The University School of Law and Legal Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, is hosting the 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024.
The 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024 is scheduled to be held in offline mode at the campus of the University School of Law and Legal Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi-NCR, from 28th and 29th September, 2024.
DAY- 1: 28/09/2024
PRELIMINARY ROUNDS FOR BATCH- I
COMMENCED AT 10:45 A.M.
COURT ROOM NO.1
(room no. 110)
At 11:03 a.m.– the court room was presided by Sheetal Gehlot and Sarita Ranga as being the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 8B(the petitioners) and 5M(the respondents). the Counsel for petitioners strongly argued over Article 226 and cited various judicial precedents like the Minerva Mills V. Union of India, Valko Employees Union Vs. Union of India; and argued that policy decision making is exclusively within the executive’s domain. Counsels for petitioners presented there prayers to the judges.
COURT ROOM NO. 2
(room number 211)
At 10:48 a.m., the court room was presided by Sonal Mehta and Tanya Bansal as the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 10B(the petitioners) and 9A(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners presented maintainability of the petition. The Counsel went over Issue No. 1. The counsel further argued over the matters of Article 136, Judicial overview/overreach, separation of powers, use of judicial precedents pertaining to environmental law. There was proactive participation of judges.
COURT ROOM NO. 3
(room no. 213)
At 10:57 a.m., the court room was presided by Renu & Shikha Sharma as the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 7A(the petitioners) and 11A(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners argued strongly on the Disaster Management Act and other relevant constitutional articles like Article 19 (1)(g) and Article 14 with the use of landmark cases like A. K. Gopalan V. State of Madras.
COURT ROOM NO. 4
(room no. 313)
At 11:09 a.m., the court room was presided by Ankit Yadav and Shireen Singh as the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 3B (the petitioners) and 5E(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners address issue no. 3 with the help of landmark Judicial precedents like MC Mehta V. Union of India, Mohini Jain V. State of Karnataka etc.
COURT ROOM NUMBER. 5
(room no. 315)
At 11:16 a.m., the court room was presided by Jessica Marry Mathew and Deepanjali Kashyap, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 3D(the petitioners) and 5K(the respondents). The counsel for respondents put forward their arguments. The Judge asks the Council to define the term National Disaster while the other Judge asked the counsel why should heatwave not be included under the Disaster Management Act.
COURT ROOM NO. 6
(room no. 316)
At 11:19 a.m., the court room was presided by Kanika Garg and Pooja Arora, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between the teams 5J(the petitioners) and 3C(the respondents). The Counsel for respondent submits that state has failed to implement necessary actions to handle the problem of heatwaves, violating Article 21. The counsel further argued that big population requires better policies and implementation.
COURT ROOM NO. 11
(room no. 317)
At 11:23 a.m., the court room was presided by Ritu Paul and Shubhangi Baranwal, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between the teams 5D(the petitioners) and 5G (the respondents). The counsel for petitioners pleaded their prayers to the judges. The counsel for respondents approached the dias and the Rebuttals commenced.
COURT ROOM NO. 8
(room no. 410)
At 11:28 a.m., the court was presided by Mayank Singhal and Jyoti Singh Meena, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between 9B(the petitioners) and 5I(the respondents). The counsel for respondents argued strongly and comprehensively on various fundamental rights and other legislations. The Counsel also mentioned the ratio dicendi of the Subhash Kumar Case. Right to equality and equal protection of laws was also argued over. The counsel took the consideration of the judges through various important paragraphs of their memorandum. Adequately used the facts from moot preposition.
COURT ROOM NO. 7
(room no. 408)
At 11:34 a.m., the court was preside by Divya Darshan and Garima Kumar, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between 5H(the petitioners) and 13B(the respondents). The court master reminded the counsel that they only had 2 more minutes to conclude their arguments. The Respondents pleaded their prayers.
