This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
Looking back, what motivated you to pursue law as a career? Did you have a particular vision for yourself when you first started, and were there any formative incidents or mentors who significantly shaped your path?
Law discovered me rather than the reverse. During my formative years, I found myself deeply absorbed in poetry and literature—disciplines that demand precision in interpretation, sensitivity to nuance, and the ability to wield language as both artistic expression and analytical instrument. Law emerged as the natural culmination of these inclinations, a field where critical reasoning and linguistic precision determine outcomes of profound consequence.
As a first-generation lawyer, I navigated without inherited wisdom. My education came through careful observation and, ultimately, through the extraordinary fortune of mentorship. During law school, I joined the chambers of the late T.R. Andhyarujina as an intern, spending afternoons and evenings there while attending classes. After graduation, I transitioned to full-time practice under his guidance. His influence proved transformational.
Mr. Andhyarujina embodied a particular philosophy: that sustainable excellence emerges not from momentary brilliance but from disciplined preparation. His observation—”What a brilliant mind accomplishes in twenty minutes, a methodical mind achieves in thirty, provided it commits to the work”—became foundational to my approach.
I began without grand design, yet my early immersion in constitutional law revealed something compelling: a practice that could simultaneously satisfy intellectual rigor and serve consequential social purpose. That understanding continues to inform my work today.
Your LL.M. at Central European University offered a deeply comparative and international perspective on constitutional law. How did this global exposure influence your understanding of Indian jurisprudence?
My constitutional law foundation was established during my Supreme Court years, working on landmark cases that revealed the sophistication of Indian jurisprudence—particularly our Basic Structure Doctrine, which represents one of India’s most profound contributions to global constitutional thought. When I decided to pursue advanced study, I received offers from several prestigious institutions but chose Central European University, which offered me a scholarship and possessed an unparalleled focus on comparative constitutional analysis.
The academic experience was transformative. My thesis examined how the Basic Structure Doctrine operates across India, Colombia, and Benin—three democracies grappling with similar challenges of constitutional preservation against majoritarian excess. What emerged was striking: Indian constitutional jurisprudence commands extraordinary international respect. Our Supreme Court’s reasoning isn’t merely cited abroad—it actively shapes constitutional interpretation in courts from Bogotá to Johannesburg.
This revelation fundamentally altered my understanding of constitutional practice. Indian constitutional law isn’t an isolated national phenomenon but part of a global conversation about democracy, rights, and institutional design. The comparative methodology I learned—analyzing how similar constitutional challenges are resolved across different legal traditions—has become central to how I approach constitutional interpretation. It revealed that while constitutional texts may be national, constitutional principles increasingly transcend borders.
Working under T.R. Andhyarujina exposed you to landmark constitutional cases. How did that experience shape your litigation philosophy, particularly in handling complex constitutional matters?
Mr. Andhyarujina approached constitutional interpretation with scientific rigor. He demonstrated that constitutional adjudication represents not rhetorical exercise but systematic methodology—testing state action against established principles while defining the proper relationship between governmental authority and individual liberty.
The cases themselves were instructive. Yakub Memon v. State of Maharashtra engaged fundamental questions of due process in death penalty jurisprudence, particularly the safeguards surrounding curative and mercy petitions at the final stage. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India tested the constitutional validity of criminal defamation, requiring the Court to balance free expression with the reputational rights protected under Article 21, and ultimately upholding criminal defamation as a reasonable restriction. State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha reaffirmed that even a sitting Chief Minister enjoys no immunity from prosecution, emphasizing constitutional accountability. RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistryadvanced transparency under the RTI Act, holding that the RBI, as a public regulator, cannot shield information behind claims of fiduciary duty. Union of India v. V. Sriharan clarified the distribution of remission powers, underscoring Union primacy in matters implicating terrorism or CBI investigation. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker addressed the Governor’s discretionary powers in state politics, reaffirming that—save in narrow constitutional exceptions—Governors cannot act independently of ministerial advice, thereby strengthening federalism and the principle of separation of powers.
Each matter reinforced constitutional law’s practical consequences. Whether protecting individual liberty, defending democratic discourse, ensuring governmental accountability, or preserving federal balance, our arguments carried implications extending far beyond immediate parties. That methodology—meticulous preparation, analytical precision, unwavering constitutional fidelity—continues to guide my approach to complex constitutional matters today.
After completing your master’s degree, you returned to India and chose to start practice independently. What motivated you to take that path, and what were the major challenges you faced in building your practice?
