Greetings everyone!

The Moot Court Association of Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, welcomes you to the live blog of the 8th National Moot Court Competition, 2024. The competition commences on the 5th of April 2024, in collaboration with Eastern Book Company as Skill Partner, and SCC Online as Knowledge Partner. This competition is being held offline. A total number of 30 teams are participating in the competition. The event will include 4 rounds, i.e., Preliminary Rounds 1 and 2, Quarterfinals, Semi-Finals, and Finals.

THEME– Data Privacy, Information Technology Laws & Constitutional Law

Day 01: 05th April, 2024 (Friday)

3:30 PM: The inaugural ceremony has begun with the lighting of lamp. The host for the evening welcomed the dignitaries and the participants. The welcome address was delivered by Dr. Santosh Aghav, Director, SLSH, followed by felicitation and address by the Chief Guest and Guest of Honor.

Hon’ble Justice Sri Jasti Chelameswar: Former Judge Supreme Court of India- CHIEF GUEST

His Hon’ble (former) Justice was appointed as a former Chief justice of the Kerala High Court and Gauhati High court, and was the second most senior supreme court judge, who retired in June 2018. He has also recommended the novice law students to read “21 lessons for the 21st century” by Yuval Noah Harari. Justice Chelameswar encouraged the students to read the book by Yuval Noah Harari – 21 Lessons for the 21st Century.

Hon’ble Justice Sri P.S. Narayana: Former Judge High Court of Andhra Pradesh- GUEST OF HONOUR

His Hon’ble Justice was elevated as a Permanent Judge of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh and assumed charge in 2002. 

The Inaugural Ceremony has concluded. 

6:20 PM – The Draw of Lots is underway. Teams are currently being allotted their side to represent and the courtrooms for the 8th NMCC. 

The Draw of Lots has concluded. We will reconvene tomorrow for the main sessions.

Day 02: 06th April, 2024 (Saturday)

The Preliminary Rounds 1 and 2 and Quarter Finals would be conducted today.

10:00 AM: Welcoming of Participants and Felicitation of Judges for Preliminary Rounds

10:15 AM: Briefing of Judges by the key team – Ms. Prakruthi Sunil and Ms. Zareen Fatima. The team briefed the judges about the identification of clash points, beginning with factual points of the memorial of NMCC and identification of crucial paragraphs of the proposition. The team also briefed the judges of the applicable laws and cases in the present factual matrix.

Preliminary Round 1 [11:20 am to 12:30 pm]

CR 1 [TC_806_PET v. TC_816_RES]

11:25 am – The Courtroom masters have started the briefing for the oral pleadings round. 

11:28 am – The Petitioners have started their arguments. The Judges questioned the counsel on the cause title of the proposition, followed by the facts of the case.

11:32 am – The 1st speaker for the Petitioner has started to present the arguments for the 1st issue.

11:38 am – The 1st speaker has cited the case of Kaushal Kishore to rely on the right to privacy and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

11:41 am- The Judges have questioned what informed consent is under the DPDP Act. 

CR 2 [TC_813_PET v. TC_819_RES]

12:00 pm: The judges have questioned the 2nd speaker of the Petitioner regarding Section 2(c)(ii) of the DPDP Act and whether the social media account of the Petitioner was public? The Counsel has responded that the proposition stays silent on the Petitioner’s type of account.

12:05 pm – The judges questioned what prayer and relief were sought by the Petitioners before this Court. Follow-up question: where does the DPDP Act mention the power of the Court to prohibit the data processor from sharing information with third parties? The Counsel has brought the attention to Section 8(7)(b) of the DPDP Act.

CR 3 [TC_827_ PET v. TC_828 _RES]

11:50 am – The 2nd speaker for the Petitioners has begun with Issues 3 & 4.

11:54 am – The judges questioned about the sharing of information with the 3rd party, i.e., respondent 2 as mentioned in the privacy notice. To answer this, the counsel cited the case of Lucknow Authority v M.K. Gupta.

