New releasesNews



Closure of ICTY: The Mandate is Not Yet Over

—V.K. Ahuja………………………………………………………………. 1

An Overview of Political Communication under the Freedom of Speech and Expression

—Anil Kumar Thakur & Krishan Kanha…………………………….. 16

Envisaged Relationship between Parliament and Judiciary: An Analysis of Constituent Assembly Debates.

—Brijesh Yadav………………………………………………………….. 34

The Rohingyas Crisis: An Interminable Journey of Statelessness

—Dipikanta Chakraborty………………………………………………. 53

Rethinking Ram Jawaya Kapur: How far the Executive can go without Legislative Authorisation?

—Waseem Ahmad Bhat………………………………………………… 77

Freedom of Speech and Expression with Special Reference to Freedom of Press

—Forum R. Patel & Purvi Pokhariyal………………………………. 102

In the Matter of Great Public Importance Touching upon the Independence of Judiciary –A Great Opportunity Missed

—Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary………………………………………… 114

Critical Analysis of the Legal Manner of GST PCT

—Kritika Tekwani & Rinku Raghuvanshi………………………….. 139

Artificial Intelligence and its Creation: Who Owns Intellectual Property Rights?

—Soaham Bajpai……………………………………………………….. 152

Capital Punishment: To be or not to be?

—Kavita Bhatia………………………………………………………… 178

Forest Conservation Framework for Sustainable Development: A Study of the Malki System in Gujarat, India

—Dinesh Dasa…………………………………………………………. 191

Book Review

International Investment Law and the Right to Regulate: A Human Rights Perspective

—Abhishek Trivedi…………………………………………………….. 206

Law School NewsOthers

The Confederation of Alumni for National Law Universities (CAN Foundation), has partnered with National Law University, Jodhpur & Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar to host the ‘1st Justice HR Khanna Memorial National Symposium’ on 14 th August, 2021. The Symposium is being organised in the remembrance of the august persona of Late Justice HR Khanna and will involve lively discussions on issues ranging from ‘Nurturing Constitutional Values’ to ‘Strengthening Virtual Courts’. It will feature renowned legal luminaries in the Esteemed Panel of Speakers and will be conducted in a virtual mode and will be split into two different sessions.


Pre-Lunch Session
The Pre-Lunch Session will be graced by the Chief Guest, Justice UU Lalit (Judge, Supreme Court) who will initiate the discussion by delivering the Keynote Address on the theme – ‘Reflections on J. HR Khanna – Nurturing India’s Constitutional Fabric’. Following the same, the Esteemed Panelist, Mr. PS Narasimha (Senior Advocate) will enlighten the audience on topics veering around the theme for this session.

The Pre-Lunch Session shall pay homage to Late J. HR Khanna and shall feature a commemoration of the legacy of Late J. HR Khanna and his celebrated dissent in ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521.

‘Dissent is the cornerstone of our democracy and it must always be respected’. In this context, the Esteemed Panelists shall be speaking upon the important values that J. Khanna embodied and his contribution in according the Constitution its true identity through his landmark tie-breaking Judgement in the matter of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225. The Speakers shall also be delving into the necessity of incorporating these values into our lives given their utmost importance in contemporary times.


Post-Lunch Session
In the Post-Lunch Session, the Presiding Guest, Justice V Ramasubramanian (Judge, Supreme Court) will deliver the Keynote Address on the theme – ‘Strengthening Doorstep Justice – Augmenting Access to Virtual Courts’. It shall be
followed by the Guest of Honour, Justice S Muralidhar (Chief Justice, Orissa High Court) and the Esteemed Panelists for this session, Mr. Shyam Divan (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court) and Mr. Neeraj K Kaul (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court) addressing the audience on topics revolving around the aforementioned theme.


The Covid-19 pandemic has caused a copious amount of catastrophes impacting our justice delivery system to a great extent. As fate would have it, the entire Judicial System had to shift to virtual mode. It cannot be gainsaid that the best thing that came out of Covid-19 pandemic is ‘virtual hearing’. This paradigm shift in the Indian judicial system invites discussion and deliberation on enabling access to virtual courts.


Though Virtual Courts are citizen-friendly and extremely affordable, in reality, the response of Indian Judicial System, especially at the High Courts & Subordinate Courts level, has been visibly tepid. Many High Courts of the country are still grappling with issues of having convenient, systemic and organised Virtual Court infrastructure. As a result of this, despite lofty discussion on the necessity and importance of Virtual Courts, the implementing agencies at the grassroot level are still dragging their feet in making them a permanent and perpetual feature. Issues of will power of decision makers, connectivity and streamlines continue to haunt in making Virtual Courts an effective substitute or supplement to the Physical Court system. The session shall be delving into many such contentious and grey areas of discussion. The Esteemed Panelists will be enlightening the audience on the same.


A detailed Minute-To-Minute Run Sheet of the Symposium is also available. Further information pertaining to the Symposium is available on the official website of the Foundation: HERE .


An E-Brochure for the Symposium has also been released which highlights the comprehensive details of the Symposium and its Panelists. This E-Brochure has been designed as per international standards of aesthetic creation and animation and contains embedded live links for easy access to details of all the individuals and institutions mentioned in the E-Brochure. It may be accessed HERE

Registration for the Symposium may be done by filling the form available Here

New releasesNews



1 Judicial Recusal: A Comparative Analysis

—  Priyadarshini Barua, Sarthak Makkar, Vasanthi Hariharan


17 Gender, Health and Development: What Latitude For Law In Nigeria?

— Oluwakemi Adekile

42 The Public Interest Gamble in an Anti-Dumping Inquiry Testing Indian Waters

— Ashish Chandra & Anupal Dasgupta

71 The Dilution of Article 32 Convenience over Right

— Prakhar Chauhan & Raghuveer Nath


94 Post-Divortium Shared Parenting Potentiality versus Actuality

— Owais Hasan Khan


109 Balancing the power of anti-arbitration injunction with the competence of investment tribunals: Union of India v Vodafone Group PLC United Kingdom

— Aniruddha Rajput

Law School NewsOthers

Law and Policy at Gujarat National Law University introduced new Post Graduate Diploma in Biotechnology,

Biotechnology is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world and India is among the top 12 destinations. Biotechnology applies to the development of products and technologies useful in a broad range of sectors like agriculture, environment, health, fuel etc. Some of the biotechnological applications are welcome and some like stem cell research, GM products are controversial. Biotechnology plays a very important role in human welfare and has revolutionized mankind since its existence. It contributes much towards the human’s welfare and their health needs.  By this course, we aim to teach the relationship between biotechnology and law. This course would discuss the areas which are less discussed with respect to biotechnology, environment, IPR and science. This course would take a holistic approach to make the students aware of the legal aspects of biotechnology

For more details, refer PGDBLP Brochure

Law School NewsLive Blogging

The decade-old moot is back for its twelfth edition! GIMC has always been known for its high-quality participation as well as judging and this year, the moot is breaking all records. 52 teams have gathered from all around the world to battle for the prizes and to finally put all their preparation to the test. GIMC is the only Trade Law Moot in India that simulates a WTO dispute redressal mechanism and this has consistently attracted a number of bright legal minds.

The moot problem of this year seeks to stimulate intriguing discussion on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Up for grabs are the prizes of Winning Team, Runners-Up, Best Orator (Finals), Best Orator (Prelims), Best Researcher, Best Written Submissions, Second Best Orator (Prelims), Second Best Researcher, and Second Best Written Submissions.

The entire moot is conducted by the students of GNLU, with an Organising Committee of more than 100 members, along with assistance from their faculty Conveners and the support of the Director, Professor Dr. S. Shanthakumar. Additionally, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, World Trade Institute, Orrick (International Law Firm Partner), Centre for Trade and Investment Law- Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, Centre for WTO Studies, Lex Witness, Eastern Book Company, SCCOnline, and Lawctopus are the official partners of GNLU in organizing this event.

The moot is soon to begin and we are here to keep you updated on exactly what is going on! You can also follow us on TwitterInstagram and Facebook for more insights.


Registration and Inauguration Ceremony

16:45 With the excitement coming in, the registration has started. The participants are being given their respective folders, T-shirts and of course the delicious cupcakes!

17:00 The crowd is buzzing with excitement as they go through their folders, planning their next move for the upcoming rounds starting tomorrow!

17:05 Meanwhile, let’s take a look at the prizes up for grabs! 4 days of intense competition for these trophies, totally worth it.


17:15 The dazzling core organizational committee, catching a breather and a laugh before the frenzied activity resumes and months of hard work fructify over the next four days.


17:30 The inauguration ceremony is underway! We have Organizing Committee Members Soham Munshi and Akanksha Singh who introduce the members on the dais- Prof. Dr. S. Shanthakumar, Director, GNLU; Dr. Jagadeesh Chandra T.G., Registrar, GNLU; Dr. Mamata Biswal, Dean of Academic Affairs, GNLU; Dr. Girish R., Faculty Convener, GIMC 2020 Organising Committee.

17:35 Prof. Dr. S. Shanthakumar, Director, GNLU begins his inaugural address by welcoming all participants to GNLU. He also notices that the problem requires participants to develop an in-depth understanding of international trade law. He also notes that participants will have access to well-learned panelists, who will further guide the participants to improve their understanding of the law. He further mentions that this problem has been perceived to be the best problem of the GIMC so far!