I had always aspired to establish my own independent practice. In my view, every lawyer, sooner or later, has to build their own chamber to truly establish themselves in the profession. Having already gained valuable experience at the Supreme Court and various High Courts, I felt it was the right time to take on greater responsibility. When you practice independently, you are directly accountable to your client—successes and failures alike rest on your shoulders. Unlike in a traditional chamber, where you are guided step by step in filing, drafting, or tracking matters, going independent compels you to learn these processes innately while carrying the full weight of client expectations.
I went on to establish offices at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, primarily at the Gwalior and Indore Benches, while continuing my work in Delhi. Over the years, I have also been entrusted with significant responsibilities. I was appointed as Additional Advocate for the State of Maharashtra in the Krishna River water dispute following the formation of Telangana. I have been empanelled as Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, and I also regularly represent institutions and industry bodies, including the Indian Association of Hallmarking Centres and other organisations connected with hallmarking regulation. Each of these experiences has enriched my practice and strengthened my resolve to continue balancing litigation with advisory work across diverse forums.
After building a successful independent practice, what led you to join Clavius Legal? How do you envision the firm’s role in India’s evolving legal landscape?
After years building independent practice—including state government representations and my appointment as Additional Advocate for Maharashtra in the Krishna River dispute—I reached a threshold where the matters I was handling demanded institutional sophistication commensurate with their complexity and global dimensions.
Clavius Legal represented something distinctive in the Indian legal market: a boutique firm with genuinely international standards and integrated practice architecture. Aside from a very busy arbitration and white-collar crime practice that is marked by both scale and the magnitude of mandates we handle, we are building a public law, regulatory, and policy practice that increasingly intersects with our dispute resolution work. As India becomes increasingly central to the global economy, legal challenges no longer respect traditional practice boundaries. Modern disputes involving sovereign asset recovery actions, multinational enforcement investigations, or cross-border regulatory matters require teams capable of seamlessly integrating constitutional law, dispute resolution, regulatory expertise, and international legal cooperation.
The firm’s vision aligns perfectly with contemporary realities. Today’s complex transnational matters—whether involving sovereign states, multinational corporations, or international arbitration—demand scale and sophistication that isolated practitioners simply cannot provide. Working as part of global teams on complex transnational cases has become the norm rather than exception. Our integrated model reflects this understanding: constitutional principles inform commercial disputes; regulatory compliance intersects with international law; dispute resolution increasingly involves multiple jurisdictions and enforcement mechanisms.
As Practice Co-Chair for both Dispute Resolution and Public Law, Regulatory & Policy, my role involves ensuring that these different practice areas work seamlessly together. When we’re handling a cross-border investigation, for instance, it might simultaneously involve regulatory compliance issues, dispute resolution, and constitutional questions about procedural fairness.
Alongside litigation, you have maintained an active presence in writing, teaching, and research. How do these engagements complement your courtroom practice?
In my early years, I often read columns by eminent lawyers who could distill complex legal issues into short, sharp pieces. When I first attempted to write during my college days, I realized how difficult it actually was. Over time, and after several failed attempts, I began publishing articles in newspapers. That discipline of concise writing has greatly helped me in practice, especially in drafting synopses for the High Court and Supreme Court, where the ability to present arguments briefly and persuasively is crucial.
I have always believed that writing, research, and teaching are integral to legal practice. They keep one updated on developments in the law while also strengthening analytical clarity. Even today, I remain engaged in such work—most recently with the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Centre, where we are working on a series of publications to mark 75 years of the Indian Constitution. Academic engagement and international conferences also provide opportunities to exchange ideas and learn from colleagues worldwide, which in turn enriches my courtroom advocacy.
Teaching forces intellectual discipline—you cannot explain constitutional principles clearly unless you have mastered them yourself. Writing requires precision of expression. Both skills prove indispensable in advocacy, where clarity is paramount and time is often scarce.
How does your international engagement, particularly through the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, enhance your practice?
My role as Co-Chair of the Young Commonwealth Lawyers Organisation provided invaluable exposure to legal challenges across fifty-four jurisdictions while building networks essential for contemporary practice. The position involved creating platforms for professional dialogue, organizing training programs, and facilitating knowledge exchange.
The collaboration opportunities proved particularly meaningful. Meeting the President of the Gambian Bar at our Goa conference led to involvement in constitutional amendment projects and subsequently to representing the Bar against Maiden Pharmaceuticals after contaminated cough syrup exports tragically caused over seventy children’s deaths in Gambia. These experiences underscore how international engagement enriches domestic practice while building capabilities essential for cross-border matters.
This global perspective has become indispensable in modern practice. Matters routinely involve multiple legal systems—whether handling sovereign asset recovery actions, managing international arbitrations, or coordinating transnational enforcement proceedings. Working as part of global legal teams requires a deep understanding of how constitutional principles, due process requirements, and legal procedures translate across jurisdictions.
