Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma is a seasoned legal professional with over 20 years of experience in dispute resolution, regulatory litigation, and criminal law. He began his career in the office of Mr Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate, where he gained a strong foundation in litigation, and later served as Senior Legal Officer at Nestlé India Ltd. before practising independently.
Over the years, he has held key positions as Legal Retainer at InterGlobe Enterprises Ltd. and Jindal Steel and Power Ltd., and went on to become a Partner at HSA Advocates. He is currently a Partner at SKV Law Offices, where his practice focuses on regulatory and policy disputes, contractual litigation, and matters involving economic offences and special statutes.
He has represented both corporate entities and individuals in complex investigations and criminal trials, offering strategic guidance throughout the litigation process. His recent work includes advising on regulatory, contractual, and policy challenges in the conventional and renewable energy sectors, as well as handling large-scale arbitrations.
This interview explores Mr Sharma’s approach to dispute resolution and his insights into the challenges and opportunities shaping modern legal practice.
Interview: Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma | Arbitration, Energy Law, AI and More
Legal Bites presents a contributor-led conversation featuring Aashish Beniwal, a 5th-year student at DBRANLU, Sonipat, in conversation with Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma, Partner at SKV Law Offices.
The interview examines India’s evolving arbitration landscape, the emergence of energy law, and the balance between artificial intelligence and human judgment in the legal profession.
Aashish Beniwal: Sir, many law students—especially those who dream of litigation and regulatory work—find it hard to connect classroom lessons with what actually happens in court. In your experience, what do students most often overlook, and how can they better prepare for the realities of practice?
Shryeshth Sharma: That’s a very important question. In my experience, one of the biggest problems student faces is the gap between theory and practice. In law school, concepts often seem organised because everything fits into definitions, sections, and judgments. But the moment you step into a courtroom or a regulatory forum, you realise the geography and geometry of the judicial process.
So, my advice to the students is that never treat internships like resume fillers. Absorb as much as you can and pay attention to the realities of the profession rather than the assumptions.
Prepare for the task, let common sense be the first equation to attend, be diligent and observe closely why the seniors are doing what they are. Also, try to bridge the gap yourself. Constantly undertake a comparative analysis of academic vs practical learning.
Aashish Beniwal: Looking ahead, what area of legal practice do you think will define the next decade—and what kind of lawyers will thrive in that space?
Shryeshth Sharma: I really think that energy law, especially when it comes to green hydrogen and battery storage, is going to be very important in the next ten years. India and the world are moving towards decarbonization, so there will be a big legal push for clean energy technologies, energy storage, and cross-border energy trade. Green hydrogen is still in its early stages of policy and regulation, so I think it will be the lawyers who will play a significant role in shaping the framework itself.
I find this area very interesting because it brings together people from many different fields. You’re in charge of project finance, infrastructure, international treaties, environmental rules, and changing safety and liability standards. The law is new, just like the technology.
Similarly, the advent of AI is going to bring in new legislation and safeguards, which will play a significant role in dispute advisory and litigation in the next decade.
Aashish Beniwal: You’ve worked across the entire legal spectrum—from policy to litigation. If you had to pick one area that still surprises or intrigues you, what would it be, and why?
Shryeshth Sharma: If I had to pick one area of law that constantly surprises me, it would be the government policy matters. This area of law is always changing, and it’s clear that politics and the economy play a role in the background, which tells a different story in the forefront.
This leads to quick challenges and expectations among clients for a positive result in the Courts. Easier said than done, it is always hard to assess how to advise clients about the effects of these changes, especially in areas that are heavily regulated, like electricity and infrastructure.
Aashish Beniwal: Even though India follows the same model law as other arbitration hubs, it hasn’t emerged as a global leader. From your experience, why does this gap exist, and what real changes—beyond just legislation—are needed for India to compete internationally?
Shryeshth Sharma: I would say that India is well on its way to becoming a reliable arbitration centre. In theory, we do align with the UNCITRAL Model Law, but in real life, there are still some gaps that persist.
One of the biggest problems is the finality of an award passed. The time it takes for an award to attain finality, including the perils of execution of an award, needs attention. Another aspect which can be improved is for all stakeholders in an arbitration to treat an arbitration at an equal status to that of a Court. This single aspect can make a huge difference.
