In Conversation with Advocate Sai Deepak J, Counsel, Supreme Court and Delhi High Court

Q: Sai, you are a mechanical engineer turned lawyer. What made you tilt towards a career in law? What advice would you give to young law students and lawyers facing decision paralysis in terms of career choices?

Sai Deepak J: From the age of 14, I wanted to pursue a career in aerospace engineering, and a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering was a means to that end. However, in the penultimate semester of my under-graduation in 2005, after I had secured a placement in a core manufacturing company, I had second thoughts. These thoughts were partly triggered by the political developments of 2004 and partly because I felt that my future lay outside of engineering given my interest in history, current affairs, public speaking and the process of policymaking. Although civil services seemed like the logical way forward, I wasn’t sure if I could fit in the bureaucracy. It was around this time that I was in IIT Kharagpur to present a technical paper at a symposium organised by its industrial engineering department. That’s when I learnt that IIT Kharagpur was all set to launch an LL.B. program the following year under its newly established Law School, the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law. I seriously began to consider a career in law despite my family’s apprehensions. However, since it was a program with an in-built specialisation in IPR being offered by an IIT and that too exclusively to those from an engineering or sciences background, I was finally able to bring the family around. When I entered law school, I realised I had made the right choice because I thoroughly enjoyed the law school experience primarily because of the subjects I was exposed to, in particular jurisprudence, and of course the vibrant atmosphere of IIT Kharagpur which was further enriched by my friends in law school. That, in a nutshell, is why and how I made the switch from engineering to law, and I will remain grateful to the Gods forever for helping me find my calling. 

With young law students and lawyers, I would perhaps share this – every journey is unique and, therefore, it would help to focus on one’s own journey and goals instead of getting bogged down by comparisons. Given the sheer number and diversity of opportunities the law has to offer, I would rather focus on making the most of the opportunities that come my way than indulge in comparisons. And for this to happen, at least by the age of 25 it helps to have a certain degree of clarity as to what one wishes to do. This is especially true for those who wish to pursue a career in litigation. The third, fifth and seventh years are important milestones for litigators- the first three years are spent in honing and sharpening one’s research and drafting skills to reduce the senior’s workload, the next two years are spent earning the client’s confidence on matters of strategy and the next two years in ensuring that your presence in Court makes a difference. In short, dependability, acumen and visibility are the three stages in litigation. These stages don’t necessarily come one after the other, but go hand in hand. The larger point is that while this is not a rigid formula, by the time one has completed seven years in the profession, the way forward is usually clear in terms of the practice model one wishes to embrace. 

Q: How have you seen litigation and legal services evolve over the years and what lies ahead?

Sai Deepak J: I have been a commercial litigator for close to 14 years now out of which I have practised as an arguing counsel since June 2016 with IPR, civil commercial litigation, competition law and constitutional law being my areas of core competence. During this period, I have seen practice models evolve in each of these practice areas thanks to increasing realisation on the part of clients that their interests are better served by working with leaner teams which pay more attention to detail even if they charge more. The second important development is more investment in technology as part of the practice set up. And the third development is perhaps a sequitur to the first two- the emergence of younger firms with specialised skillsets which can handle niche areas such as sports law and space law. It’s an exciting future ahead for those who are willing to constantly learn. That said, this must go hand in hand with serious quality control in legal education, which includes a hard relook at the number of law schools and colleges being set up. 

On the aspect of decolonising the Indian legal system, Justice Abdul Nazeer had once said, "the great weakness of the Indian legal system today is that due to its divorcing from Indian legal heritage, it lacks theoretical nourishment." Do you agree?

Sai Deepak J: I would certainly agree with this observation. The Indian legal system needs to be indigenised and this starts with legal education. Unfortunately, any discussion on this topic is mired in the ideological politics of academia. I think it’s time the legal fraternity had an honest discussion on the subject. My public engagements and lectures are partly directed towards this.

Q: Live streaming of the Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench is being hailed as a crucial step in the process of democratization of Justice. What are your thoughts on bringing more transparency to the Justice administration system?

Sai Deepak J: I think there are pros and cons to this decision. Of course, the obvious way of looking at it is that it “democratizes” the process of justice dispensation. The flip side is that it injects more artificiality and theatricality into the system. Simply put, we run the risk of turning a sober process with a lot at stake into a reality show. Live streaming could encourage greater pandering to the gallery, especially in constitutional matters that relate to human rights, gender rights and the like. This is bound to affect the sanity and objectivity of the process. If we are serious about bringing credibility to the justice delivery system, we must invest in making the system credible from within. I must clarify that I am not against live streaming, however, this needs to be thought through and applied judiciously. 

Q: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has recently taken over as the 50th Chief Justice of India. In your view, what are the most pressing challenges at the Bar and the Bench that need urgent attention?

Sai Deepak J: In my humble and limited view, I think the judiciary must regain the respect and confidence of the public by once again becoming an institution which values reticence in public engagement and respects the doctrine of separation of powers. And the Bar must do its part by gently reminding the Bench that when it comes to respect for institutional boundaries drawn by the Constitution, it must lead by example, and focus on expeditious and just disposal of the massive pending case load. 

