The first thing that comes to mind when one mentions Dr Milind Sathe is his reputation for being thorough and methodical.

A professor of constitutional law at Government Law College, Mumbai, he is known to read briefs down to the last line, supplementing them with his own research and then breaking down complex issues for courts with a teacher’s clarity.

Over the decades, Sathe has built a practice anchored in constitutional, infrastructure, environment, land and policy matters, while also arguing high-stakes commercial and public law cases before the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court.

He joined the Bar in 1982, was designated a Senior Advocate by the Bombay High Court in 2005 and has appeared in several Constitution Bench matters, including challenges to the constitutional validity of the Public Premises Act, the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, rent control laws and entry tax legislation.

He has frequently acted as amicus curiae, handled legal aid and public interest matters and served as senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and various public sector entities.

As President of the Bombay Bar Association (BBA) between 2014 and 2021, Sathe was credited with pushing reforms and opportunities for young lawyers and for bringing a fresh perspective not rooted in the quintessential Mumbai mould.

In December 2025, he was appointed Advocate General for Maharashtra, succeeding Dr Birendra Saraf, and now leads the State’s legal strategy before the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.

“There is no magic wand to the problems faced by the Indian legal system, neither with judges, nor with lawyers, nor with government,” he says, summing up a philosophy shaped over more than four decades at the Bar.

It is with this outlook that Sathe now takes charge of steering the State’s legal strategy before constitutional courts.

In the midst of a packed evening of briefings with government law officers, he sits down for a candid conversation with Bar & Bench's Neha Joshi to reflect on what it means to be Maharashtra’s top law officer, his plans to streamline State litigation and train young government lawyers.

Edited excerpts follow.

Neha Joshi (NJ): How do you see your experience at the Bar, along with holding the post of BBA President shaping your approach as the State’s top law officer now?​

Advocate General Milind Sathe (MS): Experience at the Bar as well as experience as President of BBA is very useful in daily practice or even in daily life. It is definitely going to be valuable for functioning as Advocate General of the State. As President, I had to deal with complaints from members, complaints against members and, sometimes, complaints against members of the judiciary. During my tenure, we even took action against errant members. We also took action against members of general public who made scandalous and frivolous complaints against members of the judiciary. In my role as AG, issues about contempt, consent to initiate criminal contempt and prevention of vexatious proceedings will come before me, so my experience will be directly helpful in dealing with those issues.​

NJ: What are your immediate priorities for the Advocate General’s office?

MS: The State is generally perceived as the largest litigant, particularly within the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226, where a large number of petitions are filed against the government or its authorities. I cannot, as AG, stop the flow of litigation. However, I can streamline how the State deals with cases that are filed. We have three key offices to deal with cases filed - the Original Side, the Appellate Side and Criminal Side - with about 200 advocates across them. I want to ensure that whenever they appear, they are ready with facts and at least oral instructions, even on the first listing.​

I am considering having a system of nodal officers in these offices to coordinate with departments as soon as a petition is served, so that instructions are received without delay. Today, there is a perception that government lawyers are not ready and repeatedly seek time for affidavits, leading to costs by some courts; streamlining this process is, therefore, critical. With proper co-ordination, if there is effective representation, on the first day, several cases can get resolved even without notices being issued. Once notice is issued by court, it needs to be ensured that replies are filed within a specified time. The first requirement is that the government’s lawyers are prepared on facts and law and then, of course, presentation of the case by an individual advocate.

NJ: Do you see the AG’s office playing a more structured role in training government lawyers and young counsel appearing for the State?​

MS: Yes, there are several experienced lawyers on the government panel. I plan to hold workshops for government lawyers conducted by senior lawyers and senior government law officers who will share their experience about conduct of litigation. We can request the judges also to guide the participants in these workshops. This will help younger advocates understand expectations from judges and on preparation and court craft. The involvement of seniors and judges in some sessions will help lawyers hear directly on what courts expect.

NJ: Do you plan to recalibrate the State’s approach to public interest litigation and constitutional matters in any specific way?​

MS: In matters where I have been appointed as amicus, I have assisted courts on the substance of the matter and brought to the court's notice the correct legal position. In PILs, I have mostly appeared on behalf of authorities. I have appeared for petitioners in very few cases so there is no question of “shifting gears” dramatically. While appearing as AG, I will be blending my arguments as amicus of the court while taking care of the larger public interest for which the project is conceived.

NJ: But do you see yourself empathising with the State more in your new role?​

MS: I have to empathise with the justice of the case and larger public interest of the project while defending the challenge to an order or law, which is part of my duty as Advocate General.

NJ: At your felicitation by the BBA, you spoke of Advocate General JM Thakore. What elements of his legacy do you hope to preserve and where do you see yourself taking a distinct line?​

MS: I deliberately did not mention any name from Mumbai. There have been 59 Advocates General in Maharashtra since 1806 and it would not have been fair to single out any one of them. I mentioned JM Thakore aka 'Shankarbhai', the former Advocate General of Gujarat, for more than one reason. He was from BBA. I am certain he could have become AG in Maharashtra as well. He was the longest-serving AG in any State, serving from 1960 to around 2000. His legacy lies in his forthrightness and fairness. Nobody - whether the government, litigants, judges or opponents, ever questioned his integrity, character or capacity. When he made submissions, they were accepted as fair.​

That is an extremely difficult standard to achieve and I do not propose to consciously take a “distinct” line, mainly because normal litigation and public interest litigation (PIL) have both changed in the last 20 years. There is a new brand of PIL and Right to Information (RTI) activism, which some courts encourage and some frown upon depending on the case, but every petition or case must still be viewed on its own merits.

NJ: Amid Maharashtra’s ongoing legal and policy transformations in housing, redevelopment and property registration, how will the AG’s office guide these reforms and defend them in court?​

MS: Wherever there is reform, there will always be at least one section that opposes it. Therefore, there is likely to be a challenge to any such policy transformations. These policies have to be defended within the constitutional and administrative law norms. The key is to apply settled norms to the facts and to demonstrate the public interest in a policy. If it benefits a large section of society, courts will ordinarily lean in its favour, even if there is some minor procedural infraction. If there is pre-policy consultation, the issue becomes much easier. The endeavour would, therefore, be to strike a balance between public interest and interest of those who are likely to be impacted.