LIVE | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad 6th National Moot Court Competition, 2022 (March 18-20, 2022)

Greetings Everyone!

Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad welcomes you to the  Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad 6th National Moot Court Competition, 2022 live blog. The competition will commence on the 18th of March 2022, in collaboration with Eastern Book Company and SCC Online as Knowledge Partners, Lawctopus Law School as Educational Partner & Lawctopus as Media Partner.

This year the competition will be conducted through the virtual mode. A total number of 24 teams are participating in the oral rounds after the qualification through the memorial rounds. The event will include a total of 4 rounds i.e., Preliminary Rounds 1 and 2, Quarterfinals, Semi-Finals, and Finals.

DAY 1: 18th March,2022 (Friday)

4:00 PM– The draw of lots has begun.

 

 

4:10 PM– The organizers briefed the participants about the competition and allotted the Court Rooms for the oral rounds.

 

DAY-2: 19th March, 2022 (Saturday) 

 

The awaited day has finally started with the inaugural ceremony.  It would be followed by the Preliminary rounds-1, 2 and will be continued by the quarter finals. Stay tuned for more updates!

9:00-9:10 AM– The inaugural ceremony has begun by the Master of the Ceremony by welcoming the dignitaries and reverend judges who with their inspiring speeches have motivated our participants.

 

 

9:10-9:20 AM– Respected Director of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad Dr. Santosh Aghav has welcomed and addressed the Hon’ble guests. He emphasized the importance of mooting for the law students and welcomed all the enthusiastic participants for the Competition.

 

 

9:20-9:35 AM– The Chief Guest, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sri Rao Raghunandan Rao, Sitting Judge at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh addressed the gathering wherein he emphasized on the importance of observing the body language and the mentality of the judges through the questions posed to the speakers. He further added that Moot Court Competitions are a great stepping ground for the aspiring advocates.

9:35-9:45 AM– The Guest of Honour, Prof. (Dr.) Vijendra Kumar, Vice-Chancellor of Maharastra National Law University, Nagpur addressed the gathering and asserted the significance of moot court competition and how they serve as a great learning experience for all the participants.

9:45-9:55 AM– Faculty Convenor, Dr. Anita Sable expressed the vote of thanks to all the dignitaries on board and appreciated the zealous participation.

9.55 AM– The Judges briefing has begun successfully with the proficient key team of the Moot Court Association shedding light on the key facts of the moot proposition.

The lively session has paved the path for the forthcoming sessions.

Preliminary Round 1 – 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM

Court Room-1 [TN_604_PET v. TN_614_RES]

10:30 AM-The speakers of the Petitioner’s side have begin with the oral arguments. They have been able to answer the questions tactfully asked by the judges.

12:20 PM– The judges have begun with the feedback of the participants. The judges have appreciated the speakers for putting forward their arguments with great ease.

 

 

Court Room-2 [TN_606_PET v. TN_613_RES]

11:45 AM– Judges Vijay Kumar Makyam and Manav Gecil Thomas questions the respondents about violation of section 87. He further asks them if the respondents are exploiting their power of law.

 

Court Room-4 [TN_609_PET v. TN_632_RES]

11:15 AM- The respondents have started with their pleadings and the Judges have begun a tough line of questioning. The Respondents are asked if they have the locus-standi to approach the very court. It does not seem that the judges are convinced with the arguments advanced.

Court Room-6 [TN_612_PET v. TN_617_RES]

11:35 AM– The respondents have started with their oral pleadings. The judges put forth questions on the reach of the post made by Tanvi and on what grounds the counsel justify how the post was against public order and sovereignty since the post had no significant implications therein.

11:50 AM–  The second speaker from the Respondent’s side has taken over to proceed with the remaining issues. The judges asked the counsel to provide legal backup to the contentions raised in light of the facts. The counsel having satisfied the questions of the bench proceeds with the arguments advanced.

12:05 AM– The rebuttals and surrebuttals have begun after the conclusion of the Arguments Advanced.

 

 

Court Room-7 [TN_610_PET v. TN_618_RES]

11:20 AM– The judges asked the Respondent speaker 1 for 3 facts from their fact sheet support their argument. Further, Speaker seems a bit hesitant to answer the various tricky questions asked by the Judges.

12:30 AM– The judge ask the counsel representing the Respondents to draw parallels between the cited case and the factual matrix of the present case.

 

 

Court Room-8 [TN_609_PET v. TN_632_RES]

10:30 AM- The petitioners have started with the oral pleadings. With her eloquent speech backed up with legal precedents, Speaker 1 has seemed to capture the attention of the Judges.

11:38 AM– Round-1 has been finally concluded.

 

 

Court Room-9 [TN_620_PET v. TN_602_RES]

11:20 AM-The speakers from the Respondents side have begin with their arguments. They are a giving tough competition to the other side.

 

 

Court Room-11 [TN_631_PET v. TN_625_RES]

11: 40 AM– The judge questioned the applicability of the SEBI Act and seek clarifications. However, the counsel for the Respondent pleads ignorance.

12:00 PM– The proceedings have been ended successfully. Overall, it was a peaceful session and the judges were pleased with the arguments pleaded by the Counsels.

 

 

12:38 PM– Preliminary Round-1 has ended. Let’s have a quick break and get back with another intense round. Stay Tuned!

Preliminary Round 2 – 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM

Court Room-1 [TN_613_PET v. TN_603_RES]

1: 50 PM: The Petitioners have started with their oral pleadings. The judges ask the counsel to brief them with the facts of the case.

2:00 PM: The judge insists the Counsel to provide for a concise explanation on the “Writ of Habeas Corpus”. The judge asks the counsel to state how the case laws pose relevance to the facts of the instant matter.

2:15 PM: Petitioners plead for right to privacy and refer to article 14,19 and 21 of constitution of India. Judges have begun to question them extensively based on their contradictory statements in the memorial.

3:35 PM: The judges posed multiple questions to the counsel representing the Respondents which were answered by the counsel in a convincing manner.

3:55 PM– Despite the ups and downs, the participants successfully completed their round. The participants were advised to pay attention to the Court Room Manners.

 

Court Room-2 [TN_616_PET v. TN_627_RES]

1:35 PM: The Speaker – 1 from the petitioners have started their oral pleadings. The judges pose questions testing the knowledge and the research done by the counsels. Until now, the counsel has seemingly been able to keep his composure and answer the posed questions.

1:45 PM: The judge insists the counsel to stick to the facts of the case.

1:50 PM: “Can Fundamental rights be curtailed by following due process of law?”, Hon’ble Judge Vijay Kumar Makyam Sir asks.

2:30 PM: The rounds have commenced and the judges are giving their feedback.

 

 

Court Room-3 [TN_608_PET v. TN_615_RES]

1:50 PM: The arguments presented by petitioners were supported by strong legal precedents. The researcher of the team stole the show by sharing the memorial and fact sheet on the screen, thereby effectively helping the speakers in their arguments. Their Arguments ended with a line of questioning by the judge Adnan Alam to which the speaker responded satisfactorily.

2:06 PM: The speaker -1 for respondent seeks permission from the bench to present her arguments advanced.

2:15 PM: After a heated rebuttal and surrebuttal, the rounds have commenced. The judges are currently presenting their feedback. Speaker 2 representing the Respondent was praised for his eloquence and ability to comprehend the questions posed and provide satisfactory answers.

 

 

Court Room-4 [TN_633_PET v. TN_612_RES]

2:41 PM- Judge Prahastha asks Counsel-2 of the Respondent the various facts justifying the arrest of CEO. The speaker has supported her arguments with the help of various sections of the IPC.

2:50 PM– The arguments advanced have been concluded with the beginning of the rebuttal and surrebuttals.

2:56 PM– The judges provided a positive feedback and appreciated the research work done. All the participants were advised to pay attention to minor details.

Court Room-6 [TN_610_PET v. TN_609_RES]

1:40 PM– The session has begun with the Petitioners’ side. The judges have put forth questions to the speaker since the beginning of issue- 1 relating to the various facts of the problem and the Data Protection Law.

2:07 PM– The judges have been testing the knowledge of the speakers by posing various questions to the Speaker related to the facts of the case.

 

Court Room-7 [TN_632_PET v. TN_620_RES]

1:40 PM: The Petitioners begin with their Oral Pleadings and look confident to establish their case before the Bench.

2:10 PM: The rounds were a rocky road for the petitioners who had to face several hurdles during advancing their arguments. They were also subjected to extremely tough questioning.

2:45 PM: The Petitioners have concluded their pleadings with their Prayer and the Respondent take on the stage to present their arguments advanced.

3:12 PM: The judges test the knowledge of the counsel representing the Respondents on the “Principles of Natural Justice”.

3:40 PM: The rebuttals have started and it seems the Respondents are confident to answer the questions posed.

 

Court Room-10 [TN_625_PET v. TN_611_RES]

1:45 PM: The Oral Rounds have started with the Speaker -1 representing the petitioners strongly putting forth his contentions.

2:15 PM: The judges insist the counsel to establish the concept of unconstitutionality of the provisions in contention and asked them to substantiate the same with legal precedents.

3:10 PM: The Judges tested the knowledge of counsel representing the Respondents by posing multiple questions related to various provisions under the I. T. Act.

3:20 PM: The Judges provided feedback to the participants and advised them what better recourse they could have taken to present their case.

4:00 PM: We have come to the conclusion of the Preliminary Rounds- 1 & 2.  The results to the Preliminary Rounds and the Draw of lots for the Quarter-finals are scheduled from 5:00PM to 5:30PM.

 

 

5:30 PM: We are thrilled to inform you that we have completed the Draw of Lots for Quarter Finals and we present you the top 8 teams entering into the next round. The teams are ranked in order of the cumulative scores they received in both Preliminary Rounds 1 & 2.

I – TN_633

II – TN_603

III – TN_606

IV – TN_608

V – TN_611

VI – TN_620

VII – TN_619

VIII – TN_610

 

5:35 PM: The teams are matched up in the following order:

COURT ROOM NO. PETITIONER RESPONDENT
I TN_610 TN_633
II TN_619 TN_603
III TN_620 TN_606
IV TN_608 TN_611

Quarterfinals – 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM

6:00 PM: We are glad to announce the commencement of the Quarter Finals Round.

 

Court Room-1 [TN_610_PET v. TN_633_RES]

6:30 PM: The rounds have commenced. The Hon’ble bench comprises Mr. Kingshuk Halder, Mr. EVVS Ravi and Ms. Tashee Gyanee. The Speaker 1 representing the Petitioners seeks permission of the bench to present her arguments on the first and second issues.

6:40 PM: Till now the first speaker has been able to keep her composure throughout the pleadings. With the citing of landmark cases, the counsel seems to have convinced the bench.

7:00 PM: The Respondents are asked to clarify the bench whether the Right of Opinion falls under the scope of  Fundamental Right of Freedom Speech and Expression.

7:25 PM: The counsel through her pleadings draws parallels between the cases cited and the facts of the instant matter.

7:40 PM: The counsel is asked to elucidate on the arrest of the CEO of FriendsBook and to provide the provisions which mandate the same.

7:45 PM: The rebuttals and surrebutals have commenced. The respondents are convincingly answering the questions put forth by the Petitioners. Hon’ble Judge Kingshuk Halder advices the participants on appropriate use of authority.

7:55 PM:  The round has come to an end!

 

 

Court Room-2 [TN_619_PET v. TN_603_RES]

6:30 PM: The rounds have commenced. The Hon’ble bench includes Ms. Srutha Mandatha, Ms. Raveena Sethia and Mrs. Sandeep Shankar The Speaker 1 representing the Petitioners has begun with the oral pleadings with first discussing the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

6:40 PM: The speaker elaborates on Article 14 of the Constitution and how the same has been infringed. Further, the speaker has used various provisions of the Data Protection Act to support the arguments.

