Conference/Seminars/LecturesLaw School News

The Placement Assistance Cell of Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla had organized a guest lecture on ‘Legal Research’ by Mr. Sumeet Malik, Associate Editor, Supreme Court Cases Editor, SCC Online on 21st of September, 2022.

The very question as to why are the students pursuing law was the onset of the interactive session of the day. The varied and upright responses included points such as the dynamic nature of law, it is intellectually challenging, financially rewarding and personally fulfilling. In addition to the same, Mr. Malik compared the study of law to a process that is ongoing, dynamic and constantly developing with the changing needs of the society.

Mr. Sumeet Malik talked about EBC and SCC and its relevance in the modern era for every law student. EBC, that is, Eastern Book Company is the intellectual giant in legal publishing, which has traditionally published a wide range of legal commentaries, student texts, law reports and digests. Today, its products include pioneering works both in the print and electronic medium. The EBC group has come up with Supreme Court Cases (SCC), SC Yearly Digest and Complete Digest, SCC Online, EBC Webstore, EBC Student Books and Practitioner Commentaries, EBC Reader, SCC Online Blog, EBC Explorer and the Practical Lawyer magazine.

Other topics covered during the session included an example of legal interpretation and its particular pertinence to the same. The relevance and understanding of citations were also explained in the session. It was also explained that what all points constitute the annotation of the case and how is it supposed to be written.

Mr. Malik also emphasized upon the relevance of statutes, which led to the discussion on kinds of sources of law. By citing various examples, he explained that when does a law gets enforced or when does an “act” become a “law’. It was easy to decipher the topic of discussion with the help of precise and easy examples given during the session.

Mr. Malik also talked about the hierarchy of the Indian courts, the powers of the courts at different levels and certain sections of the Indian Constitution like Article 393, 76 and 226. One of the most vital learning from the session was that it is important to rely on authentic sources while doing some research work and every word that we come across must be interpreted in a manner that leaves no scope of confusion and does not reflect arbitrariness. In addition, it was also discussed that it is important to name and number the acts properly.

The session ended with a round of questions and answers and it was indeed an informative and enlightening session for all.

The Guest Lecture was divided in 2 sessions, wherein the morning session was kept for the 2nd and 3rd year students of FYIC at the Himachal Pradesh National Law University and the evening was kept for the students for 1st, 4th and final year students. It was attended by a cumulative strength of around 200 students. The session was fruitful and motivational to all the students.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Dama Seshadri Naidu, J., in a suit for specific performance, observed that:

“ a suit for specific performance, a third party’s assertion that he has a stake in the subject matter of the suit counts to noting (sic). What matters is the contract, not the property covered by the contract. “


‘A’ engaged in a contract with B for purchasing some property and B defaulted. Later, C the brother of A, represented A as his power of attorney agent (POA) and after a few years, A discharged C from being his POA and pursued the case independently and got a decree – not for specific performance but for the return of money.

Now an objection arose when A wanted to withdraw the deposited decretal amount and the objection was raised by C.

The ground for objection was that C wanted a part of the decretal amount since he too had contributed to the sale consideration.

Question for Consideration

Can C’s claim be countenanced? Is such an ‘intervention application’ maintainable?


Code of Civil Procedure must be interpreted in a manner to subserve and advance the cause of justice. 

— C.K. Thakker’ s Code of Civil Procedure, Vol. 1, EBC, p. 200 (EBC Reader) 

Bench noted that in the present matter, firstly, there was no lis before the Court for it to entertain an interlocutory application. Thus, Court was proverbially functus officio. 

Adding to the above, Court stated that C wanted the Court to revive and resurrect a disposed of suit and to do that the Court must set aside the decree that was already passed.

But the question was, can the Court do so?

To the above, the answer was Court cannot. Further, it was elaborated that “A decree can be set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. In the Supreme Court decision of Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishna, (2013) 11 SCC 296, it was held that the applicant must have been a party to the suit, in the first place, whereas Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal, (2004) 2 SCC 601, took a different view and stated that the same was in the context of a lis pendens purchaser.

Bench coming back to the present matter, expressed that:

Subhash has a highway or a thoroughfare to travel on if ever he wants to reach his judicial destination: a separate suit, seeking a declaration.

Looking at the issue from another perspective, Court stated that in a suit for specific performance, whatever be its outcome, no third party can have the role to play.

Precedential Position

Ajay Kumar v. Tulsabai, 1973 SCC OnLine Bom 4, Court held that by very nature, a suit for specific performance confines itself to the agreement and several please that can either defeat or lead to its enforcement. The cause of action in such a suit is the agreement and its enforceability.

In the above-cited case, Court posed a question unto itself: Can it really be said that the stranger to an agreement is concerned with the relief sought by the plaintiff or the defences raised against such specific performance? The answer was that, firstly the stranger not being a party to the suit, any decision in that suit does not affect him. Secondly, the Court is being called upon to enforce the agreement but not to settle any disputes between the plaintiff and the stranger, therefore such a person’s presence is not necessary for the Court to decide the controversy of the suit.

In Panne Khushali v. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik,  AIR 1976 MP 148,  a Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that strangers to the contract making a claim adverse to the title of the defendant—for example, that they are the co-owners of the contracted property—are neither necessary nor proper parties. So they are not entitled to be joined as parties to the suit.

Delhi High Court in its decision of Raj K. Mehra v. Anjali Bhaduri, 1981 SCC OnLine Del 105, echoed the same view as above.

Analysis, Law and Decision

In view of the above, Court proceeded to examine the issue:

(1) The agreement was between Rajesh and Sudarshan.

(2) From the very inception, Subhash represented Rajesh as his POA in the suit; thus, he knew his brother’s pleadings and assertions to the exclusion of everyone else.

(3) Despite that, Subhash never objected to his principal’s (Rajesh’s) contentions.

(4) Though Rajesh, as the principal, cancelled GPA in 2017, Subhash never attempted, if ever permissible, to come on record as a defendant to protect his independent interest, if any.

(5) The suit was eventually decreed in 2001.

(6) Sudarshan willingly suffered the decree and deposited the amount to be appropriated by Rajesh alone.

Collateral Issue:

Subhash insisted that this Court in its Order dated 16-04-2012 noted that Subhas, too, contributed to the sale consideration.

To the above contention Bench stated that to facilitate adjudication of the matter, the Court undertakes various steps and during that process, Court prima facie observe or record certain aspects based on the counsel’s representation but the same does not acknowledge the parties existing rights if any, but they do not create rights on their own.

A Court’s observation cannot give rise to a right unless it has already existed, nor does it provide a cause of action. Here, in this case, it had never been in the Court’s contemplation as to who contributed the sale consideration. It is a non sequitur.

Concluding the matter, Court held that however strong a person’s right to recovery may be, he cannot file an intervention application in an already disposed of matter and stay the execution of the decree or nullify the decree without proper judicial recourse.

In view of the above discussion, Court dismissed the application. [Rajesh Saichand Sharma v. Sudershan Gangaram Rajula,  2021 SCC OnLine Bom 835, decided on 11-06-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w Mr. Abhishek P. Deshmukh – Advocate for the Applicant.

Sukeshi Bhandari a/w Akshay Chauhan – Advocate for the Defendants.

Mr. Chandrakant N. Chavan a/w Mr. Rajesh Sharma – Advocate for Plaintiff.

New releasesNews


Democracy At the Grassroots: A Survey to Understand The Awareness of the People in Rural Uttar Pradesh

—Sanjay Singh

Journey from Marginal to Mainstream- The Woes of Transgender in India

—Sangita Laha   8

Patriarchal Judiciary as Harbinger of Gender Justice in India

—Samreen Hussain   4

Evolution of Law on Withdrawal of Application Under The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016

-—Mangesh Krishna   2

Parental Child Abduction and Mediation in The Era of Globalization

-—Prem Kumar Gautam   5

Understanding Marital Rape in India: A Discourse on Textual and Constitutional Perspective

—Ankita Yadav   1

Innovation in Fintech – Moving Towards A ‘Sandbox’ Approach

Ayushi Mishra   4

Development In Uttar Pradesh After Enactment of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006: Special Reference to Saharanpur Division

—Vipul Vinod   15

The Path Ahead by Establishment of New Delhi International Arbitration Centre: An Analysis

V. Suryanarayana Raju   21

Locating Environmental Protection in International Humanitarian Law Regime: An Evaluation

Abdullah Nasir   31

Growing Dimensions of White Collar Crimes: The Illegality and Control

—Adya Pandey* 139

Law School NewsLive Blogging

The Centre for Business and Commercial Laws (CBCL) of National Law Institute University, Bhopal (NLIU) is delighted to present to you the 5th NLIU-Trilegal Summit on Corporate and Commercial Laws, 2019 in collaboration with Trilegal, and in association with Eastern Book Company (EBC).

The present edition of the summit is an effort to continue the successful legacy of the past editions. It aims to initiate a dialogue on key issues arising in the corporate world and contribute to the growth of knowledge and research in the field of commercial laws, whilst increasing the awareness and aptitude of students in these fields.

The prominent themes that will be covered in the session include analysis of landmark mergers & acquisitions, emerging trends in foreign investment (private equity/venture capital and debt instruments), recent updates on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and emerging trends, rise of IPOs in niche sectors such as insurance companies, banks,  data privacy aspects of financial information and in capital markets and other relevant contemporary issues.

