This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
Having such immense experience in diverse fields, can you share the story behind your choosing law as a career and what kind of moments or experiences have motivated you to continue for almost two decades now?
Well, I think simply because one life is not enough for law. Every day passes by, and you know you have learned something new. There will not be a single day in this profession where you will not go to bed with a feeling that you have learned something new today. And yet when you try to ask yourself, do I really know the subject, the answer will definitely be no, because it’s vast, it’s huge, and it is dynamic.
For example, several of the subjects we practice today, we have not studied in law college. They are new to us, and we learn every day. And the profession, I mean, now, of course, there are various aspects. Once you have your law degree, there are various ways in which you can put your legal education to use. But even if we are just talking about litigation alone, every day you will learn something new. I have been doing this for almost two decades, as you rightly pointed out, but there are still so many areas of law that are new to me, and I’m still looking for an opportunity to learn and grab that.
So I think that’s the romance of law. That’s the whole idea and the fun of being a lawyer: you learn every day. I mean, look at it like this — suppose I were in a different profession, you would have called me a middle-aged woman, but I’m a toddler in the profession still. We have a very long professional life that keeps us young and alive, and that’s the beauty of the profession. That’s why it’s all worth it.
When we were in school, the usual thing was that if you’re a good student, you would study science. So, I also wanted to believe that I was a good student. I took maths with biology as a subject in class 12, which clearly shows that I was confused and not very clear about what I wanted to do. But yes, everybody said, we have to now sit for the competitive exam. I had though had one advantage, my parents had studied law. And I think by far, I have, in that sense, inherited my father’s passion for law, for the subject. So, I remember my evenings were earmarked for me with my father. And once, where I think what sparked the interest was when I was in class 7th or 6th, my father was reading Lord Denning’s closing chapter. And he would come back, and, you know, I still have a very vivid memory of the time he would spend with me asking me what I was doing. He would sit on the corner of a sofa and just sit with a book, and perhaps he was so engrossed in reading it.
I thought, who is this bald man who has eaten up all my time? I wanted to know who this bald man was, not knowing that who actually Lord Denning was. And that’s where I started actually going through his books and all. So, very often it happens that we are interested in, or we choose a field because we have a role model, and we want to become something, we want to become a lawyer. So, we want to study law. In my case, it was the other way around. I was so confused about what I wanted to study and what I really enjoyed reading. Today, I am able to articulate it, but when I was a young girl, I had difficulty in articulating or understanding my own interest.
So, while I was interested in stories, history, and all sorts of books around me, when I looked at even science subjects like Math, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, the ones I was reading to score marks, it was more out of a curious interest. My hobby or the time when I had to recreate or my leisure was all filled with all kinds of books. My father once pointed out to me that, “Look here, this is your bent of mind. This is what you should look at making your profession.” So I would write poems, I would read poems, I would do things, but I was really never able to understand it. And as I was telling you, I did clear an engineering entrance exam.
And a day before I cleared, and interestingly, when we were in school, the whole quest about getting into a law college — there weren’t so many law colleges then — and my father is the old-world person in that sense of the term, believing that if you want to study law, you should have certain maturity. He says, “You can’t teach fundamental rights to a 17-year-old boy.” That’s how he looked at it. So, when I first started expressing myself that I wanted to study law, my father was of the view that I should do a graduation program in any subject I wanted and then take up a three-year law course. Because, as he still believed, how could a 16-year-old person understand jurisprudence or what is a fundamental right? And he would always tell me, “To understand the right to life, you have to live a life.”
There were some five-year law colleges that had come up. So, I finally managed to convince my father to let me sit for an entrance exam. Or, if I can recollect correctly, there was National Law School, Bangalore, which I could not appear for because by the time I convinced my father, the dates had closed. So, the only entrance exam I took was for Symbiosis. In those days, there was only one Symbiosis, which was in Pune and affiliated with Pune University. It wasn’t even a deemed university then. I remember I had my entrance exam at Teen Murti Bhavan, and I enjoyed the entrance exam like anything. I knew the answers at the back of my hand.
See, Maths, Physics, those legal deductions, when you were studying Math in class 12, were like baby steps. It wasn’t difficult at all. General knowledge — I realized that’s where I really understood that I knew almost everything. For example, there was this question, “What does Parliament consist of?” I knew that it was Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha, and the president. There were questions on legal news and current affairs, and I knew all of that. I remember when my name came up, I was at serial number eight on the list.