6:50 PM: The Judges with the questions posed test the knowledge of the Speaker – 2 on the various rights protected under the Data Protection Act.

7:00 PM: The Counsel humbly puts the contention that the Doctrine of Separation of Power has been violated. The Counsel further asserts that the Data Protection Authority should be an independent authority capable of taking its own decisions and with this the counsel concludes with the prayer.

7:10 PM: The Speaker – 1 representing Respondents asserts that he provisions of the Data Protection Act doe not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The counsel with the assistance of multiple case laws and international convention has reinforced her argument.

7:20 PM: Speaker-2 representing the Respondent proceeds with the pleadings for Issue 2. The speaker humbly puts forth the contention that Section 86 of the Act is arbitrary and shall be struck down.

7:30 PM: The Judge seek clarification from the counsel on matters pertaining to Data fiduciary, Data Protection Officer and other related provisions of law.

7:40 PM: Rebuttals and surrebuttals have begun in response to the arguments presented.

7:45 PM: The round has successfully come to an end!

 

 

Court Room-3 [TN_620_PET v. TN_606_RES]

6:35 PM: The rounds have commenced. The round is being adjudicated by Mr. Devesh Ratan, Mr. Rohit Maheshwary and Ms. Kyra Dcunha. The Speaker 1 representing the Petitioners having taken permission of the bench and has proceeded with the jurisdiction of the Court.

6:45 PM: Here comes the first question from the Bench’ “Whether the petitioners have approached the the court or it is a suo moto case.” The counsel answers the question confidently and proceeds with her arguments.

7:00 PM: The counsel elucidates on the spirit of the Constitution and humbly contends that this Hon’ble Court shall therefore preserve the same spirit in its verdict.

7:15 PM: It seems the judges are just getting started and they have a lot of questions in their arsenal. Nevertheless, the counsel properly phrased the arguments and satisfactorily answered the questions.

7:25 PM: The Respondents have begun with their pleadings. The Speaker- 1 presents argument on the constitutionality of the new Act. Also, the counsel provides legal backup to the contentions raised by citing landmark cases. The counsel concludes by explaining the validity of S.35 of the Data Protection Act.

7:40 PM: The bench seeks elucidation on how a post uploaded in FriendsBook has led to jeopardize the sovereignty, integrity and security of the State. The counsel keeping his composure presents answers to the same.

7:50 PM: With the conclusion of the arguments by Speaker – 2 of the respondents, the bench allows the parties to proceed with the rebuttals and surrebutals.

8:00 PM: In the feedback session, the judges stressed on the importance of time-management advised the participants to comprehend the questions posed before answering. With this we come to the end of the round.

 

 

Court Room-4 [TN_608_PET v. TN_611_RES]

6:35 PM: The rounds have commenced. The Hon’ble Bench includes Mr. Vishal Soni, Ms. Shilpa Margaret and Mr. Anmol Awasthi. The Speaker – 1 representing the counsel seeks permission to present her arguments.

6:45 PM: The bench questions the counsel whether only the provisions in contention shall be held unconstitutional or the whole Act in its totality. The counsel contends that only the relevant provisions in contention shall be held unconstitutional.

7:00 PM: The counsel elucidates on the spirit of the Constitution and humbly contends that this Hon’ble Court shall therefore preserve the same spirit in its verdict.

7:05 PM: The Petitioners are asked to present their Prayer for Relief. The round proceeds with the pleadings of the Respondents.

7:15 PM: The counsel is asked to clarify the ambiguity of the data protection principles.

7:35 PM: The Speaker is asked to provide clarification on how the cited authorities are attracted to the relevant case and how  the same supports their case. The bench takes note of the speaker’s ignorance.

7:45 PM: The rebuttals have started wherein the Petitioners pose questions on the safeguards of public policy under data protection. The Respondents in their surrebutal justified their contentions satisfactorily answered the same.

7:50 PM: The round has come to a satisfactory end.

 

8:30 PM: After the conclusion of the exhilarating Quarterfinal rounds, we are excited to announce the top 4 teams that have qualified to the Semi-Final Rounds. Post the Draw of Lots, the teams are matched up in the following manner:

COURT ROOM NO.