CR 4 [TC_820_PET v. TC_812_RES]

12:10 pm – The Counsel for Petitioners have concluded their arguments with their Prayer.

12:12 pm – The Respondents have commenced their arguments. 

12:13 pm – The counsel goes on to argue that the present writ petition is not maintainable, but the Bench has asked the counsel to address the issue whether Jhumpa Sen had the locus standi to file the petition.

12:16 pm – The Bench has asked the Respondents to address whether there was an alternative remedy available to the Petitioners before approaching this Court. 

12:18 pm – The bench has questioned about the intermediary guidelines, 2021 and what is the role of Article 14 and 21 in these guidelines.

CR 5 [TC_821_PET v. TC_803_RES]

11:26 AM: The courtroom master has commenced with the rules and regulations for the teams and their respective speakers and researchers.

11:29 AM: Submission of memorial to judges is taking place. The judges have permitted the first speaker from petitioner’s side to commence. 

11:32 AM: The counsel is briefing regarding the facts of the case.

11:34 AM: Beginning of issues where issues of 1 and 4 would be handled by first counsel. The first bell of time has been rung. 

11:36 AM: Commencement of arguments have started under grounds of articles from Constitutional law. 

11:37 AM: The judge questioning the counsel regarding the issues put forth. Arguments being proceeded.Further questioning done by the second judge. The particular paragraphs of the proposition being citied.

11:42AM: THe judge question regarding the contracts and the DPDP Act. Only one minute is left for counsel. 

11:44 AM: Time for speaker one is up. Five minutes extra granted for giving second submission. 

CR 6 [TC_ 824_PET v.TC_ 808_RES]

11:53 AM: Judges questioning the counsel regarding the unconventional means of Data protection as mentioned by counsel.

11:56 AM: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case mentioned. Only one minute left. Counsel returning back to the questions asked by the lordships.

11:57 AM: Petitioner proceeding towards their prayer.

11:59 AM: Counsels from the petitioner’s side commencing their arguments with the prior permission of the lordships.

12:03 PM: Ringing of time bell for counsel from respondent’s side. 

CR 7 [TC_804_PET v. TC_818_RES]

12:06 PM: Counsel 2 from respondent’s side proceeding where judges have questioned them regarding the definition of consumers and the data payment methods.How data is a protection mechanism and not verification mechanism.

12:08 PM: S 2(42) definition of services questioned counsel in this matter and it’s particular relevance in this matter with respect to the data. 

12:11 PM: Judge mentioned that counsel trying to argue on the opposite side.Judges questioning the counsel continuously. V P Shantha vs Indian Medical Association mentioned

12:14 PM: Only 1 minute for the counsel where judge asked how unfair trade practices related to the case

12:16 PM Consumer Protection Act S. 2(9)assistance taken to explain the judges. Page 15 of the compendium highlighted by the counsel.

12:19 PM: A present case asked lordship ships where data fiduciaries are assigned.Proceeding towards last issue.

CR 8 [TC_809_PET v. TC_817_RES]

12:34 PM: Judge questioning regarding Target advertisement. Asking the researchers regarding the provision and the case

12:36 PM: Proceeding towards addressing issues and mentioning of clickwrap agreements

12:39 PM: The constant  questioning of Judges to counsel in process with regards to the proposition

12:41 PM: One minute left for the counsel to complete arguments. 

CR 9 [TC_801_PET v. TC_823_RES]

CR 10 [TC_815_PET v. TC_830_RES]

CR 11 [TC_805_PET v. TC_826_RES]

CR 12 [TC_802_PET v. TC_825_RES]
CR 13 [TC_810_PET v. TC_807_RES]

CR 14 [TC_829_PET v. TC_822_RES]

12:28 pm – The time is up for counsel 2 of the Petitioner. The Bench is questioning regarding the consent of the Petitioner for his information to be shared with 3rd parties.

12:31 pm – The Counsel is summing up Issue 4. 

