Why This Third-Generation Lawyer Chose District Courts Over High Court Glamour: An Exclusive Interview with Prashant Vir Gupta

Few young lawyers today choose the longer, tougher road, but Prashant Vir Gupta isn’t here for shortcuts. 

A third-generation advocate, he has built his practice not on legacy alone, but on quiet discipline, deep legal research, and a firm refusal to compromise on ethics. 

In this candid conversation, he talks about handling murder trials, assisting in high-stakes CBI matters, the decision to stay in district courts despite High Court opportunities, and why conscience still matters in the courtroom.

Question: Can you tell us a bit about your journey into the legal profession? What inspired you to become a lawyer?

My inspiration to become a lawyer began at a very young age. When I was a child, my mother would often take me to the courts during lunchtime. We would sit in the courtroom for a few hours, watching my father, Advocate Rajesh Gupta, and my grandfather, Advocate Tara Chand Gupta, argue cases and conduct cross-examinations. I was endlessly curious, I wanted to understand what the issue was, how it started and most of all, what would happen next.

I was also captivated by their presence. Seeing them walk out of the courtroom with such confidence and watching people come up to them to express their heartfelt gratitude for the help they had provided, left a deep impression on me. Even as a child, I felt that this was a truly meaningful and noble profession, one where you have the opportunity to make a real difference in people’s lives. That is when I decided that I, too, wanted to become a lawyer and help those who need it most.

That inspiration shaped my formal journey into the legal profession, which began back in 2016 when I was 20 years old. My father advised me to start sitting in his office, to observe, listen, and gradually absorb knowledge just as he had learned in his college days. Following in his footsteps, I familiarised myself with the day-to-day practice of law long before my career officially began. Those first six months were invaluable; they gave me hands-on experience.

Then came the COVID-19 lockdown, a challenging period that turned into a significant learning opportunity. My father and I continued working from our office for 6-7 hours a day. Despite the courts being closed, people still reached out for legal help with minor disputes, domestic violence matters, and other urgent issues. I had the chance to advise clients directly and support my father in handling the increasing workload.

When the courts finally reopened after 3-4 months, I felt a new sense of preparedness and confidence. My early exposure and the intense lockdown experience had given me a strong foundation and a considerable head start over my peers. Now, more than five years into my practice, I can look back and see how this journey has shaped me, not just as a lawyer but also as a person. 

And although I am a third-generation lawyer, I have always been determined to carve out my own individual identity and build a reputation based on my own work, ethics and principles. Every case, every client, and every challenge has added to my growth, and I remain committed to upholding the rule of law and helping those who need it most.

Question: How do you approach building a litigation strategy when the stakes are high, especially in cases involving murder or sensitive allegations?

When it comes to building a litigation strategy in high-stakes cases, especially those involving serious charges like murder or other sensitive allegations, my foremost priority is to be very well-prepared. I believe that mastery over the law and its application is key to crafting a strong strategy.

I spend a lot of time reading, I go through important court decisions, law books, and anything that can help me understand the case better. I don’t just look at what the law says on the surface, I also go back to see when it was first made, why it was created and how courts have understood and applied it over the years.

I am lucky to have my own law library with rare books dating as far back as 1912 and I use this to grow my knowledge even further. Whether it’s a Supreme Court ruling or a key point from a High Court judgment, every bit of information can help make my case stronger.

By God’s grace, I usually need to read the file only once to get a strong sense of the case. This way, I can quickly come up with a plan that looks at all sides, from the law itself to the practical steps I need to take in court. My goal is always to leave no stone unturned so that my clients have the strongest possible representation.

Question: When working with senior advocates in CBI trials, what are the key lessons or strategies you’ve picked up that influence your practice today?

When it comes to CBI trials, I often assist my father and that has given me an incredible learning experience. I make it a point to closely observe, absorb, and understand every part of his process, from the way he studies and prepares the case to how he plans his questions and interacts with witnesses.

One of the most important lessons I have learned is that in CBI trials, evidence is absolutely key. It’s like putting together a puzzle, you need to look at every small detail and make connections that may not be obvious at first. I have learned to “go Sherlock,” so to speak, to dig deeper into the facts, test every angle and examine every probability.

I also pay close attention to how my father thinks about each question in advance, considering different answers a witness might give, then thinking ahead to what our next move would be based on those possibilities. It’s like seeing the trial as a series of steps and playing out every “what if,” so we are prepared no matter what happens.

More than anything, I have learned to understand the human side of a trial – how a witness thinks, what might make them nervous or how to draw out the truth. That skill of reading people, combined with a strong command of the facts and the law, is what really shapes my practice today.

Question: Pro bono work in areas like family law and land disputes can be emotionally and legally demanding. What drives your commitment to these causes?

Like I said before, I have always believed that this profession is noble, a way to truly make a difference in people’s lives. That belief is what drives my commitment to pro bono work, especially in emotionally charged areas like family law and land disputes.

When someone is dealing with these kinds of issues, they are often going through one of the most difficult times in their lives. Many of them don’t have the means to afford legal help, yet they deserve justice and guidance just as much as anyone else. Knowing that my skills and knowledge can help ease their burden and give them a fair chance is incredibly motivating for me.