PETITIONERS

RESPONDENTS

I

TN_619

TN_620

II

TN_611

TN_633

DAY-3: 20th March 2022 (Sunday) 

Semi-Finals – 10:30AM-1:00PM

You’re a Fighter. Look at everything you’ve overcome. Don’t give up now.”

~Olivia Benson

 

10:30 AM: We are finally on the last day of the three-day-long National Moot Court Competition. We are all excited, to begin with, our Semi-Final Rounds.

Court Room-1 [TN_619_PET v. TN_620_RES]

10:40 AM: The rounds have commenced in courtroom 1. The round shall be adjudged by the Hon’ble Bench comprising Ms. Anwesh Sinha, Mr. Vadeendra Joshi, and Mr. Kumar Prem Anand. The counsel seeks permission to present his oral pleadings.

10:50 AM: The Bench insists the counsel to elucidate on the very sections, the Petitioners in their submission would be challenging. The counsel keeps his composure and answers the questions posed satisfactorily.

11:00 AM: The bench has been putting forth multiple questions to the counsel on whether the commission is a quasi-judicial authority or not. The counsel tries to answer the question to the bench’s satisfaction but finally concedes.

11:10 AM: Does the Data Protection Authority become the Fourth branch of the Constitution? Hon’ble Judge Vadeendra Joshi adds that it has the power to only take cognizance for investigation, the power does not extend to adjudication and punishment.

11:20 AM: The counsel asserts that even though the Data Protection Authority is not an independent body, the proceedings undertaken are mandated by the statute. The bench does not seem to be convinced and asks if the counsel could provide legal precedents to substantiate the contention.

11:30 AM: The Petitioners have concluded their submissions and stated their Prayer. The Respondents have started their oral pleadings.

11:40 AM: The counsel asserts that when there Government acts under unguided discretion, the citizens have a right to approach the Courts via Writ Petition. The counsel reinforces her assertion by citing case laws. The counsel seeks permission to proceed with the arguments for the second issue.

11:50 AM: The bench seeks clarification on the question if the remedies available to citizens under Art. 226 provides the Government with a free hand and use its powers and discretions arbitrarily. The Speaker – 1 concludes her pleadings. The co-speaker seeks permission to present his submissions.

12:00 PM: The counsel proceeds with his pleadings by summarizing the issues he shall be dealing with. Further, the counsel contends since the statute mandates that the Data Protection Authority shall comprise persons of capability, integrity, and standing, and any allegation of the authority being arbitrary is outrageous.

12:10 PM: The Bench seeks the counsel to answer the question of whether the Data Protection Authority is a Quasi-Judicial Body. The counsel contends that the DPA is an Executive while the Appellate Tribunal is Quasi-Judicial in nature. The Bench finds such contention highly unlikely and asked the counsel to elaborate.

12:20 PM: The Bench has a lot of questions for the Counsel. Further, the counsel is asked to establish what negligence on the part of the CEO of FriendsBook justifies his arrest.

12:25 PM: The Respondents conclude their oral submissions. The rebuttals and surrebutals begin.

12:30 PM: The rounds have come to conclusion. The judges are providing the participants with the feedback.

 

Court Room-2 [TN_611_PET v. TN_633_RES]

10:40 AM: The rounds in courtroom 2 have also begun. The Hon’ble Bench includes Mr. Sumantra Bose, Mr. Suplalab Chakraborty, and Mr. Mohan Krishna. After addressing the bench, the counsel representing Petitioners proceeds with the arguments advanced.

10:50 AM: The counsel puts her contention humbly that S.35 of the Data Protection Act fails to provide substantial safeguards to the people. She further asserts that the Fundamental Right of the petitioner guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution has been violated. The bench seeks for legal precedents to substantiate her contentions.

11:00 AM: “Is data Portability a statutory right or a judicial precedent?” asks Hon’ble Judge Sumantra Bose. The counsel though flusters in the beginning, convincingly answers the query of the bench. The Bench seeks clarification from the counsel for referring international Conventions when there is an umpteen number of national precedents.

