Lata Desai likes to keep a low profile. Not a lot is known about her journey till her recent designation as a Senior Advocate of Bombay High Court. .In a candid conversation with Bar & Bench's Neha Joshi, Desai reveals what prompted her to take up law, why she did not feel like being elevated to the Bench and more..Edited excerpts follow..Neha Joshi (NJ): What prompted you to study law?.Lata Desai (LD): My father, Motiram Vyavaharkar, was a lawyer. In fact, he was the first chief police prosecutor for the State of Bombay. He had represented the State of Bombay in the murder case of Mahatma Gandhi. Right from childhood, I wanted to become lawyer. Because it was my feeling throughout; it was a calling. And because it was a calling, I roughed my way through. After my graduation from Xaviers College, I joined Government Law College. I graduated in law in 1968. After that, I joined the chambers of income tax lawyers for some time. Thereafter, I joined my father after he retired as chief police prosecutor. I practiced with him in criminal courts. My father also wanted me to work in civil courts. A year-and-a-half after joining him, he passed away. That is when my journey started alone. As a chief police prosecutor, he was given matters concerning provident funds and other government departments and I took over that. Then on my own, I started filing appeals in sessions courts and from there to High Court..As for civil matters, in those days, our subjects were basic. We did not have the wide array of subjects as it exists today. When I got married into the Desai family, the family had a lot of partition suits inter se. So, I would assist the senior lawyer who was appearing for my husband’s family. That is how I expanded into civil matters. In fact, I joke about this to my husband. I tell him 'when I graduated law, I was married to law. But when I married you, I married litigation.' But anyway, that is how I learnt civil law and I started practising in the High Court. The Mathadi (head-loader) boards that briefed me in the lower courts came to me for High Court and Supreme Court matters. I started practising independently in lower courts in 1972 and in High Court from 1983. At that point, 70% of the litigation in courts was labour and industrial matters. Now it is reverse.My work in the High Court included a lot of challenges to the enactments. The vires of the sections or amendments to the act used to be challenged. So there were arguments on constitutional law..NJ: Whom would you consider as your mentor in this field, and why?.LD: The Mathadi Act had been enacted in 1969 and the vires had been challenged in the High Court. The Board asked me to attend the hearings in High Court. They also told me that if the Act is upheld, I would handle any criminal prosecution arising from the case.So I started attending the hearing daily and that is where I saw (Senior Advocate) KK Singhvi. He was appearing for the State. I considered him my mentor, and he became my mentor throughout..NJ: Do you agree with the notion that nepotism runs deep in this profession?.LD: I had my father's genes! No doubt. When I was 13-14 years old, I used to type out his drafts on the typewriter. I used to grumble a lot, but he would say 'typing will help'. And it did help! Even after computers came, I used to type my own drafts. It was in me to become a lawyer. But it was through severe perseverance that I got here. The journey was hard.It is true that when you have nobody behind you, you have to prepare and study. And nepotism exists here, there is no denying that. There are seniors who have juniors, but they do not teach their juniors. And then their son or daughter comes into the profession, and they teach them everything. But it is important to note that nepotism exists everywhere..NJ: Do judges treat female lawyers differently?.LD: I do not think so. In fact, they respect lady lawyers more. If you prepare your brief and come, why should a judge treat you any different? I have seen that judges in the Bombay High Court have been encouraging to lawyers, any lawyer. You just be prepared, study your brief..NJ: Do you think female lawyers are paid differently?.LD: In my experience, I was taught never to over-charge. Some of my clients used to pay me more than what I charge. Also, fortunately, I was married into a well-to-do family. My only focus was to study law, prepare for arguments and money happened to come. I never went after money. .NJ: What were some of the challenges you faced as a young woman in the profession?.LD: Many women feel that there is discrimination against women and that they are not taken seriously. But according to me, it is a myth.Lady lawyers feel that they are hired only to take time (adjournment). But I think, if you study your brief and you argue, you are like any other lawyer. I agree there aren't many female lawyers. Earlier, in criminal court, there was only one lawyer, and in High Court there were few.But according to me, there is only one class, and that is called as 'lawyers'. Why is there a distinction of 'ladies' and 'gents'? There are no 'gents' or 'male' lawyers, then why 'female' or 'lady' lawyers? A lawyer should not think of oneself as 'female' or 'male', but just as a 'lawyer'..NJ: Do you think bar associations need to be sensitive to the needs of women lawyers?.LD: The Bar should be sensitive to the needs of all lawyers, why just female lawyers? It should have training sessions for younger lawyers. Original side lawyers (in Bombay High Court) are hired or engaged by companies and law firms. They get some exposure. But what about appellate side lawyers? They come from all over Maharashtra. They do not get sufficient opportunities, they do not have money to set up offices. The bar associations must set up training sessions, especially for those lawyers who cannot afford training..NJ: Only 3% of