Your practice spans constitutional law, criminal law, arbitration, and regulatory disputes. How does your constitutional grounding influence your approach across these varied areas?
For me, the Constitution is not confined to writ petitions—it is the foundation that underpins every area of law. Whether I am arguing a criminal matter, an arbitration, or a regulatory dispute, I see the Constitution as the lens through which questions of fairness, due process, and accountability are assessed.
In criminal cases, constitutional protections—like liberty, dignity, and safeguards against abuse of process—guide how I build defenses. Due process requirements are particularly crucial when representing individuals in white-collar investigations or enforcement proceedings, where constitutional safeguards must be rigorously protected against arbitrary state action. In arbitration and regulatory disputes, constitutional values inform arguments about equality, reasonableness, or the limits of executive power when regulatory aspects are involved.
Even highly technical cases, such as hallmarking compliance or river water disputes, ultimately return to constitutional principles: how authority is exercised, whether discretion is checked, and whether justice is delivered consistently with rule of law.
This constitutional grounding provides a unifying framework across diverse practice areas. Modern legal challenges increasingly span multiple disciplines—a regulatory investigation might involve constitutional law, enforcement proceedings, and policy advocacy simultaneously.
What has been among your most challenging cases, and what lessons did they offer about modern legal practice?
Every case brings its own challenges, but two stand out for me personally. The December 2021 nationwide protests by hallmarking centers presented extraordinary challenges. When the Bureau of Indian Standards suddenly imposed stringent compliance requirements—demanding costly upgrades while vesting broad discretionary authority in regulators—the entire industry faced potential shutdown. Courts typically hesitate to intervene in technical regulatory matters, yet representing an entire industry carries immense responsibility. Securing comprehensive protection from the Delhi High Court provided crucial relief during a critical period.
Another case involved defending an individual falsely implicated in criminal proceedings. Drawing on Paramveer Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh—which mandates preserving police station CCTV footage to prevent custodial abuse—I convinced the Madhya Pradesh High Court to direct production of crucial evidence. The case illustrated how constitutional protections, when effectively invoked, can provide genuine relief against injustice while reinforcing due process fundamentals.
Both matters demonstrated essential lessons about contemporary practice. Effective advocacy increasingly requires understanding technical regulatory frameworks alongside constitutional protections. Moreover, the scale and complexity of modern legal challenges make collaboration across practice areas not merely beneficial but necessary.
What advice would you offer young lawyers aspiring to excellence in litigation and public law?
Legal advice cannot be universal—every practitioner navigates unique circumstances and opportunities. However, certain principles prove consistently valuable. Young lawyers must cultivate genuine confidence grounded in rigorous preparation. Establish clear professional vision and develop systematic approaches for achieving defined objectives.
Preparation remains paramount in litigation. Master both factual details and legal doctrine comprehensively. I learned through experience never to study only provisions directly relevant to immediate arguments—judges frequently pose questions whose answers lie in statutory sections you might otherwise overlook. Complete command of governing law and factual circumstances enables confident responses to both complex inquiries and seemingly simple questions.
Cultivate disciplined reading habits, careful observation skills, and systematic preparation methodologies. Seek meaningful mentorship—finding seniors willing to teach makes a profound difference, though such opportunities often involve timing and persistence.
Most importantly for contemporary practice, embrace collaborative approaches. Modern legal work transcends traditional boundaries. Constitutional challenges require understanding of regulatory frameworks; white-collar defense involves international enforcement cooperation; policy advocacy often connects to enforcement proceedings. Working as part of global teams on complex transnational cases demands ability to collaborate seamlessly across practice areas while maintaining doctrinal precision and constitutional grounding.
Above all, remain perpetually curious about legal developments and committed to continuous learning.
How do you maintain perspective and balance in such a demanding profession?
Constitutional law provides inherent perspective. Regular engagement with fundamental questions of governance, liberty, and justice situates individual cases—regardless of complexity—within larger frameworks of professional purpose and social consequence.
I sustain balance through continued teaching, writing, and mentoring activities. These pursuits remind me that legal practice ultimately serves purposes transcending individual professional achievement—service to clients, to institutional integrity, and to constitutional democracy itself.
The collaborative nature of modern practice also helps. Complex matters require coordination across multiple disciplines, transforming pressure into shared intellectual engagement. Whether ensuring due process protections in enforcement proceedings or defending constitutional principles in regulatory matters, this collegial approach makes demanding challenges stimulating rather than merely stressful.
Ultimately, remembering that constitutional law concerns human dignity and democratic governance provides both grounding and meaning beyond professional success. That larger purpose sustains one through the most demanding cases while reinforcing why this work matters.
Get in touch with Siddharth Sijoria –
ttttttttttt