This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
After transitioning from the Kerala High Court to the Supreme Court of India, what differences have you observed in terms of legal strategy, advocacy, and the overall courtroom environment?
First of all, a big thumbs up to LawSikho and SuperLawyer for reaching out to young lawyers, interviewing them, and sharing their experiences with the wider legal community. It’s an encouraging initiative that inspires and guides many who are just starting out in the profession. I trust that this exchange of experiences among lawyers is carried out within the bounds of professional ethics, and serves to strengthen the legal fraternity.
Coming to the question, in terms of legal strategy and advocacy, I have not observed any significant difference from the High Court. The manner in which we draft a petition or present a case before the court is almost the same. These are the basics. They apply uniformly across all courts. The only difference I observed was the time available during the admission stage in the Supreme Court. You typically get only one to three minutes to argue the matter, and within that short span, you must convince the court that the case warrants admission and the issuance of notice to the parties. If you have a strong case on merits, are well-prepared, and present it with due respect to the court and the opposing side, the court will hear you regardless of your experience or age in the profession.
You’ve taken up several pro bono matters, including a notable case involving life-saving treatment for an infant. What drives your commitment to such causes, and how do you balance them alongside a demanding practice?
I won’t claim to have taken up several pro bono matters, but yes, I have handled a few because I believe it is not just the duty of a lawyer, but also a moral responsibility as a human being to help those in need, to the extent we can. One such case that I will always be proud of as a lawyer was about securing life-saving treatment for an infant. The child was only five months old. Her parents had already lost two daughters to a rare genetic disorder called Spinal Muscular Atrophy. Naturally, they were terrified that their third daughter might meet the same fate. Through the intervention of some social activists, they reached out to me. To save the child, they needed Rs.18 crores, an amount far beyond their reach. I filed a writ petition seeking financial assistance from the State, arguing that the right to life is a fundamental right under the Constitution, and it is the duty of the State to ensure that this right is not violated. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nagaresh passed an interim order directing that the child be provided with complete free treatment, based on a statement made by Government Pleader Ms. Parvathy Kottol, who was handling the case at that time. The State extended full support to the family. What stood out to me in this experience was how, in such extreme situations, Judges and Government Pleaders are also willing to go beyond their regular roles to ensure justice is served.
With experience spanning Constitutional, Administrative, and Criminal Law, how do you tailor your approach to building cases in each of these distinct domains, and what strategies help you stay current across them?
At this point in time, I don’t believe it’s possible for me to plan and settle into a specific area of law. The areas of law one ends up working in often depend on the offices one has assisted, or the nature of the cases you get. Moreover, legal subjects often overlap, say, a criminal case may give rise to constitutional questions.
While I was a junior at Nagaraj Associates, I had the opportunity to assist in a wide range of matters across various fields. In my personal view, at this stage of practice, a lawyer should be open to working across all kinds of matters, be it civil, criminal, constitutional, arbitration, or any other area of law.
Your PIL led to significant changes in Telegram’s content moderation policies. Could you share about it?
No, the platform did not change any policy on its own. The PIL was filed specifically to curb child pornography on this particular platform. When the court issued notice to the State Government, the State supported the Petitioner and even stated that the platform was a “safe haven for criminals.” Later on, the Central Government issued the new IT Rules, which included the appointment of a Nodal Officer for all digital platforms to address such complaints. The court then relegated the Petitioner to approach the Nodal Officer under these rules. As per my understanding, the platform no longer retains such objectionable content. It is now being removed immediately upon detection or complaint.
Having handled a wide range of cases across different legal domains, could you share one of the most complex or challenging cases you’ve worked on and how you navigated its intricacies?