COURT ROOM NO. 10
(room no. 507)
At 11:39 a.m., the court was presided by Bhavna Sachdeva and Rachita Agarwal, the preliminary rounds took place between 1A(the petitioners) and 3A(the respondents). The judge asked the respondents relevancy of Article 19 (A) and (D). the judge further asked the counsel about the golden triangle of the Indian Constitution (Art. 14, 19, and 21). The Rebuttals shortly began, done by the petitioners.
COURT ROOM NO. 9
(room no. 503)
At 11:44 a.m., the court was presided by Yash Gupta and S. Katiyar, the preliminary round took place between 6A(the petitioners) and 3E(the respondents). The judges provided their valuable feedback to all the participants present
At 11:45 am, the Preliminary rounds for Batch-1 conclude.
PRELIMINARY ROUNDS FOR BATCH- II
COMMENCED AT 12:00 P.M.
COURT ROOM NO.1
(room no. 110)
at 12:04 p.m., the court room was presided by Sheetal Gehlot and Sarita Ranga as being the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 15B(the petitioners) and 12C(the respondents). the Counsel for petitioners presented the facts of the case and cited relevant judicial precedents to back their arguments. The Judges questioned the counsel regarding Jurisdiction.
COURT ROOM NO. 2
(room number 211)
at 12:09 p.m., the court room was presided by Sonal Mehta and Tanya Bansal as the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 11B(the petitioners) and 5A(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners presented maintainability of the petition referring to constitutional articles like Article 226. The Judges asked the counsel to explain article 226
COURT ROOM NUMBER.3
(room no. 213)
at 12:16 p.m., the court room was presided by Renu & Shikha Sharma as the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 5F(the petitioners) and 2A(the respondents). The counsel of petitioners were asked about the facts of the judicial precedents cited by them.
COURT ROOM NO. 4
(room no. 313)
At 12:20 p.m., the court room was presided by Ankit Yadav and Shireen Singh as the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 2B (the petitioners) and 5O(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners argued how the effects of heatwaves are violating the fundamental rights of the citizens. The judges asked the counsel to prove the applicability of Fundamental Rights with respect to his ongoing argument or submission.
COURT ROOM NO. 5
(room no. 315)
At 12:27 p.m., the court room was presided by Jessica Marry Mathew and Deepanjali Kashyap, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 5N(the petitioners) and 8A(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners argued strongly on the Disaster Management Act and other relevant constitutional articles like Article 19 and Article 14 with the use of landmark cases like Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan. The judges asked the counsel to explain how the forementioned case is relevant to the presented petition.
COURT ROOM NO. 6
(room no. 316)
At 12:32 p.m., the court room was presided by Kanika Garg and Pooja Arora, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between the teams 5L(the petitioners) and 15A(the respondents). The Counsel for respondent submits that state has displayed failure in responding to the problem of heatwaves, violating Article 21. The counsel further argued that big population requires better policies and implementation. The judges asked the counsel if High court decision is applicable on central government or not.
COURT ROOM NO. 8
(room no. 410)
At 12:42 p.m., the court wad presided by Mayank Singhal and Jyoti Singh Meena, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between 13A(the petitioners) and 5C(the respondents). The counsel for respondents argued strongly and comprehensively on various fundamental rights, Disaster Management Act, and various other legislations.
COURT ROOM NO. 7
(room no. 408)
At 12:47 p.m., the court was preside by Divya Darshan and Garima Kumar, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between 14A(the petitioners) and 10A(the respondents). The arguments concluded and the judges provided their valuable feedback to all the participants present
COURT ROOM NO. 9
(room no. 503)
At 12:58 p.m., the court was presided by Yash Gupta and S. Katiyar, the preliminary round took place between 5B(the petitioners) and 12A(the respondents). The court master reminded the counsel that they only had 2 more minutes to conclude their arguments. The Respondents pleaded their prayers, commencing rebuttals
COURT ROOM NO. 10
(room no. 507)
At 12:53 p.m., the court was presided by Bhavna Sachdeva and Rachita Agarwal, the preliminary rounds took place between 4A(the petitioners) and 6B(the respondents). The judge asked the respondents relevancy of the various constitutional articles mentioned. The rebuttals began shortly after which were followed by sir-rebuttals.