The Summit will witness the participation of students from law schools across India in a Paper Presentation competition. The panelists and judges will include officials from regulatory bodies like the IBBI, RBI, CCI, IICA (part of Ministry of Corporate Affairs) and the Ministry of Law and Justice. We will also have legal counsel from other private sector companies along with Partners from Trilegal. With so many professionals from different backgrounds present with us, the Summit promises to be a fantastic learning experience.

As the Competition goes on, we will keep posting the details of the paper presentation competition. Stay tuned for all the updates!

9:00 AM | Registration: The registrations for the NLIU- Trilegal Summit have begun! The participants and audiences have started filing in the University Auditorium to attend the Summit. The session will commence with the lighting of the lamp.

The Summit has seen an unprecedented increase in submissions this year with over 100 papers being sent from across various universities in India. The selected papers also represent a wide diversity of participants, with cross college submissions being very prevalent. The qualifying universities include:

  1. ILS, Pune
  2. WBNUJS, Kolkata
  3. RGNUL, Punjab
  4. Nalsar , Hyderabad
  5. GNLU, Gandhinagar
  6. NLIU, Bhopal
  7. NLU, Delhi
  8. INLU, Nirma University
  9. NLSIU, Bangalore
  10. RMNLU, Lucknow
  11. NUALS, Kochi
  12. NUSLR, Ranchi
  13. Symbiosis Law School

Further, in light of the MoU signed between Jagran Lake University and NLIU, Bhopal we saw a great increase in the registration and participation for the summit by Jagran Lake University, Bhopal students.

Commencement of Registration


10:00 AM | Inauguration: The inaugural ceremony commenced with the lighting of the lamp by our esteemed panelists consisting of Prof. (Dr.) V. Vijayakumar, Vice Chancellor, NLIU, Mr. Ramakant Rai, Partner, Trilegal, Mrs. Ranjeeta Dubey, G.M., RBI, Dr. R.J.R. Kasibhatla, Dy. Legal advisor, Ministry of Law and Justice, Mr. Shekhar, Joint Director, Competition Commission of India and Prof. (Dr.) Rajeev Khare, professor of law & chair professor of Consumer Protection and Welfare.

Lighting of the lamp in the inauguration ceremony


10:05 AM | Opening Address: After the delivery of the opening address by our CBCL Convenor, Shounak Banerjee, our esteemed panelists shared their invaluable insights and encouraged the participants to learn and educate themselves with the current legal scenario in India, specifically in corporate laws.

The welcoming vote extended by the CBCL Convenor, Shounak Banerjee

Mr. Yogesh Singh has been a partner at Trilegal since 2009 and is experienced in strategic M&As, joint ventures, restructuring and private equity transactions in a wide range of sectors including infrastructure, telecom, hospitality, real estate, manufacturing, financial services, trading and IT. It was in 2016, that the NLIU-Trilegal Summit on Corporate and Commercial Laws was kicked off and this would have been impossible without Yogesh sir’s support and dedicated efforts. He has been the driving force behind the summit and has strived for perfection in all aspects of the summit without an exception.

Mr. Yogesh Singh, a Trilegal Partner, addresses the gathering

Mr. Ramakant Rai, is an alumnus of the National Law Institute University, Bhopal. He has been associated with Trilegal for around 9 years, wherein he is currently a Partner at the firm. Specializing in cross-border investments, investment structures, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, court driven ventures, he has represented several multinational and Indian firms in a number of high profile deals. An insolvency expert in his own right, he has advised various stakeholders in relation to strategies for formulation of resolution plans.

Prof (Dr.) Rajiv Khare, one of NLIU’s senior most alumnus and Dean of Postgraduate Studies at NLIU also joined us at the dais to inaugurate the ceremony and invite the various dignitaries. He was extremely proud at how far NLIU’s collaboration with Trilegal has come. He shared how his experiences have helped him cultivate a comprehensive understanding of developing legal demands in the corporate sphere which has enabled him to better prepare his students for the professional world. He concluded his speech by encouraging students to participate and put forth their inquisitive streaks to ask as many questions as they could.

Dr. R.J.R. Kasibhatla, who is presently serving as Deputy Legal Advisor for the Ministry of Law and Justice. He has over 25 years of experience not only in the field of advocacy but also in academics. As Legal Adviser to Government of India, he has tendered advice on various important constitutional, taxation and international issues and was involved in the process of making and drafting of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of India and the subsequent amendments to it. He has also been actively involved in the BIPA/BIT negotiations.

Mr. Shekhar, who is serving as the Joint Director (FA) at Competition Commission of India (CCI).

Ms. Ranjeeta, G.M. RBI, shared her experiences working with the RBI and shed light on the current interplay between the financial and corporate scenario. She has over 20 years of experience with the Reserve Bank of India spanning across various functions including public debt management, external reserves management, supervision of banking companies and non-bank financial companies, rural planning and policy, and communication. We are also honored that Ms. Dubey extended her unending support, on behalf of the RBI, for promoting financial literacy and awareness in the NLIU fraternity.

Ms. Ranjeeta encouraging the students with her wise words


10:20 AM | Welcoming Address: Our very own esteemed Vice Chancellor, Dr. V Vijayakumar, delivered the last address and warmly welcomed all the dignitaries as well as the participants on behalf of the entire NLIU fraternity. Having innumerable years of experience in the field of academics, Prof. Vijayakumar encouraged students to stay motivated, not just in the corporate field but also in the entire legal dynamics of India. He emphasized that the true pursuit of law will be fruitless without the will to help others. Which is why he has also endeavored to create an easy and free access to the articles published in each issue of the Summit in order to further development and research in the fields of corporate and commercial law.

Prof. (Dr.) V. Vijaykumar, Vice Chancellor, NLIU gives his welcoming address 

Post the welcoming address, the dignitaries were presented with inaugural bouquets and were given a welcoming memento. All the dignitaries commented upon the maturity and understanding showcased by the students on the nuanced aspects of complex topics like the subtle interplay that exists in the financial and commercial spheres in Indian economy.

The welcome bouquets presented to the dignitaries


10:40 AM | Launch of the book:

The launching of the CBCL book on “Emerging Trends in Corporate and Commercial Laws in India” would not have been possible without the unwavering support of EBC, invaluable guidance of Trilegal and our ever encouraging VC. Throughout the journey of this Summit, Mr Sumeet Malik has been quintessential in each and every step which has led to the successful launch of the book. We can’t emphasize enough on how much we are grateful for their constant guidance and support!


The launch of the book ‘Emerging Trends in Corporate and Commercial Laws of India’


10:45 AM | Session Break: All the dignitaries and participants stepped out for 15 minutes to refresh and re-gear themselves for the first session of the Summit to begin.


11:15 AM | Commencement of the 1st Session:  And the roller coaster ride begins! We have started with the first session of paper presentations. The panel for the firsts session consists of Mr. Yogesh, Mr. Kasibhatla, Mrs. Ranjeeta, Ms. Shravani Shekhar (Senior Associate Trilegal, Competition Law), Mr.Shekhar, Mr. Naveen Bali and Mr. Sunil Kumar.

Ms. Shravani Shekhar started off working with AZB & Partners as an associate and has worked her way up the ladder to become a senior associate and currently works at Trilegal. We are extremely honored to have a well versed professional of competition law like her to be present among us.

Mr. Sunil Kumar has significant experience in Insolvency laws, he is currently working with Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), New Delhi and deals mainly with legal affairs division which includes drafting and notification of regulations, analyzing court orders, opinions.

Dr. Naveen Bali, is presently working as an Assistant Professor at Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA), Gurgaon. Before joining IICA, he was working as an Economics Consultant in the Office of Principal Economic Adviser, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, during which he contributed to the Economic Survey 2018-2019 as a lead author for two chapters namely. He possesses over seven years of experience in the field of research as well as teaching which includes organising workshops for IBBI and other Insolvency Professionals.


The competition will feature 15 teams competing for the first prize. Each team gets 10 minutes to present their paper convincingly and comprehensively to the judges. Post which, the panel of judges can question the participants for 5-7 minutes. The students commented that they were excited to hear the panelists and their insights owing to their extremely dazzling credentials.


11:20 AM | First Paper Presentation:  Anoop George and Shreya Bambulkar, students from ILS Law College, Pune are the first participants today to present their paper titled ‘A Need to Relook the Merger Control in Digital Economy- An Analysis‘. Their paper focused on important aspects and lacunae which exist in the current M&A scenario in India in relation to big data.

Anoop George & Shreya Bambulkar


11:50 AM | Second Paper Presentation: The second paper was presented by Arpita Pandey & Gokul Holani, students from NLIU Bhopal, which was titled “Regulating and Deregulating Initial Coin Offerings: A Cross Jurisdictional Analysis“.

Arpita Pande and Gokul Holani


12:20 PM | Third Paper Presentation: Aman Vasavada, a student from National Law School India University, Bangalore has come here today to present his essay on “Rejection of Claims by Resolution Professional: Scope and Remedies”. The paper attempts to question the nature of the power embodied in the resolution professional in the collation and verification stage. The author argues that the discrepancies, that arise due to exercise of discretion, can be eradicated through the information utility process and the operation of NCLT proceedings.