It should be a matter of self-discipline for parties and respective counsels to prioritise the timely resolution of arbitrations as enshrined under the Arbitration Act.
Also, the multiplicity of litigation arising from the Interim Orders (not to be read as Interim Award) can be avoided if a detailed procedure can be agreed between the parties, including the right to amend pleadings/summoning of additional witnesses/filing of additional documents.
In my experience, a great volume of ancillary disputes and resulting delay can be avoided by it. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the matter of S.B.P. & Co vs Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr and Bhaven Construction vs Exe Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada gain immense importance. Intervention of Courts must be limited to the tests as laid down in the said judgments.
I cannot emphasise more on the essentiality of post-award finality of proceedings, which is essential from an investor perspective.
That said, positive changes are on the anvil. The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, is a step. It suggests that appeals and applications be handled more quickly, and most importantly, it recognises emergency arbitration, which is now a must in global business.
We need to build strong, structured, trustworthy arbitration institutions which can regularly arrange knowledge sessions for arbitrators to enable global awareness and push for consistent, arbitration-friendly policies. So, even though we aren’t there yet, I do think that the future is being carefully planned, which is a very good sign.
Aashish Beniwal: With the Chief Justice B. R. Gavai recently emphasising institutional arbitration, how do you see the future of ad hoc arbitration? Could this shift dilute party autonomy, or is it a necessary step toward structure and credibility?
Shryeshth Sharma: I completely agree with the Hon’ble Chief Justice’s call for stronger institutional arbitration in India. For any territory wanting to play a significant role as a major international arbitration centre, having a system that is organised, open, and structured is a prerequisite.
Now, ad hoc arbitration definitely advocates for party autonomy and is very flexible and eventually helps in less complex matters. But in reality, it often suffers from inconsistencies, delays, and a lack of procedural discipline, which ultimately affects the enforceability and credibility of the process. On the contrary, the benefits of institutional arbitration are high and enable a well-structured method, which is crucial in cross-border or high-stakes commercial disputes.
In my view, I don’t think it takes away autonomy from parties. Most reputable institutions allow parties to tailor procedures according to their needs, within a clear and enforceable framework. So, I don’t see this shift as a threat; rather, it’s a necessary evolution.
Aashish Beniwal: Given your extensive work in the energy disputes space, do most conflicts stem from inconsistent regulations or how private entities manage risks? And what key steps can each side take to avoid them?
Shryeshth Sharma: From what I’ve seen in energy disputes, problems can come up when government rules aren’t clear or it has a change of heart, which dissolves the business interest of private companies who have invested based on policy certainty and legitimate expectation(s).
Also, there can be regulatory unpredictability, such as retrospective changes in tariff structures, delayed approvals, or unclear policy transitions, which then disrupt the ongoing project, leading to disputes. At the same time, private parties sometimes knowingly or unknowingly ignore the compliance obligations or ignore legal protections in contracts and risk frameworks.
To solve these problems, I think the government needs to focus on making sure that policies are consistent and that regulatory approvals happen on time. On the other hand, private companies should improve their legal due diligence processes (such as strong change-in-law and force majeure clauses) as a bare-basics inclusion.
Aashish Beniwal: Since you’ve highlighted AI’s growing role in legal work, how do you think the profession can balance its efficiency gains with the need to preserve human judgment and ethical reasoning?
Shryeshth Sharma: It’s a delicate balance. AI cannot be used by freshers to replace common sense. While AI is a very useful tool that makes research, document review, and even basic drafting go faster but law is ultimately a human interface profession. Empathy and ethics can’t be coded, and frankly, they’re often the most critical elements in legal decision-making.
AI is bound to bring disruption in the legal field, especially in PQE 1 to 4/5 years. I believe lawyers should absolutely embrace AI for what it does best: efficiency, speed, and clerical work. But aspects of law that are strategy, advocacy, and ethical reasoning must stay firmly in human hands. It also means staying true to the values, including being fair, responsible, and being able to understand the human story behind every brief.
Aashish Beniwal: Thank you so much!
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams