National Law School of India University (NLSIU) alumnus and One Essex Court Barrister Niranjan Venkatesan was recently designated King's Counsel (KC) after only nine years in practice.

Venkatesan specialises in commercial litigation and arbitration. He has extensive experience in complex commercial litigation and international arbitration, including in the energy and natural resources sectors.

He read and taught law at Oxford, where he was a Vinerian, Eldon and Rhodes Scholar.

In this interview with Bar & Bench's Pallavi Saluja, Venkatesan talks about his pupilage at One Essex Court, qualities of a King's Counsel, the UK Arbitration Act 2025, and some of the reforms India can make to become a hub of International arbitration.

Pallavi Saluja: You did your pupilage at One Essex Court. What does it take to earn that?

Niranjan Venkatesan: Yes, I did pupillage in 2015. As for what it takes to earn that, while securing a pupillage is not easy, the criteria used by chambers for selecting pupils are both transparent and fair. The primary criterion is intellectual excellence, because that is the most important attribute for building a successful career as a commercial barrister. That in turn means that anyone with a really excellent academic record has a reasonable prospect of securing pupillage, irrespective of their background, nationality, ethnicity or age. And that is the great thing about the Commercial Bar – you don’t need to know anyone, have any connections or fit into some stereotype to succeed: the only thing that matters is how good your work is. This point features prominently in a video recently produced by Combar which I would encourage anyone considering a career at the Commercial Bar to watch: it is available here.

PS: You recently became King’s Counsel at a very young age. What were some of the conscious decisions you made in your career to get there?

NV: That is a good question which is not easy to answer because taking silk is usually the culmination of many years of work and decisions made along the way would not necessarily have been made with that goal in mind. Looking back, though, I had the privilege of working with some of the very best silks at the Commercial Bar in my early years in practice. I learned a great deal from all of them, and that contributed to my own development as a barrister.

Beyond that, if I had to identify one factor which can make barristers stand out at an early stage in their career, it would probably be the depth of their legal and factual analysis. Some cases win (or lose) themselves because the correct answer is obvious, but they often settle for that very reason, and most cases actually fought in the commercial courts in England tend to be finely balanced. In those cases, what makes the difference between success and failure is often the depth of analysis. Thinking about the case really deeply, identifying points that are not obvious, acquiring mastery of the procedural issues in the case (including any potential procedural pitfalls), anticipating what the other side might say, identifying and addressing potential weaknesses in the case etc. Analysing a case in this way takes time and inevitably involves pursuing some lines of inquiry that turn out to be fruitless, but that is actually helpful in understanding the case and also enables case-changing (or at least case-disrupting) points to be identified when they might otherwise be overlooked.

PS: What are the qualities a KC should have? How would you compare it to a senior designation in India? 

NV: There are many, but I would emphasise (i) analytical ability; (ii) judgment and (iii) leadership.

As to analytical ability, it is, in my view, the most important quality that a barrister (whether a KC or a junior) should have. This is because what is ultimately determinative of the outcome of any case is careful analysis. So the ability to assimilate a large volume of information at short notice is essential, as is the ability to analyse complex material (whether legal or factual) and reduce it to its simplest possible form, including by working out what matters and what doesn’t.

As to judgment, there are usually a number of different ways of running and presenting a case and you have to work out at an early stage what is likely to appeal to the judge. For instance, it is almost always a mistake to take every possible point: the danger in doing that is that the bad points infect the good ones and undermine the advocate’s credibility in the eyes of the judge. But it is also important not to run away from difficult points: a point may be difficult because it involves challenging established legal principles or because it is a technical point which the judge may find unattractive, but sometimes those points can be won and there may be significant upside in winning them. So the advocate has to make a judgment – long before you get to court – about which points should be taken and that requires not only a deep understanding of the case but also some detachment and objectivity, the ability to work out what the opponent is likely to say in response and how the judge is likely to react.

As to leadership, at the risk of stating the obvious, a KC must be a good leader. This includes taking responsibility for the consequences (whether good or bad) of their decisions, acknowledging the contribution of other team members, creating a culture which values the input of every single team member and encourages all of them to express their views freely and so on. This reflects the fact that nobody can win a case on their own: the cases that we do tend to be so large and complex that winning them is a team effort and teams work well only if they are led well. This may be one of the reasons why “working with others” is among the four criteria used by the King’s Counsel Selection Panel for appointing KCs.

PS: How do you see the Indian legal community growing in the UK?

NV: The Indian legal community is well represented in the UK and I would expect that to continue. The top solicitor firms in the UK have been recruiting from Indian law schools for many years. By contrast, Indian students historically did not come to the Bar here in anything like the same numbers, but that has also begun to change in recent years. I know a number of young Indian lawyers who have either started at the Bar recently or are intending to do so. But it is not just India: lawyers from all over the Commonwealth (Australia, New Zealand, Singapore) come to the Bar here and have been doing so for many years. I think this reflects the fact that the English Bar is genuinely open to and actively seeks the best and the brightest lawyers from all over the world. That is one of the reasons why a career here is so fulfilling and enjoyable.