Aman Vasavada


12:55 PM | Fourth Paper Presentation: Ayush Wadhi and Swati Shekhar, are currently presenting their novel take on “Equity Crowdfunding in India: Present Perspectives and Prospects”. These two students from ILS, Pune provide a fresh take on equity crowdfunding, a topic that the SEBI discussed over six years ago but then disappeared into oblivion. A major chunk of the presentation was dedicated to the discussion about the legislative steps India should take for the same.

Ayush Wadhi & Swati Shekhar


1:30 PM | Fifth Paper Presentation: Arjun Gaur, a student at RGNUL, Patiala, presented his paper on “Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet: Conflict between sections 29A of IBC & 230 of Companies Act”. He engages with the panelists meticulously and discusses with them, at great length, the overriding effect of section 230 of the Companies Act.

Arjun Gaur


1:50 PM | End of session 1 | Lunch Break 


|| Huge Shoutout to EBC || 

We are absolutely delighted to have our exclusive Media Partners, Eastern Book Company and SCC Online Web Edition for the NLIU – Trilegal Summit on Corporate and Commercial Laws 2019.

This year, we have an exciting addition being offered to the winner, runner-up and first runner-up to a subscription of

EBC Learning is an online platform that brings you courses on legal and ancillary subjects. EBC Learning is a source for everyone seeking primary and continuing legal education. Courses at EBC Learning are only taught by top professionals, experts and teachers and meet the strictest quality standards. The treasure trove of knowledge being made accessible to our winners ensures that the rewards keep getting bigger and better!!!



3:00 PM | the 2nd Session begins: Lunch break is over and the participants as well as the panelists are eager to begin. For this session we have a whole new panel lined up: Mrs. Ranjeeta Dubey, Mr. Ramakant Rai, Mr. Rupesh Mishra, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Navin Bali and Mr. Kasibhatla.

Mr. Rupesh Mishra is an alumnus of National Law Institute University, Bhopal. At present, he is the Vice President (Legal) in Everstone Capital Advisors, headquartered in Singapore which is one of the premier private equity and real estate investment firms. He specializes in matters such as joint ventures, strategic alliances, foreign investment and corporate law advisory. He has the largest equity deal in the logistics space to his credit. He has previously worked at Khaitan & Co in the M&A and General Corporate team.

The audience awaiting eagerly for the second session to commence.


3:05 | Sixth Paper Presentation: Samidha Sanjay Mathur and Aditya Anand are here to kick-off the second session of the summit, with their paper titled “To Enforce or Not To Enforce : The Impacts of Ipso Facto Clauses on Indian Insolvency”. These two students from GNLU and NLUD respectively, comprise our only cross college team. The authors argue the enforceability of ipso facto clauses with special focus on suppliers and their postion. Inspired by the jurisprudence of other countries, they recommend making such clauses redundant by giving suppliers prominence by endorsing their rights under the current insolvency framework.

Samidha Sanjay Mathur and Aditya Anand


3:30 PM| Seventh Paper Presentation: Ayushi Goel and Aarvi Singh, two students from RGNUL, Patiala are here today to present their paper, titled “Measuring the Impact in Impact Investment”. The participants reviewed the impact investment and kind of returns market models of business have under the preview of regulatory scheme.They suggested innovative solutions which included reducing compliances, lowering minimum investment limit, fast tracking of green patent applications, among several other things. They concluded their presentation by emphasizing that there should be separate dispute resolution tribunals dedicated towards solving issues arising from investment impacts.

Ayushi Goel and Aarvi Singh


3:55 PM | Eighth Paper Presentation: Aadhya Kancharla, a student of NALSAR, Hyderabad presents her paper on ‘Issuance and Listing of Shares with DVR: Evaluating a “Make in India” initiative from the lens of corporate governance and shareholder democracy. The participant dealt in heavy detail about differential voting rights, as well as the asymmetry of information in the course of her presentation. She managed to capture the attention of all the panelists, and was embroiled in the discussion that ensued.

Aadhya Kancharla


4:20 PM | Ninth Paper Presentation: Shubham Gupta of Nirma University presents his paper on Institutionalizing Whistle-blower Mechanism in Insider Trading Regime: Overhauling Evidence and Enforcement Challenges. The major premise of his presentation was whether the whistle blower mechanism would effectively furnish primary evidence, within the insider trading regime, the same was explained through the use of contemporary examples. It was a comprehensive presentation, wherein he discussed incentives as well as downsides of his proposition.

Shubham Gupta


4:45 PM | Tenth Paper Presentation: Tushar Kumar, a student of RMLNLU, Lucknow is currently presenting on Assessing the feasibility of pre-packaged administration in corporate insolvency proceedings in India – is it the need of the hour?. His paper attempted to outline how pre pack will function under the Indian bankruptcy framework by taking inspiration from various jurisdictions. He lays out the reasons a pre pack will increase the gap between the operational and financial creditors and create disbalanced situation in an already precarious situation. However, this perspective got a fiery discussion brewing across the panel which brought to light a varied perspectives and a holistic view of the topic.

Tushar Kumar


5:30 PM | End of 2nd session | Tea Break


|| Prizes ||

At the end of these three engrossing sessions, two deserving papers will win their authors a chance to either go on an exotic foreign trip to an undisclosed location or bag a prestigious and coveted internship with one of India’s leading firms, Trilegal. Trilegal in collaboration with CBCL, is offering the winner of this year’s Summit a chance to fly to a foreign location, and on coming runners up an opportunity to intern at their offices.



5:45 PM | Commencement of the 3rd session: As we near the end of the summit, the third and final session begins with fresh vigor. The panel for this session comprises Mr. Yogesh Singh, Mr. Ramakant Rai, Mrs. Ranjeeta Dubey, Mr. Rupesh Mishra, Mr. Shekhar and Mr. Naveen Bali.

6:00 PM | Eleventh Paper Presentation: Akanshha Agrawal, a student of NLU Delhi, presents her paper on Pricing Algorithms and Collusion Under Competition Law in India. Akanshha reproduces an interesting insight on how algorithms can induce price fixations in the market. Using these pricing algorithms, Uber and Ola have been impacting the prices in the market which incapacitates other drivers from affecting the prices of taxis in the market and this makes it unfair. The judges found this topic to be highly engrossing as it related to every day lives of a common man and how algorithms affected it.

Akanshha Agrawal


6:20 PM | Twelfth Paper Presentation: The next paper was titled Resolution of Financial Service Providers: Time for a ‘new deal’?. It was presented by Vedant Malpani, written in co-authorship with Srihari Gopal, both students of GNLU. In this paper the authors analysed the current legal framework under which financial service providers function, the probable changes in the near future and whether this shall negatively or positively impact the finance providers. Borrowing from resolution mechanisms which exist around the world they attempt to draw a clear picture of the current national scenario.

Vedant Malpani


6:40 PM | Thirteenth Paper Presentation: Sarath Ninan Mathew, a student of WBNUJS Kolkata, presents his paper on An Optimal Liability Solution for Independent Directors. Through his novel and in his words ‘probably controversial’ take on independent director liability, Sarath Ninan, a student from WBNUJS aims to revaluate the liability paradigm in India currently. He proposes a renewed model for the quantification of liability of independent directors which shall be based on ‘the intention to cause lose’. According to him this shall be the best possible alternative in light of the discrepancy that exists between the inputs required of independent directors and the rewards they receive.

Sarath Ninan Mathew


7:00 PM | Fourteenth Paper Presentation: Author of the paper titled “Sailing the Rough Waters: A Study of Duties of Directors and Creditor Protection under Companies Act, 2013“, N Raghav Harini questions whether under the current legislative framework creditors can hold directors of a company liable in situations of insolvency and whether their state of mind must be taken into account. The student from ILS Law College, Pune proposes a different and more lenient threshold of liability that if the director ought to have reasonably believed that the creditor’s interests were in jeopardy.

N Raghav Harini


7:20 PM | Fifteenth Paper Presentation: Tanya Vinod Nair, a fourth year student of NLIU, Bhopal aims to persuade through her paper titled “Social Stock Exchanges: A Small step in Regulation, a Giant Leap for Impact Investment” for the introduction of social stock exchanges in India, alongside the conventional regulatory body. According to her, the set of responsibilities and duties for both the bodies is vastly different and there is a pertinent need for a SSE in order to keep in check the social and environmental impact, which in turn shall promote inclusive and sustainable growth.

Tanya Vinod Nair


7:45 PM | Result Break:  We have taken a short break after all the participants finished presenting their papers. We are awaiting with abated breaths while the judges take a last call on scores and come out with their final decision! Stay Tuned!!


8:15 PM | Sharing Experiences: Before the results were announced Mrs Ranjeeta Dubey remarked that she was amazed that contestants chose relevant topics, were extremely proficient in their understanding as well as their communication. She also applauded the organizing team for their efforts and commented that she thought the event was conducted wonderfully. She concluded by adding that all 15 teams were winners and so were we, as we gained invaluable knowledge due to this Summit! Mr. Yogesh Singh, in his last address kept it short and sweet and with his kind words said that he found this experience to enriching.

The Panelists were felicitated with mementos post which the results are being announced! All the esteemed panelists without whom we couldn’t have pulled off such a successful edition of the NLIU – Trilegal Summit were honoured with mementos of the Sanchi Stupa, which till date remains one of India’s most prominent historical monument. They were also presented with a copy of this years’ official summit book which contained the selected 15 articles discussed about today.