12:32 pm – The Petitioners are presenting their prayer

12:33 pm – The Counsel for the Respondents have started their arguments with issue 1 regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The Bench has questioned whether the right under Article 21 of the Indian constitution is available to Foreign Nationals.

12:40 pm – The Bench has questioned regarding the locus standi of Prof. Jhumpa Sen in filing the present petition and regarding the cause title. The Bench has asked whether Prof. Sen has a personal interest in the case.

CR 15 [TC_814_PET v. TC_811_RES]

12:22 pm – The Counsel for the Respondent is dealing with Issue 2. 

12:26 pm – The Bench has questioned the Counsels on Section 6 of the DPDP Act and whether the privacy notice was ambiguous.

The Preliminary Round 1 has ended and the Judges and Panelists have dispersed for the lunch break.

Preliminary Round 2 [3:00 pm to 4:30 pm]

CR 1 [TC_ 811_PET v. TC _813 _RES]

3:05 PM: Counsel from petitioner’s side seeking time extension and further answering the questions regarding data protection and privacy as questioned by judges. The term activities in the notice in the proposition is being spoken

3:07 PM: Right to access requests the second argument being proceeded to by the petitioner’s counsel

3:09 PM: Proceeding towards sub-issues but regarding to time constraints petitioner counsel asked to sum up arguments

3:12 PM: The counsel is being questioned continuously by the judges. Finally, conclusion of petitioner’s counsel taking place

3:14PM: The second counsel from the petitioner’s side proceeding with further arguments, issues and sub-issues.

CR 2 [TC_816_PET v. TC_827_RES]

3:20 PM: The attention of the Bench has been drawn towards K.S. Puttaswamy case by counsel, page no. 24 of the memorial,alongside the British Gas Trading case. Unfair contracts coming under S.2(46) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

3:24 PM: S.2(46)(6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019been put forth and questions regarding that matter. 

3:27 PM: N.K. Gupta case mentioned that speaks about helplessness of the consumers. One minute left for the counsel. Questioning regarding breach of data of DPDP Act and hierarchy of courts to be followed in such cases. 

3:31 : Moving forth the next issues with data fiduciaries and data protection.In data fiduciaries there has to be a matter of trust between parties. The issues of crazy money and GDPR Act are being discussed. 

3:34: The questions posed forth by lordships regarding crazy money and data fiduciary being confidently answered by the counsel. The time for counsel is over.

CR 3 [TC_819_PET v. TC_820_RES]

3:40 PM: Paragraph 6 of the proposition being highlighted by counsel. 5 minutes remaining for the counsel to complete arguments.

3:43 PM: The lordships question if CoolConnect market space is available for buyers. 

3:45 PM: Frequently notes being passed via courtroom master from researcher to counsel. S 3(2) DPDP Act being spoken about. 1 minute left where counsel completes arguments with issues mentioned  and calls forth upon co-counsel.

CR 4 [TC_828_PET v. TC_821_RES]

3:50 PM: Judges sharply questioning the counsel regarding the sections, sub-sections of DPDC Act and privacy notice. Also sharp correction done by the judge regarding the sections and concepts.

3:54 PM; Further questions put forth by the lordships that counsel is finding answers to

3:55 PM: Judges asking the team to raise for the prayer from petitioner’s side

3:58 PM: Counsel from respondent’s side starting with issues 1 and 2.

CR 5 [TC_812_PET v. TC_824_RES]

CR 6 [TC_803_PET v. TC_804_RES]

4:01PM: COunsel moving towards last argument mentioning S.2(i) of DPDP and the going towards definitions related. 

4:03 PM: Judge questioning who is lending money coolconnect or crazy money. 2 minutes extension requested regarding the completion of arguments. 

4:07 PM:Page no. 17 of the compendium is being brought to attention. The essential and non-essential means of GDPR Act is also brought to notice. Compendium cases brought to notice. The sections of DPDP Act not being violated is being stated by the counsel.