17:40 The Dean of Academic Affairs, Dr. Mamata Biswal addresses the gathering next. She describes this inauguration as a momentous occasion. She expresses gratitude to the Director for his constant support in promoting the organization of various programs at the University. She also appreciates the sheer sense of determination on part of the Organizing Committee which has helped in reducing costs and promoting the growth of the competition. She goes on to describe the art of mooting as not an achievement, but an opportunity to hone skills. She also discusses the importance of moot court competitions across the world. Although mooting differs from real-life court situations, it teaches students how to apply the law. It develops analytical, research, writing and speaking skills, which are merits taking precedence over winning the trophy. She especially emphasizes the evidence of moot court competition in the academic career of a law student for law firms and legal counsels, as it shows strong legal acumen and the ability to form arguments. She draws to a close-by attributing the success of the competition to our Faculty Convenor and wishes the participants good luck.

17:45 Next, the Faculty Convenor of the Moot Court Committee, Dr. Girish R addresses the august gathering. He recounts the journey of GIMC, from one edition to the next, reviewing how GIMC contributed to the study of trade law. He describes how GIMC grew from an ordinary international law competition to one specializing in trade law. He further assures the participants that it is his responsibility to see that the conduct of the competition is fair, with brilliantly qualified judges from the prelims to the final rounds. Next, the Faculty Convener of GIMC, Dr. Girish R.  announces the prizes of the competition. This surely catches the attention of the participants! He also welcomes participants to intensify their collaboration with GNLU through programs and research projects. He draws to a close by asking participants to enjoy their time in GNLU as well as the facilities of the college.

The list of prizes can be accessed here.

17:55 Abhijit Narayan, Foreign Counsel and Head of India desk and Middle East desk, Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, skype in and wishes all the participants the best of luck. He further expresses his interest to connect with the participants on LinkedIn and address any of their queries.

18:00 Mr. Devarsh Kotak, Logistics and PR Coordinator of GIMC, conducts the orientation on the rules of the competition.

18:05 Ms. Akanksha Singh, Chief Scorer, now conducts the orientation on the scoring pattern and procedure.

18:10 The inaugural ceremony now comes to an end. The researchers are requested to proceed for the researchers’ test scheduled at 18:30.

18:30 The researchers’ test is now underway! It will decide the best and the second-best researcher in GIMC.


 Day 2 ~ Preliminary Rounds I


9:00 The much-awaited first day of GIMC 2020 is here! A new day with the sun shining bright has set the perfect pace to encounter some exceptional quality of mooting!

9:30 Its Prep time! With the preliminary rounds about to start, the teams have collected their thoughts, systemized their arguments and discussed their strategies. Its officially on, with the preparation on a full swing the teams look more than ready to demonstrate their mooting skills.

10:30 At last, the preliminary rounds we all have looked forward to, have begun! The teams with their high spirits are presenting their arguments which they have relentlessly worked on for a long period of time, in front of our esteemed judges. It is the perfect opportunity to check out their knowledge and grip on the law.


15:00 With the lunch all done for the participants, the preliminary rounds are back on track. All teams look well prepared and confident in their approach for their rounds and with that spirit, the rounds have been resumed and the mooting continues!

20:00 The first day of GIMC 2020 is nearing an end, the participants are now making their way to dinner. It indeed was a day filled with the demonstration of excellent mooting skills and impressive rounds!

Day 3 ~ Preliminary Rounds II

10:00 This WTO Panel is now in session! It is a new day and the one on one battles between teams continue. Day 2 of preliminary rounds is just as heated as the first day. When there is so much preparation on both sides, that of the team and the judges, such high-quality mooting is to be expected!


11:00 Rounds proceed with pointed questions, quick answers and a deft dispensation of authority and logic.


14:00 Lunch is almost done for the participants, and the preliminary rounds will soon continue. By now, the judges are well aware of many arguments that can be created from the problem but the participants continue to surprise the judges with newer and fresher outlooks on the same laws. It is indeed a pleasure to watch.


19:00 The preliminary rounds of GIMC 2020 have officially concluded. These rounds were surely grueling! The participants now anxiously wait for the results of the preliminary rounds.


19:30 The Teams have now gathered at the orientation hall for the Participation Certificate Distribution Ceremony.


19:35 Ms. Corrine Karlagnis from the World Trade Institute, Bern now makes a presentation on the background and core activities of the WTI. She discusses various programs, research and academic activities undertaken by the WTI and how it is contributing to the field of Trade Law. She further talks about the academic and positive environment in the World Trade Institute and how one can redress any of their queries given the approachable faculties and mentorship program. For detailed information, click here.


19:55 A moot is nothing without its participants, and to honor our brilliant participants in this edition, our Director Sir and Registrar Sir along with Prof. Dharmendra Kumar Mishra from Banaras Hindu University are now handing out the participation certificates.


20:20 Ms. Stuti Toshi, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for WTO Studies and one of the judges of the preliminary rounds makes a presentation on the background of the Centre. She goes on to talk about the joint academy organized by the Centre in collaboration with the World Trade Institute and how it introduces a person to the vast field of International Trade Law.

20:25 Mr. Rohan Merchant, Student Convenor of the GNLU Moot Court Committee proceeds to make a presentation on the LLM program offered by the European Public Law Organisation (ELPO), one of the sponsors of GIMC 2020. He further discusses the LLM program offered and how it is based on three major pillars of Trade, Competition and Investment. More details on their LLM program can be accessed by clicking here.


21:25 The Organizing Committee is fully prepared for announcing the breaks! The results will be here any minute.



21:30 The most awaited moment is here! The teams who have qualified for quarters have been announced. The ones who made it to the quarters (in alphabetical order) are:

Institute of Law, Nirma University

National Law Institute University, Bhopal

National Law School of India University, Bangalore

National Law University, Jodhpur

School of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun

Strathmore University

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

University of Southampton

We congratulate the qualifying teams! Tomorrow shall be another crucial day, with the Quarters and Semi-Final rounds. Stay tuned for updates!

Day 4 ~ Quarter Finals 

9:30 The courtrooms are ready, the teams are prepared. We start the third day of GIMC 2020 eagerly awaiting the Quarter Final Rounds to begin!

9:45 The judges are seated, the teams look confident and with just the right amount of enthusiasm and excitement, we are ready to begin the first round of #GIMC2020 Quarter Finals! We wish all the teams the best of luck and may the best team move forward!

11:00 With the first round nearing an end, we can’t wait to see what the second round as in the store for us and see what a tough competition they give! Each step, each decision they take today, decides whether or not they make it to the Semi-Finals.

12:30 The teams keep surprising us with their amazing mooting skills, solid legal knowledge, and well-structured arguments. It is going to be a tough call to see who’ll move forward but a decision we all eagerly await!

13:20 The second set of quarterfinal rounds are almost over. One courtroom has finished hearing its arguments for the day. That was an extraordinary display of advocacy skills we saw, and now, the nerve-wracking wait for the results has begun! Good luck to all the teams!

14:20 The Quarter Final Rounds have come to an end and all the teams have left us baffled! The decision was a tough one but its finally here, the teams who would be making it forward to the Semi-Final Rounds ( in alphabetical order) are:

National Law School of India University, Bangalore

School of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

University of Southampton

~Semi Final Rounds

14:45 The preparation for upcoming rounds is on with full power. The Court Room is all ready to host the first round of #GIMC2020 Semi-Finals! If you are around the campus, do come to watch the rounds!

15:00 The teams are in the courtroom now. Last-minute prep continues as they complete the pre-round formalities. Teams are discussing how to communicate with each other during the course of the rounds. The panelists have arrived and are now seated, ready to begin the rounds. Our today’s esteemed panelists are:

Ms. Pallavi Bajaj, Partner, TCube Consulting LLP
Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Independent Legal Practitioner
Ms. Shailja Singh, Legal Consultant, Centre for WTO Studies

15:05 The first speaker for the Complainant begins her submissions by laying down her structure. She seems confident, and the judges listen intently.

15:06 Mr. Adarsh asks for a brief of the facts from Speaker 1 and she explains the same in a calm and composed way.

15:10 The speaker seems confident in what she is stating and upon being asked a question by the panelist, she seems to understand the query and calmly answers the question. Mr. Adarsh seeks a further clarification however the Speaker elucidates the same by referring the panelists to her compendium.

15:12 Another clarification sought from Mr. Adarsh regarding a minor fact. The speaker replies by referring the Panelists to the moot proposition. However, the Panel seems dissatisfied. The Speaker now moves on to her second submission.

15:17 The panelist listen carefully to the arguments being provided to them by the Speaker. The panelist continues questioning the speaker, using a hypothetical situation to explain his question. The speaker states that she is unaware of any such contention.

15:22 The Speaker continues by gathering her calm and ends confidently making way for her co-agent to deal with the remaining issues.

15:24 Speaker 2 begins making his submissions. He is confident and moves smoothly without deviating from his arguments. The panelist stops the speaker to ask a query to which he answers confidently and moves forward with his arguments without getting fazed.

15:26 As there are no questions from the Panel, the Speaker now moves to his second limb of arguments.

15:28 The panelist asks a question which seems the speaker doesn’t seem to understand completely however with the use of the quick thinking he manages to answers the panel to their satisfaction.

15:30 The panel asks the Speaker to go back to the first issue and answer a couple of questions. The Speaker backs his answer with authorities and applies the law laid down to the facts of the case.

