Events Corner

#DakshaDialogue: Public Law Lawyering [17th June]

Aasavri Rai
15 Jun 2020 9:18 AM GMT
#DakshaDialogue: Public Law Lawyering [17th June]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

#DakshaDialogue is organizing a webinar on Public Law Lawyering.

Date: 17th June 2020

Time: 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM


  • PS Narasimha, Senior Advocate
  • Arvind Datar, Senior Advocate

Moderator: Mahesh Menon, Faculty, Daksha Fellowship

Public law practitioners are at the forefront of limiting governmental authority or defending state action. While the petitioner's counsel has to often work against the presumption of constitutionality enjoyed by legislative action, the state counsel is usually caught at the crossroads defending executive action against charges of ultra vires, unreasonableness or disproportionate action. Both these actors are expected to play an important role in ensuring governance that operates within legal bounds and in a manner respectful of civil liberties.

This #DakshaDialogue on Public Law Lawyering aims to draw from the rich experience of two seasoned practitioners who have discharged their duties with aplomb.

Mr. Arvind Datar will share his experiences in opposing State action through several tax, constitutional law and administrative law challenges.

Mr. PS Narasimha will share a lifetime of experiences practicing in the Supreme Court and in particular, defending State action across a range of cases.

Prof. Mahesh Menon, Faculty at Daksha Fellowship, will be moderating this discussion, which will, among others, explore the following themes:

  • Challenging legislative positions and engaging with the presumption of constitutionality; deference to factual claims made by the executive (such as how Aadhar was 'safe' or that there were no migrant workers left on the streets')
  • A tendency to make a great declaration of law, but refuse any substantial relief to the petitioner (from Maneka Gandhi to Anuradha Basin)
  • The government being given a longer rope, such as more time to respond to petitions and complete its pleadings, a reluctance to grant ex-parte orders against government agencies, in comparison to a private respondent etc.
  • The role of the law officer in the government in representing and advancing the interests of the government, while remaining independent.
  • Practices around the grant/refusal of interim orders against the government.
  • Fear of retribution from the government (for both lawyers and judges) and dealing with that.

To register, click here.

Next Story