PS:⁠ ⁠The UK Arbitration Act 2025 introduces a range of reforms, from strengthening arbitrator immunity to codifying summary disposal powers and expanding disclosure duties. Do you see these changes as necessary to keep pace with global arbitration norms, or do they risk disrupting the delicate balance that has traditionally underpinned London’s appeal as a seat of arbitration?

NV: I think that the reforms introduced by the UK Arbitration Act 2025 are welcome. The most well-known reform is probably the introduction of a statutory rule concerning the proper law of arbitration agreements, reversing the approach adopted by the UK Supreme Court in Enka v Chubb, a case in which I acted for the appellant in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The introduction of an express power to make summary determinations is also welcome.

I don’t think that these changes risk disrupting the balance underpinning London’s appeal as a global centre for arbitration: on the contrary, although the Arbitration Act 1996 has aged well, it is necessary for such legislation to be updated from time to time in the light of developments in arbitration law and that is what the UK has done.

PS: ⁠What are some of the reforms introduced in the UK Amendment Act that India might consider adopting?

NV: I think that the introduction of an express power to make awards on a summary basis would be beneficial. One of the advantages of litigating in the English courts is the availability of the summary judgment/strike out procedure, which enables obviously unsustainable claims or defences to be put out of their misery at an early stage, thereby avoiding the delay and cost associated with a full trial. This has traditionally been more difficult to achieve in arbitration because of concerns that the award may be challenged or enforcement resisted. It is true that arbitrators already have the power to make summary awards, even without legislative reform, but the reality is that they are unlikely in practice to do so unless they are given an express power either in the law of the seat or in any institutional rules applicable to the arbitration.

Section 7 of the UK Arbitration Act 2025, for example, does this: it provides that the arbitral tribunal may make an award on a summary basis in relation to a claim or a particular issue if one party or another has no real prospect of success in relation to that claim or issue. The “no real prospect of success” test is the same test that the English courts apply in deciding whether to grant summary judgment in respect of a claim or issue; and there is an established body of authority as to what the test means.

PS: The Indian government, on the one hand, is aiming to make India a hub for international arbitration, while on the other hand, it is loath to adopt arbitration for its own contracts. How does this bode for India's ambitions?

NV: In the end, I think that the arbitration infrastructure probably matters more than whether the government wishes to use arbitration for its own contracts. All the leading arbitration hubs have some common characteristics that make them attractive seats for international commercial disputes. For example, a sophisticated curial law that is updated as necessary; relatively limited judicial interference (but nonetheless available in cases where it is warranted); a specialist pool of distinguished arbitrators, advocates and judges; world class facilities for the conduct of arbitration hearings and so on. Those factors are probably more important than whether the relevant government prefers arbitration or judicial determination for its own disputes.

PS: ⁠Experts have flagged the lack of trustworthy and competent Indian arbitrators. How true is this, and what are the solutions? 

NV: My own view is that there are several excellent Indian arbitrators, including practitioners who sit as arbitrators alongside practising as advocates.

PS:  ⁠The use of AI is increasing in arbitration for factual and legal research, data analytics or document review - what are your thoughts? 

NV: I have no doubt that AI will prove to be a useful tool for lawyers as it will for others, but its use will likely raise issues that will need to be addressed both by practitioners and the courts. A recent example is London Borough of Haringey. In that case, written submissions prepared with the assistance of AI were filed and it later emerged that those submissions included some cases that do not exist. The Court gave guidance about the use of AI which included the observation that its use “must take place with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained.” There are also some aspects of legal practice for which AI may be suitable, for example document disclosure. But there are other aspects for which it is less suitable.

PS: ⁠It is often said that in the last few decades, the development of commercial law in India has slowed down because (a) superior courts are more focused on public law and (b) the civil trials are delayed over many years in India. Do you agree with that view? What steps does India need to take to reactivate the development of jurisprudence of commercial law and the growth of the commercial Bar?

NV: Your question raises an important issue. There is probably no silver bullet, but the fact that there has been a steady increase in scholarship in Indian private law over the last 10-15 years is a positive development. It suggests that there is now greater interest in the study of Indian private law than was previously the case.

PS: Do you think there is potential for setting up English-style barristers’ chambers or sets in India, on a pattern similar to what is seen in London?

NV: In principle, there is. But it is fair to say that it is more difficult to do so in a jurisdiction which does not distinguish between solicitors and barristers, as the English legal system does. One of the advantages of a profession divided in that way is that barristers are instructed by solicitors, rather than by lay clients, and I think that makes it easier to use the chambers model because the individuals dealing with chambers are usually solicitors rather than lay clients.