8:22 PM | Results: AND THE RESULTS ARE OUT! The first prize is bagged by N Raghav Harini from ILS Pune! The runners up are Samidha Sanjay Mathur and Aditya Anand who are from GNLU and NLUD respectively! The first runners up is Sarath Ninan Mathew from WBNUJS! Furthermore, Trilegal also offered an internship to Akanshha Agrawal, a student from NLUD for asking an intricate and interesting question which amazed the panelists.

     N Raghav Harini


Samidha Sanjay Mathur and Aditya Anand


Sarath Ninan Mathew  


8:30 PM | Vote of Thanks: The co-Convenor of CBCL delivered the vote of thanks on behalf of the team. He rightly expressed his gratitude, firstly to NLIU Administration and our esteemed faculty including our Vice Chancellor. He also extended our unending gratitude to Trilegal’s continuous patronage and guidance, specifically Mr. Yogesh Singh and Mr. Ramakant Rai who have helped create this summit from scratch. He expressed our heartfelt gratitude to EBC, which is our exclusive publishing and media partner, without whom we would not have seen the light of the day! And last but never the least, this even would not be a resounding success without the tireless dedication and efforts put in by the entire CBCL family!!


8:45 PM | Signing off: We loved having you and we hope to see you next year!!


The Live Blogging Team,

Anoushka Ishwar, Aparajita Marwah and Sana Sarosh.

Law School NewsLive Blogging

Day 1 – Inaugural Ceremony & Preliminary Rounds

The Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition 2019 has been inaugurated in the honorable presence of Dean Dr. I.P. Massey and the Registrar. The registrations and exchange of memorials between the teams is underway in the auditorium, while the Researchers have begun with the Researcher’s Test!

4.30 PM – Preliminary Round 1 Begins

The judges have been briefed and they are really excited to witness the competition this time. The first Preliminary Rounds are about to begin and we wish all the participants good luck!

6 PM – Preliminary Round 1 ends

The first set of preliminary rounds have ended. The participants are tired after passionately arguing their sides, yet are enthusiastic for the next set. The second set of preliminary rounds will start soon, which will be followed by the reverse prelims.



8 PM – Preliminary Round 2 ends

The two sets of reverse prelims will begin soon, followed by declaration of the teams advancing to the Octa-finals, to be held tomorrow.

9 PMReverse Prelims begin

The the reverse prelims have begun. This is to ensure each team has an equal chance to argue both sides, and thus maintain a balance in scores. The participants are tired, yet are positive as ever!

11.30 PM Reverse prelims end, results announced

The reverse prelims have been concluded, and due to the brilliant organizers in the tabulation team, we were able to receive the results quickly. Following are the teams qualifying to the Octa-Finals (in no particular order) :

  1. Institute of Law, Nirma University.
  2. Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
  3. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
  4. Gujarat National Law University.
  5. National Law University, Odisha.
  6. ILS Law College, Pune.
  7. Amity Law School, IP.
  8. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law.
  9. Hidayatullah National Law University.
  10. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
  11. Government Law College, Mumbai.
  12. School of Law, Christ University.
  13. Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University.
  14. SVKM’S NMIMS KIRIT P Mehta School of Law.
  15. Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies.
  16. Chanakya National Law University.

Memorials have been exchanged according to the match-ups, and the days events have come to an end. We congratulate the Octa-Finalists!

Day 2 – Octa Finals, Panel Discussion and Quarter Finals

The second day of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Moot Court Competition is successfully underway!

9.30 AM – Octa Finals commence

The judges have been briefed and the Octa Finals have commenced in the respective courtrooms. The participants look fresh and well rested even though they might have been ripping apart their opponent’s memorials all through the night! Wishing them all the best!

Judges scrutinizing the arguments.

1 PM – 4th Antitrust Panel Discussion on Competition Law’s Interface with IBC commences

With the first set of Octa Final rounds over, preparations are in full swing for the reverse Octa Final Rounds. Meanwhile, participants attended the 4th Antitrust Panel Discussion, 2019. The topic for this year’s panel discussion pertains to Interface of Competition Law with the Indian Bankruptcy Code. Our esteemed panelists for this discussion are:

  • Ms. Anubhuti Mishra – An alumnus of King’s College, London and Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, she is currently working with the Competition Law team at P&A Law Offices, New Delhi. She has advised on several antitrust enforcement as well as merger review matters.
  • Mr. Shashank Sharma – Graduated from National Law School of India University in 2013. Thereafter, he went on to complete his European Master in Law and Economics in 2017. Since then he has been working with AZB & Partners, where his primary focus is Competition Law, with specific focus on Behavioural & Merger Control.
  • Mr. Toshit Shandilya – Graduated from National Law University, Delhi in 2013, he is currently an associate in the Competition Law team of Talwar Thakore & Associates. He has been involved in various critical enforcement and merger control cases before the CCI, as well as the COMPAT. He has been a law clerk with Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, former chairman, COMPAT where he assisted on a number of important cartel and Abuse of Dominance cases.
Our esteemed Panelists engaging with the participants.

The participants of the panel discussion posed certain interesting questions to our Panelists. The questions ranged from procedural to policy issues, arising from the requirement of taking CCI’s approval for insolvency resolution plans that include combinations. The participants and the Panelists engaged on concepts, such as, the failing firm defence, composite combination transactions, inter-connected transactions, and so on, to name a few. The Panelists also threw some light on their practical experience as Competition Lawyers while dealing with complicated transactions that fall within the regime of the IBC. The interactive session provided the participants an insight into the complex interface between the IBC and Competition Law.

5 PM – Octa’s concluded, results announced

The Octa Finals and the Reverse Octa Finals have been concluded. While the participants argued commendably, our Judges had a tough time reaching consensus. The following are the teams progressing towards the Quater Finals (in no particular order):

  1. National Law University, Odisha.
  2. ILS Law College, Pune.
  3. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
  4. Institute of Law, Nirma University.
  5. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
  6. SVKM’S NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law.
  7. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar.
  8. Symbiosis Law School, Noida.

We congratulate the qualifying teams. The exchange of memorials for the Quarter Finals shall be taking place soon at the Registration desk.

A glance into the Quarter Finals.


Participant engrossed in the opponent’s arguments.


7.30 PM – Quarter Finals concluded, results announced.

The Quarter Finals of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition have come to an end. Here are the teams that have qualified to the Semi Finals.

  1. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
  2. Gujarat National Law University.
  3. National Law University, Odisha.
  4. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.

A hearty congratulations to all the Semi Finalists!

8 PM – Semi Finals Underway

The Semi Finals are currently underway. The teams are engaged in fierce argumentation before an eminent panel of judges in both court rooms. Here, take a glimpse at the rounds.

Judges Vijay Pratap Chouhan (Associate, Platinum Partners), Anand Vikas Mishra (Deputy Director, Competition Commission of India) and Anisha Chand (Principal Associate, Khaitan & Co).


Judge Anand Vikas Mishra testing the participant’s understanding of the law.


Judges Anand Kumar Singh (Assistant Professor, National Law University Jodhpur, specialising in Competition Law), Rahul Satyan (Senior Partner, Competition and Antitrust team at AZB & Partners) and Toshit Chandilya (Associate, Competition Law team at Talwar Thakore & Associates) in Court Room 2.


Participants observing the arguments of their opponent team.

10.15 PM – Semi Finals concluded

After establishing their ‘dominant position’ in this relevant mooting market, the following two teams will battle it out in the Finale of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition 2019:

  1. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
  2. Gujarat National Law University.

The Memorials will be exchanged between the finalists soon. May the best market player win the battle.

Day 3 – Finals and Valedictory Ceremony

9.30 AM The audience and judges are seated in the auditorium and the Final rounds of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Moot Court Competition will begin shortly.

9.40 AM – The first speaker from the Applicant’s side, begins his speech. He is calm and is responding well to the judges, who waste no opportunity in grilling him on the law and facts. The bench is fairly active, and all the three judges are participating equally.

Dr. K.D.Singh (Joint Director (Law), Competition Commission of India) and Mr. Rahul Singh (Partner, Khaitan & Co.), having a look at the proposition.


Mr. Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (Partner, Khaitan & Co.) indulgent in the oral rounds during the Finals.

10.20 AM – Speaker 2 from the Applicant’s side has now taken over. She begins her submission by trying to prove that DOPE is not an enterprise, as per the statutory definition under Sections 2(h) read with Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002. She relies on the lack of an economic function, to prove so. However, the judges seem unconvinced, and asks the counsel to clarify the origin of this requirement. Mr. Rahul Singh (Partner, Khaitan & Co.) questions the counsel on the intricacies involved while relying on Section 3(3) along with Section 2(h). The counsel further cites the Coordination Committee case, to prove her point.

Respondent’s gearing up for their turn.

10.35 AM – The judges inquire about the ratio of the LPG Gas Cylinder case, and its relevance to the current argument. With only 2 mins left on the clock, the counsel moves to her second issue, regarding cartelisation. She seeks an extension of time, which is granted. Towards the end of her submissions, one of the judges pose a question regarding the lack of any arguments on mitigation of penalty. The counsel confidently replies that her party is not in violation of any competition or antitrust rules, and thereby need not argue on penalty. This creates a good impression upon the judges.