At 01:00 p.m., the Preliminary rounds for Batch-II concluded
At 01:15 p.m., all the judges for the said preliminary rounds of batch I and II were facilitated by Prof. (Dr.) Queeny Pradhan, Dean USLLS, GGSIPU; and Prof. (Dr.) Upma Gautam, Project Director, 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024.
RESULTS FOR PRELIMINARY ROUNDS
At 02:54 p.m., the results of the preliminary rounds were announced by Prof. (Dr.) Queeny Pradhan, Dean, USLLS; and Prof. (Dr.) Upma Gautam, Project Director, 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024; and the concerned results are as follows:-
PETITIONERS
- TC-10B
- TC-3D
- TC-7A
- TC-5B
RESPONDENTS
- TC-11A
- TC-15A
- TC-3C
- TC-13B
The above mentioned 8 teams have qualified for the further round that is the Quarter Finals.
Additionally, all the participating teams, inclusive of there assigned mentors have been praised by Prof. (Dr.) Upma Gautam, Project Director, 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024 for their extraordinary efforts as well as hardwork.
The Quarter Final rounds are scheduled to take place at 03:30 p.m. in the following rooms and pairs:-
Room No.- 313- 10B vs 13B
Room No.- 502 – 3D vs 11A
Room No.- 317 – 5B vs 3C
Room No.- 507 – 7A vs 15A
The following Quarter Finals will consist of 3 judge benches in the respective court rooms as mentioned below:-
1. QR-1 (Room No. 313)
- Judge 1- Dr. Sonali Sharma
- Judge 2- Dr. Anandita Yadav
- Judge 3- Dr. Vinayak Jhamb
2. QR-2 (Room No.)
- Judge 1- Dr. Priya Das
- Judge 2- Dr. Ghazala
- Judge 3- Dr. Arushi Malik Mehta
3. QR-3 (Room No. )
- Judge 1- Dr. Misha Bahamani
- Judge 2- Dr. Kavita Singh
- Judge 3- Dr. Sonika Ahlawat
4. QR-4 (Room No. )
- Judge 1- Dr. Anjali Thakur
- Judge 2- Dr. Suhasini Kashyap
- Judge 3- Dr. Tavleen Kaur Khur
QUATER FINAL ROUND
COMMENCED AT 03:40 p.m.
COURT ROOM NO. 1
(Room No. 313)
At 03:44 p.m., the court was presided by Dr. Sonali Sharma, Dr. Anandita Yadav, and Dr. Vinayak Jhamb, the quarter final round took place between 10B(the petitioners) and 13B(the respondents). The counsel argued that allocating more resources to the heatwaves would lead to lesser resources essential in managing worse disasters which prove to be much more hazardous to life and property. Speaker 1 concludes their arguments and Speaker 2 approaches the dais dealing with their respective issues. They submit that The High court has acted beyond its jurisdiction to notify heat wave as a notified disaster. They argue that the High court infringes doctrine of separation of power which is an integral part of the constitution. The counsel further discussed constitutional articles like Article 245 and 53 and how the court’s decision to notify heatwaves as a disaster is a clear violation of the forementioned articles.
The petitioners go for rebuttals, raising questions over statements like the problem of heatwaves being localised. The respondents come for sir-rebuttals, answering the questions raised. They mention that instead of separation of powers there is present fusion of powers with separated functions in the country.
COURT ROOM NO. 2
(Room No. 502)
At 04:04 p.m., the court was presided by Dr. Priya Das, Dr. Ghazala, and Dr. Arushi Malik Mehta, the quarter final round took place between 3D(the petitioners) and 11A(the respondents). The petitioners pleaded their prayers, mentioning the maintainability of the petition, and that the actions by the government did not violate article 14 and 21, and court’s decision to notify heatwaves as a disaster was unconstitutional.