15:33 The panelist doesn’t seem too satisfied with the speaker’s answer so he explains the question further trying to look for an answer. The speaker tries to answer the question duly however the panelist still doesn’t look satisfied. The panelist decides to move on and ask the speaker further questions.

15:35 The speaker uses some provisions, and the usage is questioned by the panel. However, the speaker disagrees with the panel and uses an authority to answer the question. However, the panel does not seem convinced. The speaker continues persuading the panel about his arguments. He directs the panel to his written submissions as he guides them. The panel seems largely interested in this argument. Speaker 2 answers the question and concludes by thanking the panelists.

15:36 The Respondent now starts by laying down a proper map to their arguments and how they intend to bifurcate their time. Once they have laid down the road map, speaker 1 begins with her arguments in a calm and composed way.

15:40 The panelist places his first question before the speaker. The speaker seems to have already anticipated this argument and gives answers which she seems to be well prepared for.

15:42 The panelist further seeks clarification which doesn’t seem to faze the speaker at all as she calmly assists the panelist with the proper legal backing to her arguments.

15:43 Facts are the key! The speaker states the facts which help her argue his contentions. The speaker seems to have a blend of both law and fact as she answers confidently. The wave of questions however continues.

15:44 The speaker has a case ready for each clarification the Panel is raising, that is some level of preparation and research. She is currently raising new and innovative points with regard to the interpretation.

15:45 The Speaker guides the Panel to her compendium to clarify her arguments. She has been using the compendium frequently. Truly a lifesaver! The Panel is satisfied and asks the Speaker to proceed with her arguments. She continues in a confident and calm tone.

15:50 The Panel poses a clarification on the case-law cited by the Speaker. The Speaker tries to dodge the question by stating that the same will be answered at a later stage.

15:52 The Speaker is well versed with the law. She extensively cites case laws and authorities to provide legal backing to her submissions.

15:54 The time has elapsed for the Speaker. However, the Panel goes on to question the Speaker.The speaker seems to take a second or two to collect her thoughts and then continues to answer the question by stating the facts in her favor.

15:56 The Speaker concludes by requesting the Bench to accept the submissions made by her.

15:57 Speaker 2 starts by guiding the Panel to her written submission. She lays down a comprehensive structure of her arguments.

16:00 The Panel again poses a question on similar lines. The Speaker is well versed and answers confidently.

16:02 The panelist gives a hypothetical situation to the speaker and asks her whether the contentions being laid done by her would still apply in that situation. To this, the speaker confidently answers affirmatively and supports her arguments by trying to back it with law. The panelist isn’t completely on board with the answer and further question her on the same to which she calmly replies demonstrating her calm and confident demeanor and good hold on the law.

16:05 The Speaker continues with her second submission by guiding the attention of the Panelists to her written submissions.

16:07 The Speaker now moves on to her last limb of the submissions. The Panelists seem satisfied with her arguments and listen intently.

16:08 The Panel poses a question on the interpretation of the case-law laid down by the Speaker. She answers by stating the facts from the Moot Problem.

16:11 The panelist tries to clearly understand what the speaker’s exact contentions mean. She affirmatively answers and summarises the arguments raised to help the panel understand the argument being made.

16:12 The Speaker now moves on the last limb of her submission. However, the Panelists ask her to move back to the previous argument and answer a certain set of questions which she able to answer correctly.

16:14 With the time running ahead, the speaker picks up her pace and finally moves on to her last argument after answering all the queries the panelists have.

16:16 The speaker skillfully manages to finish her arguments in time. Just as she finishes her arguments the panelist poses a question to which she very confidently answers.

16:20 The speaker from the respondent side finishes her arguments by being the panelists’ attention to the prayer. The Rebuttals rounds begin and the Complainant rebuts the claims made by the respondents on three specific points. The Panel interferes and seeks a yes/no answer on a question from the Claimants.

16:22 The Speaker from Respondent confidently answers by guiding the Panel to the facts of the case. She further clarifies the interpretation of the moot problem and concludes by referring the Panel to her written submissions.

16:24 Once the sur-rebuttals are made the panelist poses the same question posed earlier to the complainants. The Respondents answer the question only to be further questioned by the panelist again to which she calmly replies.

16:26 With that the first round for the Semi-Finals has come to an end and the participants exit the room for the panel to be able to discuss and mark them.

16:43 The panelist give general feedback to all and thank both the teams for presenting their arguments. With that both the teams are dismissed and the preparation for the next round begins!

17:03 The second round has started and the first speaker from Complainant started by laying down the structure of her arguments and every issue they would be dealing with.

17:05 The speaker continues speaking very confidently in a calm and composed voice and the judges seem to buy her arguments.

17:07 After listening intently to the arguments being presented the panelist posses his first question to which the speaker answers confidently using her legal knowledge. The panelist seems to be on board with her arguments.

17:11 The panel listens intently and upon raising a question, the speaker moves on to the next issue after seeking due permission to move ahead. The panel then posses another but upon a quick answer from the speaker, the panelist stops her in the middle of answering and asks her to continue with her argument. Looks like the panelists are on board with the arguments the speaker presents.

17:13 The Panel seeks clarification on the legal proposition applied by the Speaker. She replies by stating that its interpretation lies in her favor.

17:15 The panelist further questions the speaker which she intently listens to and then calmly answer by supporting her arguments with the case facts provided in the Moot Problem. Upon further questioning, the speaker agrees that further research might be needed but still manages to give the panelist a satisfactory answer.

17:16 The Panelists seem to be interested in the application of law as stated by the Speaker and listen intently.

17:19 The panelist further questions the speaker, it seemed as though the speaker had anticipated the question and goes on to answer confidently. The panelist tries to check her legal knowledge by asking her a technical question to which she replies correctly, satisfying the panelists.

17:22 The panelist keep the questioning going, the speaker fumbles a little but quickly regains her composure and answers the question raised before finishing her arguments.

17:24 The second speaker starts with her arguments and carefully divides her arguments to be able to cover all the issues in a timely manner. The speaker speaks calmly, clearly and confidently as she continues presenting her arguments. The panelists listen intently.

17:26 The panelist pose the same question they had asked the first speaker earlier and ask the speaker if her stand would change in the given circumstance however the speaker stays put on the answer her co-agent had given earlier.

17:27 The Panel seeks clarification on the understanding of the facts in question.

17:29 The panelist finds it difficult to understand the logical correlation between the arguments, and the debate on facts continues. The panelist keeps posing hypothetical situations and attempts to understand the crux of the arguments raised by the claimant.She further moves forward to her second argument.

17:34 The speaker argues against the probable defense the respondent would take, the panelist question them on this point to which the speaker answers which seems to have been accepted by the panelist.

17:37 The Speaker is calm and confident in answering each and every question raised by the Panel. She concludes by stating her prayer before the Panel. However, she is interfered with by the Panelist as they pose a logical argument before her. She replies instantly by using the facts in her favor.

17:38 Again, a hypothetical question is put forth by the Panel and the Speaker is asked to apply the law she stated in the particular case.

17:40 Speaker 1 from the Respondent starts by briefing the Panel on the issues in question. The panel asks the speaker to give a brief of the case facts and what they consider are the important facts of the case.

17:42 The Respondent continues on with her speech, now linking the law stated by her with the facts.

17:44 The Panel inquires about the legal backing used by the Speaker. The speaker replies calmly which seem to satisfy the Panelists.

17:46 The speaker keeping in mind the time limit makes a clever decision knowing that the argument isn’t being bought by the panelist, she quickly seeks permission to move forward with her next issue.

17:47 The Panel poses a question on the application of the law. The Speaker guides the Panel to her written submissions to substantiate her argument with legal backing. The panel points out that its a hypertechnical argument. The speaker seems to know when to move ahead and leave an argument, she controls the direction of the argument than letting the panelist take her off track.

17:50 The Panel poses a question on the application of the law. The Speaker guides the Panel to her written submissions to substantiate her argument with legal backing. She further mentions that even if the Panel is not satisfied with the first argument, an alternative argument will be presented before the Panel. The Speaker is well versed with the facts and the applicable laws on the case and proceeds to make submissions smoothly.

17:57 The Panel shows a keen interest in the submissions of the Speaker and clarifies a few of the legal propositions. As time runs out, the Panel asks the Speaker to summarise her arguments and conclude.

17:59 Speaker 2 from the Respondent begins with her arguments without laying a structure since the same was done by Speaker 1.

18:01 The Panel asks the Speaker to contradict the Claimants argument. She does so after taking a momentary pause.

18:05 The Speaker is well versed with the facts and answers all questions by using the facts.

18:10 The Respondent speaker cleverly plays with the facts in her favor. The panelist stops her to ask a question on which she fumbles as she tries to think of an answer but quickly comes up with an answer before she is stopped by the panelist when they pose another question to which she satisfactorily answers and moves ahead with her arguments. The panelist stop to gain clarity whether the speaker had conceded to the question asked before, to which she replies negatively and moves on with her arguments.

18:12 The speaker now moves on to her last submission since there no questions are being asked by the panelists.

18:15 The team is fully prepared with alternative arguments. One fails, other crops out!

18:19 The Panel asks the Speaker to conclude since the time has run out.

18:21 The Respondent speaker finishes her arguments and the complainant team is ready with their rebuttals!