4:10 PM: The prayer is being put before the judges by the petitioners.

4:11PM: Respondents taking over whereby judges are telling to strictly adhere to time limits.

CR 7 [TC_808_PET v. TC_809_RES]

CR 10 [TC_823_PET v. TC_805_RES]

CR 11 [TC_830_PET v. TC_802_RES]

3:20 pm – The Counsel for Petitoiner is presenting their arguments. The Bench questioned through what right does Prof. Jhumpa obtain the right to file the present petition on behalf of Petitioner 3. 

3:25 pm – The Bench asked about what is unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. The Counsel uses Section 2(47)(ix) of the Act to substantiate their argument. The Bench denied the argument that the Respondent Company is charging hefty.

3:28pm – The Judges continue to question how providing of data services constitute monetary consideration.

CR 12 [TC_826_PET v. TC_810_RES]

3:33 pm – The Judge asked whether Daksh is a consumer under this particular case. The Counsel responds in affirmative and refers to section 2(7) of the COPRA Act to substantiate the argument.

3:34pm – The counsel for Petitioner argues that Data can be considered as consideration for the definition of consumer under the COPRA Act.

CR 13 [TC_825_PET v. TC_829_RES]

3:38 pm – The Counsel questions the Petitioner whether there is a requirement for ratifying of an agreement/consent given by a person when he was minor on turning a major. 

3:39 pm- The Petitioner argues that the terms of the consent had changed and therefore there should have been a new privacy notice issued to the Petitioner. And that the privacy notice violates Section 11 of DPDP Act

3:40pm – The first speaker concluded their argument. The 2nd speaker for the Petitioners has started their arguments.

CR 14 [TC_807_PET v. TC_814_RES]

3:45 pm – The Bench asked the Counsel to refer to the paragraph 10 of the Moot Proposition and asks to address the issue of whether the petition is maintainable in this regard.

CR 15 [TC_822_PET v. TC_806_RES]

3:00 pm – The Counsel for Petitioners is presenting their arguments. The Bench questioned the counsel about the scope of a foreign national to be included under Article 21 and what are essentials to be fulfilled for a person to be eligible to file a PIL.

3:05 pm – The Bench questioned the Counsel why they haven’t approached the High Court in this matter.

3:11 pm – The bench posed the question to the counsel regarding the difference between an appeal and writ petition before the Supreme Court and the writ that the Petitioners are seeking.

The Preliminary Round 2 has ended.

Quarter Finals Round [6:45 pm to 7:45 pm]

The following was the court room allotment and fixtures for the Quarter Finals Round

Court Room Number	Petitioner	Respondent
CR 01	TC 815	TC 819
CR 02	TC 825	TC 806
CR 03	TC 802	TC 807
CR 04	TC 803	TC 818

Court Room 1

6:45 PM: The court room master has commenced giving instructions to the petitioner and respondent. Materials to be submitted to speakers has strictly to be done via court room master.

6:47 PM: The counsel proceeds to dias seeking permission and starts with her arguments. The facts of the case being briefly provided to the panel. There are questions being asked to counsel with respect to facts. 14 minutes time span of counsel and 1 and 2 issues discussed

Daksh not petitioner in the case nut professor is where it is asked rights the professor is having to file case 

6:51PM: Pg. no. 8 of the compendium being referred to. How can PIL be retained where Right to Life is being violated? PIL is being filed on behalf of all the users and not just 1 person. Pg no. 22 of the compendium. SC Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP 2023 judgment under Article 19. 

6:57PM: Pg no. 38 attention being dragged to where further S.43(A) of the IT Act. 5 minutes remaining. Why wasn’t civil suit filed in this case? Has also been asked by the Bench. There have been continuous questions posed with regard to constitutional articles. 

6:59PM : The principles of law being highlighted with the K.S.Puttaswamy case. Only 1 minute left for the counsel with a further extension granted for the counsel.Further questions being asked by the Bench to the petitioner’s counsel. 

