We welcome you to the first day of the 1st edition of TNNLU – NHRC National Moot Court Competition! The Moot Court Committee, TNNLU Trichy aims to further the vision of the NHRC by promoting, sustaining, and enabling young scholars and providing a platform for engagement and discourse, and to outdo by creating an atmosphere of intense learning and healthy competition.
This 1st edition of the Competition is being held under the patronage of the National Human Rights Commission, and our knowledge partners, SCC Online and Eastern Book Company, from March 3rd – 5th, 2023. The moot problem is based on ‘issues faced by migrants’ during the organization of a Sports event by a Public Private Partnership. Human Rights law is a rapidly developing field of law in the Indian legal sphere. The applicability of Human Rights law is wide and is spread across various disciplines of displacement of migrants, refugees, treatment of prisoners etc. and is constantly evolving.
We at TNNLU Trichy believe that education unless and until complemented by intellectually invigorating challenges fails its purpose. Cognizant of this responsibility and with a vision to foster the advancement of learning and research in the field of Human Rights Law in collaboration with NHRC and our knowledge partners EBC-SCC Online, we will ensure that this Competition will help all participants hone their mooting skills along with exploring the nuances of Human Rights Law with an exciting and challenging proposition. The organizing team has left no stone unturned in their diligent endeavour to make this competition an enriching experience.
We welcome all the judges and the participants, and hope that we are able to make this a memorable event for all.
The competition is about to begin, and we will keep you updated on everything.
Best wishes to all participating teams!
DAY-1
17:00 PM – Inaugural Ceremony
The Ceremony commenced with a welcome address by Mr. Harinarayan, Member of the Moot Court Committee, inaugurated the 1st TNNLU-NHRC Moot Court Competition. With this, we start with the Competition. The participants’ queries have been answered.
The participants are also made aware of the TNNLU Sexual Harassment (Prevention and Protection) Policy.
All the competing teams have our best wishes.
18:00 PM: SCC Training Session
The SCC Online training session has started where the participants are made aware of all the features of SCC Online in detail. It is a value addition session which promotes a more healthy competition amongst the participating teams, where with the help of SCC Online the participants while arguing can refer recent updates on the legal issues which is being dealt by them.
19:20 PM: Researcher Test
The Researcher Test is about to begin, we can see some anxious faces waiting for the question paper.
19:28 PM: The researchers test has started!
20:30 PM: The researchers test is over.
With the conclusion of Researchers Test we call it a day.
Stay tuned for further updates.
DAY 2
With a new day, we welcome our teams for the oral rounds!
The Preliminary Rounds will start at 3:00 PM. Best of luck to all the participants.
14:00 PM: Judges Briefing
The judges for the Preliminary Rounds have been briefed by two members of the Moot Court Committee. A comprehensive bench memorial and a condensed version of the memorials were also provided to the judges. The judges for the rounds are distinguished legal experts in their respective disciplines and are here to evaluate each team’s comprehension and command over the law. The Preliminary Rounds shall begin at 15:00PM.
15:04 PM: Judges briefing session still in progress, the preliminary rounds will begin shortly.
15:30 PM: Preliminary Round 1
The preliminary rounds have started. The teams are filled with enthusiasm and are confidently presenting their arguments. The participants are flawlessly presenting their arguments, which shows the repository of their months of hard work and dedication.
16: 27 PM: With the rebuttals and sur-rebuttals, the rounds are about to reach their conclusion. As the Prelims 1 is nearing its end the Teams, which were initially nervous, have based on their knowledge and conceptual clarity of the law, stood their grounds and have argued fiercely before the Division Benches in all the court halls.
17:00 PM: The preliminary round 1 of the competition have concluded, and now we will be heading towards the Preliminary Rounds 2. With this we have reached halfway to determine which teams will qualify for the Semi-Final Rounds.
The teams are eagerly waiting for the next rounds, and we are excited to host them and witness their skills and abilities. We extend our best wishes to all the teams for their success.
17:35 PM: Preliminary Round 2
With the grilling of Round 1 at the back of the mind participants proceeded with a stronger sense of competitiveness in 2nd Rounds. As the Court Clerks brief the judges about the necessary details of the participants, the teams can be seen sitting nervous as well as excited for the rounds to commence.
17:40 PM: The Preliminary Round 2 have started in all the court halls. With the Petitioners briefing the judges the facts of their case, and the distribution of issues between the two counsels.
19:15 PM: All the Preliminary Rounds are over!
But with this we can see the anxious looks on the faces of the participants, who are eagerly waiting for the the results to be declared. As based on the results of these rounds, 4 teams would be going to the Semi Finals, which will be conducted tomorrow.
