevant in your field because the principles are very straightforward.
Have clarity of thought, understand the motivation behind any action, whether it’s speech or whether it’s written. Understand the implications or have an idea of what the implications of those actions would be, and then if you’re okay with the implications, go achieve that outcome in a strategic manner.
Understand what it is that you want to do and then lay out a plan of action. Don’t just go headfirst into a situation and say, I’ll take things as they come, because that’s inefficient. One thing I keep telling people is law requires you to be efficient because at any point in time, you’re juggling five things.
So if you’re not efficient, you are bound to drop the ball. And the best way to not drop it is to have some sort of structure, some sort of, I would say in a crude sense, an SOP. If a project comes, then I do A, B, C. If X happens, then Y is the outcome. While it takes time, the moment it gets crystallized, it becomes a very standard operating process for anyone.
It then just becomes like a program. Once something comes, you know the path that you have to follow. So your brain is then only focused on exactly the substance, not the administrative process around it. And that helps a lot of people realize their own value, their own way of working. Some people work visually, some people work through reading.
Some are more analytical than others, but then they find what it truly is that they want, and that’s when it’s more of a eureka moment for some of them. Obviously not everyone has that, but that’s my path. It’s not spoon-feeding. It is effectively helping them understand who they are, what it is that they want, and how they can do that.
I can help you create a path to it, but what you want to do, that’s up to you. And then it applies everywhere, whether it’s professional or personal, whether it’s within the law or outside the law.
Navigating such a demanding career, how do you maintain a balance between mental and physical health, especially when long hours and tight deadlines are involved? What strategies have worked for you to stay productive without burning out? Additionally, looking ahead, what are your plans for the next few years in terms of your career and practice, especially after transitioning from law to also pursuing an MBA?
I can speak for hours because that is such an important aspect that I’ve realized. Unfortunately, a bit later in my professional life, but better late than never in my view. So I cannot stress enough how important managing your mental health and physical health is, especially in a career like law.
I don’t think I need to go into the details of why it’s important. I think it is now an absolute truth that you need to maintain every aspect of your body, whether it’s the physical body or the mental body. You have to, if you want to lead a life that you are content with. There is no question about it.
And I think that’s pretty much a given. How to do that is a major point. One thing I felt in my own life, even without having maybe the knowledge that I do today, is I could take care of my physical health because I wanted to. Right from the day I started working, in fact, a year before I started working, I made sure that I made it a habit to do some form of physical workout every single week, maybe four to six times continuously. Once it became a habit for me for, let’s say, over a month or two months, if I remember correctly, then it became an indispensable part of my daily routine, and I think that’s what’s most crucial. Once you make something a part of your routine, then it becomes something that you don’t need to think about.
Yes, there is that initial inertia that prevents you from doing things that you know are important. That’s where actual growth is. If you push yourself through for a short period of time, once it becomes part of the routine, in fact, you feel the other way. There was this period of time when I was undergoing some physical issues where I couldn’t go to the gym, and I genuinely felt that I was missing out on something during the day because it feels that once I work out, once I come back to work, I feel motivated and invigorated. A physical workout of any kind, whether it’s running, walking, yoga, going to the gym, swimming, any form of physical exercise that elevates your heart rate and makes you sweat a little bit, is, I think, very crucial not just for your physical health, but it also has an impact on mental health.
And when it comes to mental health, there is this saying that everyone should meditate for 20 minutes a day, except when you are really busy and stressed. In that case, you have to meditate for 40 minutes a day. What people don’t realize is the value in that statement is so deep that unless you do it, you will not realize it.
Meditation doesn’t mean that you have to go to a particular place; if that works for you, great. But meditation is effectively calming your thoughts. It’s not about having no thoughts, but mindful meditation. The one that I follow is just having comfort in knowing that whatever you are thinking is okay, and you let it pass without judgment.
Simply put, giving yourself 15 to 20 minutes a day, anytime during the day, where there is calm, where you are not worried about the next message, the next meeting, or a call that’s supposed to happen. The impact that that period of calmness has on your day, and if you do it over a period of time in your life in general, really helps you also become a better lawyer.
I’ll give you an example. There are a lot of times in a lawyer’s life when, during negotiations, things can get very heated, and I have seen lawyers lose their cool in conversations. One thing I felt after I started meditating is that my reaction to a lot of unnecessary verbiage that’s thrown in a negotiation is much lower.
I don’t react impulsively anymore, and what that does is it not only shows that you are the bigger person when you are keeping your calm while the other person might be shouting, but it also shows your client that you are confident about the path that you’re following. Ultimately, if your client sees that confidence in you, then that means you’re doing something right as his or her advisor.
So it’s not just about feeling good about yourself. All of these things actually also help you become a better lawyer as well. It helps you deal with the stresses that the life of a lawyer will inevitably throw at you. It is a given that a lawyer’s life will have stress. There is no escaping that.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded, or they’re probably practicing law in a way I have never seen. But stress is effectively in the nature of the legal career, and the only way is, you don’t wish for stress to go away, you learn to deal with it, and you learn to manage it. One of the best ways to manage it for me turns out to be meditation.
Looking back, why did law resonate with you as your chosen path?
My early inclination toward debate, theatre, and structured argument made the law a natural fit. The profession offered intellectual rigor, stability, and a meaningful way to engage with real-world issues, both theoretically and practically. During my early career, I had the opportunity to work in in-house roles and Litigation Chambers, which confirmed my affinity for litigation. Since then, there has been no turning back.
What truly drew me in was the dynamic and intellectually stimulating nature of courtroom practice. Over time, it became a calling. The constant influx of new challenges kept me engaged and reaffirmed my decision to pursue law as a lifelong profession.
Your initial years in legal practice involved real estate disputes and civil litigation before transitioning to regulatory and commercial litigation. How did those early experiences shape your legal philosophy and prepare you for handling high-stake, sector specific financial regulatory matters today?
Starting out in civil and real estate litigation helped hone essential skills, such as precise drafting, procedural discipline, and strategic planning. Early mentorships were instrumental. I was fortunate to begin at Bhave & Co. and later work under Mr. Mehernosh Pardiwala. Both mentors entrusted me with complex matters early on and encouraged independent advocacy, which helped build courtroom confidence and strategic maturity. It was compounded by the faith reposed in me by Ms. Priyanka Khemani at the then Anand & Anand & Khimani.
Civil litigation, particularly involving title disputes and contractual claims, instilled in me a sense of procedural rigor and the value of legal precision. These foundational skills now serve me well in high-stakes regulatory disputes where the stakes often involve reputational risk, statutory interpretation, and deep sectoral insight.
At Regstreet Law Advisors, I have the privilege of working under Mr. Sumit Agrawal, a leading authority in securities and financial regulatory law. We as Regulatory Lawyers use our nuanced understanding of how law, policy, and financial markets intersect. One may not expect the need to interpret balance sheets or NSE / BSE disclosures in legal pleadings, yet these elements often define the outcome in financial regulatory litigation. For instance, we recently succeeded in a matter involving allegations of non-disclosure of a penalty imposed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal. To secure a favorable outcome, we had to integrate environmental law, civil and criminal procedure, and corporate and securities law, a true example of the 360-degree interconnectedness that defines modern regulatory law practice.
What inspired your decision to begin independent practice in 2017? Could you share some of the key challenges you faced during that transition, and how you overcame them?
As a first-generation lawyer, the desire to build something of my own, grounded in courtroom skill and client trust, was a powerful motivator. Independent practice meant owning every aspect of litigation, drafting, arguing, client relations and even managing office logistics.
I was deeply inspired by senior advocates on both the Original and Appellate Sides of the Bombay High Court. Watching them argue with clarity, depth, and composure reinforced my aspiration to take ownership of cases end-to-end.
The transition was demanding. With no safety net, just grit and a phonebook, I began reaching out to friends and seniors across Maharashtra to offer court appearances, even for simple mentions or adjournments. These appearances helped me gain visibility and build trust. Gradually, I started receiving direct briefs and appellate work.
My first office was a modest 4×8 sq. ft. space in Yeshwant Chambers near Kala Ghoda. I managed everything from filing, setting up a library to client meetings personally. I also appeared in matters across jurisdictions, MIDC property disputes in Ankleshwar, revenue entries before Tehsildars in Jalgaon, and DV Act matters in Vasai. I even had the opportunity to appear in PMLA and Economic Offences Wing matters. These diverse experiences added to my procedural agility before I eventually streamlined my focus on the Bombay High Court and City Civil Court.
Those early years, though uncertain, taught me resilience, the value of consistency, and the importance of professional relationships, all of which remain central to my practice today.
You’ve represented both high-profile individuals and corporate clients. How do you balance legal strategy with media attention and client confidentiality so that the integrity of the case isn’t compromised by public narratives or media trials?
Legal strategy must always be rooted in facts and law. However, in an age of media trials, perception management becomes a necessary adjunct. Often, public narratives overshadow judicial processes, which can unfairly influence outcomes or reputation.