The counsel for the respondents approaches the dias and presents their arguments on their respective issues. The counsel argues that the SLP is not maintainable as there has been no miscarriage of justice. Moreover, there could be a lack of judicial aptitude and wrong interpretation of facts. The counsel further mentioned how the magnitude of a supposed ‘miscarriage’ should shake the conscious of the court. They further argued that there is no substantial question of law in the case with the help of judicial precedents like the Bihar Mineral Sports Society V. Union of India, Menka Gandhi V. Union of India, and various other constitutional articles like Article 14,19,21. The speaker argued over how there has been an absence of logicality as per the judicial precedent of Joseph Shine V. Union of India, quoting the preamble to signify how imperative the people are for the state.
COURT ROOM NO. 3
(Room No. 507)
At 04:16 p.m., the court was presided by Dr. Misha Bahamani, Dr. Kavita Singh, and Dr. Sonika Ahlawat, the quarter final round took place between 7A(the petitioners) and 15A(the respondents). The counsel for respondents argued over the maintainability of the present petition under article 136 of the constitution. The judge asked the counsel if there is a case of miscarriage of justice and the counsel replied with denial of such a thing and that the high court decision was well decided. The counsel further argued that the Special Leave Petition is a waste of the court’s time and resources and that the efficiency of the judicial system is often compromised by such petitions like the one on hand. The counsel cited cases like Niranjanlal V. Bulandshahar to further prove and conclude their arguments.
The co-counsel then approaches the dais. The counsel argues that the court’s decision has violated Articles 14,19, and 21 of the constitution and has effected the marginalised groups of society, giving the reasoning that the lack of formal classification of heatwaves as disasters leads to the marginalised people suffering. The judge asked the counsel whether the presented constitutional articles have any restrictions, further adding onto the question by asking what authority is responsible for putting such restrictions. The counsel argued that the forementioned measures had caused implications to employment. The judge questioned the counsel whether the employment affected as told by the counsel is mentioned in the preposition.
The counsel, by the help of legal precedents like B.P. Sharma vs Union of India, argued that loss of life was a direct result of state’s failure in handling heatwaves. The judge asked whether the death toll is the final figure or may have had more variations. The counsel answered by referring to the preposition. To conclude their arguments, the counsel urges the court to direct the state to recognise heatwaves under Disaster Management Act. They further mentioned that the issuing of direction by court was very much under their domain to safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizens. They also mentioned the nation bring a part of international bodies making it liable to the violation of its commitments to such environmental bodies.
COURT ROOM NO. 4
(Room No. 317)
At 03:50 p.m., the court was presided by Dr. Anjali Thakur, Dr. Suhasini Kashyap, and Dr. Tavleen Kaur Khur, the quarter final round took place between 5B(the petitioners) and 3C(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners is presenting their arguments confidently. They argue that the high court has no power to issue directions of notifying heatwaves as a disaster and that it was a case of judicial overreach. The judge questions the counsel over their statement regarding how exactly does high court not have the power to issue such directions. The judge further questioned whether the present case is a case of activism or judicial overreach.
The counsel quotes judicial precedents like MC Mehta vs Union of India to answer the judge’s question regarding the fact that the court can interfere in matters where fundamental rights are infringed. The counsel further mentions, with the help of relevant cases, that the disaster related policies must be made at the discretion of the executive and the legislative. And that the Disaster Management Act provides the Government discretion to identify what classifies as a disaster and what does not. They also mention the Principal of Proportionality, and how the Government’s approach includes heat action plans, and other appropriate measures to deal with heat problems. The counsel then concludes their arguments by pleading their prayer to the judges.
RESULTS OF QUARTER FINAL ROUND
At 02:54 p.m., the results of the Quarter Final Rounds were announced by Prof. (Dr.) Queeny Pradhan, Dean, USLLS and Prof. (Dr.) Upma Gautam, Project Director, 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024; and the concerned results are as follows:-
PETITIONERS
- TC-10B
- TC-7A
RESPONDENTS
- TC-13B
- TC-3C
The above mentioned teams have qualified for the further round that is the Semi Finals.