18:24  The complainants lay down their rebuttals in a structured manner and address how exactly the Respondents failed to cover those issues in their submissions. the judges listen intently before putting a yes/no question up which the complainants answer without a second thought. The respondents are attempting to quickly note down all the questions raised, all of which must be answered by them in their two minutes.

18:24 The respondents begin answering the rebuttals, the speaker for the respondents answers the questions in an extremely structured manner and refers to the facts of the case. The panelist put the same yes/no question which the respondents answer confidently, further clarification is sorted by the panelist which is duly answered by the respondents.

18:27 The second round for GIMC 2020  Semi-Finals has come to an end. The teams have moved out while the judges discuss their performance.

18:40 The judges thank both the teams and appreciates their hard work. The judges are impressed with both their deliveries and clarity in thought. The panelists end by wishing both the team good luck! The rounds have ended and all the teams have time and again amazed us with their skills now the wait for the results begin!

Day 5 ~ Finals 

9:55 The most awaited day of #GIMC2020 is finally here. We have been looking forward today for a long time now and finally, the nail-biting suspense has come to an end, the results are out! The two teams who are going to qualify and go against each other are :

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

University of Southampton

10:10 The last of the competition has started. The Court Room is prepared to host another fabulous round of mooting. The teams are seated, last moment and strategies are being discussed as we eagerly await for our honorable panelists to make their way to the courtroom.

10:25 The wait has ended, our esteemed members of the panelist have made their way into the courtroom. Our esteemed members of the panelist for the final rounds for today (from left to right) are:

Ms. Anuradha R V (Partner, Clarus Law Associates),

Dr. James Nedumpara (Professor & Head, Centre for Trade and Investment Law, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade),

Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran (Managing Partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan),

Dr. Werner Zdouc (Director, WTO Appellate Body Secretariat).

Mr. Shashank Kumar (Dispute Settlement Lawyer, WTO)

10:26 The courtroom is set and the audience is gathering. The participants are also seated now. Our Panelists arrive and begin to settle down. Pretty soon, the final rounds will be underway!

10:28 This WTO Panel is now in session! These words mark the start of the Final rounds for GIMC 2020. The Panelist, Mr. V. Lakshikumaran calls on the first speaker for the complainant, Speaker 1 to begin her submissions.

10:29 Speaker 1 seems well prepared with the facts, and explains the crux of the facts to the panel, with confidence. The Speaker begins by explaining the CPC classification and explaining the difference between telecom services and database services.

10:30 She guides the Panel to paragraph 14 of the Moot Problem in order to elucidate her point.

10:31 The speaker is confident and proceeds with her arguments since the Panel has no preliminary questions.

10:32 The Speaker mentions that panels have taken a common sense, realistic and teleological approach in the past to classifying services. Mr. James asks by what stretch of the imagination the new category of services could be included in the schedule.

10:35 The Speaker replies to all the queries posed by the Panel calmly and confidently and proceeds with her submissions.

10:36 The Speaker relies on section 3 to 5 of the Social Media Regulation Act to create a foundation of her argument. The complainant argues that the mode of supply engaged in mode 1.

10:38 The Complainant refers to Mexico Telecom, to argue that it is analogous to the present situation.

10:40 Mr. Werner asks the complainant for an alternative argument. The speaker uses her answer to round up and complete her first submission

10:41 The complainant argues that the respondent has breached its national treatment obligation under article 17 of the GATS because of preferential treatment to domestic suppliers. Mr. Shahshank asks to what extent the social credit plan can be a measure challengeable? To which the speaker skillfully answers to the satisfaction of the panelist.

10:43 Ms. Anuradha poses a question to the speaker whether if the speaker is only challenging the source code sharing obligation as a violation of national treatment, but is not challenging the data localization requirement. On the speaker’s stipulations affirmation, the panelist probes further – since any kind of localization is some kind of residency requirement, isn’t that more tantamount to a national treatment violation? She also inquires why the speaker claims there is a quota requirement because technically there is no such quota requirement, and the law does not prescribe a specific number?

10:45 The speaker after answering all the questions posed by Ms. Anuradha moves forward with her arguments only to be stopped by Mr. Werner who poses a question on how the local service provider is different than a foreign service provider.

10:48 The speaker argues that Argentina’s Financial Services can be taken into account in this case. Even on the facts, the companies are similar and goes on to elucidate why there is substantial similarity so as to constitute services.

10:51 Ms. Anuradha guides the speaker back to the question of classification of services and says that possing a network is an important precondition, and its a technological advancement. She claims that possessing a network will consist of both hardware and software and therefore should come under a different classification in UN CPC. and why would they want to classify the same as telecommunication service?

10:53 The speaker successfully answers the questions as the time runs out; the speaker quickly concludes her arguments.

10:56 Dr. Werner inquires whether resource code sharing would be dealt with under Article 14? Mr. Werner further asks how does the source code transmission to the government would affect the service supply?
the speaker submits that it does affect the service supplied because it is violative of the privacy policy of the complainant, thus amounting to discrimination, and it affects the nature of the service supplied because the govt is asking for it so it can monitor social media usage online.

10:58 The second speaker started with her arguments in a calm and composed manner. She submits her arguments to the panelist and then provides an alternative argument based on the case of EC Asbestos which gives importance to the principle of end-user. The speaker sites the case of EC Bananas in order to establish that violation of Article 34 has taken place. She anticipates the respondent’s arguments on the aim of the legislation and contradicts the same.

11:00 The speaker addresses the first criteria. The products must be like products – in this regard she puts forward two arguments. First, in India Autos the panel said that if the sole distinction is the country of origin, the products are like products. The alternative argument is that likeness can be established with the general criteria developed by the Appellate Body in EC Asbestos. In relation to this, she relies on the grounds of end-use, and consumer tastes and habits. The speaker addresses the second criteria which are – the measure in question should affect the use of the products. The speaker argues two grounds on the issue of affecting – that the use of the products is affected because of a disincentive for the imported technology equipment in favor of domestic equipment. And that the measure affects the purchase of the equipment because imported technology is less likely to be purchased if companies will not receive any benefit from it. For the third criteria which are, the treatment less favorable must be accorded to imported products than domestic ones. The speaker relies on EC Bananas, which gave this a broad interpretation. The speaker submits that a disproportionate level of protection was given to domestic products. this modifies the conditions of competition as per the authority of US FSC.
She also argues that the aim of the legislation is irrelevant when considering less favorable treatment and the purpose, cannot remove the discrimination that has occurred.

11:07 The speaker also rebuts the respondent’s contention that government procurement has occurred on two grounds – first, according to Canada renewable energy, procurement is similar to purchasing. the govt has not procured but acquired the data through legislative means. there has been no payment for the data procured. second, the speaker draws an analogy with Canada’s Renewable energy report, to establish that there is no link between the procurement and the product. With that, she contends that the WTO laws haven’t been duly followed.

11:11 The Speaker 1 from Respondent begins by laying down a brief structure of her arguments and how the issues will be dealt with by her and her co-counsel. The first speaker for the respondent claims that there has been a mischaracterization of the services because they should actually fall under the sub-sector of computer and related services. This exchange of data and the message transmission is one of the functions of Be Connected. for classification, all the functions must be taken into consideration in the digital economy

11:12 The Government has not differentiated and has implemented measures equally. She claims that the services offered by the social media operator should fall under computer and related services. She guides the attention of the Panel to para 14 of the moot problem and claims that the said service offered will not fall under telecommunication services since it also involves the exchange of photographs and videos and feelings.

11:15 The speaker states that for classification, not one but all functions of Be connected have to be considered. To substantiate her argument, she guides the attention of the Panel to her compendium. Ms. Anuradha states that classification under the stated article is much wider and not restrictive as claimed. It includes data exchange in all forms. Mr. James proposes that for the purpose of classification, there could be a better category instead of a computer and related services. The speaker acknowledges that the lists were originally formed at the Uruguay Round of Negotiations, but social media services were not available then. They are from this century. the functions of service supplied have to be considered in their whole sense. Be Connected has several functions.

11:20 Mr. Shashank poses a question on how can it be differentiated whether messaging and sharing of feeling as it can be tangibly measured to which the speaker submits that for the classification of services, one must keep in mind other functions as well. She argues that para 14 of the moot problem says that individuals could become members, build profiles and accounts, share content and search for other users and become their buddies, and can build social relationships. The end-use must be established for the purposes of classification. the end-user is derived from all the functions. Mr. Shashank said that all of those things at the end of the day are geared towards messaging. How can all those functions like creating an account be disengaged from the function of messaging? The speaker responds with the submission that a distinction should be made between posting and sending a message.

11:25 The Speaker is well versed with the moot problem and keeps on guiding the Panel to it for answering any of the queries. Ms. Anuradha seeks clarification on the proposition of the commercial presence of the supplier. The Speaker responds by referring the Panel again to the moot problem. The Speaker is constantly referring to different authorities, namely the US Gambling Case and the case of Various Measure on Beef (Korea) to substantiate her argument that in order to maintain public order, any measure can be adopted by the State.

11:30 The speaker makes use of the GATS article by pointing towards its footnote stating that the law can be invoked even if it isn’t clearly stated if the public policy of the nation is in question and uses the test of necessity.