10.46 AM – The first speaker from the Respondent side, takes the podium. He appears immensely composed, and requests 30 seconds to arrange his documents on the podium. His speech is structured and brief, and the judges seem to be nodding in appreciation. He begins his first submission, on the maintainability of Jeevan Pharma’s admission. Mr. Rahul Singh and Dr K.D Singh (Joint Director (Law), Competition Commission of India) question the counsel on the distinction between the ability of the bench to hear the petition, and their power to grant compensation. The Counsel calmly tries to clarify his position, with reliance on the facts and clarifications, citing the relevant paragraphs, perfectly.

The Appellants discussing their strategy during the Finals.

11.00 AM – The counsel then moves to his second submission, regarding Jeevan Pharma’s abuse of its dominant position, and lays down the three tests required to show the same. The judges don’t seem satisfied with increased reliance on foreign cases, in light of extensive Indian jurisprudence in the area, but the counsel responds adequately. He then seeks an extension, which is happily granted by the judges. As the counsel ends his submissions and thanks the bench, the panel of judges apologise for their repeated probe into every submission of his. This lightens the atmosphere. The judges appeared quite pleased with his set of submissions.

11.24 AM – Speaker 2 now arrives at the podium, to continue her fellow counsel’s submissions. She begins her submission by laying out a roadmap, upon the judges seeking a clarification. Her issues pertain to the ability of the DG and CCR to proceed against DOPE, and DOPE’s violation of Section 3(3). The rain of questions continue, as was the case for the previous speakers. The judges question the line of argument, that the cryptic order of DG can be used against anyone. The counsel tries to clarify her position and does not lose hope.

11.35 AM – The counsel moves to her second submission and focuses on the agreement between the manufacturers, as well as between the manufacturers and the DOPE. She informally quotes Lord Denning and then the statutory definition. There is a good level of engagement between the counsel and the judges. After this speech, the judges decide against rebuttals and surrebuttals, However, they give into the finalists’ request. Speaker 1 from the respondent gives a brilliant rebuttal which leaves the audience as well as the judges in awe.

11.40 AM – The rounds have been concluded, and the finalists wait for the results.

12.15 – Valedictory ceremony commenced

Vice Chancellor, Ms. Poonam Pradhan Saxena and the Dean, Dr. I.P. Massey, with other esteemed faculty members and the judges have taken their seats in the auditorium. Senior Member of the Moot Court Committee opened the ceremony with a heart warming speech and addressed the participants waiting eagerly for the results.

12.30 – Vice Chancellor felicitates the gathering
The Vice Chancellor thanked Khaitan & Co. for their valuable partnership in organising this year’s Competition. She further stressed upon the importance of Competition Law as an emerging field. She also encouraged the participants to take part in more moot court competitions, as it helps to further one’s advocacy skills and analytical abilities.

12.35 – Dr. K.D. Singh addressed the crowd and informed the audience about CCI’s endeavours and how CCI has been happy to host the moot in association with NLU Jodhpur, for the past 10 years, and expressed his desire to continue the same for the coming years.

12.37 – Vice Chancellor presents the token of appreciation to Dr. K.D. Singh

12.38 – Mr. Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (Partner, Khaitan & Co) thanked Ms. Poonam Saxena and shared his experience as a corporate lawyer and left a very interesting question for the participants sitting in the audience, whether they are administering “justice” by being the extended arm

12.40 – Declaration of results

Mr. Rohan C. Thomas, Faculty Advisor of the Moot Court Committee, announces the results :

Second Best Student Advocate Anshika Jain (Gujarat National Law University)

Best Student Advocate – Juhi Hirani (Institute of Law, Nirma University) and Darshan H. Patankar (Gujarat National Law University)

Best Researcher – Eesha H. Sheth (SVKM’S NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law)

Best Memorial – Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia.

Best Student Advocate for the Finals – Darshan H. Patankar (GNLU)

RUNNERS UP TEAM – Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

WINNING TEAM – Gujarat National Law University.

Winning Team of the Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition – Gujarat National Law University


Runners Up Team of Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition – Symbiosis Law School, Pune

12.45 – Closing Speech by the Co-Convener of the Moot Court Committee
Ms. Mansi Srivastava (Co-Convener, Moot Court Committee) shared her experience of being part of the organising committee for the past five years and how it feels surreal to be a part of it for one last time. She thanked the administration, the support staff, the volunteers and all the other Moot Court Committee Members for their support and contribution. She specially thanked Ms. Abhilasha Gupta and Ms. Subarna Saha (Advisors, Moot Court Committee) and Mr. Rahul Mantri (Co-Convener, Moot Court Committee) for being her pillars of strength throughout the competition and providing all the answers when she herself couldn’t find them. Lastly, she thanked Khaitan & Co. for their partnership and the Knowledge partner, SCC Online and Eastern Book Company (EBC) for providing the students with access to SCC Online that helped them in the preparation for their rounds.


12.48 – Certificate of participation given out to the participants.

The Tenth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition has thus been concluded.

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 Chair on Consumer Law and Practice is dedicated to provide a forum for engaging in discussions on varied issues of National and International issues on Consumer Protection Laws and henceforth, publishes an annual peer reviewed journal under its banner.

Contributions have been invited for International Journal on Consumer Law and Practice (Volume 7)  from academicians, practitioners, students of law and allied fields in the form of Article, Research Paper, Essay, Note, Case Comment, Legislative Briefs and Book Review.

Submission deadline for this edition is March 31, 2019.

For Submission Guidelines, Click HERE

For more details, click HERE
Click here to check the Subscription Page.

Submission Guidelines:

The journal welcomes contributions from academicians, practitioners, students of law and allied fields.

Theme: Consumer Protection Laws

Sub Themes:

  • International Consumer Protection Framework & Policy
  • Empowering Consumers
  • Consumer Welfare Legislations
  • New Age Contemporary Issues & Challenges
  • Enforcement of Regulatory Authorities
  • Consumers in Digital Era.
  • Consumer Protection and Mediation.

IJCLP solicits submissions for its Volume VII to be launched in 2019. Authors can make submissions under the following heads:

  • Articles and Research Papers (6,000-8,000 words inclusive of foot notes)
  • Essay(3,000-4,000 words inclusive of foot notes)
  • A Note (2,500 words inclusive of foot notes).
  • A Case Comment, Legislative Briefs (2,500-3,000 words inclusive of foot notes)
  • A Book Review ( 2,000 words inclusive of foot notes)

Send the manuscripts on (MS word format) with the subject as “Submissions for IJCLP 2019” along with covering letter on or before 31st March 2019.

New releasesNews

Science begins with counting. To understand a phenomenon, a scientist must first describe it; to describe it objectively, he must first measure it.

– Siddhartha Mukherjee, The Emperor of All Maladies

These words, written by Mukherjee in his seminal biography of cancer, aptly characterise the principal purpose of DAKSH’s Rule of Law Project, which is to understand the justice-delivery system in India using a data-driven approach.

In 2016, DAKSH released a report, titled State of the Indian Judiciary (SoJR), in which we focused on the most visible face of the justice-delivery system in India — the judiciary. In evaluating the work of the judiciary, we considered its primary challenge — pendency in the courts — as a means to understand how delays in the progress of cases affect citizens and the economy. We also presented findings from our pioneering survey on access to justice, which recorded litigants’ perceptions of, and experiences within, the judicial system.

As we pondered on the composition of DAKSH’s second report, we decided to retain the two principal aspects of the SoJR — delays in the judicial system and access to justice — as the fulcrum of this year’s report also, but examine them both more deeply and broadly. While the SoJR explored the systemic issues of administration and accountability in the judiciary, this year’s report is an in-depth scrutiny of the performance of courts, with an emphasis on their workload, case flow, and efficiency. While the SoJR reflected on access to justice, and in particular, its institutional dimensions (mainly relating to the judiciary), this year, we consider ‘justice’ more expansively — in terms of its underlying ideas, its administration and delivery by non-judicial bodies, as well as the various approaches to it in India.

Shruti Vidyasagar and Ramya Sridhar Tirumalai in Introduction to Approaches to Justice in India (2017)

The complete report has been indexed on SCC Online here:

Law School NewsLive Blogging

Welcome to the 4th RMLNLU-SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition from the 26th to the 28th of February, 2016.

This year’s edition will see mooters from all over the country fighting it out for cash prizes worth Rs. 60,000 and other goodies courtesy SCC Online which includes SCC Online Web Edition Platinum cards, English Law One Year Subscriptions to Supreme Court Cases – Print Edition, Practical Lawyer Subscriptions, e-book version of Abhinav Chandrachud’s ‘Due Process of Law’ and trophies.

Day-1, 26th February, 2016

Day-1 has Registration of Participants, Inauguration Ceremony and Release of Match-ups lined up. Although we won’t be witnessing any mooting action today, all the participants will be made aware of their opponents for the Rounds on Day-2, which should keep them focused and on their toes. Here is the schedule for Day-1.

02:00 PM – Registration of Participants

05:00 PM – Inauguration Ceremony

This will be followed by the release of match-ups and the memorial exchange.

01:30 PM:  We break now for lunch. We’ll be back soon when the Inauguration Ceremony begins.