Additionally, all the participating teams, inclusive of there assigned mentors have been praised by Prof. (Dr.) Upma Gautam, Project Director, 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024 for their extraordinary efforts as well as hardwork.
The Semi Final rounds are scheduled to take place at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow i.e. the 29th of September in the following rooms and pairs:-
Room No.- 505 – 10B vs 3C
Room No.- 413 – 7A vs 13B
Stay tuned for tomorrow’s Semi Final and Final rounds.
DAY 2: 29/09/2024
SEMI FINAL ROUND
COMMENCED AT 10:00 A.M.
COURT ROOM NO.1-
(in room no. 413)
At 10:13 a.m., the court was presided by a 5 judge bench consisting of Shri S. K. Mittal(Senior Advocate), Prof. Balwinder Kaur, Mr. Parvez Alam, Jyoti Maheshwari, and Mr. Ompal Shokeen. the semi final round took place between 7A(the petitioners) and 13B(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners put forth their arguments persuading that the court does not hold the power to provide interference in government policy unless the policy is arbitrary as per the judicial precedent od T.N.A. Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka which, according to the counsel, was not. The counsel then went over a number of government policies available to manage extreme weather and heat related conditions. They further stated that the actions by the government do not constitute to a violation of Article 14 of the constitution as these actions are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
The counsel pleaded that the government has to take into consideration its resource allocation and that not including heatwaves under the Disaster Management Act, 1950 is a reasonable classification. The counsel further aided their argument of the existing framework for managing disasters is not arbitrary and that non-recognition of heatwaves as a disaster does not result in any violation of the freedoms given to citizens under Article 19 by the means of other judicial precedents like Saurabh Chaudhary V. Union of India. The counsel further mentioned that in accordance with the precedent set by the case of A. K. Gopalan V. State of Madras, reasonable restrictions can be imposed on various freedoms including Article 19(1 (d).
The Judge questions the counsel of what constitutes for restrictions to be reasonable. The counsel’s reply explained that these restrictions imposed upon freedoms mentioned under article 19 in are imposed in general interest. The Judge then asks the counsel to read out the definition of disaster from their memorandum and question whether the definition could include heatwaves under its purview as there is loss life to which the counsel replies that destruction of property is very important to constitute heatwave as a disaster. The Judge further questions what exactly has state done to prevent more deaths. The counsel mentioned various government actions like alerts, new housing facilities, heat action plans, and implementing mass campaigns raising awareness amongst the general public. The judge adds onto the question asking whether all of this is sufficient. The counsel provides the reasoning that heatwaves are long occurring phenomena and it requires sometime for the state to implement emergency plans effectively.
COURT ROOM NO. 2
(room no. 505)
At 10:36 a.m., the court was presided by a 4 judge bench consisting of At 04:16 p.m., Shri Op Vyas Senior Adv. Prof. Ritu Gupta(National Law University Delhi), Mr Manish Sidhavat (Public Prosecutor), Mr. Ankur Panghal (LD. Sec., North D.L.S.A.) Mr. Lalit Kumar (LD. Sec., East D.L.S.A.). The Semi Final round took place between 10B(the petitioners) and 3C(the respondents). The counsel for respondents argued that the government has been following its established framework which is well under the confinements of law. The bench asked the counsel that, if the 87 deaths caused by the heatwave a serious issue, then why didn’t they approach the supreme court directly under article 32 first, preventing the wastage High Court’s time. The counsel had no clear answers.
The counsel for respondents argued over the SLP not being maintainable as there has been no grave injustice. The counsel further mentions that not constituting heatwaves as disaster violates the core principles of the golden triangle of constitution that is Article 14, 19, and 21. The counsel took the aid of the legal precedent set in the MC Mehta VS Union of India case that stated that the right to life includes clean environment free of pollution. The counsel went on to argue that the State’s failure to help the marginalized communities who are more vulnerable to heat related problems results in violation of article 14. They also argue that Article 19 of the constitution, which provides for various freedoms to the citizens, has been violated in the present conditions. They mentioned that because of the state’s inaction in investing in long term environment goals and the lack of enforcement of proper policies, the people have been left deprived of their fundamental rights. After the conclusion of Speaker one’s arguments, the co-counsel then approaches the dais. They argue that the high temperatures in capital city is violating human rights and that the government’s SLP is not maintainable as the question of grave injustice is not present. The judge asks the counsel to adhere to the dress code.