In a world of deepfakes and viral outrage on Instagram, WhatsApp and X (formerly Twitter), courtroom integrity matters more than ever. Public biases whether toward ultra-high net worth individuals or marginalized communities are amplified. Blind faith in authority, or public outrage, can distort the legal lens. My goal is to maintain faith in the judicial process and focus on the courtroom while maintaining a strict code of discretion. The courtroom, not the comment section, is where justice belongs.
In my experience with high-profile matters, media attention peaks during accusations but dramatically drops once a favorable order is obtained. That’s why strategic restraint is often more powerful than a soundbite.
I believe the only legitimate forum for justice is the courtroom. Media narratives can’t be controlled, but they should never dictate strategy. While the clients may feel anxious, a lawyer ought not to. With preparation, discretion, and a client-first focus, we safeguard both legal and reputational interests.
As head of the Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice at Regstreet Law Advisors, how do you approach complex regulatory disputes in rapidly evolving sectors such as competition law, especially considering your involvement in the landmark litigation against Reliance Jio?
Regulatory disputes require a unique blend of legal depth, policy awareness, and sectoral insight. At Regstreet, we adopt a layered approach, combining doctrinal legal strategy with industry expertise and real-time regulatory updates.
I’m supported by a remarkable team of associates whose diligence ensures that factual accuracy, procedural compliance, and early-stage preparation are solid. This foundation allows me to focus on broader strategy and advocacy.
Mr. Sumit Agrawal, our Managing Partner, has been an invaluable mentor. His regulatory background as a former SEBI officer allows him to anticipate the thought process of prosecuting authorities – insight that has shaped my litigation instincts and strategic outlook. Our philosophy is clear: respect the regulator, understand the sector, and advocate with clarity.
In the Reliance Jio case, I represented one of the respondents in the writ petition and the original complainant before the CCI. The matter involved allegations of cartelisation to deny Points of Interconnection (POIs) and delay Reliance Jio’s market entry. Being part of that matter so early in my independent practice and arguing alongside some of the most eminent names in the legal profession was transformative. It reinforced my faith in preparation, consistency, and perseverance.
With growing legal scrutiny on digital platforms, how do you balance the defence of artistic freedom with the legal thresholds of defamation and public sentiment in media law cases?
Balancing artistic freedom with legal thresholds requires a constitutionally grounded yet sensitive approach. A recent matter involved a stand-up comedian who made remarks about a political leader. While some viewed the act as satire protected under Article 19(1)(a), others saw it as defamatory. This divergence typifies the legal tightrope in media law.
In one case, I represented an artist (a well-known comedian) whose show faced an injunction on the grounds of hurting religious sentiments. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the plea, allowing the show to be released. That experience affirmed the strength of our democracy and the judiciary’s role in balancing expression with accountability.
Ultimately, the independence of our courts allows satire and expression to coexist with legitimate legal recourse. In handling such cases, we focus on ensuring the content stays within legal bounds while vigorously defending freedom of expression.
You’ve been actively involved in legal education, teaching business and media law, and engaging with students through workshops and seminars. What is your motivation behind taking up this role and what key advice would you offer young legal professionals entering the field today?
My involvement in legal education stems from a simple but pressing need to bridge the gap between what law schools teach and what legal practice actually demands. The endless debates of NLU vs. non-NLU, Tier 1 vs. boutique, money vs. exposure are increasingly irrelevant. The real game is about learning faster than the world changes. It’s about upskilling every single day.
Statutes and case law are taught well in classrooms. But what about courtroom craft? The silence before an objection? The art of managing client trust or decoding what’s unsaid in a negotiation? These are rarely part of the syllabus, yet central to practice. Through lectures and workshops, we practitioners try to fill in those blanks to make legal education more holistic, grounded, and practice-ready.
Teaching, for me, isn’t just a way of giving back. It keeps me intellectually agile, sharpens my thinking, and refreshes my perspective. Being around young minds curious, unfiltered, and sometimes irreverent is energizing. It also ensures I stay tuned in to emerging thought and even pop culture, which often influences how the law is perceived and applied.
My advice to young professionals? Focus on substance. Master procedural law, contracts, evidence, and constitutional principles. Explore internships widely, be it litigation, corporate or policy to discover your true calling. Build a reputation for reliability, not just credentials. Law is a marathon, not a sprint. Stay curious, stay adaptable and most importantly, stay grounded.
Further, as Artificial Intelligence evolves, legal practice must evolve with it. The issue isn’t the use of ChatGPT or Deepseek – it’s a powerful tool, and we must embrace it. But no matter how advanced technology becomes, it cannot replace the value of human judgment, analysing the source of law or using your strategic insight. We must continue to apply our minds, not just automate our outputs or look for a “template”. The real edge will always lie in how well we integrate emerging tools while staying true to the craft.
Law is a marathon. It requires adaptability, resilience, and lifelong learning. As Steve Jobs said, “Stay hungry, stay foolish” – a mantra that resonates deeply in the legal profession.
With a demanding career that spans high-stakes litigation, teaching, and public speaking, how do you maintain a sense of personal balance and well-being? What practices or routines help you sustain performance without burnout?
Litigation demands mental stamina, emotional composure, and the ability to stay sharp at all times. But clarity doesn’t come from constant motion, it requires deliberate pauses. I make it a point to disconnect periodically. Without that reset, it’s easy to slip into autopilot, and litigation is no place for mechanical thinking. Strategy needs space.
At Regstreet, we believe in celebrating the process, whether it’s watching a film together, attending a play, or unwinding at a concert after a long matter. These shared moments go a long way in keeping the team grounded and cohesive.
Cricket has been a personal outlet. I’ve had the privilege of playing for and leading the Bombay High Court team in several tournaments. It’s more than a game; it’s a way to channel focus, discipline, and camaraderie. I also turn to theatre, trekking, cooking, and cinema to recharge. Saturdays are usually reserved for such pursuits, while Sundays often involve preparing for the week ahead.
Teaching, too, is a form of balance. It renews my intellectual curiosity and gives me space to reflect beyond the courtroom.
Everyone’s rhythm is different. For me, personal well-being isn’t an indulgence – it’s a professional investment. It’s what keeps the passion alive and the performance sustainable.
From Head Girl at Modern School Vasant Vihar to an Associate at A&O Shearman in London how do you reflect on your journey?
Looking back, it hasn’t exactly been a straight line, but I don’t think I’d change anything. Being Head Girl at my high school was probably my first experience juggling twenty things at once – academics, debates, sports, painting, dancing, leadership (and occasionally trying to stop people, including my notorious best friend, from bunking classes). I loved being involved in everything, which has sort of stayed with me.
In my final year, apart from juggling the many responsibilities that came with being the Head Girl, I was also a national-level runner and represented the state in competitions across the country. At the time, I remember wanting to take it up professionally and hoped to be the next PT Usha, so I dedicated most of my time to training. I also won a sports scholarship.
When the board results came, I didn’t hit the 95% mark that’s so often treated as the golden ticket. At the time, I thought that meant I’d missed out. But because of all of my achievements, I got admission to Lady Shri Ram College to study Philosophy which turned out to be exactly what I needed. I didn’t know it then, but Philosophy shaped the way I think: it made me comfortable with ambiguity, taught me how to structure arguments, and to ask “why” until something actually made sense. I loved it a lot, and ended up being among the top scorers in the University. It also turned out to be very good prep for a future degree and career in law.
After law school at Delhi University, I clerked for Justice A.K. Sikri at the Supreme Court. I then went on to Cambridge for my LLM, and from there joined Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, where I worked in hardcore litigation and both international and domestic arbitration. Later, I moved to London first at a U.S. firm focusing on international arbitration, and now with A&O Shearman, where I’ve been part of the Litigation and Investigations team. I’m currently on secondment with the firm’s Regulation & Conduct team, which has given me a very different (but equally valuable) perspective on how institutions think about risk, regulation, and conduct.
It’s been a mix of the unexpected and the intentional but somehow, it’s all added up.
You took on a fairly serious internship while still a student. What made you do that, and what did you take away from it?
During my first year of college, I interned with Justice Anup Bhambhani, who was then a senior advocate practicing at the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. It was a long-term internship that I somehow balanced alongside lectures and college life but I really wanted to get stuck in early.
It was an eye-opener. I was exposed to serious matters criminal, commercial, and constitutional that eventually reached the highest courts in the country. I did a lot of research and drafting work and got to see legal strategy taking shape in real time. He was the best first mentor anyone could ask for, generous with his time, exacting in the best way, and genuinely invested. They say if your first boss is a good boss, you’re lucky I definitely was.
That experience grounded me early. It helped me see law not just as a subject but as something real, dynamic, and impactful. I think it also gave me the confidence to keep pushing for more, even when things felt intimidating.
And then a clerkship at the Supreme Court with Justice Sikri right after law school, which was your first step into the full time professional legal world. What was that like?