05:00 PM: Now that the Registration process is out of the way we’ve got a tally of 28 teams participating, which is going to make the competition fierce. We give our best wishes to the following Universities for their rounds tomorrow:

  1. Amity Law School Centre-II, Amity University
  2. Amity Law School, IP University
  3. Amity University, Haryana
  4. Amity University, Lucknow
  5. Campus Law Centre, Delhi University
  6. College of Law and Legal Studies (T.M.U.)
  7. Government Law College, Mumbai
  8. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  9. Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
  10. Jindal Global Law School
  11. Lucknow University
  12. National Law University, Odisha
  13. NIRMA University
  14. National Law School India University, Bangalore
  15. National Law University, Jodhpur
  16. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
  17. National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi
  18. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law
  19. SASTRA University
  20. School of Law, Christ University
  22. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
  23. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  24. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  25. Tamil Nadu National Law School
  26. UILS, Panjab University
  27. UPES, Dehradun
  28. VIPS

Now we await the commencement of the inauguration ceremony.

05:30 PM: The Inauguration ceremony is under way. Gracing us with their presence are the Chief Guest, Dr. Raj Shekhar, District Magistrate, Lucknow, Hon’ble Prof. Dr. Gurdip Singh Bahri, Vice Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow, Mr. Sumeet Malik, Director of Eastern Book Company (our sponsors) and Dr. A.K. Tiwari, Head of Department (Legal Studies), Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.

This year’s moot proposition has been drafted by Mr.  Alok Prasanna Kumar, Senior Resident Fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Major themes underlying the moot proposition are the legal personality of artificial intelligence, the elemental nature of media trial and the paramount importance of the freedom of press.

The participants and the audience were warmly welcomed by Hon’ble Prof. Dr. Gurdip Singh Bahri. He also enlightened the participants about the synergy between domestic laws and international law and the ever changing nature of media, as a source of social transformation. He ended his speech by extending his gratitude to all participating teams and hoped that they would immerse themselves in the flavors that the City of Nawabs have to offer.

06:00 PM: The Chief Guest, Dr. Raj Shekhar, proceeded to address the gathering. He elucidated on the significance that media holds in today’s day and age while noting the evolution of the media in the past two decades. His views on the dependence of the legal system on legislations like the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure which have stood the test of time captivated the audience.

Mr. Sumeet Malik kept his address crisp and went on to appreciate the efforts of the Moot Court Committee, while emphasizing on the undeniable influence of mooting in a law student’s life.

06:30 PM: The Joint Convenor of the Moot Court Committee presented the Vote of Thanks and now the participants eagerly await the release of match-ups and the memorial exchange. The memorials have been seeded so as to ensure that the best teams move on to the knock-out rounds.

Tensions are soaring and the participants seem anxious.

08:00 PM: The match-ups are complete. Teams have received their opposition memorials. The participants head for dinner.

We’re done for the day. But on the other hand, it’s going to be a long night for the teams to work some aces up their sleeves.

Sign in at 11 AM to watch the action as it unfolds. Cheerio.

Day-2, February 27th, 2016

11:00 AM: Good Morning folks! We’re back. All the teams are raring to go for the jugular. All participants have assembled in their respective court rooms and are now waiting for the judges to arrive. May the odds be ever in your favor!

11:15 AM: And the rounds have begun!

11:30 AM:

Court Room No. 1 – T31 v T19

The Judges keep bringing the speaker back to the facts of the moot proposition, and trying to extract a logical nexus  to the law that the speaker is highlighting. The Petitioners conclude their arguments as best as they could. The first speaker of the Respondents takes the podium putting into perspective their side of the proposition as the Judges listen intently. The Judges await that one loss in focus to  grab on to the opportunity to put the speaker in a spot of bother.

Court Room No. 2 – T30 v T24

The Petitioner’s second speaker and the Judge seem to have reached a consensus as the Speaker nods continuously. But as soon as she thinks she’s going down the right track, the Judges throw a bombshell at her and propose an alternative to her claims. She carefully maneuvers through it and is all set to complete her arguments. She concludes her arguments with a quote “Justice should not only be done, but should also seem to be done”. Seems like she is doing justice to her team here. The first speaker from the Respondents is seen setting up her material, all ready to give the Petitioners a run for their money.

Court Room No. 3 – T17 v T16

It’s nostalgia all around, as the bench is comprised of alumni from RMLNLU. It was just a few years ago that they were on the other side of the bench. The grass does look greener on the other side to them.

The Speaker and the Judge (Bhaskar Subramaniam) seem to be exchanging their thoughts on the Turing test, which plays a pivotal role in the moot proposition. The Judges seem to go head-on against the Respondent’s contentions as she navigates through treacherous waters unperturbed.

Court Room No. 4 – T12 v T11

The drafter of the moot proposition, Mr. Alok Prasanna Kumar is on the bench here. He doesn’t seem convinced with the arguments and seeks a judgment in support of his arguments. The Judge, in response to that judgment, gives deep insight into an aspect of the moot proposition. The speaker gives it his best shot to respond to these questions, but he is constantly intervened by the Judges questioning.

11:50 AM:

Court Room No. 5 – T4 v T7

The 1st speaker from the Respondents was unable to clarify to the Judges his stance on the issue. He seems to be getting a lot of help from his teammates, in the form of notes being supplied to him. He takes the cue from that bit of support and gains momentum, confidently responding to all their questions. The Judges seem to take on the challenge too and proceed with that line of questioning.

Court Room No. 6 – T15 v T6

Again, an all RMLNLU bench, as the Judge (Ravi Shankar Jha) elucidates the concept of mens rea to the speaker. The speaker attentively follows the Judge and gives a calm and composed response. The Judge adjusts the Coca-Cola bottle (yes, Beverage Partners) on the table, as he absorbs the nature of the arguments. A logical inconsistency has been pointed out by the other Judge (Manini Bharti) as the speaker takes his time to conjure a counter.

12:10 PM: 

Court Room No. 7 – T26 v T23

The Judges seem to have the upper hand in this particular duel, directing the Respondents to move to the issue of in-camera proceedings first. The Speaker seems to have found his groove as he initiates his contentions, putting them across in an astute fashion, until the Judges stepped in. One intervention, and the Speaker seems to get flustered and fumbles with his claims.

Court Room No. 8 – T9 v T10

With 5 minutes of her allotted time left, the 1st Speaker from the Respondents seems to gradually move through her arguments. The Speaker then picks up pace and endeavors to exhaust her contentions. But she maintains a soothing tone throughout her submissions. The Petitioners are twitching in their seats as they get their rebuttals prepared. As the “2 Minutes Left” placard is hoisted in the air, the Speaker rushes through to conclude her speech, as the second speaker draws up her sword for battle.

12:30 PM:

Court Room No. 9 – T13 v T27

The Judges are merciless as they ruthlessly dissect every aspect of the Respondent’s argumentation. The Judges, displaying their in-depth knowledge on Constitutional Law issues, continue to grill the speaker. The speaker is unconvincing in his approach as the Judges seem dissatisfied with their submissions. The Speaker moves to conclude his arguments as he realizes that his time has lapsed. The Judges await the second speaker to reach the podium.

Court Room No. 10 – T2 v T3

The speaker attempts to persuade the Judge to accept her contention, but the Judge seems to be dissatisfied. The Judge then demands some legislative material in support of her claims. The Judge then pushes her into a corner while the speaker shuffles through her material in search for a rebuttal. An unflinching smile indicated that she had an arsenal to defend her stand. She confidently moves ahead as the Petitioners seem unnerved by her composure.

12:40 PM:

Court Room No. 11 – T22 v T29

The speaker from the Respondents and the Judges seem to share a light moment as it’s smiles all around in the court room, quite contrasting to what your humble blogger witnessed in the other court rooms. The laughter subsides as the parties get back to business. There is no love lost as the Judges continue their their questioning on matters related to the IPC. The speaker steers through confidently in retort but one slight slip and the Judges have latched on to it.

Court Room No. 12 – T20 v T14

This courtroom seems to be a people’s favourite. The crowd intently listens on to the submissions of the second speaker from the Respondents. The Petitioners seem to breathe easy as the speaker from the Respondents fumbles through her material and pleads ignorance on one count. She is getting all the help possible from her teammates, as huge chunks of material are passed on to her. This doesn’t seem to help her one bit as she moves on to her next argument. As the time elapsed the speaker is given one last opportunity to make amends.

12:50 PM:

Court Room No. 13 – T5 v T21

The second speaker from the Respondent sets up shop as he begins his speech. He commences his submissions with aplomb as he treads through murky waters. The Judges intervene, and the speaker loses his aura of invincibility and resorts to the same argument with an extended application. The Judges seem to have caught on to his weakness as they don’t let him breathe easy.

Court Room No. 14 – T8 v T1

The speaker seems put off by the question and asks the Judge to rephrase his statement, as she cheekily attempts to gain some time to think over it. The speaker is clearly struggling with her submissions, as she is getting assistance from her teammates. This seems to be of some help as the speaker, being constantly battered with questions, attempts to establish her arguments convincingly, and succeeds partially.

1:10 PM:

Court Room No. 7 – T26 v T23

This court room is taking forever to complete. The Judges seems to be completely engrossed in the proceedings and gave no signs of letting go.

1:30 PM:

Session 1 of the Preliminary rounds are complete. The teams have now broken for lunch. They will be back at 2 for the second session, all raring to go.

02:00 PM: We’re back now with Second Session of the Preliminary Rounds. The teams have arrived in their respective court rooms awaiting the Judges.

02:15 PM: And the rounds have begun.

Court Room No. 1 – T27 v T12

The Judges have pushed the Petitioners into a corner, with the Petitioner moving on to his next issue. Little did he know that the next issue would again bring the wrath of the Judges, as the Petitioner finds himself treading on a thin line between his arguments and misdirecting the Judges. With his time on  the podium coming to a close the second speaker from the Petitioners prepares his briefs.