Court Room 2

7:06 PM: The provisions being violated are being spoken about by the petitioner’s counsel. The time for counsel is over.

7:09 PM: There is a sort of rapid fire going on between the panel and counsel. The processing of data is taken place by CoolConnect. Pg.no. 8 of the compendium with the concept of consent being discussed. The DPDP act and privacy notice are being discussed. 

7:14 PM: The concept of business partners and their respective laws are being spoken about. Courtroom master continuously passing notes to speaker. S.5,6,7,9,11 of the DPDP act have been spoken about where now rest issues would be taken over by the co-counsel.

7:17 PM: The co-counsel of petitioner’s seeking permission where 3rd issue being taken over by co-counsel. The definition of the term consumer being discussed along with consideration and term of service. The intecracy of the term ‘consumer’ being discussed. S.2(9) consumer rights under which Right to be Informed is being spoken about

7:22 PM: S.2(47)(9) Unfair Trade Practices being discussed. Disclosure must be done after a valid consent acc. to DPDP Act to which the judge disagrees.

7:25 PM:Notice is legal to which co-counsel is agreeing has been stressed upon by the counsel. Para 7, 4th line of the proposition being referred to. Counsel is trying hard to prove her point before the Bench. 

7:28 PM: The judges are asking final questions regarding violations and compensations under the DPDP Act. 

7:31 PM: The next issue being addressed where the judge tells that crazy money is a data processor is repeatedly being spoken. The definition of crazy money is also being discussed which is ‘ loan lending service providers.’ 

7:36 PM: The definitions that have been used in the proposition are being argued about.With this constant questions being posed regarding concepts present in proposition. 

7:39 PM: The last questions of the panel being answered by the counsel. 

Court Room 3

7:26 pm – The counsel for the Respondent argues against the maintainability of the writ petition since they are not a public institution, neither are performing any public function. 

7:29 pm – The Bench has questioned if the Respondents are a significant social media enterprises, to which the Respondent responded in affirmative, however, they also contend that a right should not be confused with remedy.

7:34 pm – The counsel draws the attention of the Bench to the judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy and the observations by Justice P.N. Bhagwati

7:37 pm – The counsel for the Respondent contends that the question of Daksh’s consent does not arise, since, it was his parents who had provided consent on his behalf. The Judge clarifies that a renewed privacy notice on him turning a major.

7:39 pm – The Counsel draws the attention of the Bench to Section 11 and Section 2(j) of the DPDP Act.

Court Room 4

6:52 pm – The Counsel for the Petitioner has commenced their arguments. The bench questioned relevancy of Article 139A of the Indian Constitution in the present case and why was the Article 136 of the Indian Constitution not applied?

6:59 pm – The Petitioner argues that a foreign national is under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution.

7:09 pm – The Petitioner argues that their rights have been violated under Article 17 of the Indian Constitution, which was questioned by the Bench and how it is violated.

7:12 pm – The Petitioner argues that they are entitled to compensation since they have suffered damages in terms of sharing of their private information with 3rd parties.

7:17 pm – The counsel has started their arguments for Issue 2 and contends that the Respondent 3 violates Section 9(3) of the DPDP Act by undertaking target advertising.

7:19 pm – The Bench asked what is the standing of data fiduciary vis-a-vis children.

7:24 pm – The Counsel contends that Section 4 of the DPDP Act has been violated, while reading with the definition of consent under Section 6(2) of the Act.

The Quarter Final rounds have ended! Stay tuned for tomorrow’s Semi-Finals and Final rounds.

Day 03: 06th April, 2024 (Saturday)

9:00 AM – The Judges and participants have proceeded for the breakfast.

10:00 AM – Day 3 of the 8th National Moot Court Competition, 2024 has begun. The briefing session for the Judges of the Semi Final rounds is ongoing.

Semi-Finals Round [11:30 am to 2:00 pm]

CR 1 [TC_825_PET v. TN_815_RES]

11:25 AM – The courtroom master has started briefing in court room 1 giving out the rules & regulations for the teams.