The transition from law school to the Supreme Court was like being dropped straight into the deep end – but in the best way. As a clerk to Justice Sikri, I had a front-row seat to some of the most important legal debates in the country. What struck me most was the sheer discipline and clarity with which he approached even the most complex matters. Every footnote, every comma, had to have a reason.
He was also incredibly open to ideas. I was fresh out of law school, but he always made space for me to question things, to offer my own perspective, and to learn by doing. It taught me the value of precision, yes but also how to look beyond the black letter of the law to the human impact of legal reasoning. That lesson has stuck with me far beyond the court, and I’ll always be grateful to him for cementing my love for the law.
You pursued an LLM at Cambridge right after. What drove that decision, and what was it like?
After the intensity of the clerkship, I wanted to step back and immerse myself in deeper academic thinking. Cambridge had always been something of a dream. I applied, not expecting much, and was genuinely shocked when I got in and that too with scholarships from the Cambridge Trust and the Pratibha M. Singh Foundation.
My time there was everything I hoped for – demanding, inspiring, and also very grounding. I studied international law, information law, advanced private law alongside peers from all over the world. We’d debate the ICC’s latest decisions in the morning, spend afternoons trying (and failing) to punt without falling into the Cam, and evenings at formal dinners where I’d shamelessly sneak in a bottle of Tabasco. It was serious learning with a light touch, and it pushed me to see law in a much more global and comparative way.
After Cambridge, you returned to India and joined Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas (CAM). What was that experience like?
CAM was where I properly learned how to be a litigator. I joined the disputes team and was in court or before a tribunal pretty much constantly arguing, drafting, thinking on my feet. It was full throttle, but I loved it. There’s something about being in the thick of it – scrambling to prepare for a hearing at midnight, getting cross-examination notes ready under pressure – that really forces you to trust your instincts.
I had incredible mentors during that time. Raunak, the partner in the team, was great and generous with his time, and my brother-in-law Aditya – also a lawyer, and at the firm then – was (and still is) someone I lean on for ideas, prep, and perspective. The exposure to substantive matters early on really gave me the confidence to speak up, take ownership, and grow quickly.
You then moved into international arbitration at a U.S. firm in London. What was the shift like?
It was a big transition – procedurally, stylistically, culturally. The focus there was on large-scale international arbitration, so the pace was still fast, but the rhythm was different. Less shouting in courtrooms, more strategic planning in very long Zoom calls.
What I really appreciated was the collaborative nature of cross-border work. You’re often balancing legal regimes, time zones, and business interests at once. I worked closely on issues tied to enforcement risk, and it gave me a clearer sense of how legal exposure often begins long before any formal dispute arises. That experience planted the seed for what’s now a strong interest in how businesses are regulated, the many risks involved, how to mitigate those risks, and when things go south – how best to serve your clients. It also showed me how lawyers can play a proactive role in every stage of that process.
What have you worked on at A&O Shearman, and what are you doing now in your secondment?
At A&O Shearman, I joined the Litigation and Investigations team, where I’ve worked on a range of matters: commercial litigation, internal investigations, and regulatory enforcement issues. Several of those matters touched directly on financial crime, fraud, and misconduct, and I found myself increasingly drawn to the investigative and regulatory angles of our work.
That interest is what led me to take up a secondment with the firm’s Regulation & Conduct team which is part of the risk and compliance function. The role is very strategy-focused – I help assess how emerging regulatory developments might impact the business and its clients, contribute to internal compliance frameworks, and think through conduct from both a legal and cultural lens.
It’s been fascinating to sit at the intersection of law, risk, and policy, and to understand how large institutions manage internal controls, reporting obligations, and reputational exposure. The secondment has also deepened my interest in working with legal systems that are evolving to meet increasingly complex financial, financial crime, regulatory and technological risks. Its given me a much clearer sense of how clients experience and navigate legal risk internally and I am looking forward to bringing that perspective into my disputes, investigations and regulatory practice, where I can apply it with sharper insight and impact.
Outside law, when you were in India you co-founded a teaching academy. Can you tell us about that?
Yes – this is something very close to my heart. My grandmother is a retired schoolteacher who wanted to keep teaching. So, we started small: just a borrowed desk in a neighbourhood temple, a few local kids, and a lot of chalk dust.
It grew faster than we expected. Over the years, we’ve taught more than 1,000 students, all from families who couldn’t otherwise afford extra help. We now have a proper space, a volunteer teaching team, and a small but thriving community.
Even now, from London, I stay involved however I can, mentoring, supporting the team, and helping raise funds. It’s a constant reminder that education doesn’t need to be fancy to be powerful. It just needs to be consistent, kind, and rooted in belief.
Your journey cuts across court work and litigation, arbitration, investigations, and regulatory compliance. What connects it all?
The through-line, I think, is clarity. Whether I’m helping a client frame a case, analysing documents related to an investigation, or advising on conduct risks – it’s about unpacking complexity and making it manageable.
I’ve always been drawn to roles where law intersects with regulation and reputation, especially in high-stakes or high-impact contexts. The kind of work where one wrong move has real consequences, whether it’s a financial crime allegation or a governance failure. That’s what excites me where investigations, compliance, and tech-driven legal thinking all meet. It’s an area I’d love to keep building in.
And finally, what advice would you give to someone starting out, especially if they feel they’re not on the “perfect” path?
I’d say – forget perfect. It doesn’t exist. When I didn’t get the course I thought I wanted in undergrad, I felt like I’d already fallen behind. But that so-called “detour” changed everything. So be open. Your path doesn’t have to look like anyone else’s.
Ask for help. I’ve learned so much just by reaching out to people who were one or two steps ahead of me. And when you’re in a position to, pay that forward.
Also: keep perspective. Law can be intense, and it will stretch you – but it’s also a long game. Take the work seriously, but don’t let it swallow the rest of your life. Keep reading, travelling, painting, running, resting – whatever makes you feel like a person. That part of you will make you a better lawyer, and a much better colleague!
And finally, keep saying yes. Even when it is daunting, even when you feel unprepared, put your hand up. Some of the most defining parts of my journey came from saying yes to opportunities I wasn’t sure I was ready for. That’s how I stumbled into Philosophy first and later into areas of law I never expected to love, commercial disputes, regulatory work, investigations, financial crime and the influence of technology in law, these have shaped the way I think today. So take the chance. Sometimes the things you grow to love and the strengths you didn’t know you had are waiting just on the other side of that first ‘yes’.
How and when did you decide to become a lawyer and specialize in fraud detection, especially because this is something that influences almost all the communities, be it corporate, private, or public? It depends on which sector you are from.
So my Baba moved here from India in the 1960s over to England. And so I was born and raised here. So I grew up with British and American television. And I grew up watching a lot of television in the 1980s, so, you know, I’m 48 years old now. And during that time, there were some films which were starting then, the Indiana Jones series of films, which was Harrison Ford. And there was an American investigation kind of program called Magnum P.I. with an actor called Tom Selleck. And I was really fascinated with history, with Indiana Jones, and unraveling what the truth of history was, what the true state of affairs was, and learning from things that have happened. To try and piece together a jigsaw of a picture of what really has happened and investigation. So I started to get intrigued about just digging into things, looking into history, looking into working out what’s really going on. And at the same time, there were a few legal dramas coming around and again, US programs, a few UK programs. And that just drove my interest. I have no other lawyers in the family. My Baba was an engineer, and my sister’s an accountant. And there were no lawyers in our family. And I just took an interest in it. I gradually found the opportunity to study law, and right after I qualified, I got interested in some of the criminal side, some of the commercial contract side. And I always liked the idea of working out where there’s been wrongdoing in the workplace and wrongdoing to an individual or to a community and saying, right, how do we solve that? And how do we fix it? And it comes from watching programs like that in the 1980s.
So, sir, we can call you the first-generation lawyer who has made a big name for himself. Way back in 2016, you parted ways with a large international law firm and decided to start your own law firm, Tenet. You have also won recognition for actually disrupting how law firms operate because what I have learned about Tenet is it operates without financial targets, billable hours, or office presentisms. How has this impacted the teams that have joined you, the way the client relationships have been built, and how you have made a whole name for yourself and the firm?