So, when I went to my father and said, “Let’s go for this,” and that’s where my mentor, Dr. Akilen Pandey, played a very important role in my final decision. Because, all said and done, even in those days, someone would call you a fool for giving up engineering and studying law. But I was glad I was surrounded by people passionate about law, who were able to guide me and show me how beautiful the subject was. And once I was in college, I remember after the first class, I called up my father and said, “I finally know what I’m going to study for the rest of my life.” My soul had found its place. So, for me, it was more about the passion for law. Even today, you know, while I am a lawyer, I practice law in court, it’s not about what I want to become; it’s always the subject that is the core of everything I do. It’s the love for the subject that takes precedence over everything else.
I enjoyed it, actually. You know, there are two exams that I enjoyed thoroughly. One was my law entrance and the other was my advocate-on-record exam. Even if a bomb would have dropped outside, I would have cared less. I would have perhaps continued participating in the process.
Ma’am, at the very start of your career, you had the option of joining esteemed advocates like Advocate Gopal Subramanium. How did that experience shape your approach towards law, your research, and the way you work today?
You know, the most important thing in a lawyer’s life is the chamber they start from. I had been exceptionally blessed because of the people I worked with, particularly in the initial years. In our profession, we say that the horse is from which stable—that’s your genealogy, your pedigree. And I am very lucky in that way because that’s what shapes you. On the face of it, it may look like we were just assisting them, but the relationship between a senior and junior is very much like a parent and child.
When you are a baby, you hate everything that your parents say. You disagree with them. You don’t understand why they’re doing something. Sometimes, you find them irrational. But as you grow up, you begin to realize why they behave the way they do. And to your nightmare, you’ll realize that you’ve also turned into them.
So, in a way, there are things, like for example, Mr. Subramanium’s chamber — I can bet you, you go to any junior who has come from that office, you will see we all have a style of preparing a note that we take to court. This is the note we used to prepare for sir. I still don’t know how to read a file or go to court without a note in my hand. Now, of course, my notes have shifted to electronic notes, but even today, while I use LiquidText and its features, I still make my note. All my files have a note. It’s a very typical thing, and I can bet any junior today from Mr. Subramanium’s chamber would not have a note in their file. We don’t know how to read our files without the note.
So, it’s like I just said, this is one thing we’ve all imbibed. We’ve all imbibed certain traits, the way we work, the way we think. For example, Mr. Subramanium was an early riser. He would start early in the morning. Now, most offices work late into the night. I have, by default, become an early morning person. I can start early because he worked that way. So we got acclimatized to the way he worked.
Those things you may not realize like I didn’t realize it for a very long time, but now, when I sit back and reflect, I think I’m always more comfortable starting early rather than doing something late at night. I like to read my files, revise them early in the morning, or have a meeting with clients in the morning rather than late at night.
So, it defines almost everything. And it’s not just the people you work with — we also have the benefit of working with some of the stalwarts in the profession, assisting them. Every time we assist them, there’s something you learn from them. By just observing them, watching them. If you ask me, the person who actually teaches you the law is the judge sitting on the other side. That person, and if you want to learn the procedure, the person sitting in the registry will teach you the procedure. So, these two people are actually our gurus in that sense, because we learn while interacting with them. They are the best teachers, actually. The judges are the best teachers in that sense.
Ma’am, you practically take out all that guru factor from everywhere you go—from the registry to judges, to even your juniors, and seniors. Obviously, everyone has their own style. How did you choose your style, and when did you decide to start your own practice? What kind of motivation was behind all of it? Because it’s not always easy, I would say, to make the decision to go independent and start a whole firm for yourself. When and how did you decide to take that step?
So, there wasn’t a particular moment when I decided. I started working at my first chamber, which was an advocate-on-record’s chamber. I had the advantage of being clear in my head that if I wanted to practice in the Supreme Court, I needed to become an advocate-on-record (AOR).
I knew it would take me five years, but effectively six, because our results in Pune University were declared in June, so by the time we got our certificates and enrolled, it was July. The AOR rule requires you to complete one year of training after four years of enrollment before taking the AOR exam. For us, post-April enrollments meant an additional year, so it became a six-year process for me. I started preparing for the AOR exam during this time.
My journey began in the chamber of an advocate-on-record. After that, I got an opportunity to work with Mr. Subramanium. Back then, he was Solicitor General, and his practice was focused entirely on Supreme Court work. I worked with him for a while, but the exposure I gained was mainly in the Supreme Court.
