First, stay put: Senior Advocate Megha Jani on women in law, litigation and arbitration

Senior Advocate Megha Jani has long been a trailblazer for women in the legal profession.

She began her career in 1993 and cultivated a practice spanning civil, commercial and arbitration matters. Known for her meticulous preparation and non-aggressive yet effective courtroom demeanour, she also serves on the High Court's Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaints Committee for cases involving advocates. 

In 2019, she notably made headlines when she withdrew her consent to be elevated as a judge of the Gujarat High Court, even after her name was cleared by the Supreme Court Collegium. Today, she remains one of a handful female Senior Advocates in Gujarat. 

In this interview with Bar & Bench's Neha Joshi, she reflects on her formative years, structural hurdles for female lawyers and arbitration delays.

Neha Joshi (NJ): Could you share some memories from your early years of practice and the mentors who shaped your approach to the law?

Megha Jani (MJ): I started my practice in the chambers of Senior Advocate Mihir Thakore in 1993. I was there till the end of 1999. Mihirbhai’s drafting, his habit of reading thoroughly, preparing detailed notes and his non-aggressive way of addressing the court made a deep impression on me. His practice was a mixed bag. He was a standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, had a variety of civil cases including company and commercial matters, and regularly appeared before the city civil court.

It was in his chambers that I realised having a diversified practice was what I found challenging and interesting. Sitting through his conferences with clients and later with advocates after his designation was a huge learning experience.

Apart from him, other seniors at the Bar were also warm and friendly. It was possible to walk up to them and ask simple or difficult questions. They were generous and offered useful comments while sitting in courtrooms or walking through corridors. I also got to work closely with Senior Advocate Mihir Joshi, who always came up with something that I had not thought of.

Speaking of early memories, I recall an interaction with the then Advocate General JM Thakore. In my second year of practice, I appeared in a group of sales tax recovery cases for small vendors in the Surat zari industry. It was a hopelessly late round of litigation where big industries had already lost. I was arguing pretty aggressively, and after the case was over, the AG called me into his chambers and advised: “Try to speak in front of the mirror. When you speak loudly, your voice becomes shrill. That doesn’t work in court.”

His advice stayed with me as I tried to modulate my voice while still being heard across the bench, especially in the days when there were no microphones in the courtroom.

NJ: How has litigation culture evolved over the past decade, especially with the influx of young lawyers?

MJ: Litigation culture has changed significantly, largely due to a shift in legal education. 

Today, we see a strong presence of young lawyers in courtrooms. Unlike earlier generations who learned law primarily in practice rather than in theoretical classroom settings, younger lawyers today come from five-year law programs, many with advanced degrees from abroad and internships across NGOs, judicial chambers, law offices and corporate firms. 

This formal training has brought a distinct professionalism to the practice and influenced how litigation is perceived.

NJ: Is there a growing emphasis on specialisation today, particularly in commercial litigation and arbitration?

MJ: While specialisation is emphasised in corporate settings, general practice remains strong in courts like the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, where top counsel continue to appear across all branches of law.

However, institutional arbitration is steadily evolving. Centers like the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre and the Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry's Alternative Dispute Resolution Center are building strong institutional footprints. Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal has taken active steps to empanel advocates onto arbitrator and mediator panels.

NJ: What are the primary bottlenecks in arbitration today, particularly regarding court interference and Section 34 proceedings?

MJ: Delay does not usually occur during the arbitration proceedings themselves, which are generally completed within a reasonable timeframe. The critical delay happens at the stage of Section 34 challenges, which take a very long time.

Hearings take place over many days with long intervals and judges get transferred in the meantime, requiring de novo hearings. I have one Section 34 petition that has remained pending for 5 years and has been argued twice. Enforcement is inextricably linked to Section 34. Until Section 34 applications are resolved in a time-bound manner, party enforcement will inevitably face judicial delays. 

Moreover, statutory arbitrations, such as those arising out of land acquisition legislation or the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, require a different degree of judicial scrutiny compared to arbitrations conducted by retired senior judges or trained commercial arbitrators.

NJ: What are the main structural hurdles preventing more women lawyers from being designated as Senior Advocates?

MJ: Senior designation usually occurs after 25 to 30 years of uninterrupted practice. Historically, a significant number of women lawyers step back from active litigation during their 30s while trying to balance societal expectations, family obligations, motherhood and the unpredictable daily schedule of court litigation.

If you look at lawyers in their 20s and 30s, male and female representation is similar in terms of numbers and the type of work they do. The situation, however, changes in one's 40s. Very few manage to stay on through their 50s, 60s and 70s.

Furthermore, subtle institutional biases remain among decision-making bodies regarding whether a woman lawyer possesses the traits traditionally expected of senior counsel. In the history of the Gujarat High Court since 1960, only 4 women have been designated as Senior Advocates, 3 of whom are currently practicing.

NJ: Conversely, female representation among judicial officers and government counsel appears higher. What impact does this have?

MJ: In the Gujarat High Court, 7 judges are women; nearly one-sixth of the bench strength. In March this year, out of the 103 Civil Judges (Junior Division) recruited, 53 were women. 

There is also a strong presence of women serving as assistant government pleaders and public prosecutors. Higher female representation across the Bench and government panels noticeably alters courtroom culture, public perception and institutional inclusivity.

NJ: What advice would you offer to young women law graduates entering the profession?

MJ: First, stay put. The initial 5-7 years are crucial for building a solid foundation of legal knowledge and establishing working routines.

Second, invest in your practice. Reinvest your early earnings into tools that save time; whether that means hiring staff, buying books, or adopting software.

Third - a point that applies to all law graduates entering the profession and even more so to women: work hard, read briefs thoroughly, stay updated on the law and keep informed about general events. Also, stay fit, agile and healthy.

Finally, recognise that the uncertainty of a first-generation practice - a lack of fixed income, unpredictable schedules and a slow initial flow of work -afflicts male and female lawyers alike. Navigating those early years requires patience and continuous preparation. 

NJ: Regarding institutional governance in arbitration centers, how should the relationship between arbitration bodies and the judiciary be structured? 

MJ: An association with the High Court lends significant credibility to an arbitration centre, but maintaining a clear institutional separation in administrative functions is equally important to preserve independence.

To build a robust framework, arbitration boards benefit from including international arbitrators, foreign counsel and independent domain experts alongside judicial representation to ensure diverse expertise and global best practices.