Question: What ethical or professional values do you refuse to compromise on, no matter the case or client?

There are certain ethical and professional values that I refuse to compromise on, no matter the case or the client. Professionally, my commitment is to always give my absolute best. I will never allow myself to be influenced by outside factors ( whether it is someone offering a bribe to withdraw a case, pressure to take shortcuts or the lure of a big fee to do anything unethical.) I will never put money above integrity, because the respect and trust I and my office have earned over the years mean more to me than any short-term gain. That’s a legacy I intend to carry forward throughout my career.

Personally, honesty and empathy are equally non-negotiable. I always remind myself to treat every client, whether they have a small issue or a major one, as if they were a close friend in need. Every case deserves the same level of attention and effort. 

More than anything, I never want to do anything that would compromise my conscience. That inner compass guides my decisions and keeps me true to my core beliefs. Like my father often says, “A good conscience takes you a long way.” I’ve seen how this simple yet powerful principle shapes the most respected lawyers. 

Question: Looking ahead, how do you envision your role in contributing to India’s legal and legislative development in the next 5–10 years?

 Looking ahead, I hope to play a vital and active role in shaping the future of India’s legal and legislative landscape. One of my key goals is to contribute to the growth and development of young lawyers – sharing my knowledge, experience and practical insights to help them grow with confidence. I want them to believe in the nobility of this profession and not feel discouraged by the competitive environment. Mentorship, guidance and encouragement can make a real difference in shaping their path.

If given the opportunity to participate on panels alongside senior advocates and honorable judges, I would gladly share ideas on how we can reform our legal system to make it more transparent, fair, and efficient. Together, we can look at where our laws can evolve to better address the changing needs of society, especially as the younger generation brings new energy and new expectations for justice.

Beyond legal reform, I aim to take up socially significant cases that can truly make a positive impact. Whether it’s in areas like family law, human rights or public interest matters, my goal will be to advocate for change that improves people’s lives – making the law accessible and supportive of those who need it most.

Over the next 5-10 years, I hope to grow not just as a lawyer but as a responsible advocate who can inspire others, influence policy and help build a legal culture where integrity, compassion, and excellence are at the heart of practice.

Question: At a time when most young lawyers aspire to practice in the High Court, and with even senior judges encouraging him to make the move, what drives Prashant Vir Gupta to remain committed to practising in the District Court?

Despite having several opportunities to work in the High Court, I have consciously chosen to continue my practice in the District Court. My disciplined approach and strong work ethic have often led senior judges and peers to suggest that I belong in the High Court. However, I firmly believe that true judicial reform must begin at the grassroots level. In my view, unless the lower courts function efficiently and fairly, the justice system as a whole cannot truly deliver on its promise.

I also appreciate the day-to-day challenges of working in the District Court. The fast pace, high volume of cases, and the constant mental and physical effort required keep me sharp and focused. I believe this kind of experience not only tests a lawyer’s patience and resilience but also helps build a practical, grounded understanding of the law.

Moreover, working alongside my father, Advocate Rajesh Gupta and my grandfather, Advocate Tara Chand Gupta, has been an invaluable part of my journey. The knowledge, experience, and values I gain from them every day have significantly shaped my perspective and sharpened my legal reasoning.

While I continue to appear in High Court matters as and when they come up, my core practice remains rooted in the District Court, where I feel I can make a real difference by helping people get fair and timely justice.

Question: Among the many cases he has handled, is there a particular one that Mr. Prashant Vir Gupta remembers most vividly?

Last year, I handled a particularly memorable and challenging case involving a murder accusation. My client, the accused, had been arrested and jailed shortly after the FIR was filed. It was only after his arrest that his father approached me for legal assistance.

The proceedings in the case were repeatedly delayed by the prosecution, resulting in the accused remaining in custody without bail. Finally, after nearly three years, the matter came up for a hearing before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Upon a thorough review of the case documents and witness statements, I identified a crucial flaw in the prosecution’s narrative which changed the course of the proceedings. I highlighted a fundamental inconsistency: the complainant (the victim’s father) was not the eyewitness, and the eyewitness (the victim’s brother) was not the complainant. This raised serious questions about the credibility and coherence of the prosecution’s case.

As per the eyewitness’s own statement, made after his father filed the complaint, he had seen his brother being beaten by a group of individuals on the night of the incident. However, instead of helping or calling for assistance, he walked away, assuming it was a minor altercation. It was only the next morning that he realised his brother had not returned home. That same morning, the body was discovered and reported to the police.

What followed raised further concerns. The police, instead of calling an ambulance or documenting the situation properly, transported the body in a three-wheeler without noting the vehicle’s registration number or the identity of the person accompanying it. At the hospital, the victim was declared “brought dead.”

I questioned the credibility of the eyewitness account and drew attention to the lapses in the police investigation. “Would a real brother walk away while his sibling was being beaten with sticks, thinking it was nothing serious?” I asked the court. My arguments highlighted the absence of direct evidence and the procedural irregularities that had been overlooked.

After considering the evidence and my submissions, Justice Karamjit Singh granted bail to the accused.