11:30 AM – Counsel 1 for the side of petitioner has asked for the permission to begin with their arguments & the judges have given the consent to proceed. The counsel 1 begins with the facts of the case & then comes forth to argue on Issue 1.

11:33 AM – Judges posed questions with respect to the jurisdiction in the case to which the counsel responds in affirmation & goes on to explain.

11:35 AM – Counsel requested the bench to refer to flag 2 of the compendium. Further, judges asked questions on the applicability of Art. 21 of the constitution on foreign citizens. Questions continued with respect to constitution & Digital Person Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 & the counsel answered on the same.

11:40 AM – Counsel referred to the Puttaswamy Case & substantiated their arguments on the same.

11:42 AM – The counsel argues how they’ve approached the hon’ble court under Art. 32 of the constitution for the violation of fundamental rights. The counsel proceeds with Issue 2 & refers to flag 4 & 5 of their compendium.

11:45 AM – Judges poses questions on data fiduciaries to which the counsel responds with substantial arguments.

11:47 AM – Counsel cites the provisions of the DPDP Act, 2023 to substantiate their arguments.

11:53 AM – The bench asked the petitioners on what basis they are seeking compensation in their case to which the counsel responds that DPDP Act does not specifically provides for compensation & therefore they are seeking the same under the Consumer Protection Act.

11:55 AM – Counsel 1 summarizes their arguments, cites Supreme Court precedents & invites Counsel 2 to further take up the arguments ahead.

11:57 AM – Counsel 2 begins with Issue 3 & substantiates their arguments via 4 sub issues.

12:02 PM – The bench asks as to how there are unfair trade practices as claimed & the counsel responds citing the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as well as the Contract Act.

12:07 PM – The bench asks about Supreme Court precedents on Information Technology laws with respect to the personal safety & its correlation to the DPDP Act.

12:10 PM – The counsel further argues on what dark patterns are & further substantiate their arguments.

12:19 PM – The counsel proceeds to issue 4 & answers to the question of the bench.

12:25 PM – As the arguments come to an end, the counsel summarizes their arguments & puts forth their prayer for seeking fair compensation. With this the arguments of Petitioner side is done.

12:33 PM – Counsel 1 from the side of Respondents seeks permission to begin with their arguments & further proceeds with Issue 1 & 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12:40 PM – The bench poses questions to which counsel cites the case of Maneka Gandhi v. UOI. to substantiate their pleadings.

12:45 PM – Counsel goes on to argue with respect to the DPDP Act & tries to correlate it with the constitution.

12:49 PM – Counsel invites Counsel 2 to take forward their arguments.

12:55 PM – Counsel 2 goes on to argue on Issue 2 & 3 from their pleadings & responds to the questions posed by the bench.

1:30 PM – The respondent side puts their arguments to rest & concludes with their prayer.

1:32 PM – The rebuttals & sur rebuttals take place as both sides plead their case.

2:00 PM – The semi final round is over in CR 1.

CR 2 [TN_802_PET v. TN_803_RES]

11:15 AM: The courtroom master has started briefing the regulations of the competition to the participants and judges. The petitioner’s counsel is approaching the dias and asking permission to start with arguments. Counsel would be dealing with issues 1 and 3. The briefing of facts of proposition going on to the Bench. Today the ongoing case is Mr. Daksh & Another vs. CoolConnect & Another where the petitioner are defending the Mr. Daksh & Another.

11:17 AM: Article 32 extends to foreign citizens and FR’s being enforced against private parties. Pg.no. 14 of the compendium being referred to. Petitioner is British citizen residing in Avarna. The judge questioned if the cases mentioned by the counsel were dealing with Article 21 of the Constitution where counsel replied firmly by stating the cases and standing on the point firmly. 