Senior Advocates in the country are women. What do you think is the reason for such low numbers?.LD: Female lawyers also have to apply for senior designation, maybe they don't, maybe they do not have that track record. There are multiple factors for that track record. Society mindset needs to change. They must accept that women are equally competent. A client would prefer a male lawyer over a female lawyer. If there is a husband-wife, the client will prefer the husband. Fortunately, my clients showed faith in me.Another thing is, seniors do not let their juniors argue. They do not trust their juniors. I used to argue my own matters. I used to brief Mr. Singhvi as my counsel only for Supreme Court. Everywhere else, I always argued my own matters.And one important factor is support from home. I had a very supportive family. Most women may not have that kind of support from homes. If you notice, most women lawyers who are at the top, are unmarried. I may be one of the few. I was lucky..NJ: When did you decide to apply for Senior designation and how does it feel to be designated?.LD: It was not me actually. I hadn't thought of applying. But my daughter, Pallavi Divekar (Partner at Divekar & Co law firm) forced me to apply. She was more ambitious for me. It took five years for the results to come out. Mine was the 50th application! I hadn’t decided though.But you do not get selected merely because you applied. The High Court Collegium sees your track record, how many judgments are reported (I think there is a minimum fixed number) how many principles of law you have contributed to. One is supposed to teach in law colleges.I didn't have papers, but I used to take workshops, more like training under the Mathadi board enactments, for its implementation. The training would include prosecutors, advisors to the board, to the provident fund commissioners, etc. It used to include training on how they should conduct inspections. Initially, they used to send criminal cases to me for filing. But with training, they could file those complaints themselves. They did not have to go to lawyers.So after this basic criteria, there is also an interview with the Collegium. I cleared that interview and was selected. And I must add, it feels nice to be rewarded!.NJ: Is there a particular case in your career so far which you distinctly remember?.LD: There is a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George Varghese. The case challenged Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. Under Section 10, a Christian women could seek divorce on the grounds of adultery coupled with cruelty or desertion. She could not seek for divorce purely for cruelty. I had challenged the vires of the Section and my challenge had accepted and the Section had been struck down. Subsequently, the law was amended.Another case was also before Bombay High Court where the question was whether a Mathadi board was an industry and the disputes in those boards were required to go before the Industrial Tribunal. I argued that the board is not an industry. It was held that the board is performing legal sovereign functions of the State and hence it was not amenable to the Industrial Disputes Act..NJ: Did you ever think about elevation to the Bench?.LD: I had never wanted to take any judicial service, or any service for that matter. There is a lot of stress. I never even joined any law firm or any chamber.I remember when I was younger, all my friends were taking the exams for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). I had no intention of actually taking those exams, but my father had told me then, that there is a lot of stress in that job. But, I agree with him. That is why I never thought of any service including judicial service. I always wanted to remain independent. And with sheer hard work and perserverance, I came through..NJ: What is your take on virtual hearings? Do you think the courts in Maharashtra should switch to virtual hearings?.LD: I am not for it at this stage. There are many snags that happen. I don’t like virtual hearings. Given a choice, I prefer appearing in person. Also, I think judges prefer arguments in person.For instance, people who are watching matches live, they prefer that over watching it on television. I am trained to argue in person. Plus, there are vibes of the courtroom that help when you are arguing in person..NJ: How did you choose your juniors? .LD: My juniors were always few (in number) but they were taught law! I would never send them to take dates before a judge who I knew would not like adjournments. Because I know one bad experience with a judge and their career may be eclipsed (as a result of that).My daughter Pallavi has been my junior even after she got married. Present Bombay High Court judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh had been my junior. But my juniors were mostly sent to me from within the community. Someone would recommend names.But I always ensured that I do not take more than two juniors at a time. I used to shuttle between two offices. And I believed that keeping too many juniors is not good for them, they do not get to learn..NJ: What would advice would you give to young lawyers who have just joined the profession?.LD: To all young lawyers, I would say, please study your briefs and go. Do not ask for time without having read what matter you are appearing in. Judges test you, you must know what your matter is. Work hard, study matters, read law, stay updated, persevere! You may feel defeated; I have felt defeated many a times in my life. But why I kept going was because it was my calling and love of law. That brought me here.One thing I would say, people come with divided thoughts. Whether I should do law or journalism, law or MBA, etc. Let your work be your calling. I had only one vocation in my mind and I was true to that. You should be too.