The counsel argued that adding heatwaves in Disaster Management Act 2005 would result in better resource allocation, and that it perfectly aligns with both constitutional mandate and international obligations. The respondents plead their prayers saying the SLP is not maintainable, the High Court decision was fair, and that the failure of state recognizing heatwaves as a disaster is a violation of articles 14, 19, and 21. As rebuttals began, the counsel for petitioners argued that the arguments of the respondents are flawed and do not consider facts and the law. They further mention that there is no substantive question of law present. They also put forth that there was no violation of Article 14 as the heat plans were equal for everyone. They further stated that the government is working on long term plans for dealing with this issue and that the concept of judicial review has its limitations and doctrine of separation of powers is beyond the high court’s domain. There was thorough discussion over article 12 and 15 between the judges and the counsel.
RESULTS OF SEMI FINAL ROUND
At 11:44 a.m., the results of the Quarter Final Rounds were announced by Prof. (Dr.) Queeny Pradhan, Dean, USLLS and Prof. (Dr.) Upma Gautam, Project Director, 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024; and the concerned results are as follows:-
PETITIONERS
- TC-10B
RESPONDENTS
- TC-13B
The above mentioned teams have qualified for the further round that is the Finals.
Additionally, all the participating teams, inclusive of there assigned mentors have been praised by Prof. (Dr.) Upma Gautam, Project Director, 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024 for their extraordinary efforts as well as hardwork.
The Final round is scheduled to take place at 12:00 p.m. in the Main Auditorium
The following Final round will consist of 6 judge bench as mentioned below:-
- Judge 1- HMJ Dinesh Sharma, High Court of Delhi
- Judge 2- HMJ Saurabh Banerjee, High Court of Delhi
- Judge 3- HMJ Anish Dayal, High Court of Delhi
- Judge 4- HMJ Girish Kathpalia, High Court of Delhi
- Judge 5- HMJ Ravinder Dudeja, High Court of Delhi
- Judge 6- Prof. (Dr.) V. K. Ahuja, Director, Indian Law Institute
- Judge 7- HMJ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Supreme Court of India
FINAL ROUND
COMMENCED AT 12:00 p.m.
COURT ROOM 1
(Main Auditorium)
At 12:15 p.m., The counsel for the petitioner argued over the maintainability of the SLP and that this was not just a question of violation of constitutional articles but also a question of whether adequate infrastructure has been provided by the state to enjoy the rights given to the citizens. The bench indulges in a very thoughtful discussion with the counsel by questioning whether Indian laws are supposed to be in conformity with the international obligations that come with the international law and membership. They also mention that when a nation comes in a treaty it is supposed to amend it’s laws in conformity to the treaty entered.
The counsel, when questioned about their action, goes onto mention that the government requires more time to help their citizens and that simultaneous discussions are going on in the Rajya Sabha. The bench then questions what is the hitch in not including the heatwaves under the purview of the Disaster Management act, 2005. The counsel responds by telling the bench that under Section 11 of the Disaster Management Act 2005, certain measures are to be taken to deal with such problems. They also mention the government’s plans on investing in long term infrastructure changes by may 2024 to commodate heatwave’s prolonged effects. The mentor of the counsel addresses the bench arguing that heatwaves are localized issue, making them ineligible to be recognized as notified disaster. They further argue that the existing heat action plan indicates the State’s action to mitigate effects of heatwaves. The counsel, citing Valko Employee Union V. Union of India, tells the bench that the courts cannot interfere in the policies made by the government unless it violates the law, which in the context of the present matter, indicates that there has been no violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21. The counsel concludes their arguments and the co-counsel approached the dais.
