‘Law Is All About Understanding Man And The Matter’

After coming to power in Karnataka last month, the Siddaramaiah Cabinet appointed Shashi Kiran Shetty as the state's new Advocate General (AG). Shetty brings a wealth of experience and expertise to the position. His legal background is impressive, having obtained his law degree from the prestigious National Law School of India University in Bengaluru in 1998.

Shetty's professional journey has seen him practice law in both the High Court and the Supreme Court, where he has represented various clients, including political leaders, educational institutions, and multinational companies. Notably, he was designated as a Senior Advocate by the High Court of Karnataka in 2014, a recognition of his exceptional legal acumen.

What further adds to Shetty's credentials is his familial connection to the legal realm. Being the son of P Vishwanath Shetty, a former judge of the High Court of Karnataka and a former Lokayukta, Shetty has undoubtedly been exposed to the intricacies of the judicial system from a young age.

In an exclusive interview with BW Businessworld's Rohit Chintapali, the newly appointed AG spoke on representing a state, hijab ban, same-sex marriage and more. Excerpts:

Could you give us a sense of what your initial years were like as a student of law and then a man of law? 

Coming from a family of lawyers, law was all-pervasive, including dinner table conversations. Growing up, I visited my father’s office regularly and spent time there while he worked. From the early days, what drew me to the field of litigation was that one gets to meet people from all walks of life, and you learn about a diverse set of challenges and disputes. There was never a doubt in my mind about pursuing law. 

I graduated from NLSIU, Bangalore in 1998, and went on to work with a Senior Counsel for a year. However, soon there were compelling suggestions to start my practice independently.  Since the past 25 years of my practice, there have been various exciting challenges in terms of handling different kinds of legal matters.

Since you come from a family of lawyers, were there a lot of expectations? 

The expectations were huge and there was always an ongoing thought process to keep up with them. The struggles of a first-generation lawyer are different and perhaps in some ways greater, from the expectations that weigh on second-generation lawyers and judges. But yes, you are constantly under observation and I was driven to meet those expectations. 

Has there been a specific case which has left an indelible mark on you, your practice and general philosophy? 

I consider myself fortunate to have represented everyone from the poorest of the poor to businessmen, from bureaucrats to politicians. Having dealt with both civil and criminal matters, I have gained a 360-degree perspective on the law which has shaped me as an advocate as well as an individual. Ultimately, law is all about understanding people and their problems. It would not be right to point to any single case, rather it is a sum of all the experiences over the past 25 years in handling these cases, day in and day out, that teaches us and helps us grow. Each case brings some learning and perspective. 

It has only been a few weeks since you have taken on the role of Karnataka Advocate General. What challenges have you encountered so far? 

The State being the biggest litigant as of today, brings with it sheer diversity and magnitude. It is challenging to handle a large team of lawyers and understanding thousands of cases. The idea is to reduce litigation and ensure speedy disposal of cases while not compromising on justice. We are also looking at how systems can be digitised while improving the synchronicity between the AG’s office and the numerous government departments. Having been in private practice for the longest time, it is interesting to see this side of things and to face a whole new set of challenges.

But private practice is much more lucrative and you get exposed to a variety of cases. Why take on a state role? 

It is an honour to be entrusted with representing the State. The sheer experience and exposure cannot be compared to private practice and the remuneration involved. It is not always about money. As I said, you get to see things differently and get to grow as a person. It is a matter of great pride for me to be able to give back to society and the profession.

India is culturally rich but very diverse, which brings into the picture varying social ideas on what’s right and wrong. As a man of law, how do you strike a balance between public interest and the intent of the constitution? 

When you are a petitioner, you are always focused on your client's interests. You need to win and prove your client right. But for a state, you are representing a large population. Your focus shifts towards ensuring the greater good of our citizens. The whole idea is to give quick and speedy justice within the framework of law, without compromising the interests of the state. 

The framers of the Constitution have kept the diverse interests and nature of our country in mind while drafting the constitution. This diversity is reflected in our constitution and I do not think it is difficult to strike a balance in this context, given that the intent of the constitution is in furtherance of public interest. 

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the hijab ban case. What is your legal opinion on the issue? 

It is ultimately the policy decision of the government. As of now, the matter regarding the ban on wearing a hijab within a government-run education institute is pending in the Supreme Court. There are nuances to this case. It is an interplay between the right to education, women’s rights, and the right to practice one’s religion, all of which are important. The question arises on how to strike a balance between these rights. The way forward needs to be progressive and ensure a good future for the children. Ultimately, it boils down to policy. That is my personal opinion.

The Karnataka-Maharashtra border dispute has been a niggling one for Karnataka. What efforts would it take to resolve it? 

It has been just two weeks since I’ve taken charge and I have not had an occasion to be briefed regarding the same. It would not be proper for me to comment without a deeper understanding of the issue. Further, as the matter is pending before the Court and it is sub-judice, any statement made as an Advocate General would reflect on the views of the government. Being a border dispute, it is a highly sensitive matter which will have to dealt with keeping in mind the sentiments of the public on both the sides.

What are your views on the same-sex marriage case? 

Over 30 countries all over the world, including Australia, Taiwan, USA, Switzerland, and South Africa have legally recognised same sex marriages. As per the existing law in India, the same has not been recognised, because of which interested parties have approached the court. The issue is whether Indian society is ready to accept same-sex marriage, and invariably laws are framed keeping larger society in mind. Having said that, it boils down to the question of basic human rights of two individuals to marry. My personal opinion is that the law needs to change over time, keeping in mind the societal needs and the need to protect every individual’s interest in the society. The decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was the first pathbreaking judgement in this direction. Every small step in furtherance of recognising this human right is one in the right direction. I think the Supreme Court’s verdict is highly anticipated. 

There are opinions in the law fraternity that the Supreme Court has succumbed to executive pressure… 

I do not agree with this. The primary duty of the Court is to discharge judicial functions, along with ancillary administrative responsibilities. Some of the decisions may not be to the liking of the Executive. Therefore, when they agree or disagree with each other, it may not be correct to say that Judiciary has succumbed to pressure. The Supreme Court has a huge responsibility which is not easy to shoulder, and they have been doing a great job.

So, you think SC judges are not given enough respect? 

I would say that they are given respect, but perhaps they are not given enough credit when compared to the amount of sheer hard work, sacrifice, and brickbats they take. I think a vast majority of the public remains in the dark about the judicial process. More public awareness must be created to educate ourselves on the nature and work done by our judges. That’s when we can more fully appreciate and respect them.

Moreover, I think there needs to be a shift in the approach and attitude that the public has towards judges. The respect extended to them while within the courtroom must extend outside of it, and after retirement as well. Once a judge, always a judge.