Lata Desai likes to keep a low profile. Not a lot is known about her journey till her recent designation as a Senior Advocate of Bombay High Court. .In a candid conversation with Bar & Bench's Neha Joshi, Desai reveals what prompted her to take up law, why she did not feel like being elevated to the Bench and more..Edited excerpts follow..Neha Joshi (NJ): What prompted you to study law?.Lata Desai (LD): My father, Motiram Vyavaharkar, was a lawyer. In fact, he was the first chief police prosecutor for the State of Bombay. He had represented the State of Bombay in the murder case of Mahatma Gandhi. Right from childhood, I wanted to become lawyer. Because it was my feeling throughout; it was a calling. And because it was a calling, I roughed my way through. After my graduation from Xaviers College, I joined Government Law College. I graduated in law in 1968. After that, I joined the chambers of income tax lawyers for some time. Thereafter, I joined my father after he retired as chief police prosecutor. I practiced with him in criminal courts. My father also wanted me to work in civil courts. A year-and-a-half after joining him, he passed away. That is when my journey started alone. As a chief police prosecutor, he was given matters concerning provident funds and other government departments and I took over that. Then on my own, I started filing appeals in sessions courts and from there to High Court..As for civil matters, in those days, our subjects were basic. We did not have the wide array of subjects as it exists today. When I got married into the Desai family, the family had a lot of partition suits inter se. So, I would assist the senior lawyer who was appearing for my husband’s family. That is how I expanded into civil matters. In fact, I joke about this to my husband. I tell him 'when I graduated law, I was married to law. But when I married you, I married litigation.' But anyway, that is how I learnt civil law and I started practising in the High Court. The Mathadi (head-loader) boards that briefed me in the lower courts came to me for High Court and Supreme Court matters. I started practising independently in lower courts in 1972 and in High Court from 1983. At that point, 70% of the litigation in courts was labour and industrial matters. Now it is reverse.My work in the High Court included a lot of challenges to the enactments. The vires of the sections or amendments to the act used to be challenged. So there were arguments on constitutional law..NJ: Whom would you consider as your mentor in this field, and why?.LD: The Mathadi Act had been enacted in 1969 and the vires had been challenged in the High Court. The Board asked me to attend the hearings in High Court. They also told me that if the Act is upheld, I would handle any criminal prosecution arising from the case.So I started attending the hearing daily and that is where I saw (Senior Advocate) KK Singhvi. He was appearing for the State. I considered him my mentor, and he became my mentor throughout..NJ: Do you agree with the notion that nepotism runs deep in this profession?.LD: I had my father's genes! No doubt. When I was 13-14 years old, I used to type out his drafts on the typewriter. I used to grumble a lot, but he would say 'typing will help'. And it did help! Even after computers came, I used to type my own drafts. It was in me to become a lawyer. But it was through severe perseverance that I got here. The journey was hard.It is true that when you have nobody behind you, you have to prepare and study. And nepotism exists here, there is no denying that. There are seniors who have juniors, but they do not teach their juniors. And then their son or daughter comes into the profession, and they teach them everything. But it is important to note that nepotism exists everywhere..NJ: Do judges treat female lawyers differently?.LD: I do not think so. In fact, they respect lady lawyers more. If you prepare your brief and come, why should a judge treat you any different? I have seen that judges in the Bombay High Court have been encouraging to lawyers, any lawyer. You just be prepared, study your brief..NJ: Do you think female lawyers are paid differently?.LD: In my experience, I was taught never to over-charge. Some of my clients used to pay me more than what I charge. Also, fortunately, I was married into a well-to-do family. My only focus was to study law, prepare for arguments and money happened to come. I never went after money. .NJ: What were some of the challenges you faced as a young woman in the profession?.LD: Many women feel that there is discrimination against women and that they are not taken seriously. But according to me, it is a myth.Lady lawyers feel that they are hired only to take time (adjournment). But I think, if you study your brief and you argue, you are like any other lawyer. I agree there aren't many female lawyers. Earlier, in criminal court, there was only one lawyer, and in High Court there were few.But according to me, there is only one class, and that is called as 'lawyers'. Why is there a distinction of 'ladies' and 'gents'? There are no 'gents' or 'male' lawyers, then why 'female' or 'lady' lawyers? A lawyer should not think of oneself as 'female' or 'male', but just as a 'lawyer'..NJ: Do you think bar associations need to be sensitive to the needs of women lawyers?.LD: The Bar should be sensitive to the needs of all lawyers, why just female lawyers? It should have training sessions for younger lawyers. Original side lawyers (in Bombay High Court) are hired or engaged by companies and law firms. They get some exposure. But what about appellate side lawyers? They come from all over Maharashtra. They do not get sufficient opportunities, they do not have money to set up offices. The bar associations must set up training sessions, especially for those lawyers who cannot afford training..NJ: Only 3% of