The counsel argues that this is a case of judicial overreach as the High court acted beyond its domain to direct state to recognize Heatwave as a notified disaster, Infringing upon the doctrine of separation of powers. They also mention that the decision exceeded judicial review powers and that the High Court’s direction to declare heatwaves disaster encroached their discretionary powers. The counsel emphasized on the exclusive domains of the Executive, Legislative, and the Judiciary which cannot be encroached.
The counsel stated the legal precedent of Raman Bhardwaj V. State which is that it is purely a matter of the government to issue directions for environment related policies. An example of Vishaka V. State of Rajasthan was also provided where, while the Supreme Court introduced necessary guidelines, they were at the government’s discretion to be enacted. The counsel mentioned that the duty of deciding whether heatwaves are a disaster or not is rested with the National Disaster Management Authority, which it hasn’t. The counsel reassured the bench that the government values its people.
The bench highlights that judicial review and separation of powers is supposed to work harmoniously and the counsel is prioritizing the ‘separation of powers’ aspect of the argument. They further mention that no action is also a cause of action in reply of which the counsel informs the bench that no inaction has taken place as the state has taken considerable measures for the betterment of the public. The bench tells the counsel that the government cannot take their leisure time to take action as action indicates intention, and that legislative inaction to declare the heatwaves as a disaster can amount to breach of the Doctrine of Trust.
Concluding their arguments, the counsels for petitioners pleaded their prayers.
At 01:12 p.m., the counsel for the respondents approached the dais. The counsel argued that the SLP filed by government is not maintainable under article 136. They further mentioned that the SLP should not serve as an appellate mechanism but as a safeguard from gross injustice. They defended the High Court decision, arguing that it is in line with the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the framework of law by citing case laws like the Airo Traders V. Rabindra Kumar Suli. The counsel argued that no grave injustice has occurred in the High Court’s decision.
The counsel puts forth the point that the central government had other remedies on hand like seeking redress under Article 132 and that going with Article 136 makes the SLP premature. They also argue that the judgement of the High Court is legally sound and should be upheld. the counsel also expressed their desire for the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition. The bench explains the counsel to not entirely concentrate on other remedies state could’ve taken but instead, over how 136 shouldn’t have been invoked in the first place. The counsel then gives the case of a village named Bhavapur where heatwaves have caused harmful effects on the people residing. The counsel then, by the help of the legal precedents established in the MC Mehta V. Tamil Nadu case, put forth their argument that there has been a violation of Article 21.
The counsel argued that the heatwaves have caused people to not be able to properly exercise their rights. Laborers’ case of not being able to work outdoors and move freely all constitute to a violation of golden triangle of the constitution consisting of Article 14, 19, and 21; and violates Public Trust Doctrine. The counsel urges the court to direct the state to recognize heatwaves as a disaster under Disaster Management Act, 2005.
The bench asks the counsel what should the limit of the jurisdiction of the court be to pass a direction in regards with legislative duties. The counsel mentions, citing the case of Pritam Singh V. The State that article 136 is not an ordinary right to appeal but a tool to prevent gross injustice. While the counsel agrees that recognition of heatwaves as a disaster would lead to dilution of resources, the judiciary can only hope the state will do much and that it’s the government that has to ensure that such a policy is made and enforced. The counsel concludes their arguments, with the co-counsel now presenting their set of arguments.
The counsel submits that the right to life has been violated with the reservoirs drying up, people suffering from heat strokes, and hundreds of people lining up at the hospitals. The counsel, by citing the case of Charanlal Sahu V. Union of India, put forth the legal precedent directing that the doctrine of necessity would override any legal implications between the government and its citizens. The counsel further cited the judicial precedent set in Valore Citizens Welfare Forum V. Union of India stating that judicial activism creates checks and balances system that keep the government accountable to its actions. They also mentioned how the Disaster Management Act, 2005 has a framework which can adapt heatwaves as a disaster. The case of State of Rajasthan V. Union of India was also stated where it was held that the judiciary had the authority to adhere to constitutional obligations especially in cases where Fundamental Rights at stake.