11:33 Ms. Anuradha questions the use of the test of necessity to which the speaker confidently answers almost as if she had expected this question to come her way. Ms. Anuradha states that the necessity test requires weighing and balancing, so in this case, was this the only option available to the respondent. In a modern developed society, there are other mechanisms available for a security. The speaker replies that there is an imminent threat to their security, and with regard to the trade impact of the measure, the respondent’s main objective is their own security. The social media regulation act was only passed after consultation with relevant stakeholders, and other small foreign companies have agreed to comply with it. The respondent also argues that another country cannot question the security concerns of another State.

11:35 No country can question the laid down law of the country concerning the National security of the country to which Mr. Werner asks whether the speaker means to say that no one has the jurisdiction to question if the National Security of a nation is in question speaker replies saying that she isn’t contending so, to further substantiate her answer the speaker guides the panel members to the preamble of GATS with that the speaker concludes her arguments.

11:38 Speaker 2 from the Respondent starts by briefing the Panel about her structure of arguments. Dr. Werner interjects and seeks a clarification of the application of Article 14 (c) (2). The Speaker responds by explaining the concept of Source Code and how it operates. She substantiates her arguments by detailing the provisions of SMRA.

11:43 The panelist bombard the speaker with questions, Mr. Shashank asks the speaker if the social media regulation is found to be inconsistent, how she would sustain her submissions. Mr. Werner asks the respondent if she is not now conflating article 14(a) with 14(c). The Speaker skillfully assists the panel with all the questions they have asked.

11:45 The respondent argues that with respect to the weighing and balancing test, it is necessary to look at it holistically. The speaker says that the WTO Agreement does not contemplate a burden for the respondent to look at the entire universe of alternatives. It is merely a weighing of the measure at hand.

11:50 Mr. Lakshmikumaran ask the speaker a fundamental question which is to explain what exactly a source code is, the speaker tries explaining it but Mr. Lakshmikumaran interjects and further builds on his question trying to see the basic understanding of the speaker but not satisfied with the speaker’s answers states that the speaker is repeating herself and if the question can’t be answered she could kindly move ahead with her arguments.

11:55 Speaker proceeds with her submissions and contends that under Article 3 (8)(a), the respondents are permitted to do favorable treatment in their nation.

12:00 Speaker proceeds ahead to state that they aren’t stopping the company from coming in their country but simply applying restrictions for the purpose of National Security. Speaker relies upon the Canada Renewable Energy and states that the government is using the data for themselves on which she is questioned by Ms. Anuradha, however, the speaker guides her back to Canada Renewable Source report and tries to answer her question.

12:04 Mr. Lakshmikumaran appreciates the speaker for her heroic efforts of trying to skillfully save her arguments and further asks if she was attempting to develop an argument that there was an acquisition in this case which was tantamount to a purchase? The speaker fumbles and states that data is a commodity just like oil and electricity and alluded to a fact in the compromise branding data as the new oil. Mr. Shashank asks what is being procured for the purpose of 3(8)(a) which the speaker confidently answers.

12:10 The speaker finishes her arguments and the rebuttals begin!

12:12 The complainant starts their rebuttals and the panelist asks whether they would question a provision of constitution too which is affecting the current situation to which the complainant has to take a back seat as they need further research to be able to answer that. Mr. Lakshmikumaran states,” Good, you are a trade lawyer, not a constitutional law expert!”

12:15 Mr. Lakshmikumaran asks what is more important the data or the source code, the speaker replies it depends as both are equally important.

12:25 The respondent starts off with their sur-rebuttals and Ms. Anuradha puts up the first question stating that they are asking source code only from foreign service providers to which she states that the source codes are being asked from both foreign and domestic service providers. The speaker rebuts to the case of Russia transmit which was used by the complainant and states that they are applying the social credit plans and other measures to counter the issues raised by the complainants.

12:33 With that the Final rounds for GIMC 2020 has come to an end. What an intense and engaging round! Truly a magnificent round. With that, the wait for the results is on. Stay tuned to know the winners!


Valedictory Ceremony

All the teams have gathered in the Orientation Hall, waiting anxiously for the results.

13:10 The dias today is honoured with the presence of our finale Judges, Ms. Anuradha RV, Partner, Clarus Law Associates; Dr. James Nedumpara, Professor & Head, Centre for Trade and Investment Law, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade; Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Founder and Managing Partner, Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys; Dr. Werner Zdouc, Director, WTO Appellate Body Secretariat and Mr. Shashank Kumar, Dispute Settlement Lawyer, World Trade Organsation along with Prof. Dr. S. Shanthakumar, Director, Gujarat National Law University.

13:11 Short video on journey of GIMC over the years.

13:18 Nr. V. Lakshmikumaran now addresses the gathering with an insight into the importance of trade law and mooting. He commends the performance of the participants since it involved a lot of research; given the complex moot problem.

13:20 Dr. Werner Zdouc now addresses the gathering. He talks about his travel experience to GNLU and how he had a wonderful time being here. He appreciates the efforts of the Organising Committee in making this moot a successful event. Lastly, he concludes by saying that all participating teams are winners since a lot of effort is required in the preparation of arguments.

13:24 Dr. James Nedumpara now shares a few words on his experience of being a judge of GIMC for the past 2-3 years. He further discusses how enriching working on a moot problem is! The way one articluates their research to present arguments and answer twisted questions. He concludes by giving an insinght into the working of Centre for Trade and Investment Law.

13:28 Ms. Anuradha RV shares how interesting judging GIMC is and the extensive research required by the participants to prepare their submission. She specifically mentions this year’s problem to be one of the best problems of GIMC. She concludes by appreciating the quality of presentation and articulation of trade laws by the participants.

13:32 Mr. Shashank addresses the gathering by thanking the Organisers for giving him a chance to draft the moot problem as well as to judge the finals. He further shares his insight on multilaterism and its future. He appreciates the area of law GIMC deals in and how it faciliates the area of international trade law.

13:34 The most awaited part of the ceremony is here. The winners are now being announced by Mr. Girish R.. The winners of the competition are Symbiosis Law School, Noida! The runners-up are University of Southampton.

13:44 Mr. Lakshmikumaran is delighted to inform that the internship opportunity will not only be provided to the Winners but also the Runners Up of the Competition!

Detailed Prize List is as follows:

Best Written Submission: Khatmandu University School of Law

Second Best Written Submission: Government Law College, Mumbai

Best Orator (Finals): Anishka Agarwal, Symbiosis Law School, Noida

Best Orator (Preliminary Rounds): Akshay Ashok, NLIU Bhopal

Second Best Orator (Preliminary Rounds): Riddhi RS, NLSIU Bangalore

Best Researcher: Daksha Khanna, GLC Mumbai

Second Best Researcher: Amay Bahri, National Law University Delhi


With this, the live blogging team of GIMC 2020 (Samira Mathias, Sharmistha Bindoria, Shivaang Maheshwari) signs off. See you next year!








Law School NewsOthers

Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) declared the results of the National Film Making Competition on Entrepreneurship & Start-ups- 2018, today.

The first prize went to Mr Meet Trivedi of Capture pictures, Ahmedabad for his film titled ‘A Dream’. He received a cash prize of Rs 10,000/-, memento and certificate of merit. The story of “A Dream” revolves around an entrepreneur and his dream to be the best of all. Going through the ups and downs, finally, he achieves success and film makes a happy ending. “Entrepreneurship is ultimately about paving your own path and achieving your own dreams” is what the film concludes and that essentially was also the spirit of the theme of the competition.

The second prize went to Mr Pankaj Jadhav from Mumbai for his film “” He received a cash prize of Rs 7,500/-, memento and certificate of merit. is a story of two young ambitious boys looking to start an organic food business. For finance, they approached bank and investors but both refused their proposals. They didn’t lose hope and continued without any financial support and succeeded.

Both the films can be accessed at:




This competition was organized by the GNLU Legal Incubation Council with the support of the Government of Gujarat under the Student Startup and Innovation Policy (SSIP) scheme.

Law School NewsOthers

GNLU Incubatee, Law Briefs, Launches its first ebook titled “The Landmark Corruption Trial in India” based on the famous disproportionate asset case of Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Late Shri J. Jayalalithaa

Gandhinagar, February 14, 2019: Law Briefs <>, founded by a GNLU student, Mr Aditya Gor, and incubated at the GNLU Legal Incubation Council (GLIC) under the Student Startup and Innovation Policy (SSIP) scheme of the Government of Gujarat, launched its first eBook titled The Landmark Corruption Trial in India’ which is based on the famous disproportionate asset case of Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Late Shri J. Jayalalithaa, today. The said eBook is available on Amazon Kindle.

Law Briefs is a legal service platform that prepares case summaries of lengthy and difficult judgments. In order to make the understanding clear, Law Briefs divide the entire judgement into various parts which include- Briefs and Facts and Procedural History, Issues before the Court, Arguments raised, Ratio and decision of the court. They also provide a quick introduction to the judgement in the form of an introductory table which acts as a reference tool for lawyers.

Law Briefs has also received the Government of Gujarat’s award as one of the top 5 best student startups under the SSIP Policy across the state, in September 2018.

Law Briefs is at early revenue generation stage. It is in the process of launching two more eBooks shortly.

