Meet Amit Dwivedi, AOR Supreme Court and Pegasus Scholar, who has fought cases from bail, civil, criminal, and real estate disputes to child rights and arbitration, while shaping his journey from Bundelkhand to the Bar.
Q1: Is there any real impact observed from the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, particularly regarding its mandatory investigation timelines and streamlined procedures in serious criminal cases?
A: It’s not the first time that we introduced timelines in law. For example, in relation to sexual crimes against children, we have a stringent law, i.e., the POCSO Act, 2012. It provides stringent timelines at almost all stages. Let’s peruse a certain provision to get an idea:
“35. Period for recording of evidence of the child and disposal of the case.—(1) The evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of thirty days of the Special Court taking cognisance of the offence, and reasons for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the Special Court.
(2) The Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.”
But the time taken to finish such a case remains about 5-7 years. I think by drawing a corollary, the aforesaid query stands answered in my opinion.
Courts are almost like living beings; they operate at their own pace. By passing certain laws, the same could not be changed overnight.
Q2: What is the impact of the twin conditions related to bail applications, especially in financial crimes?
A: By the twin bail condition, we mean that something extra is to be shown in the court at the stage of bail. Even in heinous cases like murder and rape, the triple test is considered to grant bail. Three considerations constitute the triple test: no flight risk, no tampering with evidence and no influencing of witnesses. Certain statutes like the NDPS Act, 1985 and the UAPA, 1967, provide for twin bail conditions for some specific offences.
In the NDPS Act, 1985, Section 37 provides for twin bail. Let’s have a look at the said provision to understand it in a better fashion:
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),—
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 3[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.”
So, one is required to demonstrate at the stage of bail in the court that ‘there are reasonable grounds for for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail’. This is a huge burden, and at times, such hearings take the form of mini-trials, which is undesirable.
The foremost consequence of such provisions is that people do not get bail once these provisions are invoked against them, and these people spend a considerable time in prison as under-trial prisoners. Recently, the Delhi High Court rejected bail for certain Accused persons in relation to the Delhi riots of 2020. Against the said accused persons, UAPA has been invoked. These people have been in jail for more than 5 years without any progress in their trials. Obviously, there is a furore in certain sections.
Q3: You started with a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Physics before moving into law. How has your scientific background shaped your approach to legal reasoning or case strategy??
A: I come from rural Bundelkhand. It’s a third world inside a third world, i.e., India. Science in such a society offers a ticket to certainty of employment and hence, the choice of Physics in graduation. I almost took admission in a government engineering college in Gwalior in 2011/12. But then, I chose Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi over it. And that single decision changed the entire trajectory of my life.
In KMC, there was a vibrant life beyond the classroom and the physics lab, which never interested me. I joined the debating society of my college. It had students from almost all departments. I used to listen to what they are studying in their history, economics and literature classes. I would take book suggestions from my friends and read those books. So, I was reading a lot, but these were not Physics books. My grades did take a dent, which my family did not like, but they silently stood by me. I knew by then that my interest lay somewhere else. So, after a lot of consternation, I found myself in the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, in July 2015. When I look back at this topsy-turvy ride, I get a reason to believe in fate and destiny.
Q4: You’ve handled a wide spectrum of matters like criminal law, consumer disputes, matrimonial cases, and arbitrations. If tomorrow you had to narrow down to one domain, which would you choose and why?
A: I hope that day never comes. Doing a variety of cases gives you exposure, and you meet a lot of new people and learn from them. However, if making the said choice becomes inevitable, then I would choose criminal law.
Criminal law makes a difference in life and death. Imagine the plight of the parents whose innocent minor children suffered sexual violence. Being a pro bono panel lawyer of Counsel to Secure Justice (CSJ), I got the great privilege to work for such parents and children. We got them compensation and fought on their behalf. It’s a very different experience. You can see the moulding of society before your own eyes, and as a criminal lawyer, you get a chance to make your own contributions towards society building.
