There are others who don't play second fiddle to Sibal. Just take gopal for example . Appeared against him and succeeded in the Senthil Balaji case, and then strongly disagreed with him while on the same side in Art 370. Clearly it's not just about being 50 and from Harvard or being a woman. If you aren't good enough you will be a parrot, that's it. If you have something to say, then just say it

. Why else are you engaged?

Honestly, there isn't a need for a second chair. Not sure why she even accepted because looking at matter, there's no way two persons can argue for the single brief. There's largely factual submissions going on, which are interconnected and not law. Even in question of law, there's nothing for second chair. The only way two (or more) advocates can argue a matter is if everyone is dealing with different facets of the case, like say article 370 etc. Nothing here.

If you watch the video, this is exactly how the hearings have gone so far:

KS: “Milord, the West Bengal government is doing its level best.”

MG: [nodding] “Best.”

KS: “Milord, there is a lot of fake news being spread.”

MG: [nodding] “Spread.”

KS: “Milord, we have followed all protocols to the letter.”

MG: [nodding] “Letter.”

Not good optics for the Indian legal profession when even at age 50, with a lot of accolades and prestigious degrees, and with SA status, and with family pedigree, one is still considered junior and must play second fiddle to a 75-year old. It means that you need to wait till you are at least 60 years old to be taken seriously.

Why will people take up litigation as a career of this is the state of affairs even for privileged people from influential families???

It’s unfair how people with the right family connections get SA status quicker than others. You all must have read Dushyant Dave’s recent article criticising how Vrinda Grover was overlooked for SA status. It so happens that Vrinda Grover’s father, PP Grover, was a criminal lawyer, but he practised at the trial courts and did not have SA status. Neither did he have a foreign degree and study in England like the old elite. Also, though he was a defence lawyer, his clients were usually those shunned and condemned by society, rather than the rich and powerful. On the other hand, Menaka G is from a blue-blooded family whose background is known to all.

If the argument being made is that Menaka G is an NLSIU/Rhodes/Harvard alum + TIME 100 honouree, then Vrinda Grover is a St Stephen’s/NYU alum + honorary PhD from SOAS + TIME 100 honouree before Menaka G.

So then why was Vrinda Grover overlooked?

The reality of being in the second chair is that you simply don’t receive the same recognition as the lead. The crux of the issue is access—it’s a finite resource, and one must capitalize on it the moment it becomes available. Her accomplishments, coupled with the access she enjoyed at the time, put seniority within her grasp, and quite sensibly, she seized that moment and donned the silk gown. Perhaps it happened too soon—earlier than others from her alma mater, and perhaps even before she was regularly being briefed by AoRs. to Now, how does a senior in this position navigate today's professional landscape? It’s a common dilemma...

Here's the reality: designated seniors in her position/ like her often take on “higher roles” that traditionally belong to AoRs—litigation strategy, drafting, and occasionally even briefing, relegating the AoR to registry work! Sure, many of them are encouraged to add value with their own inputs, if they can/ have the time! The market is over-flooded with SC AoRs, competent and otherwise, all vying to build a volume filing practice because that’s only way one can make the kind of money that's needed to keep the lights on. Many will file anything handed to them by the briefing lawyer just to maintain that working relationship, hoping for more business. There is, of course, a growing number of AoRs who take their roles more seriously, particularly as the Supreme Court has cracked down on those who don’t even know what’s in their briefs, let alone show up in court. But this shift is being slowed/ counterbalanced by seniors like her/ in her situation—who often won’t pay more than the token AoR fee for drafting and filing. Many, like her, have spouses or partners (sometimes even retainers) keeping the AoR work in-house, and the result is what you see in the courtroom today is the emergence of a Periodic Table of Counsel- an unofficial hierarchy, roles seemingly anointed rather than earned. This is how it has been at the SC for quite a while. It is why our brightest and best are lost to foreign law firms, corporate law and the likes. There's no real intent to correct this either.

She's not elevated but designated as senior advocate by the Supreme Court. Elevation refers to elevation to bench, I.e. judgship, which you can say about Narasimha J or Vishwanathan J, who both have been elevated directly by the Supreme Court.

And coming to CV, please list down cases which she argued as lead counsel and also do the same exercise for Sibal and you should get your answer. Nothing personal about her, respect for all her achievements which are indeed good but no closing eyes to facts.

Third hearing and same scene. Kapil Sibal does all the arguing and Menaka G is practically a mute bystander. Just saying yes to everything Sibal says. I mean, here you have someone who is:

- An NLSIU alum

- An Oxford-Harvard and Rhodes alum

- A Senior Advocate elevated directly by the SC

- Someone who has argued one of the most important human rights cases of all time

- Someone who has been listen by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, for that reason

- Someone who has won the Jefferson Medal, for that reason

You will find very few people in the WORLD with a CV like that, let alone India. So why is she not getting a chance to speak? Why should Sibal monopolise the time? If at the age of 50 you are still considered to be junior, then what does that say of the state of our legal system?