Q: You have been part of several notable landmark commercial and constitutional judgements before the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. Tell us about your most memorable case.

Sai Deepak J: Before I went independent as an arguing counsel in 2016, I thoroughly enjoyed strategizing, client counselling, researching, drafting and preparation for trial, both on my own and with my then junior colleagues. After setting up an independent practice as an arguing counsel, I have enjoyed the process of preparing for arguments with briefing teams and my juniors. The advocacy part before the Court is what makes all the effort and the wait worth your while. Perhaps what I am saying is that every case has mattered to me. But yes, it is an undeniable fact that my first opportunity of submitting before a Constitution Bench in the Sabarimala case in July 2018 remains the most memorable for all the things that led to that opportunity and for all the opportunities that have come thereafter. Until then, I was known in the legal fraternity primarily for intellectual property and allied civil commercial areas. The Sabarimala case allowed me to showcase my interest in and aptitude for constitutional law and its interface with religion and civilisation. I am truly grateful to all those who gave me that opportunity, the juniors and friends who worked with me on the case and the members of the Constitution Bench for giving me a patient, enriching and interactive hearing for close to three hours. 

Q: The Modi Government has shown an affinity towards the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code across India since coming into power. However, a Law Commission Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law in 2018 called UCC not so desirable. Is implementing a plausible UCC an impossible reality in a diverse Bharat?

Sai Deepak J: My position on the UCC is agnostic. Until I see a draft UCC and its impact on Bharatiya faith systems, I will not be able to comment one way or the other. In short, I cannot sign on a blank cheque or a blank piece of paper. 

Q: Tell us about your life outside the law -How did the idea of writing a Bharat Trilogy come about?

Sai Deepak J: My books are an extension of my central professional identity as a practising lawyer and are not outside of it. I certainly don’t see myself as a writer or an author because I love the practice of the law way too much to take up something else full-time. I have written the books to present my perspective on the Constitution and its antecedents in order to encourage a more historically aware and conscious approach to both Constitutional scholarship and constitutional morality in this country. 

The originally proposed Bharat Trilogy will now be a Quadrilogy/tetralogy which will hopefully conclude in 2025, the seventy-fifth year of the Indian Republic. Writing a book on the convergence of history, political science and constitution was always on the cards. However, I needed practical experience before writing on the subject and importantly, I needed to work on long form writing which was a tall order given my hectic practice commitments as a Counsel. The lockdown of 2020 gave me that window. By then,  I had gained sufficient experience on the constitutional front and its interplay with civilisational issues thanks to the nature of matters I had argued before the Supreme Court and the lectures I had delivered on such issues. Plus 2019 was a year of tectonic developments thanks to the developments relating to Article 370, the CAA, the NRC, the Ayodhya Verdict and the status quo order in the Sabarimala case. 

In April 2020, during my interactions with a Hindu American scholar of Bharatiya origin, Dr. Indu Viswanathan, she suggested that I give the literature on decoloniality more attention since she felt it was relevant to the issues I was representing before the Supreme Court. I went through the literature and felt that I had the framework I needed to capture my thoughts on civilisation and constitution in a book. But before commencing work on the book, I first wrote a series of over 35 pieces under my weekly column Indic Views in The Sunday Guardian to do a test run of the idea and my own ability to expand on it. Fortunately, the reception was positive cutting across ideological lines, and so I began writing the book in October 2020. Since the research was voluminous and the scope was huge, I decided to convert it into a Trilogy, which has now become a Quadrilogy. The first book India that is Bharat: Coloniality, Civilisation, Constitution and its sequel India, Bharat and Pakistan: The Constitutional Journey of a Sandwiched Civilisation have been received well and are bestsellers. The first book was among the top five bestselling books on Amazon for 2021. The second book, which was released in August 2022, has entered its second print run after having sold 25,000 copies. Both books have cumulatively sold over 1.3 lakh copies. The third book will be released only next year (2024) because my practice commitments have increased. 

Q: What has been your success mantra in life and career? What advice will you give young lawyers looking to make a mark in litigation?

Sai Deepak J: I have learnt that no journey is a solo act and that the kindness of several people, including strangers, contributes to what is touted as “individual success” and “self-made” journeys. Therefore, it is important to be conscious of this reality of life and law as much as it is to have faith in one’s abilities. We don’t get to choose all the variables in this vast non-linear equation called life. We only get to do our best using the variables in our “control”, namely our own initiative and effort. The rest is not in our hands. This is especially true of litigation where the element of chance, by whatever name it is called, plays a huge role. This is not fatalism, for I am not a fatalist. This is detached realism that I hope to understand and practice better with time. This is what the Bhagavad Gita teaches us.  I would request young lawyers looking to make a mark in litigation to commit themselves to litigation with patience, perseverance and industry. The process can be frustrating at times, but it teaches a lot and strengthens the mind and the spine. Success in litigation is, more often than not, a function of diligent preparation and mental strength rather than academic brilliance or legal acumen. The sooner one understands this the better it is for the quality and longevity of the journey.