11:10 AM: The Speaker – 1 concludes with her arguments and the Co-speaker speaks permission to present the pleadings.

11:20 AM: The counsel humbly contends that the appointment of Data Protection Authority is mandated by the statute and corroborates the same with judicial precedents.

11:30 AM: The Petitioners conclude their oral submissions with the prayer for relief. The Respondents now take the virtual stage to present their case before the Bench.

11:40 AM: The bench puts forth the question of whether it is the Government has the authority to impose absolute restrictions on agencies from publishing data. The Speaker claims that though the Government can impose reasonable restrictions, such powers shall not be used arbitrarily.

11:50 AM: The counsel humbly contends that the Government has been provided with the power to impose reasonable restrictions on the Right to Privacy of the Citizens. The counsel presents the arguments in a three-fold manner.

12:00 PM: The first speaker concludes her submissions and the co-counsel seeks permission to present her arguments.

12:10 PM: The counsel asserts that the DPA is a lawfully established authority and further elaborates the same.

12:20 PM: The counsel in light of the issue puts forth the contention that removal of content shall be absolute and not partial. The counsel provides case laws to reinforce her contentions.

12:30 PM: The Respondents have completed their oral submissions. The rebuttals and surrebutals have started.

12:35 PM: With the end of the rebuttal and surrebutal rounds, the session has come to conclusion. The judges are presenting their feedback to the participants.

 

 

1:45 PM: The wait is finally over as we announce the top 2 teams who would be competing in the Final Round of the Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad 6th National Moot Court Competition, 2022. The teams are:

 

PETITIONERS

RESPONDENTS

TN_611

TN_620

 

Finals – 2:15 PM – 4:45 PM

“Taste the relish to be found in Competition – in having put forth the best within you.”

~Henry Kaiser

 

2:10 PM: We provide you with the opportunity to be a part of the proceedings! Join the link for the live stream of the Final Round.

2:15 PM: The Oral Rounds for the Finals will commence shortly. The same shall be adjudged by the Hon’ble Bench comprising Mr. Supratim Chakraborty, Dr. Cyril, Mr. Sampath Baluchu, Prof. (Dr.) M.V.Shiju, and Prof. Ambrose.

2:40 PM: The first speaker from the petitioner side has begun with her oral submissions. The Bench insists the counsel to enlighten them with the facts of the case.

2:50 PM: The counsel humbly puts forth that the provisions in contention are unconstitutional and the Hon’ble Court shall therefore strike down the very sections. The Bench seeks the counsel to provide legal backup to her contentions. The counsel cites the landmark case of Anwar Ali vs State of West Bengal. The bench asks the counsel to provide them with the brief facts of the case.

3:00 PM: The counsel relying on the case of Sharma Transport vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh contends that even though the Data Protection Act provides for the provision for the data fiduciaries to process data citing reasonable purposes, the Act does not define the word reasonable purposes and therefore, it becomes highly likely that such data can be used to malign the data principles.

3:05 PM: Hon’ble Judge David Ambrose insists the counsel to focus on Information Privacy and not on General Privacy. The counsel humbly contends that the Fundamental Rights of individuals cannot be taken without reasonable justifications and thus S.87 of the Act shall be struck down for being arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitutional provisions.

3:10 PM: The first speaker of the Petitioners concludes her submissions and the second speaker takes over seeking permission to present the arguments advanced for the remaining issues.

3:20 PM: The Speaker 2 humbly puts forth the contention that the appointment of the Data Protection Authority has not been done properly with the Cabinet Minister as the Chairman as against the mandated appointment of Cabinet Secretary provided under S.42 of the Data Protection Act. Hon’ble Judge Ambrose asks whether the above irregularity is a substantial or a procedural one.

3:30 PM: The Bench seeks the Counsel to provide with legal precedents wherein an action taken by the authority has been struck down for being illegally constituted. The counsel pleads ignorance. The counsel further presents his oral submissions for the last issue. The counsel contends that FreindsBook shall not be held liable since FriendsBook complied to the rules provided u/s 9 of the IT Act. The counsel with the Prayer for Relief submits his case before the Bench.

