R. Venkataramani, India’s 14th Attorney General, stands as a formidable constitutional lawyer with over four decades of Supreme Court experience. He embarked on his legal journey in July 1977, enrolling with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. By 1979, he had moved to the Supreme Court, and in 1982, he established his independent legal practice. The Supreme Court recognized his legal prowess in 1997, designating him as a Senior Advocate. His expertise spans constitutional law, indirect taxes, human rights, civil and criminal law, and consumer law.
A trusted legal strategist, Venkataramani has represented multiple state governments, including Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, as Special Senior Counsel. His tenure as a member of the Law Commission of India in 2010 and 2013 saw him play a pivotal role in shaping legal reforms. His dedication to public service and jurisprudence continues to influence India’s legal landscape.
In an exclusive conversation with The Interview World at Women in the Legal Fraternity: Leading to Viksit Bharat 2047, an event organized by the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), Venkataramani delivered powerful insights. He asserted that law schools must transform into institutions of social justice, embedding this ethos into every aspect of legal education. He called for gender-neutral legal frameworks and emphasized that the law must bridge the past and future. He also shared his views on multitasking, deconstructing its impact on success.
Here are the key takeaways from his thought-provoking discussion.
Q: Law schools in India stand at a pivotal juncture, tasked with adapting to the evolving legal landscape and emerging challenges. In your view, what key reforms or innovations should law schools implement to better equip future legal professionals for the country’s changing legal and socio-economic needs?
A: Law schools today stand at a defining crossroads, much like their counterparts in Europe and the USA. If they merely serve as career-launching institutions, focused on financial success and social status, they risk losing their deeper purpose. The law must not be reduced to a tool for personal advancement; it should be a force for societal transformation. To fulfil this role, law schools must evolve into institutions of social justice, embedding this ethos into every facet of legal education.
This shift requires a broader perspective—one that sees justice not as a privilege for a few but as a shared societal responsibility. Social justice should not be confined to addressing the needs of marginalized communities alone. Instead, it must shape a legal framework that fosters fairness and equity for all. By embracing this vision, law schools can redefine their role, producing legal professionals committed to building a just and inclusive society.
Q: With evolving societal dynamics, the demand for gender-neutral laws has become increasingly significant. In your opinion, how can India’s legal framework be reformed to ensure greater inclusivity and fairness across all genders?
A: Law extends beyond its written text. It also involves those who manage, supervise, and interpret it. True gender neutrality in law requires both men and women to play equally vital roles at every level of the legal system. However, today’s laws—through their language, content, and execution—fail to achieve this balance. They remain inherently biased, reinforcing structural inequalities.
Bridging this gap demands a fundamental transformation. Legal frameworks must evolve to reflect true inclusivity, ensuring that justice is not shaped by outdated norms but by principles of equality. Only then can the law serve as a truly neutral force, free from gendered assumptions, and responsive to the needs of all individuals.
Q: How should law evolve to bridge the past and future, and what is your message to the next generation of lawyers?
A: Dare to look a hundred years ahead. Only then will you grasp why even a ten-year vision seems so daunting. The past holds wisdom, but it must never be accepted uncritically. Instead, examine it rigorously, learning from its strengths and acknowledging its flaws.
Law stands at the crossroads of history and the future. It has the power to guide progress, yet if it remains merely a product of the past, it becomes a roadblock rather than a bridge. The essence of law must evolve—it cannot be shackled by outdated principles. Instead, it must serve as a catalyst for transformation.
This is the challenge I pose to law students. They enter this field with enthusiasm, and they must harness that energy to shape a legal framework that does not just preserve history but actively builds a just and forward-thinking future.
Q: Do you think multitasking an inherent human ability, or is it a socially constructed expectation shaped by cultural norms and imposed responsibilities, and how is it related to success?
A: In every field, people without economic or social support struggle—whether they are men or women. Yet, for women, the challenge takes on an entirely different dimension. This brings us to multitasking. Is it an innate ability, a socially imposed expectation, or a cultural construct? Scholars debate this endlessly. Some arguments hold merit, while others remain contentious. As ideological battles grow louder across the world—from the United States to Europe, including so-called progressive nations like Norway and Sweden—opinions on multitasking diverge further.
The real question is: Should multitasking be a universal expectation? Who defines it? Who shoulders its burden? Is it an inherent skill, or is it assigned, like an industrial process—manufactured, structured, and imposed? If multitasking is natural rather than a product of cultural conditioning, then we must craft solutions that address its challenges. Humanity has long grappled with this issue, often viewing it through narrow, fragmented lenses.
Women’s struggle for recognition follows a familiar pattern. Science, for instance, has long treated men’s intellect as distinct, often superior, to women’s. But why does this perception persist? Why do men in science assume their minds function differently? These questions demand deeper scrutiny.
Consider the remarkable women who shaped India’s Constitution. Their role was unprecedented. No other post-colonial nation can claim such female leadership in drafting its foundational document. Comparing global constitution-making reveals this striking anomaly. As we reflect on these issues, we must move beyond rigid gender labels. Instead, we should focus on our shared human drive—the pursuit of meaning, the desire to create, and the ambition to succeed.
But what does it mean to “arrive” in life? Who sets these benchmarks? Success is not an absolute truth; society defines it, just as it constructs the barriers that block it. We chase socially dictated goals, yet the same system hinders progress. In the end, reaching a milestone—whether through intelligence, perseverance, or sheer luck—feels profound. Yet many never reach their aspirations, leaving them disillusioned. But should success be predefined? Or should it remain fluid, shaped by individual journeys rather than societal decrees?