Yeah, it’s interesting. I mean, if I go back to what took me to making those decisions, it was quite simple. So I worked at a large firm called DWF, an international firm, as you mentioned, and I was a partner there and I dealt with the civil fraud disputes and investigations team. That was my role. And I had a really nice time there. They are really wonderful companies to work for, a wonderful law firm to work for. And my boss who I worked for was really supportive, but at the time for me, I left because of burnout issues. My children were young, and work was quite demanding, my Baba was quite ill, in and out of hospital. And I wanted to just have more time to myself, to really manage the family issues more than anything. But I thought I’d been working in this area of law since about 2006, 2007. So by that time, 10 years, I thought I’d go and be a consultant and I set up Tenet to deliver consultancy services, but work quickly found me and I needed lawyers to join. And my wife, who’s not a lawyer, she’s a pharmacist, she said there are lots of women who’ve had children with their families. And they have left their place at work. Lawyers have left their place, but they can’t go back to work part time. And so a couple of my former colleagues were in that situation, and I contacted them about whether they could give me some support and just some extra hours to help me as work started to develop in the practice. And this was all in 2016. I started it in March of 2016. And I realized a few things quite early on. I had probably a chip on both shoulders that I didn’t think you could get the best out of people by driving them towards numbers and taking them away from thinking about the solution of their clients. And I also didn’t think you need to be seeing people in the office or always watching people to know that they were working. We’ve all grown up to be responsible adults. We’ve all invested many hours in our careers to get to a certain point. If we want to do well in our careers, that requires self-discipline. It doesn’t require someone telling you what to do. So I developed the concept around let’s have a firm without targets, without presenteeism. So it’s a traditional litigation law firm. We’ll have billable hours, financial targets, before COVID everyone would be in the office. Our business as usual was to come to the office if you need to, work where you want to, work when you need to, around the client’s demands. But just get the work done. Let’s not worry about the numbers. And what we did was we built a model, which was broadly people first, then the product, and then the profit. And what that means is, if we get the best for our people, ahead of our clients, and create an environment where they’re not distracted. The only focus they have is the solution for the clients. They’re not distracted by, have I made my numbers this week, this month, today. They’re only focused on sorting out the solution. They’re not driven by getting profit out of a client. So they focus on the product and you get the product right. The amazing thing that happens is people recommend you and refer you. So we developed that model of no targets because it gave the best chance for, I guess, creating the art of what’s possible for a client. If we just focus on sorting out that issue for a client, anything is possible. If we start to think about ourselves as part of that journey for a client, it’s a distraction. So my job here is to make the best environment for people, so they can get the best for the clients. And then hopefully life takes care of itself. And we make enough money along the way to be safe and everyone’s secure. Culturally it’s been really fascinating because lawyers are institutionalized in most of the law firms. You probably have experienced it where you think you’ll have lawyers who have a certain number of hours done in a month and then they’ll be asked by their management, what’s your recovery plan? You are behind track. And so what could that lead to? It could lead to bad behaviors. Do you spend more time on work than you need to? I’m not saying that happens, but it’s a risk. Do you hold on to work? Because you need to make up the hours, but that work is getting delayed if it was put in the hands of a colleague. So the client could have their work done quicker if you just passed it over. Well, if you’ve got a target and you hold on to it yourself, you delay the work product for the client. So there are lots of lateral benefits, but for the people themselves, it meant they could just be trusted to get on with their job. And we all just want to be lawyers, don’t we? We just want to be lawyers. And so it just allows people to be lawyers. Yeah, I guess that’s broadly how we’ve done it.
Sir, keeping all that in mind, you already have built a name for yourself, but in a very specialized field of fraud, and especially the fraud cases, they involve sophisticated scheming and all those processes. With the rise of the digital space, with the rise of crypto and everything, how have you seen fraud evolve in the cyberspace and what kind of investigations or cautions have you suggested your clients, especially the ones who are HNIs or who are in fintech or who are SMEs and nowadays startups as well?
So, I mean, we have to go a step back when we think about fraud because one person’s definition of fraud is not the same as somebody else’s. And when you think about cyber, people talk about cybercrime and cyber fraud or cryptocurrency fraud, where there’s not legitimate cryptocurrency, but ultimately cyber or digital age. Or digital mechanisms for committing fraud are just that—they’re just the mechanism for committing the fraud. It’s not the fraud itself. The fraud isn’t cyber, the fraud isn’t crypto, it’s the mechanism used. So the first thing is going back to what is fraud. For some people, fraud is very black and white. It’s misappropriation, it’s diverting assets, it’s breaching duties. For others, it can be more subtle. So, for example, you could have a very simple scenario that you’re in a restaurant with your family or friends, and at the end of the evening, an employee at that restaurant brings out the bill. And if they bring out the bill, and then you notice on that bill that they’ve forgotten to charge you for a drink or some food. And I ask people in training sessions. How many people would own up and would confess that they’ve been undercharged? And typically about 30 percent of people will say they would own up in the restaurant. And then I ask people, look, you know, just this definition of fraud, if your employer overpaid you and it was obviously a mistake, like the restaurant, how many of you would own up? And everybody owns up. And then you have to delve into why, and people don’t realize that taking money from your employer when they’ve overpaid you by mistake or taking the benefit of the restaurant food when they’ve undercharged you are both the same species of fraud. It’s called unjust enrichment, but they’re both fraudulent events, but people’s interpretation of fraud may be in one instance with the employer, but not with the restaurant. So your first concept is understanding, you know, fraud is about interpretation. And then that’s something that has to be a constant in your mind as a lawyer dealing with fraud is how people interpret that because as we’ve moved to this digital age, as you talked about, We are driving all our communications and we’re driving all of our purchases, acquisitions, investments, thought processes around how to utilize our money online, and how we engage with people, how people sell things to us, or how people invite us to invest. It comes down to our interpretation of fraud. What is that area of gray? If someone is optimistic about selling you an investment product, that crypto will get you a certain level of returns. Are they being fraudulent or are they being optimistic in telling you something to invite you to invest? So you have to think about how you interpret fraud? Because from the recipient’s point of view, you have to really be quite clear, the communications you want digitally. What you’re told digitally before you make a decision. Crypto space and cyberspace is really interesting. So in the digital world, now we’re in the situation were certainly around banking and fintechs, all our transactions are online. So in the UK, we have payment services, firms, fintechs, main retail banks. And there is new law that came in in October of last year, 2024, which makes it almost compulsory for banks to refund domestic transaction victims of fraud, if they’ve been tricked into making a transfer. And that law will probably spread as an idea around other Commonwealth countries in time. But we’re driven to do everything online. We’re accustomed to doing everything online in this digital age. And we don’t have enough digital literacy, certainly for the elder generation. And the younger generation think too quickly because they have too much digital access. So they don’t have time to stand back and think, is this behavior consistent? Am I being tricked? Is this too good to be true? So let’s take cyber. You mentioned cyber and I’m sorry, I’m giving quite long answers, but I’m trying to pick up all the points you raised. In the UK, there are three, sorry, crypto. There are three types of cryptocurrency you can think about and being duped on or being defrauded on in the UK. The first level is unlikely to be tricked. That’s where you’ve got a provider, a cryptocurrency exchange platform that is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in the UK for money laundering purposes. They are a legitimate enterprise engaging in selling and purchasing cryptocurrency. You are likely to be safe in their hands. The only risk is the fluctuation of the market. Then you have those cryptocurrency exchanges, which are in other countries. They are legitimate in that they are exchanges, but they are not regulated. So it’s slightly more loose and it’s very hard to recover from overseas. And then you have those, which are just smoke and dust. Those criminals that create the impression through very good digital tools that they have a platform for you to invest in. But the platform doesn’t exist. It’s all smoke and dust. It’s all fresh air, and your money is gone. And with any fraud situation, be it in procurement, be it with employees, be it with investments, be it with cryptocurrency, unless you educate yourself about what you’re about to invest in or the party you’re about to contract with, and really understand it yourself and verify independently, you’re having more fraud. And that’s the problem. The digital is the biggest enabler of fraud now, because it is so good at imitating legitimate organizations and people and transactions. And we are as humans, we’re short of time now, we’re all time poor. So we make transactions quicker without thinking, you put those two together, and you’ve got more friction and more risk. So for us, there’s a lot to unravel every time we get an investigation because there are
so many moving parts. You have to check what’s real and what isn’t, and the growing number of fraudsters playing with these new technologies, it’s harder and harder to prevent. As a business, as a law firm, we are constantly looking out for those kinds of things. For instance, we work with financial institutions, and it’s really important for us to make sure we understand everything behind what’s happening, everything behind the platform, everything behind the person and always verifying every step of the way. That’s how we go about it.
At Tenet, you specialize in this particular niche area. Let’s say, we would like to understand if new entrants are interested in this field and how they might navigate their way into the fraud and investigations space. Since you have mastered this area, how would you suggest they move forward, perhaps with a checklist? This could benefit learners, especially in India, who may be looking to qualify for SQ exams and practice in the UK. Is it possible for Indian lawyers to work in this field in the UK, or is there another path they can take to learn and practice there? Yes, on both counts. So, to anyone interested in fraud, I always say it’s important to build a foundation. Whatever you do in life, it should be something that interests you. It could be fraud, sports, or any subject at all. Once you have found something you are passionate about, you need to invest in yourself. This means dedicating time to learn and surround yourself with people involved in that subject.
In the UK, fraud is not just limited to law. There’s a whole financial crime compliance and counter-fraud community across the UK, Europe, Asia, the US, and Africa, dealing with various aspects of financial crime—illicit funds, wildlife trafficking, people trafficking, money laundering, and fraud investigations. This is the ecosystem I love and work in.