11:22 AM: Pg.no. 8 of the proposition with paragraphs 6,7 highlighted in particular. Constitutional rights are said to have horizontal effect in case of enforcing it against private individuals.Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP

11:25 AM:Pg.7 para 30,31 of the written submission. Vishaka & Ors vs State of Rajasthan. Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP being referred to for horizontal applicability even when it was related to social media. The case was decided in January, 2023 where decision was determined. 

11:31 : Counsel seeking permission to move forward with the third issue. Disclosure of private person’s data. Paragraph 6 of the proposition being concentrated on. Petition filed by Prof.Jumbasia where he has filed it as a person having interest in the case under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as Public Interest Litigation. Prof. Sen has filed a petition on behalf of student Daksh on 2 grounds. 

11:35 AM: Counsel seeking extension of time where Ladyship questioned regarding the specific issue the counsel is speaking about. CoolConnect and CrazyMoney both have been sued. Judge not satisfied with respect to Locus Standi with relation to arguments put forth.

11:41 AM: Daksh is a consumer in accordance with the provisions and as per the definitions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The writ petition has been filed by Daksh hence both are parties or petitioners to this case. Then the Information Technology Act has been spoken about with its applicability in this case.

11:42 AM: Counsel seeking permission for co-counsel to speak where co-counsel seeking permission to approach the dias.

11:45 AM: Co-counsel moving forward to issue 2 while representing Mr.Daksh & Another. Richardson case being referred to where conditions were given at the back.Ladyship asking the co-counsel to focus on issues rather than going into persuasive judgments. 

11:50 AM: The term ‘Consent fatigue’ discussed with regards to case. The consent wasn;t taken from Daksh but was taken from Daksh’s parents but the counsel focuses on the method of taking consent and not giving that consent. Clickwrap agreements and DPDP Act questions put forth where counsel seeks time of 15 seconds to answer the Bench’s questions. There have been mentions of paragraph 7 of the moot proposition.

11:55 AM: Paragraph 44 of the written submission being referred to by counsel for explaining the concepts. S.11 of DPDP Act in the compendium has taken its attention towards. S.2(j)has defined Data Principles with respect to the present case. S.9(2) of the DPDP act has also been violated. With the question and answer rounds going on between the counsel and the Bench there are 5 minutes left. S.9(3) talks regarding the targeting advertisements with respect to the children that has been violated.

12:01: The counsel seeking permission to move forward to the fourth issue after seeking permission from the Bench. S.2(k) has defined Data Processor with mentions of S.2(x) of the DPDP Act. Only 1 minute is remaining for the counsel. S.2(i) talks about data fiduciaries and it’s other relations. CrazyMoney is not a data processor but a data fiduciary as told by the counsel with which the counsel ended his arguments. Yet, the bench questioned counsel regarding lending service provider that has been mentioned in 10.2 of the RBI Guidelines S.2(i), S.4 and S.5 of the DPDP Act have also been relied upon. 

12:10: The petitioner’s side have started with their prayer. The respondents starting with their arguments. 

Final Round [3:20 pm to 5:30 pm]

The Bench for the Final Rounds comprises of Hon’ble Justice Sri Adarsh Kumar Goel, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, Hon’ble Justice Sri Rangaswamy Nataraj, Sitting Judge, Karnataka High Court, Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ashok G. Nijagannawar, Former Judge, Karnataka High Court, Hon’ble Justice Mr. Seetharama Murthy, Former Judge, State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court, and Mr. Supratim Chakroborty, Partner at Khaitan & Co.

Petitioner’s Arguments

3:20 pm – The Counsel for Petitioner has started their arguments. The Bench orders regarding the jurisdiction and the locus standi under which they have approached the Court. 

3:33pm – Hon’ble Justice Sri Adarsh Kumar Goes, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India questioned the Petitioner whether anyone has taken advantage of the personal data of the Petitioner. The counsel responds that their personal data pertaining to their sexuality to 3rd parties and that on the basis of this they were denied loan by Krazymoney and that the disclosing of this information led to disowning by their parents.

