This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
With over a decade of experience across various areas of law, do you believe law was always your destined path, or were there particular factors that steered you in this direction?
For me, it was a mix of both. While studying at Loyola School, Trivandrum, we had only two main options after school: engineering or medicine—there were no streams for humanities or commerce. I initially leaned towards engineering but decided to keep a backup. The year I finished school was the first year of CLAT, which consolidated various law entrance exams into one. Law seemed like a good alternative, partly because my father had a law degree, though he pursued a career in journalism.
Interestingly, I performed well in my engineering CETs but not in CLAT. Despite this, I was so fatigued by the STEM curriculum that the backup suddenly became my first choice. Eventually, I chose ILS Law College, Pune over GLC in Mumbai because my family felt more comfortable with Pune—though the reasons remain unclear to this day!
Once I joined ILS, I grew to love the idea of a career in law. After a few internships in Mumbai and New Delhi, I gravitated towards litigation. Mr. Kishore Vussonji at Kanga & Co., with whom I interned a few times, suggested I start practicing in New Delhi rather than Mumbai. I took his advice, and it was the right decision—Delhi has been very kind to me.
You began your legal journey at the office of an Advocate-on-Record (AOR) at the Supreme Court of India. How did this initial experience shape your understanding of the legal profession and influence your subsequent career choices?
Until recently, the ‘traditional’ path at the Supreme Court involved starting in an AOR’s office, then moving to a senior counsel’s chamber, and eventually starting independent practice. Though this route is no longer dogma, it’s the one I followed.
I interned with Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Senior Advocate, during my final year of law school. He offered me a position in his chambers post-graduation, which aligned perfectly with my goal to practice at the Supreme Court. His chambers was an AOR office then, and under his guidance, I focused on learning court processes, you know, getting familiar with the Supreme Court, drafting, and understanding the nuances of the profession—the ‘ropes’ as they say. This was foundational.
Later, I joined the chambers of Mr. Shyam Divan, a four-year stint that I consider transformative for me. Court craft is something you keenly watch and learn at a senior’s chamber—of course Mr. Divan’s style is inimitable, although I must confess many of us have tried in vain to copy it! Another thing we learnt by watching was the high degree of rectitude and integrity one had to maintain when acting as counsel—towards the court, clients & co-counsel, all. Finally, he would insist that you must always attempt to ‘elevate’ your brief as counsel, especially at the Supreme Court. It matters what you bring to the brief over and above what is written in it. These are lessons that have profoundly shaped my practice.
Can you share your experience of completing your LL.M. at Harvard Law School? What motivated you to choose this institution, and could you share with us the admission process and criteria for our young readers?
Harvard Law School was both enriching and humbling. I decided to pursue my LL.M. six years into my career, unlike many Indian applicants who apply straight out of college. Initially, I was hesitant because I didn’t want to lose my small but growing practice. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Senior Advocate, among other seniors at the bar encouraged me to consider it, and I eventually decided to apply to U.S. law schools for their rigorous yet compact programs.
The application process for most Ivy League schools is somewhat same, and involves submitting a strong statement of purpose, solid references, and academic essays. My SOP—which shouldn’t be a flamboyant CV—was a simple, personal essay. Personal essays, I had become fond of as a form having read its champions such as Didion, Sontag and Baldwin, so I felt that was the easier bit. Harvard required an additional academic proposal, which I based on my reflections about the Supreme Court’s role in post-conflict scenarios. This proposal evolved into my dissertation under the guidance of Dean Martha Minow, a renowned scholar in transitional justice.
I feel my time at Harvard was important to me for two major reasons. Academically, it gave me a framework and a language to express my already brewing concerns about the judicial process. I learnt from the giants of the Critical Legal Studies movement—Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Duncan Kennedy, David Kennedy & Mark Tushnet—and the ideas that were discussed in class spoke to my bare-bones thoughts and reflections. On a personal level, it gave me a huge cohort of friends, strewn all over the world doing great things, and some of whom I get to collaborate with every now and then. Both are important reasons, and I think I’m better off for having spent some time in the little town of Cambridge, MA.
After gaining significant experience working with various big names in the legal industry, you chose to start your own practice. What prompted this decision, what challenges did you face in the early stages, how did you overcome them?
In January 2022, I co-founded Godiyal & Manoharan Chambers with Samiksha Godiyal, a friend and colleague from Mr. Divan’s chambers who shared my vision for a chamber practice. Seniors encouraged us to go independent, and by then, we had experience managing independent briefs alongside chamber work.
The early challenges were universal: balancing roles as CFO, COO, and CMO while maintaining high standards of legal service. Putting in place systems and strategies has helped overcome these challenges, and prepare the chambers for the long game. New challenges always crop up, but they are welcome—they keep you sharp and motivated. One of our keen focuses is on more tech-integration in the processes, which we have been able to achieve to an encouraging extend benefiting service excellence, and the practice in general; keeps the chambers future-ready.
You’ve been involved in several landmark Supreme Court decisions, such as the marriage equality case, the Cauvery River dispute, the Right to Privacy case, and the decriminalization of consensual same-sex relationships. Could you share one particularly interesting case you’ve worked on and how you prepared for such a complex matter?