19:50 PM: The results are out!!
Here are the top 4 teams that have qualified for the Semi-final Rounds:
School of Law, Sastra University.
RV Institute of Legal Studies.
Government Law College, Trivandrum.
Mahindra University.
We heartily congratulate all the qualifying teams!! And wish them luck for the Semi-Finals, which will be conducted tomorrow.
This marks the end of the 2nd Day of TNNLU-NHRC Moot Court Competition. Stay tuned for the Semis and the Final Rounds, which will be conducted tomorrow.
DAY 3
I welcome you all to the 3rd Day of the 1st TNNLU-NHRC Moot Court Competition.
Today we will witness top 4 teams, who till now have presented their splendid style of argument, and who have been preparing for today since last couple of months. Now these teams after having the night to prepare, are ready to present before us more refined arguments. So, stay tuned for further updates..
09:30 AM: The Judges Briefing session is in progress…
Semi- Final Rounds:
Court Hall 1- Bench Comprising of Dr. Murugesan and Mr. Nideesh Kumar.
Court Hall 2- Bench Comprising of Mr. Mahboob Athiff and Ms. Gowri K.
10:10 AM: The judges have arrived in their respective court halls and are being briefed by the Court Clerks regarding all the procedural formalities. In the meanwhile, participants can be seen anxiously waiting for the rounds to start, which will being in few minutes.
Court Hall 1:
10:14 AM: The Petitioners have started their arguments with the Speaker no. 1 briefing the judges the facts of the case.
10:16 AM: Starting their arguments with maintainability of their petition, the counsels content that since workers’ Right to Life and Personal Liberty and Right to Equality has been violated when they were forced to work in inhumane conditions, and then the international migrant works were differentiated from the domestic migrant workers, therefore, the present petition is maintainable.
10:24 AM: After satisfying the judges on the maintainability of the Petition, the Petitioners move to their next argument which is based on challenging the Constitutional validity of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2019. The counsel substantiate their argument by contending that since the Bill tries to create a difference between Domestic Migrant Workers and International Migrant Workers, therefore, it is violative of Right to Equality which is guaranteed to all the people, irrespective of them being citizens or not.
10:30 AM: With just two minutes left with Speaker 1 to argue her case, we can see the counsel in a haste to wrap up her arguments while also trying to answer the questions bombarded by the judges.
10:32 AM: Times Up for Speaker 1.
10: 35 AM: Speaker 2 begins her argument, she will primarily be dealing with two issues, firstly whether the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families 1990 (MV Convention) is binding on Union of Arrakis or not, considering that Arrakis has not ratified the same. Secondly, the counsel will also be dealing with the issue that Whether the advisory of NHRC have a binding nature or not.
10:42 AM: The Counsel in order to satisfy the court on the issue of binding nature of the Convention even if they have not ratified the same, contends that because the the MV Convention has become Jus Cogens, therefore, it will be binding on Arrakis.
Court Hall 2:
10:50 AM: The Counsel for Petitioners in this court were advancing their arguments on the issue of Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty being violated when the inspector, who was conducting an inquiry for violation of Human Rights of the workers, had not submitted the report to the concerned Magistrate within the limitation period. Although the bench did not seemed to be satisfied with the arguments on this issue, primarily stating that can anyone approach the High Court by way of a Writ Petition in case of there being a procedural irregularity.
10:56 AM: The Petitioners have very fiercely put forth their case before the bench, now it is for the Respondents to refute the contentions raised by the Petitioners.
11:00 AM: While briefing the facts of the case, Speaker 1 of the Respondents is directly put forth the question that why shouldn’t the advisory issued by the NHRC be considered to be of a binding nature, considering that the power for the same originates from Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
11:04 AM: Although the judges did not seem to be satisfied with the arguments on the counsel on the earlier question, but the Bench allowed the counsel to proceed with the further issues.
11:07 AM: Starting their arguments by refuting the maintainability of the Petition, the counsel contends that there is no violation of Fundamental Right of the Petitioners, and even if there is any violation of their legal rights then also there are other alternative remedies available to the Petitioners. However, the Bench is not satisfied with the said arguments by primarily citing Section 18(b) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, which provides the remedy to the aggrieved to approach the High Court in case of violation of their Human Rights.
11:15 AM: The Bench then puts forth the allegation of the Petitioners against the Respondents that they have unreasonably differentiated between domestic and international migrant workers.
11:23 AM: The Counsel for the Respondents answer this question primarily by contending that since there are other remedies available to the international workers, therefore, them being excluded from the scope of the impugned act of Inter-State Migrant Workers does not makes the whole act unconstitutional, and violative of Right to Equality.
