Law School NewsLive Blogging

The Asia Chapter of the 2022 CLEA Mooting Competition will commence with the National Round for India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. It is conducted at Mar Gregorios College of Law, Thiruvananthapuram, in association with the Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA), from 10th to 12th November, 2022. The Mooting Competition is held biannually by CLEA and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) wherein representatives from the Commonwealth regions of North America, United Kingdom, Caribbean, South Asia (India), Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia, South, West and East Africa, Australasia, and the Pacific compete for the ‘Common Wealth Shield’. The initiative has grown over the years and attracts fine talents, providing a platform for students to participate, interact and gain exposure.


Mar Gregorios College of Law (MGCL) has been conferred with the SILF-MILAT National Institutional Excellence Award in 2017 as recognition for its exceptional contribution to legal education. The institution strives to be a platform to impart quality legal education to aspiring students.


The National Rounds will be held in four stages: Preliminary, Quarter Final, Semi-Final and the Final Round. The winning team of the National Round will represent India in the Commonwealth Moot, i.e., the Seventeenth Commonwealth Moot, 2023 to be held in conjunction with the 21st Commonwealth Law Conference, 2023.


The foremost aim of the CLEA is development of a Model Human Rights Curriculum as an exemplary model for institutions interested in offering a course on Human Rights to their undergraduate students. Current legal focus has been on the recent debacle of the global pandemic which ensued in a barrage of human rights violations and ill-suited counter-measures by governments worldwide. Ergo, the topic for this edition of the CLEA Moot aims to explore the nuances of human rights, constitutional and labour law.




Day 1

10th November, 2022


2:00 PM The participating teams have arrived at Mar Gregorios College of Law (MGCL), all suited up and schooling their excitement to engage in erudite discussions with fellow participants.


2:30 PM The teams are getting acquainted with their designated liaison officers as they are shown around the campus and proceed to formal registration.



3:00 PM The stage is set for the commencement of the Inaugural Ceremony as the audience trickle in and eagerly await the distinguished guests of the day- Shri. P. Rajeeve, Minister for Law, Industries and Coir, Govt. of Kerala, Prof. Dr. Dilip Ukey, Vice-Chancellor, Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai, Prof. Dr. S Sivakumar, Senior Professor, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi, Vice President and Trustee of CLEA, President of CLEA South Asia.


3:30 PM   – The co-hosts of the day, Aleena Johnson and Athera Gopan kick off the function and cordially welcome the dignitaries, members of the organising committee, participants and audience to the event.



3:45 PM   – Respected Principal Dr. John PC and venerable Director Rev. Dr. Koshy Isaac Punnamoottil escort the dignitaries to formally begin the event by lighting the lamp. Also joining them onstage are Mrs. Sushma George, Assistant Professor, MGCL and Dr. Gigimon V. S. Executive Member, CLEA (South Asia) and Associate Professor &  Head of the Department, MGCL. Athera Gopan and Muhammed Nihaal, President and Vice President of the MGCL Moot Court Society respectively, also take to the stage for the lighting of the lamp.


3:50 PM   – The Principal takes to the stage to deliver the welcome address and heartily wishes all participants luck and fortitude.


4:13 PM    – Shri. P. Rajeeve delivers the Inaugural Address. He earnestly states that the profession of law is a noble calling and how pertinent it is to use it as an instrument of social design. He also delves a bit into the ideology and culture of Indian Constitution, narrating a pertinent incident during the Constituent Assembly Debates. Some members, namely H.V. Kamath mooted vigorously on whether to frame the preamble of the Indian constitution ‘in the name of God’, until the assembly finally rejected the proposal. This calls attention to the dedication of the constitution draftsmen and their attention to even the general wording of the constitution that could inspire thought waves. Mr. Rajeeve emphasizes that the true essence of the lies in the Constituent Assembly Debates and asserts that mooting is what bears efficient lawyers and as well as individual development.



4:30 PM    – Dr. Dilip Ukey takes the stage and cites several cases and adeptly brings up the paramountcy of case law while simultaneously bringing up legal scholar Upendra Baxi’s view on the import of the Indian Constitution. He briefly excerpts from the landmark cases of Maneka Gandhi and S.R. Bommai. He stresses that students of law must entirely familiarize themselves with judgements to develop an understanding of law. Professor acknowledges that mooting unravels the intricacies to interpreting law and inculcates the skills of advocacy, articulation and legal reasoning.