When I started showing an interest in this subject in 2006 or 2007, I joined a charity called the Fraud Advisory Panel in England. Anyone worldwide can become a member of this charity. It works to promote best practices for countering and combating fraud and financial crime. There are other organizations like the London Fraud Forum, the Midlands Fraud Forum, and more, but the Fraud Advisory Panel is where I focused my attention.
By becoming a member, I learned about events in the industry, which could be anywhere in India, Asia, or wherever. This allowed me to connect with people who were passionate about fraud. I volunteered countless hours and met senior people from the big four accountancy firms, PwC, and law enforcement. They began trusting me with cases, and that helped me build my career.
So, for anyone entering this field, I recommend joining charity organizations, volunteering, and surrounding yourself with people who have experience in fraud. In the UK, there are many firms that specialize in fraud, and even as a foreign-qualified lawyer, there are opportunities here. Fraud has existed for centuries and will continue to do so, requiring people who are dedicated to unraveling it.
I’d like to ask about your role as a trustee director for the Fraud Advisory Panel, and how public awareness plays a role in combating fraud. You also frequently speak in the media, so what impact do awareness programs have, particularly in your area of work?
Education plays a crucial role in combating fraud. Much like road safety, if we understand the risks and threats, we can be prepared. Awareness about fraud helps people recognize potential risks and avoid falling victim.
I’ve been involved in media campaigns about fraud for years. One such campaign started in 2016, advocating for a law that requires UK banks to refund customers tricked into making transactions to fraudsters. After eight years of media engagement, the law was introduced in 2024. This law was necessary because, years ago, people didn’t think fraud would happen to them. Now, fraud and cybercrime account for 38% of all crime in the UK, though only 1% of the policing budget is allocated to economic crime.
Raising awareness is critical because people tend to think fraud won’t affect them. If we can educate the public, businesses, and government bodies about fraud risks, we can help mitigate the harm. In India, for instance, fraud awareness is still in its early stages, especially when it comes to cybercrimes. It’s an ongoing challenge everywhere, but awareness is the key to fighting it.
Unfortunately, fraud is still under-discussed in India. People may have heard of cybercrimes, but awareness has not fully caught on. This conversation itself is vital for combating the issue. Moving on, you studied law at King’s College, London. How did your college experience shape your thoughts on awareness and your approach to building a community through your work?
King’s College London was a privilege. I wish I had worked harder, but it definitely shaped my understanding of the law. Before law school, I thought law might be dry, but I soon realized it’s about interpretation and human behavior. At King’s, I found that law is not just about rules but understanding the actions behind those rules.
Criminology and tort law were key subjects that sparked my interest in fraud. It was here that I learned how criminal behavior can influence business conduct, particularly in fraud investigations. The diverse international student body at King’s also showed me how law transcends borders, which shaped my global perspective on legal practice.
After qualifying in 2002, I spent 14 years in private practice before founding Tenet. For me, specializing in one area was important, so I chose fraud and financial crime. I decided to focus exclusively on fraud investigations, disputes, and compliance, helping individuals and businesses resolve issues stemming from dishonesty.
Our firm, Tenet Compliance & Litigation, isn’t huge—only 11 people—but we’re highly focused. We’re recognized for our expertise in fraud and financial crime, which is why we win most of our work through recommendations. We make it relatable to clients, focusing on their concerns rather than just the financial aspect.
Cultural aspects certainly influence change, and it’s clear your diverse college experience helped shape your perspective. Sir, outside of work, you are also a guitarist and into fitness. How do you balance these hobbies with your work, and how do you encourage your colleagues to do the same?
Well-being is crucial. It’s not always easy to balance work and personal life, but I encourage my team to have hobbies and time for themselves. We have a “family first” policy, meaning if something comes up for family, you take care of it. I believe in making time for family, especially during the years when children are young.
For me, fitness is a priority. I exercise three or four times a week, and I know that staying healthy improves my performance at work and at home. While I may not always have time to play the guitar or exercise as much as I’d like, I believe it’s important to have hobbies outside of work.
I encourage my team to do the same. If you want your people to perform at their best, they need to have time for themselves. It’s hard to find that time, but it’s essential. We work to live, not live to work. It’s a reminder to experience life, see new places, enjoy theater or movies with friends, and take moments to appreciate life outside work.
In the end, if you’re not living your life, work will lose its meaning. The balance between work and personal life is key to both professional and personal growth.
With your extensive and varied experience, what initially drew you to the field of law? Was entering the legal profession a conscious decision, or did a specific experience or event inspire you to pursue this path?
My journey into the legal profession was both a conscious choice and an organic evolution, shaped by my upbringing, intellectual pursuits, and lived experiences.
As a child, I was deeply influenced by my father, a Chartered Accountant (FCA) specializing in private tax law. His accounts of tribunal hearings, the complexities of his cases, and the challenges of client management intrigued and inspired me. A self-made man with exceptional intellectual and academic prowess (he was also a topper at Shri Ram College of Commerce) – his achievements became a blueprint for excellence and perseverance. It was he who instilled in me the qualities of discipline, perseverance, and intellectual curiosity, shaping my approach to both life and law.
Beyond his profession, he was a deeply philosophical man who, from my early years, personally guided me through Eastern philosophy, introducing me to the works of Swami Vivekananda, J. Krishnamurti, Paramahansa Yogananda, and Ramakrishna Paramahansa. These teachings became the bedrock of my ethical compass.
Initially, my academic path led me to literature, where I earned an honors degree in English Literature. This was a transformative period—literature’s deep engagement with human conflict, ethics, and justice refined my ability to empathize, analyze, and articulate complex ideas. Little did I know then that these skills would later become indispensable in my legal career.
Following my graduation, I entered the corporate world, which became both an eye-opener and a catalyst for change. While this phase refined my people and management skills – it also gave me exposure to contract negotiation, drafting agreements, mediations, employment issues and dispute resolution. Corporate workplaces in the early 2000s revealed a stark reality: the pervasive challenges of gender inequality, and workplace harassment, witnessing first-hand how these issues affected individuals, especially women in workplaces. It was here that I saw how the lack of legal awareness perpetuated these injustices, planting the seeds for my eventual pivot to law.
What ultimately solidified my decision to enter litigation, however, were deeply personal experiences— exposing me to the rigours of the justice system of the country. These experiences were both humbling and galvanizing, reinforcing the urgency of having strong legal advocacy for those who feel powerless.
In retrospect, law was never just a profession for me—it was a calling. It is what gives my life meaning and purpose as an individual and woman. It gives my life meaning and purpose, both as an individual and as a woman. I can’t imagine myself in any other field. Litigation is a tough career, but it fuels my passion and desire for learning, empowers me, and, most importantly, allows me to empower others in their pursuit of justice.
In the early stages of your career, working with various organizations, what experiences helped shape your understanding of the law? Which experiences were most influential in your growth and advancement in the legal field?
I was fortunate that in the initial stages of my career, I had the opportunity to hone my skills across a broad spectrum of courts, from the District Courts to the Appellate Courts. Practicing in District Courts provided me with a solid foundation in procedural laws, particularly in family law pertaining to matrimonial disputes, child custody and criminal law. I gained invaluable firsthand experience in criminal law jurisprudence understanding the initiation and progression of criminal cases inter-alia from the filing of FIRs to the conduct of trials and sentencing including anticipatory bails, regular bail and subsequently the natural transition to appellate work which encompassed appeal against conviction, first appeal from first order, commutation of sentence et all.
My practice before the High Court and Supreme Court significantly enhanced my understanding of appellate law, particularly in the area of writ jurisdiction Article 226, 227 and Article 32 of the constitution of India, which has become one of my areas of specialization. A noteworthy case during this period was a PIL before the Allahabad High Court, where the Hon’ble High Court banned the import of Khas Khas from Turkey. The petitioner represented by my senior had sought an investigation into these imports, which were linked to funding arms smuggling. The court’s decision underscored the critical connection between trade policies and national security. This journey eventually led me to white-collar crime cases, where the complexities of financial frauds and corporate misconduct required a nuanced and strategic approach. At the same time, drawing from my corporate background, I continued to work extensively on negotiation and arbitration. One notable case involved an arbitration matter for a company based in Laos, which required navigating cross-border legal and commercial complexities.
Furthermore, I have been extremely fortunate that in the early stages of my career, I had the privilege of learning from seasoned lawyers and Senior Advocates, which laid the foundation of my legal understanding. One of the most formative experiences was assisting Senior Advocate Ms. Meenakshi Arora in a dowry death case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This complex appeal against a conviction provided invaluable insight into criminal law, appellate advocacy, and, most importantly, the meticulous preparation required for a criminal appeal before the Apex court.
Equally impactful has been my work in corporate and company law, particularly with Petronet LNG Ltd. wherein I have drafted, prepared and represented the Board of Directors as well as MD & CEO of the company in matters pertaining to disciplinary proceedings and termination (board-related issues and compliance with the Companies Act, 2013) in writ petitions under Article 226 and Letter Patent Appeal. The notable case Rajeev Agrawal v. Union of India is another reported judgement wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi upheld the legality of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the company. This case was among the first to interpret Section 178(2) of the Companies Act.
