1. Kindly tell our readers about your journey in the legal field. What inspired you to get into the practice of law above other options?
My journey in law is somewhat unconventional.
I studied Economics at Shri Ram College of Commerce (SRCC), followed by management and strategy at the London School of Economics (LSE). At the time, I was fascinated by how strategy and decision-making shape business outcomes. However, I became increasingly drawn to how legal frameworks underpin commercial conduct, how rights, obligations, and risk allocation actually drive strategy. That curiosity led me to pursue law at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.
In my second year of law school, I got the opportunity to intern at the chambers of Mr Arun Kumar Varma, Senior Advocate. I found the work (litigation and arbitration) particularly engaging because it allowed me to combine structured reasoning, commercial insight and advocacy. It was an amalgamation of the analytical side of economics, the strategic side of management, and the argumentative discipline of law.
I interned with Mr Varma throughout my second and third years of law school, joining his chambers once I graduated. His practice primarily focused on arbitration matters (both before courts and tribunals). As a result, I got the opportunity to assist Mr Varma in landmark arbitration cases before the Supreme Court and in several trials before Arbitration Tribunals.
While I developed my passion for law under Mr Varma (learning court craft and advocacy), it was my time at Jyoti Sagar Associates (JSA) (working with Mr Amar Gupta) that shaped me into the lawyer I am today. Mr Gupta taught me how to build a case (by being inquisitive at the time of research and precise at the time of drafting).
Over the years, I have been fortunate to work with several excellent lawyers. What continues to inspire me about the practice of law is its blend of intellect and impact that demands rigorous reasoning, but at its heart it is about problem-solving and enabling fair, sustainable outcomes for all litigants.
2. You have been a student of SRCC and later on, the LSE and further, Faculty of Law, Delhi University. How did you know that these were the right choices for you? What differences and challenges have you encountered while studying abroad as compared to being in India?
I have always had an analytical mindset and a tendency to look for structured, solution-oriented ways to approach problems. That inclination naturally drew me toward disciplines that reward reasoning and clarity of thought. I enjoyed economics in school for that reason and carried on with it at SRCC.
At the LSE, my interest in analysis deepened into a more strategic perspective, how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how frameworks can be designed to resolve competing interests. It was an environment that encouraged independent thinking and constant questioning, which suited my way of learning.
By the time I returned to India to study law at Delhi University, I realised that law was the natural culmination of that journey. It blended everything I valued — the analytical rigour of economics, the strategic dimension of management, and the solution-driven nature of legal problem-solving.
As for the academic experience itself, studying abroad exposed me to a highly discussion-based and interdisciplinary approach, where independent research and debate were central. In India, legal education demanded far more depth in statutory interpretation and procedural understanding. Each system posed its own challenges, one tested your ability to think broadly, the other your ability to think precisely. Together, they shaped a balance that continues to guide my work even today: Analytical depth anchored in practical application.
3. Your firm engages in international disputes resolution and advises international clients. How do you stay up to date about all legal developments that take place in a variety of jurisdictions?
At Aikyam, we have a strong focus on cross-border work. Given that international matters often involve several legal and regulatory frameworks, we place significant emphasis on maintaining a sound understanding of these markets.
Our approach is very collaborative and knowledge sharing within the team as well as with co-counsels is a key part of our culture. Whenever there are important legal or regulatory developments in any of the jurisdictions we frequently work with, those updates are discussed and circulated internally so that everyone remains aligned and informed. This collective awareness ensures that our advice remains current, practical, and responsive to changes in law and market practice.
In addition, many of us make it a habit to follow regional publications, court updates, and arbitration center releases. While there are several blogs and LinkedIn pages which provide summary updates, it is crucial to read the source document (whether commentary or caselaw) to have a deeper understanding.
Personally, I make it a point to regularly read comparative jurisprudence especially in areas like arbitration, insolvency, and corporate fraud, where Indian law often draws from or interacts with international frameworks. I also co-author articles and participate in roundtables that focus on cross-jurisdictional dispute trends. Engaging in these discussions not only keeps me informed but also helps test our practical understanding against evolving global standards.
4. What are the main challenges of an international disputes practice such as yours? What fascinates you most about it?
One of the main challenges in an international disputes practice is that every jurisdiction operates within a completely different statutory and procedural framework. The work requires not just familiarity with laws but also an understanding of the market dynamics and commercial realities in which those laws operate.