Law School NewsOthers

An Essay Competition is being organised by Gujarat National Law University and Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on the theme of “Potential of Strategic Default in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 “
About the Competition:
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Code) is a major economics reform of this decade and on completion of its two years of implementation, it will be a great resources for the research and academics to understand in details the change that is in the offing. In this context the IBBI is promoting essay competition through Institute of Learning to create awareness about the insolvency and bankruptcy regime amongst the students of Higher Education, Students of graduation and post-graduation courses of any disciplines, Deemed University and Professional Institute ( Institute of Charted Accountants of India, Institute of Cost Accountants of India and Institute of Company Secretaries of India) can participate in this competition.
The IBBI announces the Essay Competition on Insolvency and Bankruptcy legislation through institutes of learning. Under the said scheme the Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) is organising an essay competition for the students of GNLU.
Theme of Essay :
  • Potential of Strategic Default in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Best essay will receive INR 10000/-
Second best essay will receive INR 5000/-
Who can Participate:
Students of Under Graduate i.e. LLB and Postgraduate Programmes i.e. both LLM and MBA in Financial and Management Laws
Submission Guidelines:
  • Minimum words-4000, maximum words-8000
  • Font Type: Times New Roman; Font Size: Heading-14, Text-12; Line Spacing: 1.5
  • Citation Method: OSCOLA, 4th Edition
  • Co-authorship is not allowed
Entry for the Submission will be open :
  • 10th February to 10th April 2019 (23:59 Hours)
For further details, refer Essay Cpmt Banner
Call For PapersLaw School News

The GNLU Annual Legal Services Forum is an annual event organized by the Legal Services Committee under the aegis of GCLS. It aims to facilitate deliberation, collaboration and contribution by Legal Aid Committees to achieve the objective of providing free and competent legal services to the underprivileged by sharing their unique experiences.

The Forum shall witness panel discussions and research paper presentations oriented to the objective of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and project presentations by LSCs competing for the “GNLU Legal Services Funding Grant”. Apart from the above, the Forum will also feature presentations by leading NGO’s in India which have undertaken activities related to the themes of the panel discussions.

Each panel discussion will be followed by a question and answer session, paper presentation and presentation by a leading Indian NGO which carries out activities specific to that particular theme. The underlying idea of the Forum is to bridge the gap between academics and grassroots level field work carried on in each theme, and to aid the collaboration of LSC/LAC’s around India with leading NGO’s which specialises in each of the themes.

Panel Discussions

  • Right to Healthcare
  • Redefining the Best Interests of the Child
  • Right to Healthy Environment
  • Relationship between Minorities and the State
  • Special Panel Discussion on “Amendments to RTI Act, 2005 and its Implications”

Call for Papers

Papers are invited on the above topics.

The entries must be sent by email to with the subject ‘GALSF 2019 Research Paper Submission’.

For detailed guidelines, click here.

Important Note

  1. Full papers are due on 15th March, 2019, 11:59 PM.
  2. Five entries per theme shall be shortlisted for presentations to be scheduled for 5th and 6th April, 2019 at the 4th GNLU Annual Legal Services Forum, 2019. More entries may be selected at the discretion of the Organising Committee.
  3. Authors whose entries are shortlisted shall be intimated of their selection for presentation via e-mail by 20th March, 2019. Authors of the shortlisted entries shall receive certificate of paper presentation subject to them personally presenting the paper at the Annual Forum.
  4. A payment link for registration shall be sent to shortlisted candidates by 20th March, 2019. All payments must be completed by 29th March, 2019.

Guidelines for Registration

  1. Students, faculty members, academicians and LSC/LAC are eligible to take part in the Forum.
  2. LSC/LAC may nominate a maximum of 2 Representatives as participants for the Forum.
  3. Interested participants may register by filling this Google form.
  4. The fee (inclusive of GST charges) for the Forum is as follows:
    • Single Author: INR 1000
    • Co-authors: INR 2000 (Please mention details of co-author during payment)
    • LSC/LAC: INR 2000
    • Additional representative of LSC/LAC: INR 1000
    • For Individual participants (Individuals not presenting papers): INR 1000
  5. Last date for registration is 29th March 2019. Individuals not presenting a paper or representing an LSC/LAC may register on the spot during the Forum to become eligible to attend the Panel Discussions.
  6. Payment of registration fee is due by 29th March 2019.

GNLU Legal Services Funding Grant

The GNLU Legal Services Funding Grant (henceforth ‘Grant’) is a first of its kind initiative by an Indian University, started in the 3rd edition of the GNLU Annual Legal Services Forum 2018. It seeks to honour and support impactful and meaningful socio-legal initiatives by Legal Services Committee (LSC)/ Legal Aid Clinic (LAC) in India.

The Grant shall be presented to the LSC/LAC which embodies an efficient work ethic and promises to effect positive change in society through its activities. The Grant hopes to recognize and encourage students in undertaking socio-legal initiatives and aims to further their drive and impact on the community.

For full details about the grant, click here.


For any queries, you may leave us an e-mail at

You may also contact Sanskriti Sanghi, Student Convener at Email: or Mobile: +91-9650688996.

Concept Note _ GALSF 2019

Call for Papers _ GALSF 2019


Law School NewsOthers

Partners for Law in Development (PLD) in collaboration with the GNLU Centre for Law and Society (GCLS) is conducting a one day workshop on Building Consent Culture: Preventing Sexual Harassment at the University on February 11, 2019, i.e., Monday from 3 P.M. onward.
The discussion shall raise pertinent questions regarding the agency of an individual with respect to her/his sexuality, as well as denial in the context of harassment. It promises to be a step towards initiating dialogue, educating and raising awareness, while also inculcating a culture of consent at our campus.
We invite you to register for the Workshop through the registration links available here (English) and here (Hindi). A teaser for the Workshop may be found here. Kindly contact the undersigned or Ms. Chaitra S. (+91-9880212736) in case of any queries.
Law School NewsOthers

About Gujarat National Law University 

Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) is the statutory university established by the Govt. of Gujarat under the Gujarat National Law University Act, 2003. The University is recognized by the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the University Grants Commission (UGC) (2f & 12B). As a socially-responsible educational institution and to fulfil our Vision, Mission and Core Values GNLU is committed to being a leader in the research, teaching and extension of environmental sustainability.  The University endeavors to reduce our environmental impact by incorporating sustainability in every aspect of campus life and operation.

Gujarat National Law University is destined to grow as a world class law University of India. Its endeavor focuses on excellent legal education, research and training through its qualified faculty, committed human resource, motivated students, intellectually stimulating and professional environment and worldwide network, sharing and exchange. It aims at providing legal education in the contemporary and futuristic legal and interdisciplinary areas. It adopts a three tier approach, at the state, national and international levels, in its legal education, research and training and extension in order to achieve capabilities to respond to the needs, expectations and aspirations of the academia and institutions of law-making, governance, economy, judiciary, legal profession, manufacturing, agriculture and service sector, and the civil society.

On the other hand GNLU has collaborated with leading law firms and service providers and established Professional Centres and Chairs and initiated fellowship programs on Mergers and Acquisitions, IPR, Corporate Law, Real Estate Law and so on. Khaitan and Khaitan, Microsoft India, ONGC, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Gujarat Council on Science and Technology and such other national PSUs and Institutions are major partners and collaborators. It also aspires to create a network between the institution, students, faculty and researchers and industry to promote sharing and collaboration and learning.

GNLU offers interdisciplinary legal courses in five faculties namely, B.A LLB, B.Com LLB, B.Sc LLB, BSW LLB, BBA LLB, two post-graduate programme namely, LLM and MBA (Financial Management and Business Laws) as well as doctoral programmes in laws and inter disciplinary fields and foreign law and language programmes.

Among all the work done at GNLU, it takes great care to conserve the campus ecology and environment. The spacious 50 acre sprawling campus of GNLU is not only home to its students and staff but also a myriad of trees, flowers, shrubs, butterflies, birds and other living creatures, including rare and precious species.

Since its inception, the University has been holding regular in-house Moot Court competitions, after which meritorious students are sent abroad for participating in various International moot court competitions. The hub of activities be credited to our Moot Court Committee and the Legal Aid Clinic, which have developed a workable and efficient interface with the industry and the Judiciary to the satisfaction of all. As it persists in the academic endeavors, it won’t be an overstatement to say that the University will become a leader in the sphere of legal education in the country.

The founding motto also objectifies the ideal of, “Let all good and noble thoughts come to us from all directions”, which is a hymn from the Rig Veda. Gujarat National Law University aims at homogenization of all trends and civilization patterns by inculcating in the students, an appreciation of other cultures and regions of the country in all its homogeneity.

About GUVNL – GNLU Research Fellowship on ‘Energy Law and Policy’

The Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited was incorporated as a Government of Gujarat Company. The GUVNL is engaged in the business of bulk purchase and sale of electricity, Supervision, Co-ordination and Facilitation of the activities of its six Subsidiary Companies. The GUVNL is engaged in the business of bulk purchase and sale of electricity, supervision, co-ordination and facilitation of the activities of its six Subsidiary Companies namely Gujarat State Electricity Corp. Ltd, Gujarat Energy Transmission Corp. Ltd, Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd, Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd, Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd and Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.

Recognizing the strength and potential in the area of Energy Law and Policy and in order to broaden the current infrastructure of knowledge in the field, GNLU and GUVNL have collaborated to establish a Research Fellowship Programme which aims at enhancing legal education, research and training and extension activities in the field.