3:40 PM: The Speaker – 1 representing the Respondents have begun with the oral pleadings. The counsel enlightens the Bench with the facts of the case. The counsel puts her contention that the Data Protection Act is a legislatively competent statute. The counsel further asserts that provisions have been drafted for the welfare of the citizens.

3:50 PM: The Bench needs the Counsel to elucidate on how the post made by Tanvi jeopardizes the security of the State.

4:00 PM:  The Bench puts forth a series of questions and follow-up questions to the counsel and insists on clarifying how intermediary players like social-media platforms come under the purview of the Data Protection Act. The counsel tries her best to convince the Bench.

4:10 PM: The Speaker – 2 representing the respondents started his oral pleadings. He presents his contention that according to the provisions as u/s 42(4) of the Data Protection Act, the Chairman shall be a member of capability and shall have standing. Since the Cabinet  Minister fulfills the mentioned criterion, his appointment shall be held valid. The bench seeks clarification on the matter if the appointment is in contravention of statutory provisions.

4:20 PM: The Bench asks the counsel to justify why Tanvi shall be held liable when the information circulated, allegedly threatening the security of the State, was by Tanvi’s followers. The counsel in order to answer the query of the judge draws the attention of the Bench to Paragraph – 5 of the Moot Proposition.

4:30 PM: The Respondents have presented their case before the Bench. The rebuttal and surrebutal rounds have begun.

4:35 PM: We have finally come to the conclusion of the Final Round. We will be announcing the results shortly!

 

Declaration of Prizes and Valedictory Ceremony(5:00 PM – 6:00 PM)

5:15 PM: The Valedictory Ceremony has commenced. Subhrotosh Banerjee, the President of the Moot Court Association welcomes the virtual gathering to the Valedictory Ceremony of the Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad 6th National Moot Court Competition.

5:25 PM: Respected Director of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, Dr. Santosh Aghav addresses the virtual gathering. He acknowledges the presence of our Chief Guest, Hon’ble Justice P Naveen Rao, Judge of the High Court of Telangana, our Guest of Honour, Mr. Sridhar Acharyulu M, Professor and Dean of the Mahindra University. He appreciates the efforts put in by the Judges, Dr. Anita Sable, faculty-in-charge of the Moot Court Association, members of the Moot Court Association, the volunteers to make this event a success.

5:35 PM: Our Guest of Honour, Dr. Sridhar Acharyulu M addresses the virtual gathering with his inspiring words. He enlightened the participants about the intricacies of the Moot Court Competitions and emphasized that the ability to convince the learned Bench with their oral submissions is success in itself.

5:45 PM: The Chief-Guest of the Ceremony, Hon’ble Justice P Naveen Rao, Judge of the High Court of Telangana addresses the virtual gathering. He enlightens the participants on the three essentials of advocacy which are researching, drafting, and pleading. He advises the students to avail themselves of all the resources available to them.

6:00 PM: The Special Guest, Mr. Supratim Chakraborty, Partner in Khaitan & Co. announces the results of the 6th National Moot Court Competition. And here, we present you with the winners:

Winner: TN_611 [National Law University, Jodhpur]

Runners-Up: TN_620 [Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow]

Best Speaker: TN_602 Speaker 2 [Shreya Singh, Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur]

Honorable mention for Speaker: TN_607 Speaker 2 [Fariya Sharaf, Amity University, Patna]

Best Memorial: TN_633 [Symbiosis Law School, Noida]

Honorable mention for Memorial: TN_611 [National Law University, Jodhpur]

6:10 PM: With this, we have come to the conclusion of the 6th National Moot Court Competition organized by Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad. We extend our heartiest congratulations to the winners and appreciate all the diligent efforts put in by all the participants.

We are elated that all the efforts of the organizing committee have made this event a resounding success. As we come to the end of this competition, we once again want to extend our heartfelt gratitude to all our dignitaries

 

 

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.