Court Hall 1:
11:33 AM: The Counsel for the respondents are dealing with the issue of non-binding nature of the advisory of NHRC, and therefore, it is not mandatory for the State to follow the advisory of the NHRC.
11:35 AM: The Judges do not seem to be satisfied on this issue by primarily stating that since NHRC is formed by the State only and the same power to issue advisory is given by the State in order to enforce the Human Rights of the people, then why shouldn’t the State follow the advisory issued by NHRC, which is issued after a detailed inquiry done by them.
11:40 AM: The Counsel then tries to justify the act of Inspector who had submitted his report after the expiry of the limitation period. Here the Counsel contends that since it was the need of the hour, where the Inspector was supposed to do a detailed inquiry, therefore because of these essential and unavoidable circumstances before the authorities, the report is valid despite it being filed after the period of limitation.
11:50 AM: The Counsel for the Respondents finally concludes their arguments by making the following Pray that firstly, the Petition is not Maintainable; secondly, the Inter-State Migrant Workers Bill of 2019 is Constitutional; and finally, NHRC’s advisory is not of binding nature.
Court Hall 2:
11:52 AM: In this court also the Counsels for the Respondents have concluded their arguments, and now the counsels are proceeding to the Rebuttals and Sur-rebuttals.
11:58 AM: With this the arguments in both the Court Halls have concluded. The rounds were indeed highly charged with display of excellent mooting skills and greatly nuanced legal arguments from all the parties.
12:02 PM: With the judges tabulating the scores, the participants are anxiously waiting for the declaration of results, which will be announced at 12:30 AM.
12:07 PM: After tabulation of marks, the judges were kind enough to give their valuable general feedback to the participants 🙂
12:30 PM: The much awaited results of the Semi-Final Rounds have been declared and the teams qualifying to the Final Rounds of the 1st TNNLU-NHRC Moot Court Competition, 2023 are –
School of Law, Sastra University.
Government Law College, Trivandrum.
Our best wishes to both the teams!
14:30 PM: The Final Rounds!!
The most awaited moment is here! The Final Rounds of the 1st TNNLU-NHRC Moot Court Competition are about to begin. We have our Finalists School of Law, Sastra University. Government Law College, Trivandrum in the court hall.
The Hon’ble Bench for the Final Rounds comprises of Mr. B-Vijay, Additional Government Pleader at the Hon’ble Madras High Court; Professor Jasmine Joseph, Assistant Professor at NLSIU Bangalore; and Dr. Amirthalingam, Associate Professor at TNNLU.
14:37 PM: The Counsels for the petitioners have started their arguments by briefing the judges the relevant facts of their case.
14:40 PM: The judges seems to be satisfied with the maintainability of the petition under Section 18(b) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, to which the counsel agrees. However, the based on the argument of the Counsel on this puts forth the question that how can the Petitioner then challenge the Constitutionality of an Act under Section 18(b).
14:50 PM: Now the Counsel puts forth their argument on the Unconstitutionality of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2019, which is not at all accepted by the bench by stating that even if there is no explicit provision in this particular law to grant protection to International Migrant Workers, in that case also those workers can get their rights enforced under the Rights guaranteed to then under the Constitution of Arrakis.
14:56 PM: Times Up for Speaker 1, she requests for and is granted an extension of time by the Bench.
14:58 PM: The counsel now quickly proceed to the next issue which is that Workers’ Right to Life and Personal Liberty has been violated when the Workers were forced to work in inhuman conditions.
15:05 PM: Here the Bench explicitly asks the Counsel about the exact procedural irregularity which the Petitioners contend to be against the procedure established by law, which in turn has violated their rights under Article 21.
15:09 PM: Counsel 1 for the Petitioners concludes her arguments, after tactfully dealing with all the questions put forth by the Bench.
15:14 PM: Counsel 2 of the Petitioner begin their argument by contending that the NHRC has the power under Section 18 to issue recommendation to the State to protect Human Rights of a person. Here the Hon’ble Bench based on the Section 12 show that how the said advisory was only a recommendation and was not binding on the State, therefore, the present argument do not hold any ground.
15:20 PM: The Bench now questions the authority of NHRC directly taking up the case of the migrant workers when the Protection of Human Rights Act gives power to the State Human Rights Commission to undertake a same inquiry/investigation and issue similar order, therefore, when the NHRC takes up this case and does any investigation in furtherance of the same, then it is bypassing the regular course of action available to the workers.
15:25 PM: Now the next question put forth by the bench is that has NHRC issued any recommendation against the Private Entity? To which the Counsel agrees. Now a follow up question by the bench is that can NHRC issue direction/recommendation against a Private entity? To which the Counsel’s primary argument is that since the Private Entities is performing public work, which will affect the lives of millions of peoples, and in such cases direction can be issued by NHRC to a Private Entity.