Court Room No. 2 – T3 v T22

The speaker from the Petitioner’s side confidently sums up her arguments. Judge points out real life examples to counter her arguments. The round is progressing like clockwork. The Judges and the speaker have reached a consensus on the submissions, and it seems that she has done the impossible.

02:30 PM: 

Court Room No. 3 – T7 v T31

The Respondents start off positively, laying down his issues impressively. The Judges intently read the memorials seemingly drawing synergy between the written and the oral submissions.

The Judges have now caught on and proceeded to inquire about executive and judicial orders. The speaker flusters, his confidence remains a ghost of his former self. The Judges seemingly able to manipulate the arguments of the Respondents, put them off track.

Saved by the bell, literally, as for a lack of time the Respondents move on to the next issue, as the Judges concur.

Court Room No. 4 – T29 v T2

The Judges point out a contradiction in the Petitioners’ arguments. He proceeds to offer them an alternative way out, which would involve his concession to one of his submissions. The speaker unsuccessfully tries to scramble his way out to a safe zone. But the Judges are unforgiving and they hold him to the same deal. The speaker’s attempt to read out various legislative provisions are futile.

On the other hand, the Respondents pass notes among themselves to be prepared for a pair of proactive Judges.

Court Room No. 5 – T14 v T17

A heated atmosphere looms over the court room. The Petitioner finds herself on the back foot as the Judge, continues to obliterate every aspect of their submissions, in an attempt to gauge the Petitioner’s legal knowledge on the issue of media trial. The Judges keep posing back-to-back questions to the Petitioners and while the Petitioner tries her best to find an impenetrable ground to take. The Petitioner tries to be imposing, in hindsight, which may not be the best plan of action considering the reactions of the Judges.

Court Room No. 6 – T21 v T30

The second speaker from the Petitioners makes a long, composed argument, without any intervention from the Judges. The Judges seem completely satisfied with the arguments, and they move to the next submission. Considering the zealous nature of the Judges, the speaker has outdone himself here.

The photographer walks in to click some candid pictures, and takes everyone’s attention for a split-second. The speaker uses this as a decoy and goes on to sum up his arguments.

03:10 PM: 

Court Room No. 7 – T19 v T4

The Respondent’s aggressive stance can be attributed to her inability to convince the Judges. The Judges direct her to move on to the next issue. The speaker, finding her ground, starts off by clarifying the Judge’s dilemma, and the judges continue to engage her on her illustrations. The Judges seem unconvinced, as her time draws to an end. The second speaker starts off by answering various questions, and the Judges take the level up a notch. The blogger hears the word ‘wikipedia’ as he exits the room.

Court Room No. 8 – T24 v T5

The second speaker from the Petitioners continues with his submissions as the Respondents shift uneasily. The court bailiff continues to hoist the “Time Over” placard, but the Judges and the speakers are thoroughly engrossed in the exchange. The speaker continues to give real life analogies to answer the various questions posed by the Judges, which were clearly distinguished on facts by the knowledgeable Judges.

03:20 PM:

Court Room No. 9 – T1 v T9

The Respondent begins establishing his case, as the Judges begin their line of questioning. By hitting at the heart of the problem, the Judges question the legal nature of droids of artificial intelligence. Mens Rea, as a theory, was questioned extensively by the Judges, with the speaker doing his best to answer the questions put forth.

Court Room No. 10 – T23 v T 15

The Judges demand the first speaker from the Respondents to concede an argument due to lack of logical connectivity. On constant prompting by the second speaker, the Judges pause time, and provide feedback to the speakers. The first speaker is clearly flustered by the proceedings, and continues reading out of her notebook. The Judges, showing some sympathy, suggest arguments to the speaker. But the speaker is completely put off her balance, and froze. The tables have turned, as the Judges are doing their best to extract an argument out of the speaker. The speaker then gathers herself and continues reading from her material, but this is looking more and more like a lost cause.

03:30 PM:

Court Room No. 11 – T11 v T13

The speaker from the Respondent follows his argument with relative ease and appears confident. The Judges, it seems, like a good challenge as they continue trying to unnerve the speaker. But the speaker remains unperturbed and maintains his composure. At one point, the Judges pointed out a fallacy, which surprisingly did not deter the confidence of the speaker. He continues on the path of success to appear out of the abyss unharmed.

Court Room No. 12 – T10 v T8

The speaker tries to wriggle out of the questioning related to the Turing test. But the Judges continue to bring him back to the same issue. The quick-witted speaker is successful in moving past that issue. He further goes on to deflect a question by transferring the burden of that issue to his teammate. The Petitioners seem pretty confident during the Respondents’  submission, indicating the ease with which their submissions had proceeded.

03:45 PM:

Court Room No. 13 – T6 v T26

The bloggers apologize as the rounds had ended before we could reach the court room. But from the looks of it, the teams were jubilant and it must have been an engaging round.

Court Room No. 14 – T16 v T20

A good exchange of arguments were taking place between the Petitioners and the Judges. The Judges seem to be lenient, as they ignored the pointer by the court bailiff that the speaker’s time has elapsed. The speaker quickly sums up her issue and moves on to her next one, as the Judges quickly take notes of the same. The Judges then look through the compendium to find some authority to stop the speaker in her tracks. But the speaker continues her good flow and ends her arguments on a high.

04:00 PM: The Preliminary Rounds have come to a close. All the teams are eagerly awaiting the results to know who has proceeded to the Quarter Finals. We wish the best of luck for all the participants. Stay tuned to be the first to know the results!

05:00 PM: And the results are out!

The teams which have qualified for the Quarter Finals are:

  1. Amity Law School, IP University
  2. Government Law College, Mumbai
  3. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  4. Jindal Global Law School
  5. National Law School India University, Bangalore
  6. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
  7. School of Law, Christ University
  8. Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Congratulations to the teams who have qualified. The rounds are about to begin. Keep in touch to stay updated.

Hard luck to the teams which haven’t qualified. You win some, you lose some. On the bright side, you have an amazing party to look forward to.


05:30 PM: 

Court Room No. 1 – T11 v T21 ( NLSIU v GNLU)

The Petitioner accidentally cites a wrong provision. The Judges, quick on their feet, identify the mistake, and puts the speaker on the back foot. The speaker is left playing catch up throughout. The Petitioner is juggling between complying with the bench and clarifying his stance. The Judges are dynamically adapting their questions to the changing stance of the Petitioners.

The second speaker, in his booming voice, replies to the Judges’ questions confidently. The Judges point out some facts to retort the contentions of the speaker. As his time is about to elapse, he wraps up his arguments, excluding the last argument, for which the Judges give him 2 minutes to conclude. Even these 2 minutes do not pass without questioning and cross-questioning by the Judges. The Petitioner seems to have maintained his calm even with the heavy questions posed.

05:50 PM:

Court Room No. 2 – T16 v T10 (SLS, Pune v GLC)

The Judge tries to the amend the Petitioner’s prayer, but the speaker refuses to accept the same and continues her submissions. The Judges nod in concurrence to her submissions. The speaker’s time has elapsed, but the Judges, considering the confident nature of her submissions, exceed her time by 2 minutes.

Checking the veracity of the provisions cited, the Judges seem to take the contentions and proceed with their questioning. The subtle nods from the Judges seem to uplift the Petitioner’s confidence.

The interaction has now transcended the realm of the moot proposition and is now based on repercussions of giving a judgment in favor of the Petitioner. The Judge, in a very mellow voice, dismantles the arguments of the speaker. Legal status of the droid remains a major part of the questioning by the Judges throughout the competition, and this round is no exception.

Time does not seem to matter, as the Judges encourage the Petitioners to take their time in convincing the Judges of their stand.


06:10 PM:

Court Room No. 3- T24 v T23 (NUALS v Amity IP )

The Petitioner has identified a new issue, which wasn’t raised in the written pleadings, which the bench refuses to accept. As the speaker continues on that line of argument, the bench gets restless and deflects the submissions of the speaker. The Judge then proceeds to direct the attention of the speaker to the right issue, to no avail, as the speaker has wasted a considerable amount of time on a futile argument.

The Petitioner seems to be put on a stand, as the Judges grow impatient with the tautological reasoning, which the Petitioner’s have been asserting throughout. The Judges directed the speaker to conclude with the allotted time now over.

The Respondents discussed issues regarding the legal status of an animal and comparing that to that of an artificial intelligence droid. Being judged by the drafter of the moot proposition, the speaker is being constantly battered with questions which deal with intricate parts of the moot proposition.

The Respondents seem to have a difficulty in proving intention of the criminal act. The Judges strictly adhered to the time limits proposed. (Guess they’re pretty excited about the party)


06:30 PM:

Court Room No. 4 – T6 v T3 (JGLS v Christ)

The Petitioners are just wrapping up his arguments as the judges showcase their knowledge and grasp over the subject. The Petitioner fumbles initially, but moves on to much more stable ground. The Speaker partially concedes to an argument. You’ve heard the saying “You lose some battles, but you win the war”.

The Judges give an extension of merely 2 minutes for the speaker, and he proceeds to summarize his arguments quickly.

The Respondents have also been directed to summarize their arguments and keep it crisp. The Judges question the speaker on the logical nexus between their arguments. The Judge also offers the speaker to take any help from her teammate, for convincingly completing an argument.


