Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola is among Mumbai’s leading criminal defence lawyers. He has practised for over 35 years in the Bombay High Court and subordinate courts. He also serves as Chairperson of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.

An alumnus of Thane Law College, Pasbola has built his career on high-profile cases involving organised crime, terrorism, political defamation and civil liberties.

He has appeared in some of Maharashtra’s most closely watched trials. His clients have included Indrani Mukerjea in the Sheena Bora murder case, Abu Salem in the 1993 Mumbai blasts trial and Arun Gawli in his MCOCA trial.

His brief has also covered the Bhima Koregaon accused, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, the Kamala Mills directors, former SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch, several 2006 Mumbai train blasts accused and former Mumbai mayor Kishori Pednekar.

On a Saturday afternoon, his chamber is a scene of controlled chaos. Juniors and attorneys walk in and out with files and clients. Between briefings and Bar Council meetings, Pasbola sits down with Neha Joshi from Bar & Bench for a conversation.

In this wide-ranging interview, he explains why trials are getting longer but not fairer, why judicial independence is weakening and what the profession must fix for the next generation of lawyers.

Edited excerpts follow.

Neha Joshi (NJ): After your enrolment in 1987, what prompted you to specialise in criminal law?

Sudeep Pasbola (SP): I was interested in practising criminal law right from the beginning. I came to Mumbai through my criminal law professor, Mr Pathak, who was also a lawyer. He introduced me to BP Singh, who was a big time trial lawyer. Through him, I was introduced to the chambers of GG Lala, who was a leading criminal lawyer. I worked with him for three years and then started my own practice.

I have always practised only on the criminal side, from the magistrate court to the Supreme Court. I have never engaged in any work outside criminal practice. I have never sent a notice or drafted an agreement, power of attorney or any similar document professionally. I may have helped friends or relatives, but as a professional, I have never done any civil work.

I started in Bombay, but since I was living in Thane, I handled a few matters there as well. I conducted about 8–10 major matters in Thane. Apart from Bombay, I have practised in Thane, Pune and extensively in Kalyan.

NJ: Who were the lawyers or judges who influenced you?

SP: My seniors GG Lala and BP Singh influenced me; as well as Advocate Harshad Ponda, with whom I was associated for a long time. Initially, I briefed him to lead in some cases, then I worked with him. Once he developed confidence in me, he began assigning matters to me. He had a significant impact on my career.

In the High Court, I was associated with late Senior Advocate SR “Baba” Chitnis, and Senior Advocates Shirish Gupte and Ashok Mundargi. I learned a great deal from all of them.

NJ: Criminal defence lawyers are often asked how they defend someone they know is guilty. How has your personal philosophy on this question evolved over 35+ years of practice?

SP: Every person is presumed innocent till proven guilty. Whether an accused has committed an offence or not is not for me to judge. I never ask a client whether he has committed the offence. 

With experience, you may sense whether someone has done something, but the duty of every lawyer is to defend the accused, however guilty he may appear on paper. You cannot defend a person if you are swayed by your own assessment of guilt. That is simply not a factor in my work.

NJ: How did you manage the multiple high-profile trials that stretched on for years?

SP: Whether a matter is high-profile or low-profile does not matter to me. I do not seek publicity, I do not give interviews and I have never discussed a client’s case in the media. I am not concerned with publicity, but publicity does matter.

Although the Advocates Act bars advocates from engaging in publicity, in an era where social and electronic media are so powerful, public sentiment does affect court decisions to some extent. It is time to amend the Advocates Act to allow a limited degree of publicity so that both the prosecution’s and the accused’s versions reach the public.

As for preparation, trials have become very lengthy over the years; many run for several years. When a trial goes on for years and you are not working on just that one trial, you tend to lose track. Lapses inevitably occur. 

The core problem is not merely delay in individual cases, but a system that is overburdened with matters and unable to take them up distinctly and dispose of them in a time-bound manner. Whenever there is a gap, concentration and thought processes are disturbed, which leads to mistakes. When a trial proceeds in continuity, performance is always better.