While Energy Law and Policy are fast evolving, it is imperative to assess the feasibility and implications of the same. This Fellowship collaboration provides the much needed platform for Legal Research and Policy Formulation for resolution of issues underpinning the energy sector.

About the Certificate Course :

Gujarat National Law University, under the GUVNL – GNLU Research Fellowship on ‘Energy Law and Policy’ is going to organise three days Certificate Course on Energy Law, to be taken up by Prof (Dr) J. Kumar  scheduled from 23rd February, 2019 to 25th February, 2019.


1. Students pursuing full time undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in Law/Commerce/MBA or any related fields are eligible to register for this course.

2. Legal Practitioners.

3. Scholars/ Academicians.

Venue :

Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar

Fee Structure

GNLU Students: Rs. 500/-

Outside Student Participants: Rs.1000/-

Others: Rs.1500/-

Last Date of Registration :

16th February, 2019.

For any further queries or information, kindly contact Ms. Tanwi Pareek, Research Associate,

For Brochure and Schedule for the Certificate Course, click HERE
Call For PapersLaw School News

Gujarat National Law University publishes an interdisciplinary journal titled the GNLU Journal of Law, Development and Politics as part of the overall academic and research activity of the University. GJLDP aims to examine the inter-disciplinary aspect between Law, Development and Politics to initiate discussion and analyze the various issues that are being faced by various nations including India and propose solution for the same.

As we proceed to unveil the 9 the volume (1 & 2) issue of the Journal, we invite contribution to the journal in the form of articles, commentaries, original articles, review articles, book reviews, comments and discussion within the aim and scope of the journal.

Click HERE for more details.

law, development and politics

Call For PapersLaw School News

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are imbued with concern for environmental justice. Almost every goal – from ending poverty to combating climate change to revitalizing global partnerships – is dependent on enhancing environmental justice. Goal 16, in particular, with its emphasis on access to justice and effective, accountable and inclusive institutions, highlights the strong connections between sustainable development and environmental justice.

We invite papers on one or more of the SDGs and various aspects of environmental justice, such as:

  • Procedural justice: Opportunities for participation in the political and legal processes that create and manage environmental policy, e.g., public interest litigation (PIL), community involvement in environmental impact assessment;
  • Distributive justice: Equity in the distribution of risks, benefits and costs of environmental decision making;
  • Recognitional justice: Recognition of the diversity of participants and experiences in affected communities, including non-human species and abiotic parts of the ecosphere; and
  • Restorative justice: Attempts made to mitigate or re-mediate adverse impacts on people and the environment, e.g., enforcement of licensing conditions, rehabilitation and resettlement policies.

The sub-themes for the symposium are as follows:

  • Use and abuse of the public interest litigation (PIL);
  • Innovative policies and programs of the government or state for enhancing distributive justice;
  • Legislative or policy analysis, including formulation, implementation or enforcement;
  • Executive challenges for implementing court judgements;
  • Progress and challenges for achieving sustainable development goals (SDG 16) related to environmental justice;
  • Assessing international capacity building programmes;
  • Empirical field-based case studies;
  • Gender analysis of processes, institutions, and outcomes;
  • Historical reviews of legislation, policy, institutions or jurisprudence;
  • Institutional analysis of specialized green courts and environmental tribunals;
  • Indigenous institutions and governance for environmental justice;
  • Alternative dispute resolution systems for environmental conflicts;
  • Monitoring SDG indicators for environmental justice; and
  • Theoretical, conceptual and methodological aspects

We encourage abstract submissions that are relevant to the above themes and sub-themes i.e., those that focus on the interactions between Environmental Justice and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

All abstracts must be submitted by no later than February 8th 2019, at midnight (Indian Standard Time).

We do not anticipate an extension beyond that date and strongly encourage you to submit your abstracts well before the deadline!

Abstracts will be reviewed by a committee of interdisciplinary scholars in the order they are received. Based on the academic rigor, relevance to conference theme, and innovativeness of the content, abstracts will be selected for the limited spots available for the presentation in the conference.

To facilitate early registration and travel planning, the decision notifications regarding acceptance of abstracts to authors will be sent by February 15th, 2019.

Abstracts must be submitted electronically by email to

Authors of accepted abstracts are invited to submit, by March 8th 2019, a full paper (maximum 5,000 words) that will be included in the conference materials. A selection of these papers will be considered for inclusion in a peer-reviewed edited volume and a special issue of the GNLU Journal of Law Development and Politics.

Guidelines for Abstracts

Abstracts should be in paragraph form, without bullet points, and should be no more than 300 words. Additionally, the abstract body should include details regarding the background, purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. Please also indicate the theory/analytical framework for the work and provide a description of the research methods used. Contributors are expected to explore the philosophical significance of the questions emerging within the scope of each theme.

Registration Fees

Indian Foreign

(US $)

Registration (covers conference material and food) Professionals and academicians Rs. 5000 $70
Local NGOs and community workers Rs. 3000 $70
Graduate students Rs. 1500 $70
On-campus accommodation VIP Guesthouse (AC): Single room Rs. 1700 $25
VIP Guesthouse (AC): Double (shared) room Rs. 2300 $35

Participants should send their registration fees, after acceptance of their abstracts, by Crossed Demand Draft in favour of the Registrar, Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar. Please write your name and the title of the symposium on the reverse side of the draft or online payment link.

Click HERE for online Payment of Registration Fee

Click HERE for online Registration Form: 

Important Dates

  • Last date for submitting abstract: 8th February 2019.
  • Notification of acceptance of abstract: 15th February 2019.
  • Last date for registration: 8th March 2019.

PLEASE NOTE: Individuals are limited to serving as a presenter on only one paper but this does not preclude being a co-author on other papers.


Please email if you have any questions.

For more details, refer symposium

Law School NewsOthers

The ADR Cell will be hosting a Certificate Course on Investment Arbitration from 11th – 16th March 2019. The resource person for the course is Mr. Ylli Dautaj, Senior Research Associate, Jindal Global Law School. He will be joined by Dr. Crina Baltag (Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Bedfordshire) and Professor William F. Fox as guest lecturers.
The course will be conducted after class hours from 11th – 15th March followed by a written assessment on 16th March. The course structure has been attached for your reference.
Registration Fees: Rs 600
Click HERE for payment link for payment
Last Date for Registration: February 20, 2019
Please feel free to contact Ms. Sakshi Pawar (+91-9601427677) and Mr. Devarsh Kotak (+91-9739220275) in case of any queries.
For more details, refer
Law School NewsOthers

Justice Sikri at the GNLU Convocation  “While the Human in Law is important, the Humane in Law is indispensable”.

GNLU organised its ninth convocation of the Gujarat National Law University on January 27, 2019.

Dr Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Hon. Judge, Supreme Court of India and Visitor, GNLU presided over the convocation. As a Chief Guest, Mr Justice A. K. Sikri, Hon. Judge, Supreme Court of India delivered the Convocation Address.

A total of 462 students of five-year integrated UG programmes in Law (333), PG programme in Law (117), MBA programme (09) and doctoral programme (03), who completed academic requirements during the academic year 2016-17 and 2017-18, were conferred degrees at the convocation.

51 Gold Medals were awarded to 32 students for their scholastic performance in various subjects with Ms Akarshita Dhawan (UG Programme in Law) receiving as many as nine different gold medals.

In his convocation address, Justice Sikri advised the graduating students to not forget that the law deals with humans and their behaviour so it’s important they keep the humane aspect at the heart of their professional practice stating that “while the Human in Law is important, the Humane in Law is indispensable.” He added that “one way to resolve a doubt in case there is a conflict between the humane and human is to keep the collective in front of an individual or holistic in front of the partial, or harmonious over the divisive, or the efficient over the deficient, or long-term over the short-term.”

He advised the students to always be prepared, always be willing to take initiative, and to grab the opportunity that presents itself before them, saying that “you are the reflection of the opportunities you seize and the chances you miss.”

He further told the students that “your life as a lawyer will not always be easy. You will not always win. You will at times be frustrated, and even heartbroken.” He asked them not to lose heart at such times referring to the success stories of Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela who faced defeats early in their career. The first one lost one of his first criminal defence cases and saw his client executed, the second lost a large, civil judgment and nearly saw his client forced into bankruptcy and the third one was himself tried and convicted of treason, but all of them went on to greatness and became legends.

He likened the teachers with sculptors narrating the story of the great sculptor Michelangelo. The story goes that when Michelangelo was working on David, an eighteen-foot tall statue sculpted in marble in Florence, Italy, a little boy asked him as to why he was hitting that rock of marble so hard. He replied ‘young man, there an angel inside that rock. I am setting him free.’

He further advised the students to always be students for life stating that “Legal education isn’t over after you leave university. In fact, it begins when you start practising.

Referring to the quote of Jeff Bezos “Cleverness is a gift, Kindness is a choice,” Dr Justice Chandrachud asked the graduating students to “be kind to others but also be kind to yourself. Self-love is as much a part of self-improvement. Do not rob yourself of the kindness you deserve.”

Dr Justice Chandrachud called upon the students to show compassion and empathy for those around us saying that “in addition to working towards fulfilling our own dreams, it is important to keep working towards creating a world where each individual has an opportunity to chase their dreams.”