While substantive law is easier to understand by conducting independent research, understanding procedure as well as legal and cultural nuances is much harder. This is where collaboration becomes crucial.
Most international work boils down to asking the right questions and trying to draw parallels with the Indian legal system (that we are familiar with). Since our international work involves collaboration with leading international firms and/or counsel, we often lean on each other to find the answers.
Reading into a new jurisdiction, interpreting how the law functions there, and then tailoring it to the client’s specific situation can definitely be complex but that is exactly what makes it intellectually stimulating.
What truly fascinates me is that, despite these differences, the end goal never changes, which is to give the litigant the solution they need. The complexities and variations only enrich us as lawyers, they push us to think deeper, to adapt, and to find creative ways to reach that common objective.
5. You have exceptional experience in the field of arbitration. Could you shed light upon the various career paths in the field with special emphasis on the distinction between domestic and international arbitration practice?
Arbitration at the end of the day is merely an alternate method of dispute resolution. As businesses adopt arbitration as their preferred mode to resolve disputes, arbitration offers the only avenue for those interested in conducting trials relating to high value commercial matters. Those interested in conducting such trials should look to arbitration as a career path.
There are no significant differences between domestic and international arbitration. The differences I have experienced stem from the procedure that was adopted.
I have been part of domestic arbitrations that had long trials and final arguments — requiring greater focus on oral advocacy. By comparison, in international arbitration the time periods for cross-examination and opening/closing oral submissions are fixed. By way of example, I have experienced cross-examinations in domestic arbitration lasting several days (spread over several months). On the other hand, I assisted on an international arbitration where the cross-examination of 6 witnesses (2 factual and 4 experts) was conducted within 5 days.
Domestic and international arbitrations also differ in the style of submissions. Domestic tribunals mostly order pleading style submissions. Each party must first file their statements of case; witness statements are filed at a later stage. International tribunals adopt memorial style submissions, requiring parties to file complex interlinked submissions containing legal and factual submissions along with factual and expert evidence (altogether at once).
As domestic tribunals adopt institutional rules and avoid strict civil procedures, these distinctions are falling away. That said, matters of procedure are things that can be learnt with experience, and younger practitioners should focus on substantive law (including contract law and specific performance).
6. Notably, you recently spoke at the Dubai Arbitration Week. Please enlighten our readers about this experience and your learnings from such an event.
Speaking at the Dubai Arbitration Week was an immensely rewarding experience, both professionally and intellectually. Events such as these drive the collective evolution of arbitration practice.
Aikyam had the privilege of being the platinum sponsor for the event. As a firm, being part of Dubai Arbitration Week also reflected our commitment to the UAE and broader international dispute resolution landscape.
The topic of our panel discussion was “Arbitration’s Judicial Ally: How Courts Shape Interim Measures in India, the UK, and DIFC”. We discussed the different standards and approaches between these jurisdictions.
More recently, we experienced the differing approaches between UK and India firsthand, having had the chance to assist clients on disputes in both jurisdictions. While there is an eagerness to go to court in India, the approach in UK is more measured. The different approaches (in my view) stem from: (i) greater costs of pursuing litigation in the UK; (ii) imposition of costs by UK courts against the losing party; and (iii) an inclination to secure interim relief in India (given the long time periods for concluding a trial and to then execute the decree).
7. In conclusion, what advice would you like to give to aspiring legal professionals? Are there any do’s and don’ts that you would like to share?
My advice to young legal professionals would be simple, enjoy what you do. Law can seem intense from the outside, but at its core, our job is quite straightforward: We read, we interpret, and we apply. If you approach your work with curiosity and interest, it becomes far more rewarding than stressful.
The profession demands hard work, yes, but it does not have to feel heavy. Every matter you handle is an opportunity to learn something new, about the law, about people, and often about yourself. If you start enjoying that process, the long hours and complexities stop feeling like a burden.
As for do’s and don’ts, do focus on understanding concepts rather than just memorising them.
Do read consistently; the more you read, the sharper your instincts become. Do not rush the process or measure your progress only through visible milestones. Law is a long game, and growth comes quietly, through discipline and consistency.
Above all, do not forget to have fun with your work. If you genuinely enjoy reading and problem-solving, everything else — the confidence, the clarity, the success, follows naturally.
1. Advocate.
2. EBC-SCC OnLine Student Ambassador, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.