NJ: How do you insulate your professional role from outside noise in high-profile cases and how do you advise clients who become symbols in larger debates?

SP: Cases are discussed openly not only by advocates and parties, but also by the public across all forms of media. Courts can be influenced by public perception, but it is for the courts to ensure they are not unduly influenced. In India, we are trying to shut off all publicity around cases. That is no longer appropriate. It is time to change and allow parties to discuss matters.

I always advise clients not to speak to the media. Even in the US and other Western countries, lawyers tell clients not to speak to the media unless accompanied by counsel. In India, lawyers are not adequately trained to deal with the media and worry that courts disapprove of such engagement. 

Under media scrutiny, particularly in cases involving accused persons, the accused is often condemned by the press. The press tends to champion the victim’s cause and the accused’s narrative is lost. It is better, therefore, to avoid media glare.

NJ: Are such trials more challenging?

SP: Yes, they are more challenging than ordinary trials. Because of publicity, judges, prosecutors and witnesses all become over-cautious. Judges become very conscious because the media watches them closely. In some ways, this causes prejudice to the accused.

NJ: Has your understanding of a fair trial changed over the years?

SP: No. Traditionally, the principle was that the trial is meant for the accused person; the accused is on trial. That principle has now been modified to the extent that the victim and complainant have become the central focus.

Courts tend to favour victims and complainants rather than focusing on whether the accused is guilty or not. Over-protection of the victim and preference for the complainant’s narrative often prejudices the accused.

NJ: In 2020, you said that the legal system has become too deferential to the State. What did you mean?

SP: From Independence till the 1980s, there was a balance between the judiciary and parliament. After 1980, when the Emergency ended, personal liberty and citizens’ rights under Articles 21 and 14 became very important. Courts then took the lead and the balance tilted in favour of the judiciary. This continued till around 2016. 

Now the trend has reversed and the balance has tilted back in favour of parliament. Judicial independence has eroded.

When the press lost its independence, the judiciary lost its biggest support. Once the press was muzzled and brought under government control, the judiciary lost its way. The independence that courts must display is in gradual decline.

NJ: How did you decide to join the Bar Council as a member and leader?

SP: You have to do something for society as well; you cannot just be a lawyer. Bar associations and bar councils are good forums to work for the betterment of both the legal fraternity and the general public. Legal and constitutional awareness are crucial.

Our legal education is very poor. Many colleges do not have proper professors or lecturers; they are mushroom institutions without real faculty. Graduates from such colleges need training and education. That is my main focus.

NJ: Bar associations in Bombay were once vocal. That seems to have reduced.

SP: The Bar used to stand up whenever there was a problem. In recent times, activism across the country has declined. The activism of the 1970s and 1980s was rooted in a sense of freedom. People were conscious of their rights, of what was happening in the country and of what was good for the country. Now, when the general public is indifferent, what can you do? People have become more materialistic.

In Bombay, there were two instances when the Bar boycotted judges, but those were extreme situations. Over the years, mechanisms have developed through which courts correct themselves. At the same time, Bars have lost their teeth; they are not as powerful as before. Political alignments exist and nobody wants to rub judges the wrong way.

NJ: As a leader of the State Bar Council, what are the most pressing issues?

SP: First, young lawyers are not getting enough work and are unable to sustain themselves. A lawyer entering the profession, especially a first-generation lawyer, takes 10–15 years to stand on his own feet. There should be some stipend or subsistence allowance from the Bar Council or the government. The Bar Council has no substantial income apart from the enrolment fee, which has been reduced to 750 rupees, not even enough to pay staff salaries. A few states like Telangana and Kerala have proposed paying 5,000 rupees per month to advocates.

Second, there is a huge influx of advocates. Everyone is coming into the profession. Engineers, chartered accountants, MBAs, doctors, later do an LL.B. and become lawyers. There may not be enough work for everyone. Competition has increased. While opportunities have grown, in smaller towns and cities, lawyers often have very little work and remain idle. When lawyers do not get work, some may drift into activities that are not legal.