By 2009, after three years of practice, I realized I had zero experience in original side work, trial courts, or High Courts. The only forum I’d worked in was the Supreme Court. However, being based in Delhi, I had the advantage of having access to various courts and tribunals, and I was eager to learn. I started taking up work from different people and assisting whenever I could in trial courts, learning things I hadn’t done before, like drafting plaints.
Then, Mr. Sanjay Ghosh came into the picture, and his practice in the High Court gave me my first exposure to original side work. I also started volunteering for arbitration proceedings, marking them on my calendar and following them as if they were my own cases, even though I had no client or fee.
By the time I became an AOR, I had some matters here and there. But once I passed the exam, my practice truly began to take off. One major benefit of being an AOR is the liberty it offers—you can take on a case pro bono and still handle everything, from drafting to arguing, without needing to depend on anyone else. This flexibility allowed me to build a practice independently and create opportunities for myself.
Ma’am, there are times when people question this aspect as well that if you keep doing things for free, when will you start charging? I’m just stating what has often been said. How have you navigated such challenges and strategized your practice? What suggestions would you have for newcomers or people who want to create their own path? You’ve worked in such diverse areas like service laws, company laws, taxation, civil, constitutional law, etc. How have you managed all of that?
One of the best strategies is not to let an opportunity slip by, even if it seems like something that cannot be monetized immediately. Sometimes, what appears to be free work today can translate into valuable opportunities later.
For example, when the Sexual Harassment Act was passed in 2013, many organizations struggled to set up their sexual harassment committees. Some of my clients from PSUs reached out to me for advice, and though I didn’t charge for it initially, I helped them understand the new rules and how to form committees. It seemed like free work at the time, but it eventually led to more billable work, and what started as a small thing turned into a significant opportunity.
It’s important to note that this doesn’t mean you should work for free indefinitely. In fact, it’s essential to know your worth and charge for your time when it’s appropriate. But early in your career, you must recognize that sometimes giving away a bit of your expertise for free can build trust and open doors.
For instance, my pro bono work with the All India Judges Association started in 2014. Although I wasn’t paid, that work led to other opportunities. Similarly, the work I did for free or at a minimal rate built a foundation for my practice to grow.
The key here is not to have a myopic view of your career. Understand that, as a lawyer, you are not an employee. You are an entrepreneur. It’s different from a regular job where you can clock in and clock out. As a lawyer, particularly if you’re aiming to be an arguing counsel, you need to realize that you’re in charge of your own success.
Once you understand this, everything becomes easier. You won’t get caught up in the conventional expectations of time sheets or packages. You’ll embrace the ups and downs of the profession because you’re building your own practice, and that mindset will ultimately make the journey smoother.
Ma’am, you have also been involved in a lot of gender awareness initiatives, especially your role in the internal complaint committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act and your position as an external member for organizations such as Rashtrapati Bhavan. What kind of challenges do you face when addressing gender sensitization issues, particularly concerning sexual harassment prevention? How do you assist or advocate for individuals in overcoming these issues, especially with more women entering the workforce in various environments? How have you addressed these challenges under your supervision?
There are two main aspects to the work I’ve done. First, gender sensitization is a subject I’m deeply passionate about. In fact, I’m currently pursuing a PhD in feminist jurisprudence, an area of growing interest for me as I continue working on these issues. I’ve had the opportunity to engage with this law in three capacities: as a lawyer, where I represent clients in court; as a member of an internal committee, adjudicating complaints under the law; and through conducting awareness workshops, which I love doing. These workshops have been conducted in various institutions, each with its own unique challenges.
One of the biggest challenges is that, as a country, we’re still not entirely clear on what constitutes sexual harassment from a legal standpoint. For example, the Vishakha guidelines were established in 1997, and although the 2013 Act is essentially a continuation of those principles, the law remains quite skeletal. It states that sexual harassment includes any unwelcome advance, but what qualifies as an advance is not clearly defined. In the virtual world, what might be considered a form of sexual harassment could be something as simple as sending a WhatsApp message or insisting on a cup of tea when someone is uncomfortable. It’s unclear how these actions should be categorized.
Another issue is the diversity of workplaces – the law applies to a law firm, a school, a multinational company, and even Anganwadi workers, each with distinct sensitivities. For example, in multinational companies, a simple gesture like a peck on the cheek may not be seen as problematic, but in other workplaces, it may be inappropriate. So, determining where the line is between workplace conflict and sexual harassment is often not easy. The definition of sexual harassment is still a point of confusion, even within legal circles.