15:29 PM: The Counsel now finally moves to the last issue that is the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 1990 (the MW Convention) applicable and binding upon Union of Arrakis.
15:33 PM: Here the Counsel tries to persuade the Bench that here the MW Convention has become Jus Cogens, therefore, even if the Convention has not been ratified by Arrakis then also because of the status of the Convention it is binding upon Arrakis.
15:36 PM: With this the Counsels for the Petitioners conclude their arguments, and the respondents begin their arguments.
15:40 PM: The Counsel strongly refutes the maintainability of the Writ Petition, on the grounds that there is no violation of Fundamental Rights, and there is an alternative remedy available. However, the Bench asks the Counsel to be restricted to those arguments which have been raised by the Petitioner, and therefore the bench asks the Counsel to satisfy the Court as to how a writ petition by not be NHRC maintainable before the court when they are asking to Court to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the State to follow the recommendation of NHRC. Furthermore, the Bench is of the view that if NHRC does not approach the Court through this Petition then they will be left with no other remedy, and therefore, the said petition ought to be maintainable.
15:51 PM: The Bench does not seem to be satisfied with the arguments of the Counsel on the maintainability of the Petition, so the Counsel for the Respondents agrees to proceed on the merits of the case.
16:01 PM: The Counsel contends that the MW Convention is not binding, and in furtherance of the same argues that the Convention has not attained the status of Jus Cogens. Before moving to the same, the bench firstly asks the Counsel to satisfy them that how the 4 recommendations which are made by NHRC bad in law, when NHRC has not placed any reliance on the MV Convention to begin with. To which the Counsel is trying his level best to convince the Bench, but is finding it difficult as he is bombarded with an array of questions.
16:08 PM: The Bench now puts forth the question of unreasonable delay in filing the report by the Inspector, by stating that this laxed attitude in filing the report shows the laid back attitude of the State in conducting the inquiry.
16:11 PM: Due to paucity of time, the 1st Counsel quickly summarizes his submission and now the 2nd Counsel comes forth to present her arguments.
16:15 PM: The 2nd Counsel tries to establish a case that Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Bill, 2019 is Constitutional or not?
16:19 PM: Here the Counsel makes two primary contentions, firstly, that since there are other remedies available to the international migrant workers, therefore, they are not completely denied protection, and since the impugned law is a special legislation for protection of Inter-state Migrant Workers, thus there is no discrimination done by the State. Secondly, since the State have guaranteed minimum pay to the workers, therefore, the workers Right to Life and Personal Liberty has not been violated.
16:29 PM: With this, we come to the end of the Final Rounds of the 1st TNNLU-NHRC Moot Court Competition, 2023. What an engaging session it has been!! We saw how the parties were bombarded with a lots of questions by the judges, which tested the knowledge and the depth of research undertaken by the parties, but all the participants had very tactfully tried to answer all the queries put forth by the Bench.
The Results will be announced in the Valedictory Ceremony, which will commence at 17:00 today.
We look forward to seeing you there!
17:00 PM: Valedictory Ceremony!
The moment you all have been waiting for is finally here! After months of research, practice, and hard work, even though the winning team gets to win the competition, but the best part of these Competitions is that everyone who has invested in these Competition is a winner in themselves, as everyone has got to learn something or other from it.
The following participants have emerged victorious at the rounds!
Winning Team: School of Law, SASTRA comprising of Kavya R. Krishnan, Anupamaa S. and Gayathri Narayanan N.
Runner Up: Government Law College, Trivandrum comprising of Vivek V Rajan, Sandra Santhosh and Fathimath Nadha CS.
Best Memorial: Symbiosis Law School, Pune comprising of Riddhima Shriya, Bandana Mishra and Shivank Duseja.
Best Speaker: Taskeen Sheik R from RV Institute of Legal Studies.
Best Researcher: Fathimath Nadha CS from Government Law College, Trivandrum.
This marks the end of the 1st TNNLU- NHRC Moot Court Competition, 2023. After successfully conducting the very 1st edition of this moot the Moot Court Committee has had an enthralling experience. We hope that during the course of the Competition, the participants found chances to grow, and developed fondness for the law. At the end of these three days, we sincerely hope that we have been able to deliver the expectations that the participants and the judges had from us. See you all next year, in the 2nd edition of this Competition!
Can you please send me the memo of this case
After reading all this I found this very interesting. So i want to ready how they present their cases .
So please kindly request you if it is possible can you please send me one of the memo of this case.
Email id – panchhibavaskar@gmail.com