One case that stands out was that of a minor boy who aspired to study at Jawahar Navodaya School. His admission was rejected on the ground that he had not studied in a rural area, as required by the rules. We challenged these rules. In the second round of litigation, after the Single Bench dismissed the case, I filed a writ appeal. At that time, I had just two years of experience in the profession. I studied the case to the best of my ability and appeared before the Division Bench led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar. However, during the admission hearing, the questions posed by the Bench made me feel as though I didn’t even know the basics despite all the time and effort I had invested in preparation. The court granted me one more week to prepare. When I returned the following week, I argued the matter with all the relevant case laws. Yet, each argument was carefully questioned and, one after the other, rejected by the court. Despite that, when the final judgment was delivered, the court directed the school to grant admission to the student, with a specific note that the relief granted would not be treated as a precedent. What made the experience unforgettable was that the Hon’ble Judges recorded in the judgment how I had presented the arguments in court. After pronouncing the judgment, they smiled at me and said, “We are granting this relief only because of your hard work on this case.” That moment was a huge relief, not just for the child, but also for me as a young lawyer. It gave me immense confidence to continue in the profession.
In one of your cases, the court emphasized that a guilty plea should not automatically result in a lenient sentence. How do you perceive the judiciary’s evolving stance on sentencing and plea bargaining in the Indian legal system?
There is a growing trend where, when charges are framed and read over to the accused, they admit guilt on the spot, believing that the matter will end with the payment of a small fine. In one such case, the Petitioner had suffered a head injury from an attack, yet the accused was let off with just a petty fine. This was challenged, and the court took serious note of the same, issuing a strong warning to the trial court against exonerating accused persons in serious cases merely on payment of fines. While plea bargaining is an accepted legal practice, in my personal opinion, it should not become a means for the accused to escape the real punishment prescribed by law for serious offences.
As someone who has independently argued cases before the Supreme Court and contributed to reported judgments, what guidance would you offer to young lawyers aiming to build a strong practice?
As anyone would say, hard work and stepping out of your comfort zone are the only ways to grow. In my case, I decided to move to Delhi after five years of practice at the High Court even though I had a handful of cases there. Some well-wishers asked me, “Why would you leave a steady practice to become a briefless lawyer in a new place?” Honestly, I wasn’t sure if my decision was right. Coming from Kerala, where we enjoy clean air, good food, water, and a clean environment, the shift was tough. I initially found accommodation in a very poor locality, and the weather, food, and overall conditions in Delhi weakened me both physically and mentally. At one point, I even questioned if I had made a mistake. But within two months, I started receiving briefs in the Supreme Court from senior colleagues at the High Court. That’s when I realised that the hard work I had put in back home was beginning to pay off in a new form. So yes, in my experience, hard work remains the only way to build a strong and lasting practice. One guiding principle I always carry with me is a piece of advice from my senior, Mr. Adv. Nagaraj Narayanan, once gave me: “Never ever suppress any facts from the court, even if they go against you.” That integrity is something I strive to uphold in every case I handle.
What initially inspired you to pursue a career in law, and how has your vision for your legal practice evolved over the years? What are your aspirations going forward?
It was my father who first inspired me to pursue law as a profession. I remain ever grateful to him for his constant support. Today, my wife, Ipsita Ojal, who is also a lawyer, stands beside me, making her own sacrifices by joining me in Delhi to support my journey. Over the years, my vision for legal practice has matured from simply building a career to creating a meaningful and principled practice. I aspire to continue growing in this profession, staying true to the values that brought me here, and to keep practising with the same commitment and integrity that I began with.
I believe more young lawyers should actively come to the Supreme Court. It’s one of the most effective ways to make litigation at the apex court more accessible and affordable for litigants, especially those from underprivileged backgrounds. Until we have separate regional benches established across the country, the presence of committed and capable young lawyers at the Supreme Court in Delhi is essential to bridge the gap.
Balancing the demands of a legal career with personal life can be challenging. How do you manage this balance, and what are your preferred ways to unwind or recharge outside of work?
For me, the answer is simple. My family. Amid the pressures of legal practice, spending time with my loved ones helps me stay grounded and recharged. Their presence gives me both strength and perspective, and it’s through those quiet moments with family that I find balance.
Get in touch with Manas P Hameed –
