"'violate the human rights of others', is impractical and fraught with grave consequences as it puts an almost impossible burden on the lawyer of pre-judging guilt; and it precludes the person charged with infringing the human rights of another the right to be defended by a 'lawyer of his choice” - in my country, a guaranteed constitutional right."

“One very important thing that young lawyers must know is that when one argues a case and later in the evening you ponder over it and say, that’s what I should have said , that’s the only regret. It could have been the winning point or something you wish you had not said, which is even worse. If you get angry at that point in the courtroom, losing your temper can be a disaster. You can’t afford it because your client suffers and nobody likes you for it. It all comes with age and practice.”

“I don’t think, Mr. Palkhiwala, you can add anything more to what Mr. Nariman has so well presented”. These were some of the early memories in the Bombay Bar which Mr Nariman still recalls and cherish.”

“...Don't be disheartened as so many have become - about quotas and reservations in education,”

“I have lived and flourished in a secular India. In the fullness of time if God wills, I would also like to die in a secular India.”

“The two great institutions of state to which I have been privileged to belong do appear from time to time to “compromise” themselves, as you say. However, I must assure you that but for these two great institutions we would never have emerged as a vibrant democracy. The late Justice R S Pathak once used a nice metaphor when I asked him how he would like to be remembered as a judge of the Supreme Court. He told me, with becoming humility: “Every judge when he leaves the court must satisfy himself that he has left a little brick of his own making in that great edifice that is the Supreme Court of India.”

“I don’t like the system of Moot-Courts these days, in law schools. My grand-daughter participates in these Moot-Courts, but I don’t like the idea of saying, in A vs. B it was said etc. It makes no difference to what was said. According to Halsbury’s, it was said in Queen vs. Latham that it makes no difference what was said in a given case because by and large all of it depends on the facts of the case, except for constitutional matters.”