As counsel for Petronet LNG in the aforesaid matter, I’ve had the privilege of briefing some of the country’s most respected Senior (Sr.) Advocates, including Solicitor General of India Mr Tushar Mehta, Former ASGI Mr Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate Dushyant Dave, Sr. Advocate, Mr Sidharth Luthra and Sr. Advocate Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate Mr Sandeep Sethi among others. These experiences have been instrumental in shaping my advocacy skills and understanding the nuances of working in high-stakes matters.
Another pivotal experience has been representing Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. in diverse cases which has deepened my knowledge about Electricity laws, including the landmark case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to indirect taxes (labour cess) BOCW act 1996. In this reported judgement, the Hon’ble Apex court clarified that an arbitration clause does not bar remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution, even in contractual disputes. This judgment not only set a significant precedent but also taught me the importance of navigating the interplay between constitutional remedies and arbitration law. This matter, widely reported in law journals and magazines, gave me invaluable exposure to litigating across various forums including APTEL (Electricity Tribunal) Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad and Delhi, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
However, what I have come to appreciate the most about my legal journey is witnessing the dynamic evolution of the law and the enactment of significant legislations that have shaped the legal landscape. As a legal professional, witnessing the enactment of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (post the Vishakha Judgement), was a significant victory for child and women protection in India. Prior to this legislation, child abuse cases were inadequately addressed under the Indian Penal Code, which was hugely challenging as a lawyer because the older legislations did not address the various violations that a child is subjected to. The significant changes in arbitration law, particularly with the introduction of the Arbitrationand Conciliation (Amendment) Act of 2015 and subsequent amendments have made the enactmentaligned with international best practices. This constant evolution of the law, responding to societal needs and global benchmarks, has been rewarding to engage with as a legal professional.
What inspired you to establish your own legal practice? Were there particular challenges you faced initially, and what factors led you to take the leap into starting your own practice?
Establishing my own legal practice was non-negotiable for me, inspired by my late father’s vision and the values he instilled in me. A successful chartered accountant with a thriving private practice in tax law since the 1970s, my father exemplified the principles of hard work, a client-centric approach, empathy in the profession, and the importance of autonomy over one’s work and time. Watching him navigate his career left a lasting impression on me and shaped my aspirations.
While I eventually established my practice, I spent the initial decade of my career in the corporate world, working with firms that primarily served North American and UK clients. This global and multidimensional experience not only broadened my perspective but also honed essential skills like professionalism, clear communication, and efficient case management. I learned how to create detailed case status reports, track deliverables meticulously, and meet international standards for client servicing—all of which have become integral to my practice today.
These early experiences also reinforced the importance of building a practice that balances professionalism with empathy, ensuring that every client feels supported and understood.
Of course, there are challenging days. Despite significant strides toward gender equality, women are not “heard” enough in court rooms and remain underrepresented in the judiciary and in senior positions within law firms. This makes persevering in the profession undeniably tough, as pressure to prove one’s competence is undeniably higher for women in the legal profession. As one counsel aptly noted, “the bar is higher for us.”
That said, true joy in accomplishment comes from overcoming challenges and obstacles along the way.
Furthermore, having an independent practice allows me the autonomy to manage my own cases while still engaging with Senior Advocates in high-stakes matters and collaborating with senior counsels on national-level cases. Working with such seasoned professionals not only enhances my legal knowledge but also underpins the importance of maintaining integrity, professionalism, and a commitment to excellence in every case I handle.
This balance has been instrumental in my growth, enabling me to learn from the best while building my own path and niche in the profession.
In criminal law, particularly in cases involving white-collar crimes or financial frauds, how do you approach these complex issues? Could you share a particularly fascinating case that stands out to you?
First and foremost, it’s important to acknowledge that white-collar crimes are rarely straightforward. They often involve intricate layers of collusion, procedural lapses, and complex legal issues. Successfully navigating these cases requires meticulous preparation, strategic foresight, and the ability to adapt to evolving circumstances.
My approach begins with a disciplined process that I refer to as the “discovery phase.” This phase involves an intensive discussion with the client to thoroughly understand the factual matrix, their position in relation to the case, and the specific grievances they are seeking to address and the relief they are seeking. Reviewing all relevant documents, transactions, and communications is critical to uncovering the core issues and formulating a strategy.
When representing clients who are apprehended or incarcerated, the approach shifts slightly. My co-counsels and I have often visited clients in custody to gather complete information directly from them. Each case depends significantly on the nature of the client’s involvement—whether they are the aggrieved party seeking relief or a defendant in need of defense. This tailored approach ensures that we build a robust case strategy aligned with the client’s needs and the complexities of the matter.
Additionally, I place great importance on revisiting the relevant acts and applicable laws for each matter. It’s a habit I’ve observed even among the most seasoned counsels, such as Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who I have observed in court emphasize the value of studying the bare act every time. This practice ensures clarity and precision in interpreting the law. Equally important is studying landmark judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts on critical aspects of white-collar crimes. These judgments provide valuable insights, particularly on issues such as interpretation, recording of statements, admissibility of evidence, and bail considerations for accused and co-accused individuals.
This foundational work is critical in developing a robust legal strategy that not only addresses the immediate legal issues but also advise the clients on their legal remedies safeguarding their best interests. Maintaining the highest ethical standards and client confidentiality is paramount in these cases
As a first-generation lawyer—and a woman in this field opportunities to handle high-stakes, complex cases have not always come easily. I have been fortunate to work under the guidance of some of the finest legal minds, including Mr. Shishir Prakash Advocate, a fourth-generation lawyer, whose mentorship has been instrumental in shaping my approach to white-collar crime and associated criminal matters.
One case that stands out in my career was a complex financial fraud involving embezzlement of hundreds of crores involving a deemed university from a reputed Bank. We represented the bank. The case was multifaceted, requiring us to address systemic collusion, navigate ongoing investigations, and safeguard the bank’s interests.
Representing the bank, we uncovered evidence of collusion, the potential influence of the university and the sluggish pace of the police investigation and advised filing a petition in the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court for a court-monitored investigation through an SIT. The investigation resulted in 24 individuals being charge-sheeted, including senior university officials.
A key challenge was addressing the banking principle that unauthorized payments obligate indemnification. We presented the unique circumstances to the RBI, which deferred any indemnification until the trial concluded. Notably, the university refrained from filing recovery claims. The HOD of the university challenged the charge sheet under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court, which rejected the plea in a detailed judgment. The order was further challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which dismissed the SLP and directed the trial court to frame charges and expedite proceedings. As a result, the SIT completed the investigation, and 24 individuals were charge-sheeted, including key officials.
This case was a masterclass in handling the complexities of white-collar crimes. It required navigating criminal liability, regulatory compliance, and the intersection of civil and criminal law. The outcome safeguarded the bank’s interests and underscored the importance of proactive measures by financial institutions in addressing fraud.
Most recently, my involvement in the Chhattisgarh money laundering Liquor Scam has been a highlight of my legal career. This case, of significant national importance, involves allegations of money laundering and corruption spanning multiple jurisdictions. Representing key stakeholders required navigating civil, criminal, and PMLA and PC Act domains while managing overlapping investigations by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Economic Offences Wing (EoW), and State Task Force (STF). Assisting Senior advocates such as Ms. Meenakshi Arora and Mr. Yatin Oza on this case has evolved and sharpened my legal acumen and jurisprudence of bail law in PMLA cases significantly.
Having worked on intellectual property rights and cyber law matters, how do you perceive the increasing significance and challenges of these areas in the digital age?
In a country where internet usage is growing exponentially—with India leading in social media consumption—the next generation must be prepared to navigate digital challenges responsibly. Cyber fraud and scam have off late become alarmingly common, with even close friends and family members falling victim, losing significant sums to scams.
Adding a new layer to this discourse is the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI has brought incredible possibilities but also complex legal and ethical questions. For instance, Justice Pratibha Singh, a sitting judge of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and a distinguished IP lawyer in her practice days, recently held a training session for lawyers at the Delhi High Court wherein she raised a thought-provoking question: If AI creates an original work, would it be protected under intellectual property laws, and if so, who would own the rights—the programmer, the user, or the AI itself? These questions are at the forefront of today’s legal discourse.
That said, there are immense positives to the integration of technology and AI into the legal field. I recently presented a white paper titled “Reimagining Justice in the 21st Century: AI and the Future of Judicial Decision Making” at the Ad Meliora 5 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Law, and Ethics, organized by the Christ Academy Institute of Law, Bengaluru. In my paper, I explored how AI could enhance judicial processes by improving efficiency, accuracy, and access to justice. At the same time, I raised pertinent questions: Can AI replace the empathic and intuitive dimensions of human decision-making? How can we balance the potential of AI with the necessity for human oversight in the judicial process? This exploration highlighted the duality of technology as both a tool for progress and a source of complex challenges.