3:36 pm – The Counsel argues that the Respondent should have renewed the consent of the Petitioner on their attaining of majority.

3:39 pm – The Counsel argues that the Right to privacy is a fundamental right available to every citizen and foreign national under the Constitution and under Article 17, ICCPR and therefore by sharing personal information of Daksh regarding their sexuality to their parents, who disowned Daksh. The Counsel argues that under Horizontal effect, the violation of fundamental rights can be enforced under private individuals, for this the counsel relies on the case of Kaushal Kishore.

3:46 pm – Hon’ble Justice Sri Adarsh Kumar Goel clarifies that the complaint under the COPRA shall not be maintainable.

3:48 pm – The Bench questioned what do the Petitioner mean by unfair trade practice and how is it relevant in the present case, how was the petitioner a consumer of the service. Additionally, how there is a deceptive trade practice employed by the Respondents. The Counsel responds that the disclosure not done in accordance with any provisions of any law to 3rd parties is the unfair trade practice.

3:52 pm – The Bench asks the Counsel what is the relief sought. The counsel responds that they are seeking monetary compensation from the Respodent and that they be directed to follow the guidelines by the DPDP Act.

3:56 pm – The 2nd speaker for the Petitioner has started their arguments. The Bench asks the Counsel to address under which law is it illegitimate to disclose the credit worthiness of a person to their creditor. The Bench asks the Counsel about the purpose of the DPDP Act and what is purpose of protecting data.

4:07 pm – the bench questions whether the Act mentions explicit content? The counsel relies of Section 6(1) of the Act.

4:12 pm – The bench asks if it was responsibility of the Respondent to take the consent of the Petitioner on turning a major and if this is anywhere mentioned in the Act.

Respondent’s Arguments

4:22pm – The Counsel for Respondent has started their arguments

4:23 pm – The bench asks if there is any bar in clubbing certain matters while seeking a writ of mandamus. The counsel responds that since Daksh is a single individual, therefore the PIL too is not maintainable. 

4:27 pm – the bench questions whether the standard laid down by the Puttaswamy judgment met in the DPDP Act.

4:35 pm – The Bench states that the Company Coolconnect is not doing any service, and is showing content which is not meant for children. However, the Respondent argues that such a practice is not prohibited by any law.

4:37 pm – The Counsel has moved on to issue 2. 

4:40 pm – The Counsel contends there is no violation or consent, however the bench says that since there is no consent obtained, there has been a breach of provisions.

4:52 pm – The counsel argues that the privacy notice clearly mentioned that the information would be shared with their business partners, therefore consent was obtained.

4:59 pm – The Bench questions if not considering the existence of the DPDP Act, could the Petitioner not sue for the breach of privacy and tort feasance.

5:03 pm – The bench questioned whether Respondent 3 is a data fiduciary or a loan lending service provider?

5:10 pm – The Counsel contends that the Respondents have complied with DPDP Act. The Bench questioned whether or not the Respondent should have taken the consent of the Petitioner on turning of major and how Section 6 of the Act is not violated.

Valedictory Ceremony

6:05 pm – The Valedictory ceremony for the 8th NMCC 2024, SLSH has started

6:09 pm – Hon’ble Justice Sri Adarsh Kumar Goel, Former Judge the Supreme Court of India, addresses the gathering regarding the importance of Data Protection and the proliferation of Cyber Crimes. 

6:45 pm – Mr. Supratim Chakraborty, Partner, Khaitan & Co., also the moot problem drafter, is announcing the results of the competition. The following is the final results: 

Best Speaker – Ms. Jumana Raja, NMIMS Hyderabad 

2nd Best Speaker – Ms. Harshitha Adari, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

Best Memorial – Tamil Nadu National Law University, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu 

Winning Team – Tamil Nadu National Law University, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu

Runner’s up Team – National Law Institute University, Bhopal

With this, we have come to the conclusion of the 8th National Moot Court Competition, 2024 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.