I’ll give you an example. In 2015, the Ministry of Women and Child Development came out with a handbook categorizing various incidents as “sexual harassment,” “may or may not be,” or “definitely not.” However, this handbook is just a guide and not legally binding. So, even though it can help, it still leaves room for confusion in how to conduct inquiries and address harassment cases.
A particularly common mistake is when people try to substitute their own sensibilities for the person making the complaint. For example, if a woman reports that a man tried to touch her, a person might dismiss it as just a handshake. But we need to understand whether the person making the complaint is genuinely uncomfortable with it. This has been a difficult concept for many, including judges, to grasp. The challenge is to put aside your own sensibilities and view the case from the perspective of the individual making the complaint. We need to ensure we’re not dismissing their feelings just because we would have acted differently. It’s essential to have training that allows us to understand these issues in layman’s terms so that people can really apply these systems with clarity.
Ma’am, you’ve stated that you’ve gone paperless and, in your words, you’ve become a semi-technology-equipped lawyer. With more of our lives going online, such as court appearances and meetings, do you think we’re addressing online harassment in the same way we’re addressing physical harassment? In particular, the psychological impact of online harassment, which can be unforeseen, and what steps are being taken to address that?
That’s a great question. In fact, Rajasthan High Court recently ruled that the concept of “workplace” under the Sexual Harassment Act should also apply to virtual spaces. This means that online meetings and virtual workplaces are covered under the Act, which is a step in the right direction. The issue is now clear: even online harassment is covered. There’s also international precedent, with countries like Australia issuing similar guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many organizations have updated their sexual harassment policies to ensure that online platforms, emails, and WhatsApp groups are covered.
The challenge is that people often still don’t recognize that online harassment exists. It’s difficult for many to comprehend that harassment can happen without any physical contact. Even in situations where we’re having a conversation online, harassment can occur. That’s why sensitization is so important. People need to understand that harassment isn’t just about physical actions—it’s about respecting another person’s comfort level.
It’s also crucial to recognize that sexual harassment doesn’t always involve a clear sexual offense. Many people confuse harassment with sexual offenses, simply because the word “sexual” is involved. Some individuals believe that their actions, such as making a comment or joking, are harmless because they don’t intend to cause harm. But it’s not about intentions; it’s about whether the other person feels uncomfortable. Understanding each other’s sensibilities is key to creating a respectful environment, whether online or offline.
Ma’am, balancing your roles as an advocate, faculty member, and the head of your law firm is incredibly demanding. There’s also the aspect of mental health in this profession, something that isn’t often discussed. How do you manage to balance all of these responsibilities? What advice would you give to young professionals entering this field, which is both demanding and stressful?
You’ve raised an important issue. The most important thing for a successful lawyer is good mental health, but we don’t talk about it enough. As lawyers, people come to us with problems—emotional, financial, personal—and we bear that burden too. Balancing all the different roles you mentioned requires resilience. For me, it’s essential to find time to laugh, stay positive, and not get overwhelmed. Burnout is a real issue, especially with the long hours we often work. Many of my students, after about 10 years in practice, experience this burnout.
The first thing I would advise young professionals is to pay attention to your health—both mental and physical. Don’t skip meals, don’t compromise on sleep, and make sure you’re doing something that rejuvenates you, whether it’s exercise, reading, or even just watching a movie. I often ask my interns when the last time was that they went out for dinner or watched a movie. Many of them are so stressed out they don’t even want to talk about it. It’s important to take a step back and realize that life isn’t just about work.
As women in this profession, there’s also the issue of “pipeline leakage,” where many women drop out between the ages of 30 and 45, especially when they’re balancing career and family life. It’s a challenging time, and the profession doesn’t always make it easy. But for me, having a supportive environment at home has been a huge privilege. I live with people who are gender-neutral and more progressive than I could ever claim to be, which makes a huge difference.
I always tell young lawyers that there’s no rush. The profession is long, and you don’t need to achieve everything by the age of 30 or 35. Take care of your mental and physical health, and enjoy what you do. If you enjoy your work, it won’t feel like a burden.
Ultimately, work-life balance is individual. Everyone has their own version of balance, and you have to find what works for you. For me, teaching gives me a different perspective and rejuvenates me to come back to my litigation work. So, I stay busy, but I enjoy everything I do. And that’s the key: to find joy in your work and make time for fun along the way.
Get in touch with Mayuri Raghuvanshi –