My practical experience aligns with these broader reflections. One notable example is my work on enforcing intellectual property rights in the case of Dr. Kumar Vishwas vs. Zomato India & Ors., where I represented Dr. Kumar Vishwas in a landmark moment of my career. The Delhi High Court permanently restrained Zomato from using his iconic poem, *Koi Deewana Kehta Hai*, without authorization, underscoring the critical importance of protecting creative rights in the digital age. Similarly, my work with artists and creators has reinforced the importance of safeguarding intellectual property in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. For instance, I represented a Dubai-based artist in a copyright infringement case involving an advertising campaign by a leading jeweller in the country. I am pleased to report that we successfully averted protracted litigation by resolving the matter amicably through an out-of-court settlement. There are several matters but the moot point is that there is an urgent need for vigilance and robust legal mechanisms to uphold their rights in an increasingly interconnected world.
My work in these areas extends beyond litigation to education and advocacy. For example, I have conducted workshops for children from Grade 6 through senior school, helping them understand their internet rights and responsibilities. Topics such as cyberbullying, online privacy, and digital safety are crucial, especially when young children and women are disproportionately affected by cybercrime. In my view, Legal studies, particularly focusing on cyber law, should be made a mandatory part of senior school curriculums. One of the things I strongly advocate for.
With your experience practicing in both the Supreme Court and High Courts, how does the litigation process differ when representing clients at the Supreme Court compared to High Courts or tribunals? Additionally, how do you prepare for complex cases involving constitutional writs and appeals in criminal cases?
Practicing in both the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Courts has been a fascinating journey, as each forum demands a unique approach. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, the top court in the country primarily deals with matters of constitutional importance and substantial questions of law, requiring arguments that are concise, strategic, and grounded in precedent.
One striking difference is the time allocated to argue cases. In the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, particularly in special leave petitions (SLPs), lawyers often have just a matter of minutes to present their case and make an impact. This means every word, every argument, and every reference must be meticulously planned to resonate with the bench. It’s a test of precision and clarity. In High Courts, however, one generally has more time to build and present the case, engaging more deeply with the factual matrix and legal nuances. Furthermore, for constitutional writs, the focus is on articulating fundamental rights violations and aligning the arguments with constitutional principles. Criminal appeals require a meticulous examination of trial records, focusing on procedural lapses, evidentiary errors, or any miscarriage of justice that warrants appellate intervention. In appeals from High Court judgments, a thorough examination of the judgment is essential. One cannot mechanically file appeals simply to satisfy a litigant’s demand or burden the courts unnecessarily—a practice that often exacerbates the issue of judicial backlog.
I must mention that the role of an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) in the Supreme Court is pivotal to the success of any case, as they bear the responsibility of not only filing pleadings but also ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and maintaining a strategic approach to case management. Working with an AOR like Mr. Mohit D Ram, who brings unparalleled expertise and insight to the table, has been an invaluable experience. Working with AOR Mohit has reinforced the power of collaboration—where a strong, cohesive team enhances efficiency, sharpens legal strategy, and ultimately drives success in complex cases.
Representing clients in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India comes with heightened responsibility, as it is often their last avenue for seeking relief. There’s a significant emotional and professional weight to delivering results in this forum.
In bail matters, however, which directly impact an individual’s liberty, the urgency and gravity of the situation demand swift filing and a well-prepared case that convincingly demonstrates why bail should be granted regardless of the legal forum. Here, Articles 21 and 22 become central to ensuring that due process and personal freedoms are safeguarded.
My process is rooted in thoroughness and organization. I prioritize gathering detailed information from my clients, ensuring no critical fact is overlooked. This includes a meticulous examination of evidence, careful drafting of submissions, and pre-emptively addressing potential challenges. I believe that a strong foundation of facts and a clear legal strategy are indispensable for success in any matter.
Ultimately, each case, regardless of the forum, is an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the pursuit of justice.
As someone actively involved in pro bono work for child rights organizations like Pratyek.org.in and ICCHR, can you share more about your contributions to child protection under the POCSO Act? What drives you to focus your legal expertise on social causes, and how do you balance pro bono work with your other professional responsibilities?
Balancing pro bono work with my other professional responsibilities requires careful planning and time management. I allocate specific hours each week to pro bono cases and ensure that my commitments to paying clients and high-stakes matters are met without compromise. It’s not always easy, but I’ve found that the sense of purpose and fulfillment I gain from pro bono work invigorates me and enhances my overall practice.
I am privileged to be on the panel of Pratyek.org.in as part of their child protection team, where I provide legal guidance and advice on cases of child sexual abuse under the POCSO Act. My contributions include assisting in navigating the complexities of these cases to ensure that children receive the protection and justice they deserve. Recently, I conducted a workshop on the United Nations General Comment 27, focusing on access to justice for children and its implications. It was an opportunity to highlight how justice systems can be made more inclusive and accessible for young people.
Additionally, I contributed to the endorsement of the Election Commission of India’s 2024 guidelines on children’s involvement in election processes. This initiative focused on safeguarding children’s interests and ensuring that their participation, directly or indirectly, aligns with ethical and legal standards.
I also regularly provide legal advice to women aggrieved by domestic violence, particularly those from modest socioeconomic backgrounds, such as domestic workers and staff. It is shocking to see how many women are unaware of their rights and continue to endure violence and abuse at home. Even something as fundamental as securing their Streedhan—a legal entitlement meant for their financial security—is often overlooked or denied, leaving them vulnerable and without recourse. So one can imagine the lack of awareness pertaining to legal rights in our country and across spectrums.
I make it a point to speak to young girls whenever I get the opportunity, educating them about their legal rights and the importance of empowerment. In October 2023, I was invited to a university to conduct a workshop on Women’s Autonomy.
My passion for these causes stems from a deep belief that access to justice is a fundamental right, not a privilege.
I also take up causes independently, advocating for change where I see injustice. In 2022, I noticed that CBSE required students to mandatorily mention their father’s name on the OMR sheet, disregarding the realities of single-parent households and in violation of ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2015 SC 2569, which emphasizes that the welfare of the child is paramount, and the father’s name is not mandatory to be mentioned. Recognizing the discriminatory nature of this requirement, I wrote to CBSE and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR). The Education Cell of NCPCR promptly took cognizance of the issue and wrote to CBSE, urging immediate action. They highlighted the mandatory inclusion of the father’s name as discriminatory against children raised by single mothers and referenced the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment. Acting on these directives, CBSE revised their OMR sheets promptly.
Under my pro bono work, I represented an RWA President before the UP Pollution Board and assisting the residents of Sector 50 noida in presenting the residents’ plea against the construction of an upcoming mall in a residential area. These efforts reflect my ongoing commitment to advancing justice, inclusivity, and community welfare.
Given the demanding nature of your practice and your involvement in multiple legal domains, how do you maintain a healthy work-life balance?
For me, maintaining mental health is not just intentional—it’s an occupational necessity!
This is an issue I’ve written about in my article published on SCC Online, “Are Women in Litigation Disproportionately Affected by Mental Health Concerns? Unpacking the Intersection of Women, Litigation, and Mental Health.” In the piece, I discussed how women, particularly in litigation, face unique mental health challenges due to systemic biases and the high-pressure environment. But this isn’t just about women—it’s about the legal profession as a whole.
The legal profession, by its nature, exposes us to stress and emotionally intense situations whether it’s dealing with traumatic case histories, high-stakes decisions, or simply the pressure to always be at our best. Lawyers and judges often carry the emotional weight of the cases they work on, yet we’re expected to maintain this veneer of resilience. That expectation can make it difficult to seek support or even acknowledge the toll it takes.
Recognizing this gap, I started The Inner Lawyer, a pro bono initiative on social media to raise awareness about mindfulness and mental health within the legal community.
Personally, I was fortunate that my father introduced me to Vipassana meditation during my teenage years, which laid the foundation for mindfulness in my life. Meditation, journaling, listening to classical music (both Indian and western) and moments of quiet reflection are parts of my routine.
Lately, I’ve discovered that humor is one of the most powerful remedies for stress. As lawyers, we spend most of our days with a frown, whether it’s dealing with the intricacies of case law or the pressure of clients or opposing counsels or facing adversarial courtroom situations. So, when a Judge or a Senior Advocate lightens up the mood, it’s a welcome relief! Given the gravity of our profession, not taking life too seriously is a valuable perspective. I also enjoy watching light-hearted shows and stand-up comedy—it’s a great way to unwind and decompress! Zakir Khan and Jimmy O. Yang are among my favourites.
For young legal professionals aspiring to build a diverse and broad legal career, what advice would you offer based on your own experience and journey?
For young legal professionals, especially the first generation lawyers aspiring to build a diverse and impactful career, my advice is rooted in three key principles: purpose, preparation, and perseverance.
First, define your why. Ask yourself why you want to pursue law and what drives you. Is it the allure of courtroom drama, the intellectual challenge, or a deep desire to make a difference? Your purpose will be your compass, guiding you through the highs and lows of this demanding profession.
