This interview has been published by Namrata Singh and The SuperLawyer Team
Can you share what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law, especially coming from a remote rural area in Bihar? Who showed you this career path of Law? Please allow us to walk through your journey.
Right from the very beginning, i.e. primary school days, I used to read that most of the freedom fighters, politicians and ministers were lawyers. This fact developed thinking inside my mind that lawyers are tools of social change in society. Observing my surroundings, where there are prevalent economic and social inequalities, I always wished to be a tool for social change. Though initially, I tried social upliftment in the village through arranging plays, cleanliness drives and free tuition after passing intermediate examinations, I decided to choose law as a profession so that my passion could also be fulfilled.
Transitioning from a Hindi medium school to studying law in English must have been challenging. How did you overcome these hurdles, and what advice would you give to students in similar situations?
Transitioning from Hindi Medium to English was the biggest challenge. Initially in school, I learnt translations from books, but later I chose more convenient ways to learn English by listening to Hindi and English news broadcasts respectively. Hindi and English broadcasts of BBC, DW (Deutsche Welle) and All India Radio on short waves helped me to a greater extent. Later in college, I used both Hindi and English medium books to study, however I used to write examinations in English. Watching English movies with subtitles also helped me in gaining vocabulary. After joining the courts, reading judgments regularly improved my English.
Young students who are in similar situations are advised to read lots and lots of bilingual study materials and switch to English gradually. In the current times, knowledge of the English Language is a must for success at least in Supreme Court and High Courts. However, no one should feel shy in trying even if he/she feels that his English is not perfect. Even today, after almost a decade of law practice, sometimes I fail to find or remember exact English words for feelings that I wish to express to Court or somewhere else. So the most important part is to keep trying and to remember that none of the Indians speak English as their mother tongue and they all have learnt English sooner or later as a second language only.
You have an extensive background working with legal stalwarts like Mr. K. K. Venugopal and Mr. Kapil Sibal. What are some key learnings you gained from these experiences?
Briefing legal stalwarts like Mr. K. K. Venugopal and Mr. Kapil Sibal are insightful. I have briefed them on many occasions in my independent matters. The biggest learning from briefing them is, to hear briefs patiently and carefully. Even though they are themselves an authority on some legal subject matters, but then also they take briefings very patiently and accommodate the viewpoints of juniors. In one of the matters wherein interpretation of the MMDR Act was involved, Mr. K. K. Venugopal, who was the Attorney General of India, had many detailed discussions with me as assisting counsel before giving the final Written Opinion to the State of Chhattisgarh.
Since shifting your focus to the Supreme Court in 2016, how has your approach to handling cases evolved, and what unique challenges have you encountered?
After shifting practice in the Supreme Court, my approach has remained simple and steady. I never draft unnecessary bulky briefs and have never tried to mislead the Hon’ble Court or the opposite party. In the beginning years, my focal point of briefs was scattered but with experience, gradually, I have learnt to pinpoint the main legal issues involved in a case, so that the Hon’ble Court may not waste valuable judicial time in finding legal issues in a brief.
The most unique challenge I have faced in the Supreme Court is the unbalanced approach of Hon’ble Benches in hearing cases that are led by Senior Advocates and Advocates. There is a general tendency among Judges that if a matter is represented by relatively young counsel, it must not be an important matter. Some benches even get angry and try to dissuade them from appearing in the Supreme Court threatening with costs.
You have been involved in various public interest litigations aimed at improving the judicial system. Can you discuss a specific PIL you worked on and its impact on society?
I remained part of many PILs. However, the most important PIL was ‘Youth Bar Association of India V Union of India’ reported in (2016) 9 SCC 473 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct all states and Union Territories to upload a copy of FIR on respective websites within 24 hours of its registration. This judgment had a huge impact on the administration of justice. Earlier, common citizens were not able to get copies of FIR even after many attempts, now it can be obtained through some clicks online. In one of PIL ‘Manohar Pratap V Union of India’ W.P. (C) No. 780 of 2019, I raised issues of the deaths of hundreds of children in Bihar due to Encephalitis. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took a serious view in the matter and in reply filed by the State of Bihar, it was found that there is a complete lack of medical services in Bihar. Later the matter was disposed of with liberty to approach the High Court of Patna.
During your tenure as Deputy Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh, what were some significant cases you handled, and what did this role teach you about state-level legal issues?
During my tenure as Deputy Advocate General, most of the matters handled by me were related to the MMDR Act and NGT Act. There are no such remarkable judgments to point out, however representing the state I learned about the stage-wise implementation of policies, and lacunas in State machinery leading to non-implementation of judgments.
As a staunch supporter of mediation in matrimonial cases, how do you see mediation contributing to a more efficient and humane judicial process?
Mediation is an important tool for resolving disputes. From my personal experience, I found that there is a 50% success rate for resolving disputes through mediation, which is much better than dragging cases for years.
As a staunch supporter of mediation in matrimonial cases, how do you see mediation contributing to a more efficient and humane judicial process? Can you elaborate on its effectiveness in resolving disputes compared to traditional litigation?
Most mediations are in matrimonial disputes arising from transfer petitions. I don’t do adversarial litigation in matrimonial disputes and always try to find an amicable solution through the help of mediators from the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Meditations in matrimonial disputes are completely averse to traditional litigation. When parties in matrimonial disputes go to Courts in traditional hearings, they develop animosity against each other which further deteriorates their relationship, and litigation keeps going on for years and years. However, in Mediation, when parties sit face to face in the presence of a mediator, with the comfort that their words cannot be used against each other in a Court of law, they open up and issues are generally resolved in 1 to 3 hearings. Which saves a lot of judicial time.
Outside of your legal practice, what personal hobbies or interests do you pursue, and how do they help you maintain a work-life balance?
Outside my legal practice, I am a pet lover and I like to travel to serene places. I am a good swimmer. In my free time, I watch a lot of documentaries based on various social and other issues around the world.
Looking ahead, what are your goals for your independent practice, and how do you plan to continue contributing to the legal field and society at large?
My goal in independent practice is to keep gradually rising and make space among already established names in the Supreme Court. For my contribution to society, I do many pro bono cases, mostly for persons in custody. All the matters that I argue in the Supreme Court are aimed towards strengthening the civil liberties and rights of common citizens. I believe that every advocate owes a duty to challenge arbitrary actions of Govts. which are aimed towards curtailing liberty in any manner.
Get in touch with Manohar Pratap-