In his welcome address, GNLU Director, Dr Bimal Patel announced that, from the academic year 2019-20, GNLU will offer two more LLM programmes in the field of Maritime Law and Sports Law. With this, the LLM students will have a wide range of eight specializations to choose from. GNLU currently offers six specializations in the LLM programme – Corporate & Business Law, Constitutional & Administrative Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Comparative International Law, Criminal & Security Law and Public Policy, Law & Governance.

Mr Justice Anant S. Dave, Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice, High Court of Gujarat and Shri Bhupendrasinh Chudasama, Hon’ble Minister of Education, Government of Gujarat were the Guests of Honour at the convocation.

Conference/Seminars/LecturesLaw School News

GNLU Centre for IPR in collaboration with its industry partner Intellectual Property Protection Organization (IPPO) invites all interested faculty members and students to a Special Lecture titled ‘Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence’ by Mr. Gregory Maurer- Partner, Klarquist, USA. Mr. Maurer’s practice focuses on the preparation and prosecution of computer-related and bioinformatics patent applications, open source software, and intellectual property counselling.
The lecture will be held on 25th January, 2019 at VITAN II, from 02:00 P.M. to 04:00 P.M.
Law School NewsOthers

GNLU Competitive Exam Guidance Committee (GCGC) is inviting all civil services aspirants  for the Special Lectures to be held on 16th & 17th January 2019.

Topic : “Elections in India” on 16th & 17th January, 2019 organized by GCGC in collaboration with VisionIAS, Delhi

The special lecture series will be conducted by Mr. Rajesh Govindraj, faculty at VisionIAS.

About Rajesh Govindraj:

Mr. Rajesh Govindraj, academically an engineer, is one of the topmost faculty at VisionIAS with his area of expertise being Indian Polity & Governance and he has also authored multiple books on Indian Polity, Governance & Current Affairs. He has been in the field of teaching for 6 years and himself appeared for the UPSC Interview three times.

Duration of Course: The course will be a seven hour program on 16th & 17th January 2019.


  •  16th January: (3.00 pm -6.30 pm) Elections in India I
  • 17th January: (3.00 pm -6.30 pm) Elections in India II

 Who can apply?

All students from both GNLU as well as other Institutions who wish to appear for the Civil Services Examination/Judiciary Examination/or other Competitive Exam are also welcome.

Note: Only 100 slots are up for grabs. The last date for Registration is 15th January, 2019 till 5:00 p.m.

Click HERE to register by using the Google Doc form.

For more details, refer GCGC Lecture Series for Civil Services Examinations

Conference/Seminars/LecturesLaw School News

GNLU is going to organize One Day Conference on Backlog of Cases and Court Management under the aegis of Department of Justice, Ministry of Law, Govt. of India on February 22, 2019.


Judicial pendency has always been an area of discussion since India got freedom and even after seven decades from independence, this evil is not diminishing. At present, total 2,91,31,931(About three crores) cases (civil and criminal) are pending in Indian courts .
No doubt, there has been positive efforts like overhauling procedural laws, setting up of tribunals, promoting alternative dispute resolution methods from legislature as well as from judiciary to curb this menace but the results are not very motivating. The main reasons behind the pendency are- heavy workload on the judges, insufficient strength of judges, insufficient human resource and infrastructure in courts, lengthy and cumbersome procedures which do not necessarily require judicial mind etc.
There is a very old proverb of justice that “Justice should not only be done, it must also seem to be done” but when a litigant is made to wait for years and then he gets the judgment in his favour than justice is only done and in no manner it can be said that justice is seemed to be done. Moreover the Fundamental right of speedy trial and speedy justice is also violated if the decision is pronounced after many years of hearing.

An important area, which can surely decrease the pendency in significant way, is efficient Court Management System in Judiciary. Courts are being managed by same individuals and in routine manner. Time has come when new techniques and technologies must be adopted by the judiciary for the court management staff and more qualified and efficient staff must be appointed. Looking at this, 13th Finance Commission allocated Rs. 300 Cr. for appointment of Court Managers across country. In last five years, states have started appointing court managers in their respective courts. But there are some states which have been lagging behind in implementing the said policy. In a recent case also , the Supreme Court has directed the Government to appoint professionally qualified Court Managers (Preferably with an MBA degree) in all Principal District and Sessions Courts for better court administration. This conference will focus on the unexplored, unattended, unaddressed reasons behind the backlog of cases and will try to find out what are the positive changes that can be done in court management techniques thereby addressing the menace of judicial backlog.

Contact Details
Dr. Kalpeshkumar LGupta (Assistant Professor – Research)
Email :-, Mob. 81286 50857, 99248 97691
Mr. Mradul Mishra (Assistant Professor – Research)
Email :-, Mob. 81286 50835, 99195 49988

For more details, refer NBC GNLU DoJ Brochure Dec 24

Conference/Seminars/LecturesLaw School News

The University through its LexTech (Science Technology & Law) Club & Gender Sensitization Committee, with the kind support of Gujarat State Commission for Women, is organizing the One Day Symposium on Laws Related to Women and Influencing Factors on Saturday, 5th January 2019 (1000 Hrs) at “Orientation Hall”, GNLU.
Note: The Certificate will also be distributed to the participants.
For official invitation, refer Invitation
AchievementsLaw School News

Ms Arnaaz Ameer, a recent graduate of the Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) has been selected for the Schwarzman Scholars program, one of the world’s most prestigious, competitive graduate fellowships, with an acceptance rate of 5%.

The 147 Scholars comprising the cohort of 2020 were selected through a rigorous application process designed to evaluate academic ability, as well as leadership potential and strength of character. The selection process relied on readers from different regions and backgrounds who provided insights to identify the highest level of leadership and academic excellence across the world. Out of the 2,800 applications received, more than 400 semi-finalists were invited to interview in either Beijing, Bangkok, London or New York, and went before panels of distinguished figures comprised of CEOs, former heads of state, university presidents, non-profit executives, journalists and other leaders from around the world.

The Class of 2020 is comprised of 40% of students originating from the United States, 20% from China, and 40% from the rest of the world. This year, the cohort has expanded the diversity of the Schwarzman Scholars network to include a total of 119 universities and 38 countries (up from 94 universities and 29 countries for the Class of 2019).

The cohort was handpicked by a rigorous process of screening applications by a distinguished group of interviewers, including Lionel Barber, Editor of the Financial Times; Brian Mulroney, Former Prime Minister of Canada; Elizabeth Kiss, Warden of The Rhodes Trust; General (Ret.) David Petraeus, Member & Chairman of KKR Global Institute; Shelly Lazarus, Chairman Emeritus of Ogilvy & Mather; David Simon, Lord Simon of Highbury, Former CEO of BP; Cathy Engelbert, CEO of Deloitte; Yi-Shyan Lee, Member of the Singapore Parliament; Lisa Borders, Former President of the WNBA; Jacob Weisberg, Former Editor-in-Chief of Slate Group; and many others.

The extraordinary individuals chosen as Schwarzman Scholars for the batch of 2020, are poised to become future leaders who will help address some of the most pressing global challenges of the 21st century. “Our newest class includes a diverse group of future leaders from around the world. They join a global network of Scholars who have committed themselves to be a force for change, regardless of where their professional or personal passions take them. My hope is that a year in Beijing will inspire and challenge these students in ways they haven’t even imagined. I look forward to seeing how this new class will leave its mark,” said Stephen A. Schwarzman, Co-Founder, Chairman and CEO of Blackstone, and Chairman of Schwarzman Scholars.

All Scholars will study and reside at Schwarzman College, named by Architectural Digest as one of the 9 Best New University Buildings in the World. The LEED Gold, state-of-the-art building at Tsinghua University was designed by Robert A.M. Stern Associates to encourage cross-cultural connections and intellectual exchange. The program is scheduled to commence in August 2019.

Ms Arnaaz Ameer is the first lawyer, and one of the first Indian women to be chosen as a Schwarzman Scholar, since the inception of the program. Having graduated with a Bachelors in Social Work, L.L.B. (Honours) from the Gujarat National Law University, she is the first student from any National Law University in India to be awarded this prestigious scholarship. A lawyer enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, she is currently working under Dr Narendra Jadhav, Member of Parliament, as part of the Legislative Assistant to Member of Parliament (LAMP) Fellowship. Arnaaz will complete the LAMP Fellowship in the month of February 2019, subsequent to which she shall join the Schwarzman Scholars program (one-year Master’s degree in Global Affairs at Tsinghua University) in Beijing in the month of August 2019.

About Schwarzman Scholars:

Schwarzman Scholars was inspired by the Rhodes Scholarship and is designed to prepare future global leaders to meet the geopolitical challenges of the 21st century. The vision of Schwarzman Scholars is to bring together the world’s best young minds to explore and understand the economic, political and cultural factors that have contributed to China’s increasing importance as a global power, and to make them more effective as links between China and the rest of the world. Blackstone Chairman, CEO and Co-Founder, Stephen A. Schwarzman, has personally contributed over $100 million to the program and is leading a fundraising campaign to raise an additional $500 million from others to endow the program in perpetuity. Schwarzman Scholars has already raised $578 million towards this $600 million goal. The endowment will support up to 200 Scholars annually from the U.S., China and around the world in earning a one-year Master’s degree in Global Affairs at Tsinghua University in Beijing. Scholars chosen for this highly selective program have demonstrated exemplary leadership qualities and the potential to bridge and understand cultural and political differences. They live in Beijing for a year of study and cultural immersion, attending lectures, travelling, and developing a better understanding of China.