Q5: Your Livelaw piece, “Looking Back After One Year At Bar,” captured your early reflections. If you were to write “Looking Back After Seven Years at Bar” today, what would be the key difference in your perspective?
A: On 04.09.2025, I completed 7 years as a lawyer. I wrote on X (I still call it Twitter) on that day, sitting in muggy Karkardooma court after completing cross examination in a Murder trial, “From a boy who had a lot to say to someone who doesn’t believe in saying much, from a trusting person to a little suspicious man, from a fit boy to a pot-bellied man with backache, it has been a topsy turvy ride!”
I think the perspective has definitely changed. It’s a journey from idealism to pragmatism. However, my opinion on a lot of things remains the same. I have said it so many times that I do not feel like saying it again. But some reiterations are necessary.
The Collegium system needs to come out of ‘uncle judge’ syndrome. Please look beyond the kind of judges, senior lawyers, babus and politicians. Senior lawyers’ chambers need to become inclusive and recruit law graduates who come from humble origins. Young lawyers work hard, and the shiny chambers of seniors are run by them. They deserve a decent salary, at par with law researchers of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Lawyers in general shall be covered with medical insurance and life insurance. Even a government peon has such social security, but the ‘officers of the court’ do not have it. A lawyer falls ill and his family comes on the road, which must stop. We need to work towards bestowing dignity on a common lawyer!
Q6: As a Pegasus Scholar, you worked with prestigious chambers in the UK. What was one practice in the UK legal system that you wish India would adopt, and one from India that you think the UK could learn from?
A: In the United Kingdom, the hard work of every single person is respected. Be it a sweeper, an office boy or a barrister, everyone keeps their head high. The minimum wage rules are strict; even for unskilled jobs, a person gets 11 pounds per hour. In India, the minimum wage is almost non-existent on the ground.
In the UK, people in general and courts in particular take deadlines seriously. Adjournments at the drop of a hat are the norm in India, but they’re almost invisible in the UK. We can definitely learn that from them.
In India, we respect and accommodate different faiths, languages and food habits well despite a huge population. We also have a vibrant court-annexed mediation system at all tiers. This is something that the UK could emulate.
Q7: You’ve served as an Arbitrator in commercial disputes. How did switching from advocate to adjudicator change your perspective on advocacy?
A: An adjudicator needs to listen. Calmness in demeanour is much needed. And, these two things make a big difference. The role of a lawyer is different. They have to think for their clients. But, adjudicators look at the larger picture and always try to balance competing interests, as Roscoe Pound would call it. In my opinion, an adjudicator is like an elder of the family. Still but decisive.
I learnt a lot as an Adjudicator as it required me to come out of the skin of a lawyer. It’s a difficult job that requires a lot of hard work with sincerity. Lawyers get corrected by opposite lawyers and adjudicators, but that luxury is not available to adjudicators. It’s expected that adjudicators would do the right thing, and that’s a great expectation to live up to.
Q8: Aside from pending cases, delays, and unequal resources between parties, what is the biggest obstacle in real estate disputes?
A: Insatiable avarice of unscrupulous. Some builders just have nothing but contempt for a commoner, and that’s a source of a lot of problems. Erring builders, with deep pockets, know that litigation is like a test match in India. Even if the homebuyer files a case after years of harassment in RERA or consumer courts and gets a favourable outcome, the builder knows there is always an Appeal. In the long, drawn-out battle, the middle-class home buyer gets coerced into an uneven ‘settlement’. Appeals by builders need serious scrutiny at the admission stage. Until this happens, the builder will always have the last word.
At a broader level, it would take around 1.5-2 crore to buy a 2BHK house in a residential society in the suburbs of Delhi, like Greater Noida. That does not match the paying capacity of the majority of this country. Real estate prices remain prohibitive and deny the commoner a roof of his/her own. It’s a field where corrupt politicians and babus park their ill-got money. We need to make the real estate sector free from over-pricing and bring good housing within the reach of the common man!