All these cases you have mentioned were very interesting to me and have resulted in mixed outcomes from the Indian Supreme Court. As we speak, we have dismissal from the court on our review petitions in the marriage equality case, something I have been involved in right from 2020 when the first petitions were filed in the Delhi High Court. All briefs are interesting briefs, some make news, others don’t, but that’s the beauty of having a generalist practice, one can never get bored!
The Cauvery River Water Dispute that you mentioned is the one that ended with a judgment from the Supreme Court in 2018. Now this is a niche area of law, inter-state river water disputes. There are about 10 or so in the history of the country, and I was able to be part of two—the other one was the Mahadayi river dispute among Karnataka, Maharashtra and Goa. This niche area of law involves complex questions of federalism, prior use rights, and equitable water distribution. The Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment marked its first appeal over a water tribunal’s decision. Preparation involved examining over 50 U.S. court decisions on river water sharing to distill first principles of equitable distribution. These principles helped guide the Supreme Court’s analysis of the tribunal’s award.
I suppose with climate change we will see more of these disputes not only of a domestic character but also at the global level. There will be more dams as countries try to achieve their national renewable energy goals, and more or less water in rivers to share owing to changing weather patterns. It’s an area of growing importance.
You had worked as counsel representing the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) before the Delhi High Court for about two years? What key challenges did you encounter in handling regulatory disputes, particularly in light of your experience representing a regulator?
Representing NCTE was my first experience as counsel for a statutory regulator. I found that judges respond well to state counsel if they are handy with timely instructions on most occasions, and at all times, fair and prepared. I think that was key to assisting the court from the State’s side.
Often regulatory disputes on the writ side of the high courts or specialised tribunals like APTEL or SAT have to deal with petitions seeking to compel the statutory regulator to do their job or petitions examining the correctness of adjudicatory decisions of the regulator. These are disputes related to the regulatory activity itself. The other cases, which I got to see a fair share of was, disputes on policy—which may enter courts as a vires challenge. My experience at Harvard where the policy-oriented approach is often reflected in case law was useful in litigating these disputes in our courts. Sound policy arguments, alongside technical legal points, are crucial in such cases.
On the private side of things, like for any other regulated entity in business you are looking out for the commercials while litigating. Something that we try to do at chambers is to understand that the commercials at stake in a case, the ‘pain-point’ so to say—legal arguments and strategies will flow accordingly.
As a member of the LAWASIA Human Rights Committee, could you share some of the key initiatives or challenges you have encountered in your role?
LAWASIA is a regional association of lawyers, judges, jurists and legal organisations, which advocates for the interests and concerns of the Asia Pacific legal profession. They’ve been around for over six decades, and is one of top associations of lawyers in the region. I’ve been a member for a few years now, and since February 2024, as part of its Human Rights Committee, I focus on the intersection of business and human rights.
Apart from being a brilliant network spanning across regions, LAWASIA hosts very significant conferences each year on various areas of the law, apart from its annual conferences. In February this year, LAWASIA along with the Nepal Bar Association is hosting the 5th International Human Rights Conference in Kathmandu. I am able to join friends who are excellent lawyers and scholars from Malaysia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea & Australia in our committee and also, learn from folks who do brilliant work in Singapore, China, Vietnam and other jurisdictions in the region.
LAWASIA’s conferences and webinars provide invaluable insights into regional legal issues, emphasizing both shared experiences and unique challenges. Recently there was a discussion on “Human Rights at Sea,” where we heard from those advocating the cause of stateless fishing communities. These forums offer opportunities to learn and collaborate across jurisdictions.
As you have written a piece on mental health and the legal profession, could you share some key insights or recommendations on how the legal community can address these issues? Additionally, what role do you believe law firms and legal institutions should play in fostering a healthier work environment? On a personal note, how do you manage the balance between your personal and professional commitments?
Mental health interventions in the workplace are a dime a dozen. Addressing mental health begins with acknowledging the profession’s high-stress nature and fostering open conversations.
Discussions on mental health in the legal profession have significantly evolved since I wrote about the topic in The Caravan in 2016. Back then, it wasn’t a mainstream conversation, but now we see greater awareness, better vocabulary, and even acknowledgement from senior figures like chief justices.. So, that’s a good thing—but then as they say, talk is cheap.
I wanted to draw attention to the issue at the time—much like that famous ‘mission statement’ from Jerry Maguire (though thankfully, I didn’t lose my job over it like he did!). Meaningful change requires more than lip service. Judges and senior members of the Bar must lead serious discussions and implement effective systems to make the profession more accommodating.
Personally, I balance work by spending time with loved ones, enjoying music, and staying active. Remembering that work is only part of life—and learning not to take oneself too seriously—can make a big difference.
What advice would you give to young lawyers who aspire to build a successful career like yours? How should they approach planning their career trajectory and advancing in the legal profession?
Goodwill and relationships, and an overall commitment to excellence are invaluable in the legal profession. While financial success is important, pro bono work should not be overlooked—it’s equally rewarding. Success is personal and evolving. Take time to define success on your own terms—if you are able to do that, you’ve solved half the puzzle!
Get in touch with Govind Manoharan –