Second, invest in preparation. Law is a discipline that thrives on knowledge and understanding. Cultivate critical thinking. Read widely—beyond legal texts. Literature, philosophy, and history provide context to human behavior and the societies we serve. Works by Charles Dickens, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and even contemporary writers like Shashi Tharoor have shaped my perspective, as much as the jurisprudence of Isaiah Berlin, Joseph Raz, and Catherine MacKinnon. Law is deeply intertwined with life; the more you understand the world, the better you’ll serve it. Also, engaging with their philosophies adds depth to a lawyer’s understanding and personality – both.
Third, cultivate perseverance. Success in law isn’t just about intelligence; it’s about grit and the willingness to keep going when the path gets tough. This profession demands long hours, emotional resilience, and the ability to stay calm under pressure. And here’s something many young lawyers get wrong—it’s not about being aggressive or raising your voice to make your point. The best advocates I’ve seen are composed, clear, and persuasive, winning arguments with substance, not volume. Respect for the bench, seniors, and the legal process is non-negotiable—these relationships and values will shape your growth as a professional.
Finally, as lawyers, especially in today’s conflict ridden world and escalating disputes, we need to rethink the role we play. The world now needs more mediators, problem solvers, and those committed to finding resolutions. And Lawyers have the unique privilege of truly making a difference in someone’s life. Imagine mediating a family dispute, helping a couple opt for an amicable divorce instead of a contentious one, or counselling clients to pursue peace rather than retribution. As lawyers, we must assess whether a matter truly belongs in litigation or if it can be resolved through mediation or negotiation.
Ultimately, an aggrieved party looks up to the judicial system for a speedy resolution, not just representation or protracted litigation. It is our duty as officers of the court to also counsel our clients and discourage frivolous and malicious litigation because that not only clogs an already overburdened judiciary but in my view is a disservice to the country and the justice system.
As Justice Krishna Iyer put it: “Law is meant to serve the living and does not beat its wing in the jural void.”
Find your purpose, prepare diligently, and persevere—because the impact of a good lawyer extends far beyond the courtroom.
Can you share with our listeners how your journey led you to the FinTech sector, and how you came to specialize in laws governing the FinTech?
Certainly! My journey within FinTech has been both exciting and fulfilling. It all began with a keen interest in technology and its transformative potential in financial inclusion.
During my early years as a lawyer, I observed the rapid growth and innovation in the FinTech space. I was fascinated by how startups were leveraging technology to create innovative solutions that addressed challenges in the financial industry. This led me to delve deeper into understanding the intricacies of FinTech law which continued to do a catch up behind technical innovation.
As I continued to work with startups, I realized that they face unique legal challenges that require specialized knowledge and expertise. From navigating complex regulatory landscapes to protecting intellectual property and ensuring compliance with evolving laws, startups in the FinTech sector need legal guidance tailored to their specific product offering and target audience.
Over the years, I have had the privilege of working with BankBazaar, KredX, Flipkart and Razorpay leading startups at various stages of their growth. This hands-on experience has allowed me to develop a deep understanding of the industry’s nuances and the legal and compliance frameworks that govern it.
In addition to working directly with startups, I have also been actively involved in the broader FinTech community, attending closed group industry body forum discussions/ committees and seminars, and staying updated on the latest trends and developments in the industry. This continuous learning and engagement have been instrumental in honing my skills and staying ahead of the curve in the rapidly evolving digital finance and payments industry.
You’ve had a diverse career path, ranging from law firm to in-house counsel. How have these different roles shaped your approach to legal advisory within the startup ecosystem?
Starting my career with a law firm provided me with a strong foundation in understanding the intricacies of legal practice and the importance of rigorous research, analysis, and advocacy. Working in a law firm environment exposed me to a wide range of clients and industries, allowing me to develop legal skills and the ability to adapt to different regulatory challenges and scenarios.
Transitioning to an in-house counsel role was a pivotal moment in my career. It offered me a unique perspective by immersing me directly into the operational and strategic aspects of a business. As an in-house counsel, I had the opportunity to work closely with business leaders, entrepreneurs, and cross-functional teams, gaining insights into the day-to-day challenges faced by startups and the broader business considerations that influence legal decisions.
This dual experience has enabled me to approach legal advisory within the startup ecosystem with a holistic and pragmatic mindset. I understand the importance of aligning legal strategies with business objectives, prioritizing risk mitigation while fostering innovation, and providing practical solutions that support startups in achieving their goals.
Moreover, having navigated both the law firm and in-house environments, I appreciate the value of collaboration and clear communication between legal counsel, business leaders, and cross functional stakeholders. I strive to build strong relationships based on trust, transparency, and open dialogue, ensuring that legal advice is not only legally sound but also actionable and tailored to the unique needs of the organization.
What sparked your interest in the FinTech and financial sectors? Could you elaborate on some of the innovative strategies you’ve employed in your legal practice?
I have always been fascinated by how FinTech can break down barriers of reach, scale and physical paperwork, create new opportunities, and redefine the way we think about financial services.
In my legal practice, I adopt a proactive stance towards regulatory compliance. Rather than reacting to regulatory shifts, I work with stakeholders to foresee future trends and develop compliant strategies from the get-go. This approach allows me to navigate the regulatory landscape confidently and strategically.
Additionally, I believe in collaborative relationships between startups, financial institutions, and regulatory bodies. By fostering open dialogue and partnerships, we can create a more harmonious ecosystem that encourages innovation while maintaining regulatory compliance and consumer protection. It is important to have regular open discussions with the regulators and licensing authorities to understand their perspective and their take on risks and consumer protection.
Given your extensive experience in areas such as digital lending, payments, and data protection, how do you stay updated with the rapidly evolving regulatory landscape in the FinTech industry?
Staying updated with the rapidly changing rules and regulations in the FinTech industry is crucial. To maintain a comprehensive understanding, I employ a systematic approach to staying informed. This approach allows me to deepen my expertise, refine my analytical skills, and adapt to the evolving regulatory environment effectively.
Firstly, I regularly read industry news, updates, and legal articles about FinTech. This helps me keep track of new rules or changes that could affect the industry and understand emerging trends related to FinTech.
Secondly, I attend seminars, workshops, and conferences focused on FinTech regulations and compliance whenever possible and actively participate in industry forums. These events provide valuable opportunities to learn from experts, engage in discussions with peers, and explore important issues in the field. Participating in these events allows me to share ideas, learn new strategies, and gain different perspectives on how to address regulatory challenges effectively.
As a mentor and leader, you’ve curated a proficient team of lawyers. How do you foster an environment of responsibility and dedication within your team, especially in such dynamic industries?
A captain is only as good as their team! Creating an inclusive work environment and ensuring equal opportunity within the team has always been a top priority for me. Here’s how we collaboratively approach this as a team:
Clear and open communication is fundamental to our team’s success. By setting transparent expectations and outlining our collective goals, we as a team develop a roadmap that empowers each team member to take ownership of their roles. This clarity not only offers direction but also cultivates a sense of purpose and accountability among all team members.
In the fast-paced FinTech, the power of collective intelligence is invaluable. We foster an environment that encourages knowledge sharing, open dialogue, and teamwork. This collaborative spirit enables us to harness diverse perspectives, drive innovation, and adapt effectively to challenges.
Recognizing the importance of celebrating achievements and milestones, we make it a point to acknowledge each other’s hard work, innovation, and dedication. This approach not only boosts morale but also fosters a culture where excellence is both recognized and encouraged.
Throughout your career, you’ve provided guidance on contract management, regulatory compliance, and legal matters. Could you share a particularly challenging case or project you’ve worked on and how you navigated through it?
One of the exciting projects I have worked on involved advising BankBazaar, my previous employer, on expanding into new international markets. The main challenge was dealing with different rules and regulations in each country about financial services and technology. Each place had its own laws, making it hard to make sure we followed all the rules.
To tackle this, I led a team to study the rules in each country carefully. We looked at what the local regulations were for the FinTech industry and what risks we might face. Based on this research, we created a detailed plan to help us follow the rules in each country while still achieving the company’s goals.
Reflecting on your journey, what advice would you give to fresh graduates aspiring to pursue a career in law, especially those interested in specializing in the FinTech sector?
Here’s some advice I’d give to fresh graduates aiming for a career in law, especially in the FinTech sector. First, focus on developing your critical thinking and problem-solving skills. These skills will help you tackle complex legal issues and find innovative solutions, making you stand out as a valuable legal professional. Second, be resilient and adaptable. The world outside law school can be challenging, so having the perseverance to overcome setbacks will help you grow stronger in your career.
Next, stay updated with technology and legal advancements. The legal sector is constantly evolving, and being tech-savvy will help you work more efficiently. Also, practice negotiation skills. These abilities will be crucial when resolving deadlocks and securing positive outcomes for your clients. Additionally, seek out a mentor or guru in your field of interest. I was fortunate enough to find one who guided me through both professional and personal challenges, providing invaluable insights and support.