The Bench asked the counsel why does the counsel need a separate plan when the government is taking money intensive actions keeping in mind the entire nation when this type of calamity falls light in comparison to grave disasters like floods which are a lot more sudden. The counsel answered that the heatwaves is unique in its own, which is not as temporary as other disasters. The subcontinent has seen a hike in deaths by heatwaves as mentioned by the counsel which is more than the deaths caused by cyclones, hurricanes and tornadoes combined. The Bench asked question over the need of heatwaves being notified under the Disaster management Act, 2005 as it’s a matter of policy and not law. They further added that heatwave can be predicted and that the ther Disaster management Act, 2005 is for something totally different, and if we can take preventive actions then whats the need to change priorities of government when the nation is a developing country where other sectors require more investment. The counsel replied that the NDRF AND SCRF are only applicable to disasters mentioned under the Disaster management Act, 2005 and that the measures taken by the government are not adequate.
Speaker concludes and pleads their prayer, asking for dismissal of the SLP as it does not meet requisite judicial standards, that the state recognizes heatwaves as a serious threat to public safety, urges the court to uphold Fundamental Rights of its citizens to safeguard vulnerable populations, and recognizes heatwaves as a notified disaster.
As rebuttals began, the petitioners argued that the arguments presented by the respondents are flawed and do not consider law and facts. They further mention that there has been gross injustice and that the scope of article 136 is very wide. The counsel mentions that there has been no violation of article 14 as action plans were equal for every citizens consisting of rehydration salts, stable supply for electricity and water for increasing demand of hydration. They also mention that Article 14 is not relevant to the present case, and that the government only exercised its discretion to implement policies.
As surrebuttals began, the counsel for respondents put forth that the government is bound to take action under D.P.S.P. and Constitutional Articles. They also mentioned that being a welfare state, law is required to be dynamic and not rigid; and instead of using terms like separation of powers, we should use terms like checks and balances and fusion of powers.
At 02:15 p.m., all the judges for the said final round were facilitated by Prof. (Dr.) Queeny Pradhan, Dean USLLS, GGSIPU and Prof. (Dr.) Upma Gautam, Project Director, 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024.
VALEDICTORY CEREMONY
COMMENCED at 03:00 p.m.
The valedictory ceremony for the 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition started. Padma Shri Prof. (Dr.) Mahesh Verma, Vice Chancellor, GGSIPU addresses the gathering regarding the importance of the experience of mooting and the field of law in general. HMJ Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Supreme Court addresses the audience and expresses his facilitation. He talks about his experiences as a lawyer and other interesting mentions from his wide experience in the field of Law.
RESULTS
At 03:42 p.m., the results of the Final Round were announced by Padma Shri Prof. (Dr.) Mahesh Verma, Vice Chancellor, GGSIPU; and the concerned results are as follows:-
BEST MEMO- 5B, ASOS, Dwarka sec -22
BEST RESEARCHER- 7A, Sarveshtha Kapoor ,St Thomas’ Girls Senior Secondary School
BEST SPEAKER FEMALE- 7A, Rakshi Malik, St Thomas’ Girls Senior Secondary School
BEST SPEAKER MALE- 3A, Vansh Sharma, G.D. Goenka Public School, Dwarka
2nd RUNNER UPS TEAM- 3C, G.D. Goenka Public School, Dwarka
RUNNERS UP TEAM- 3B, G. D. Goenka Public School
RUNNERS UP MENTOR- 3B, Nandani Pansari, G.D.Goenka Public School
BEST TEAM- 13B, Birla Vidya Niketan, Pushp Vihar
BEST MENTOR- 13B, Khushi Mishra, USLLS, GGSIPU
Additionally, all the participating teams, inclusive of there assigned mentors have been praised by the judges, for their extraordinary efforts as well as hardwork.
With this, we have come to the conclusion of the 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, organized by University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU, Dwarka Sector 16, New Delhi. 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 an absolute success. As we come to the end of this competition, we once again want to extend our heartfelt gratitude to all our dignitaries.