07:00 PM:  The rounds have just concluded. The teams are waiting for the results. Stay in touch to be updated.


07:45 PM: And the results are out!

The following teams have made it to the Semi Finals:

  1. Amity Law School, IP University
  2. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  3. School of Law, Christ University
  4. Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

Congratulations to the teams that qualified.

We now break for the party, held at Levana, our Hospitality Partners. A fun night is in store for everyone. This is where everybody wins.

Signing off for today. Please tune in tomorrow for updates on the rest of the competition.


Day-3, 28th February, 2016

09:30 AM: Good Morning everyone. The Semi-Finals are all set to begin at 10:00. The teams are all set to fight it out in the penultimate round.

10:00 AM: And the rounds have begun.

10:20 AM: Court Room No. 1 – GNLU v Amity IP

The Judges seem to have tag-teamed against the speaker from the Petitioner, as he adds on to the questions. The speaker shuffles through his material in search of an answer to all the questions. The speaker smartly navigates through the sea of questions and moves on with his submissions. But there seems to be no respite as he is bombarded with more and more questions.

Handling a 5 Judge bench is no joke, and the speaker seems to be doing a great job at that. During his submissions, 2 Judges consort among themselves, which brings a wry smile on their faces. Looks like they’ve got a wild card to throw at the speaker.

The speaker soon gains momentum and proceeds with his submissions without any intervention for a couple of minutes. But this was never going to be a cakewalk, as the joy was short lived for the speaker as the Judges continue to try putting the speaker off track.

The speaker highlights the Aruna Shanbaug case as the blogger moves out of the room.

10:50 AM: Court Room No. 1 – GNLU v Amity IP

The second speaker from the Petitioners’ side manages to reach a consensus with one of the Judges. As both parties nod in unison, the speaker moves ahead confidently, satisfied with himself.

The speaker now seems to be on a roll. As he moves along in a composed manner, all the Judges seems to be content with his submissions. The speaker then moves on conclude his arguments and leaves the podium for the Respondents. A job well done by the Petitioners.

Court Room No. 2 – Christ University v Symbiosis, Pune

There has been a slight delay in the commencement of this round.


11:20 AM: Court Room No. 2 – Christ University v Symbiosis, Pune

Dealt a very proactive bench, the first speaker from the Petitioner’s seems to have things tilted against her. But she gives it her best shot and continues with her submissions.

The Aruna Shanbaug case seems to be in the thick of things in this court room too. The speaker clarifies her stance quickly, much to the satisfaction of the bench. The speaker seems to have all the answers the bench needs as they look pleased with her  submissions.

The speaker cites an authority, and the bench immediately reacts by demanding the compendium. The court bailiff proceeds to provide it to the bench as the speaker anxiously looks on.

Court Room No. 1 – GNLU v Amity IP

The 2nd speaker from the Respondents has taken to the podium. The Judges take turns at having a go at the speaker.

Mens Rea takes up a major portion of the speaker’s time as he attempts to establish the intention of the humanoid in committing the crime. The speaker waits patiently for the Judge to complete his question, after which he calmly submits his side of the case. The other judges look on, patiently waiting for the speaker to slip up.


12:15 PM: Court Room No. 1 – GNLU v Amity IP

This round has just been completed as the teams and the judges walk out of the room.


Court Room No. 2 – Christ University v Symbiosis, Pune

The second speaker takes the podium and she begins her arguments. The freedom of press plays a big role in how the proceedings unfold. The whole court room shares a light moment as the speaker uses the phrase “the nation wants to know”. But there is no love lost as the Judges continue to put the speaker on the back foot.

The Judge exclaims “conspiracy” as the speaker is passed a not from her teammate. The speaker breaks into an awkward smile, but that is not helping her wriggle out of this tough spot she’s been put in.


02:30 PM: And after a long wait, the results for the Semi Finals are out. The teams which have progressed to the Final Rounds of the 4th RMLNLU  SCCOnline International Media Law Moot Court Competition, 2016 are:

  1. Amity Law School, IP University
  2. School of Law, Christ University

Congratulations to both the teams! But there’s no time to breath as the Finals are scheduled to begin at 3 PM. We’ll be back with updates on the Finals as soon as they begin.


03:00 PM: There is a buzz in the air as people swarm into the humongous Moot Court Hall. The teams are performing their pre-game rituals as they shuffle through their material frantically. The teams are all ready to give it one last shot, with everything they have, as there’s a lot at stake here.

The audience settled down, and there is complete silence as the Hon’ble Judges walk in and take their seats,. The blogger walks in and sets up shop, making the least amount of havoc possible, as the conspicuous noise of the air conditioning fills the Hall.

The First Speaker from the side of the Petitioner’s walks up to the podium, as the Judges look down upon her from their elevated seats. The speaker faces the daunting task of convincing this dynamic bench. But hey, who said it was ever going to be easy.


03:15 PM: Moot Court Hall – Christ University v Amity IP (FINALS)

The First speaker confidently puts forth her arguments and is moving from strength to strength here. The speaker is paused by the Judges to ask her opinion about a specific judgment. The speaker diplomatically answers that she does not have the authority to question the veracity of judgments, which brings a smile to Judge’s face. Looks like a pretty solid start.

03:30 PM: Moot Court Hall – Christ University v Amity IP (FINALS)

The Speaker’s allotted time has elapsed, but the Judges seem to be giving no heed to the court bailiff’s pointers, as time is not an issue at this stage of the competition. Nevertheless, the speaker attempts to summarize her arguments and quickly concludes her submissions. The speaker then walks off the podium, with a grin, seemingly satisfied with the way her submissions panned out.

The Second Speaker from the Petitioner’s side purposefully walks up to the podium. She sets up her material on the podium before breaking off into a composed speech.


03:45 PM: Moot Court Hall – Christ University v Amity IP (FINALS)

The speaker is moving on with her submission with considerable momentum as the Judges do not intervene her arguments for a couple of minutes. But when it rains, it pours. One intervention by the Judge seems to have opened the floodgates as she is posed multiple questions by the bench. She attempts to answer all the questions, one by one, and in the process moves on to her next issue.


04:10 PM: Moot Court Hall – Christ University v Amity IP (FINALS)

The Petitioner’s finish their submissions on a high note as the second speaker convincingly puts across a judgment a proves her point. With that she ends her submissions and moves back to her seat. The Petitioner’s feel a sense of relief. They’ve given it their best shot.

The First Speaker of the Respondent looks up to the challenge, as there is no lack of conviction as she walks up to the podium and arranges her material to begin.


04:30 PM: Moot Court Hall – Christ University v Amity IP (FINALS)

The Judge holds the speaker to one question, as he treads down the path the question is taking. The speaker attempts to answer it quickly and move ahead with her submissions. After receiving a satisfactory answer, the Judges allow the speaker to continue with her contentions uninterrupted.


04:50 PM: Moot Court Hall – Christ University v Amity IP (FINALS)

The Speaker wraps up her arguments and walks off the podium only to let her teammate take her place.

The Second Speaker from the Respondents begins with the issue relating to euthanasia and suicide. He starts off well as he sets the layout for his stance. As he moves ahead, the Judge stops him in his tracks and points out a logical fallacy in his arguments. The speaker is now left to play catch-up to elucidate the logical nexus in his arguments. Giving credit where it is deserved, the speaker cleverly answers the question and connects that to his subsequent arguments, and cruises ahead.

The Speaker then moves on to delve into the issue of cybernetics as he gains momentum.


05:30 PM: And with that we’ve come to an end of the Finals of the 4th RMLNLU-SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition. Both the teams look very tired, and why wouldn’t they be. It’s been one long weekend. Everybody is now moving towards the Seminar Hall for the Valedictory Ceremony and the Prize Distribution.

Stay tuned to know who’s taking home the prize!


07:30 PM: And we’re back folks! The results are out!

The team which has gone on to win the 4th RMLNLU-SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition is *drumroll*……..

Amity Law School, IP University


Here below are the complete list of winners and their respective prizes.

Amity Law School, IP University – Winners: Trophy and cash prize of Rs. 25,000 along with SCC Online Web Edition Platinum cards.

School of Law, Christ University – Runners Up: Trophy and cash prize of Rs. 15,000 along with English Law One Year Subscriptions to Supreme Court Cases – Print Edition.

Symbiosis Law School, Pune – Best Memorial: Trophy and cash prize of Rs. 10,000.

National University for Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi – 2nd Best Memorial: e-book by Abhinav Chandrachud – ‘Due Process of Law’

 Siddhant Bajaj (Amity IP)  Best Oralist (Finals): e-book by Abhinav Chandrachud – ‘Due Process of Law’

Shared between Rouble Sorkkar (Christ University) & Shivansh Jolly (GNLU) – Best Oralist (Prelims): Trophy, cash prize of Rs. 10,000, e-book by Abhinav Chandrachud – ‘Due Process of Law’

 Siddhant Bajaj (Amity IP) – 2nd Best Oralist (Prelims): e-book by Abhinav Chandrachud – ‘Due Process of Law’


We congratulate all the winners for their noteworthy performances. It’s time to say goodbye now. We’d like to say a big thank you to all our sponsors, Eastern Book Company, SCC Online, Coca Cola and Levana.

We’ll be back again next year. Till then, signing off for one last time this year, is the blog team. Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!