Third, the Advocates Protection Act. There have been numerous incidents of lawyers being attacked and beaten. The Central government has been apathetic; it has left it to the States to enact such legislation. We have drafted and submitted our Advocates Protection Act.

Fourth, the Advocates Welfare Act. There is virtually no welfare framework for advocates. Under the old law, membership was not mandatory, so very few lawyers subscribed. The welfare amount is also very low, capped at 3 lakh rupees. We have proposed that the government subsidise and contribute to an advocates’ welfare fund. Resources can be raised through a levy on vakalatnamas at different rates in the High Court, district courts and magistrate courts. This fund can be used for medical emergencies and for the death and retirement benefits of advocates.

NJ: What about the infrastructure of the courts?

SP: Although Maharashtra has sanctioned funds for infrastructure in several places, actual infrastructure remains very poor. In many courts, lawyers and litigants face serious difficulties: no place to sit, no proper toilets, no place to eat. Without even basic seating, you cannot hold conferences. In the summer months, in some courts, it becomes extremely difficult to work.

NJ: You mentioned the miscellaneous work reducing for junior lawyers. What do you mean by that?

SP: Miscellaneous work that junior lawyers used to do has been taken away from courts and handed over to executive authorities like the sub-divisional magistrates, the collector or revenue officials. You do not need to be a lawyer to appear before these authorities. Non-lawyers appear there and take away work from junior advocates, especially in rural areas. There is a demand to bring such miscellaneous work like registration of births and deaths back to the courts.

However, if such work returns to the courts, the courts will be overburdened. It is a Catch-22 situation. Lawyers, especially juniors, would get more work, but judicial workload would increase significantly. Unless the number of judges is increased, this will be difficult to implement.

NJ: What is your view on the state of legal aid and access to justice in Maharashtra?

SP: Government lawyers are well paid. There is a strong legal aid defence scheme established by the Supreme Court. Because the remuneration is decent, good advocates are willing to take up legal aid work. You get a fixed income and do not have to worry constantly about fees. 

The problem is that even litigants who can afford a lawyer often request the court to appoint a legal aid lawyer. They receive good legal representation without paying, while private practitioners lose clients.

Legal aid should be restricted to those who genuinely cannot afford a lawyer. Courts, however, do not always scrutinise this. When an accused says, “I do not have a lawyer; I need a lawyer,” the court refers him to legal aid. There are good lawyers on legal aid panels. So you end up with a government lawyer as prosecutor and a government-funded lawyer as defence counsel; and the private criminal practitioner is sidelined. This is a major grievance among lawyers.

NJ: Is there a deliberate philosophy of mentorship in your chambers?

SP: We do not have a formal mentorship policy, but I insist on certain principles.

First, punctuality: to succeed in this profession, you must be punctual.

Second, dedication: you must always be available to your clients.

Third, drafting: I place great emphasis on good drafting. You must know how to draft well and your English should be sound. You do not have to be a great orator in court; you only need to express yourself clearly. But a draft that appeals to your client, the other side and the court is crucial. You must know what relief you seek and how to make out a case.

Fourth, legal research: today, research has become easier with platforms like Bar & Bench, Live Law and others. In our days, there was nothing of this kind. Now you get new judgments every day; it is hard to stay updated, but you must know the latest law.

Fifth, legal ethics: ethics may appear to have changed, but what courts approve are the same ethical principles that have always governed the profession. Follow five basic rules: respect the court, respect your opponent, respect your client, respect your profession and respect your own dignity.

NJ: What does legacy look like to you as a criminal lawyer?

SP: A true criminal lawyer is one who fights for a just cause and defends his client till the very end, regardless of the enormity of the offence or the weight of the evidence against him. What I lament today is that people no longer devote that kind of time to a client. The client is often seen merely as a case file, not as a human being. That human perception has been lost...Ultimately, a client is a human being. You have to understand what he has done and what he wants. That human element is disappearing.