Senior Advocates in the country are women. What do you think is the reason for such low numbers?.LD: Female lawyers also have to apply for senior designation, maybe they don't, maybe they do not have that track record. There are multiple factors for that track record. Society mindset needs to change. They must accept that women are equally competent. A client would prefer a male lawyer over a female lawyer. If there is a husband-wife, the client will prefer the husband. Fortunately, my clients showed faith in me.Another thing is, seniors do not let their juniors argue. They do not trust their juniors. I used to argue my own matters. I used to brief Mr. Singhvi as my counsel only for Supreme Court. Everywhere else, I always argued my own matters.And one important factor is support from home. I had a very supportive family. Most women may not have that kind of support from homes. If you notice, most women lawyers who are at the top, are unmarried. I may be one of the few. I was lucky..NJ: When did you decide to apply for Senior designation and how does it feel to be designated?.LD: It was not me actually. I hadn't thought of applying. But my daughter, Pallavi Divekar (Partner at Divekar & Co law firm) forced me to apply. She was more ambitious for me. It took five years for the results to come out. Mine was the 50th application! I hadn’t decided though.But you do not get selected merely because you applied. The High Court Collegium sees your track record, how many judgments are reported (I think there is a minimum fixed number) how many principles of law you have contributed to. One is supposed to teach in law colleges.I didn't have papers, but I used to take workshops, more like training under the Mathadi board enactments, for its implementation. The training would include prosecutors, advisors to the board, to the provident fund commissioners, etc. It used to include training on how they should conduct inspections. Initially, they used to send criminal cases to me for filing. But with training, they could file those complaints themselves. They did not have to go to lawyers.So after this basic criteria, there is also an interview with the Collegium. I cleared that interview and was selected. And I must add, it feels nice to be rewarded!.NJ: Is there a particular case in your career so far which you distinctly remember?.LD: There is a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George Varghese. The case challenged Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. Under Section 10, a Christian women could seek divorce on the grounds of adultery coupled with cruelty or desertion. She could not seek for divorce purely for cruelty. I had challenged the vires of the Section and my challenge had accepted and the Section had been struck down. Subsequently, the law was amended.Another case was also before Bombay High Court where the question was whether a Mathadi board was an industry and the disputes in those boards were required to go before the Industrial Tribunal. I argued that the board is not an industry. It was held that the board is performing legal sovereign functions of the State and hence it was not amenable to the Industrial Disputes Act..NJ: Did you ever think about elevation to the Bench?.LD: I had never wanted to take any judicial service, or any service for that matter. There is a lot of stress. I never even joined any law firm or any chamber.I remember when I was younger, all my friends were taking the exams for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). I had no intention of actually taking those exams, but my father had told me then, that there is a lot of stress in that job. But, I agree with him. That is why I never thought of any service including judicial service. I always wanted to remain independent. And with sheer hard work and perserverance, I came through..NJ: What is your take on virtual hearings? Do you think the courts in Maharashtra should switch to virtual hearings?.LD: I am not for it at this stage. There are many snags that happen. I don’t like virtual hearings. Given a choice, I prefer appearing in person. Also, I think judges prefer arguments in person.For instance, people who are watching matches live, they prefer that over watching it on television. I am trained to argue in person. Plus, there are vibes of the courtroom that help when you are arguing in person..NJ: How did you choose your juniors? .LD: My juniors were always few (in number) but they were taught law! I would never send them to take dates before a judge who I knew would not like adjournments. Because I know one bad experience with a judge and their career may be eclipsed (as a result of that).My daughter Pallavi has been my junior even after she got married. Present Bombay High Court judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh had been my junior. But my juniors were mostly sent to me from within the community. Someone would recommend names.But I always ensured that I do not take more than two juniors at a time. I used to shuttle between two offices. And I believed that keeping too many juniors is not good for them, they do not get to learn..NJ: What would advice would you give to young lawyers who have just joined the profession?.LD: To all young lawyers, I would say, please study your briefs and go. Do not ask for time without having read what matter you are appearing in. Judges test you, you must know what your matter is. Work hard, study matters, read law, stay updated, persevere! You may feel defeated; I have felt defeated many a times in my life. But why I kept going was because it was my calling and love of law. That brought me here.One thing I would say, people come with divided thoughts. Whether I should do law or journalism, law or MBA, etc. Let your work be your calling. I had only one vocation in my mind and I was true to that. You should be too.