4:40 PM    – S. Sivakumar takes the stage and addresses the students enthusiastically, putting the students’ knowledge to the test and quizzing them on distinctive provisions of our constitution. He also fondly recalls his teacher Dr. N. R. Madhava Menon, renowned legal educator, and his mission towards furthering legal education. The constitution given to him by Professor Sivakumar as a memento, continues to adorn the MGCL library and he urges the students to hold it to their heart, this vanguard of our life and liberty. He ends his address with a quote by Bradley Whitford, “Infuse your life with action. Do not wait for it to happen. Make it happen. Make your own future. Make your own hope. Make your own love. And whatever your beliefs, honour your creator, not by passively waiting for grace to come down from upon high, but by doing what you can to make grace happen”.



4:59 PM     – The Director of MGCL, Rev. Dr. Koshy Isaac Punnamoottil renders the vote of thanks and concludes the formal event.


5:00 PM     – The Inaugural Session comes to an end with the National Anthem.


5:06 PM     – Participants dispersed for tea.


5:52 PM     – The participants regroup for a briefing session by the organizing committee on the rules and penalties.



6:15 PM     – Participant teams are called up to draw the lots which is to decide the courts and their side of the counsel. The 32 teams will be filing into their designated 16 courts which are to operate simultaneously.  The teams exchanged their memorials under the supervision of the organizing committee.



7:02 PM   – Day 1 concludes as participants disperse for dinner.


Day 2

11th November, 2022


7:15 AM   – Day 2 begins with the arrival of the competitors, all fired up and bustling about as they head for a quick breakfast.


8:00 AM   – Meanwhile, the court management team holds a meeting to review the game-plan as the organizing committee drills through the rules of procedure and the court managers harmoniously weave through their myriad duties.



9:30 AM    – The esteemed judges for Preliminary Round 1 & 2 are engaging in a briefing session wherein they are intimated the rules and penalties for the competition. They will be  given an overview of the problem and the bench memorial in question.


The problem for CLEA Mooting 2022 South Asian rounds is as follows- In the country of Rosehill owing to the pandemic, a countrywide lockdown was imposed to curtail the spread of the virus. Factories and workplaces were closed leading to a loss of livelihood for millions of workers. The circumstances resulted in a humanitarian and health security challenge and an exceptional logistical nightmare. The focus of the case lies in whether the government-imposed restriction and counter-measures were ultra-vires of the constitution. The government suspended significant labour laws to incentivize economic and industrial activities in the State. The Central Government also made mandatory, a personal tracking application- CoviTrack, which brought up concerns regarding the safety of the privacy of the data stored. There were allegations of excessive surveillance through drones by the centre. Reports also brought to light that private laboratories had resorted to conducting vaccine trials on humans without any preclinical trials on animals, as well as unaccountable testing on orphans from slum areas in the capital region of Braavos.

In this background, Association of Democratic Rights (ADR) has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of Rosehill challenging various actions of the Government during the covid period. The Supreme Court of Rosehill has admitted the petition and framed the following issues for consideration:

 1. Whether the executive order of the Government of Rosehill declaring lockdown on 25. 03. 2020 is constitutionally valid? Whether sudden imposition of lockdown via an executive order violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Rosehill?

2. Whether the ordinance passed by the State of Braavos dated 25. 04. 2020 which suspended several labour laws, violated fundamental rights of workers, and subsequently the International Labour Organisation Conventions is valid?

3. Whether the application CoviTrack, Braavos’s sharing of the personal data of the quarantined persons on the website and use of mysterious drones violative of the right to privacy?

4. Whether the Central Government of Rosehill and the State Government of Braavos violated several human rights, both enumerated and unenumerated, under the national and international legal regime during the post Covid regime?

5. Whether the regulations issued by the Government under the Epidemic Act, 1897 on 15. 07. 2020 making vaccination compulsory violative of the rights protected by its Constitution?




10:25AM   – COURT 01

Petitioner 2 concludes their round of oral pleading asserting the blatant violation of the indispensable Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution, resulting from the government’s severe countermeasures to the pandemic.

The judges confer extra time to the respondents as the petitioners had gone over time in their pleading.

Respondent 1 takes the floor and backs up their arguments by citing the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and its legal ambit read with the extent of authority conferred by the Concurrent List; as well as the Directive Principles of State Policy which constitutionally binds the government to implement measures for protection of public health. They also bring up the pertinent point that Article 21 – Right to Life, also recognizes the right to health and cites cases for the same. The judges go on to question the respondent on whether there ought not to be a balancing facet to whatever measures the government takes to the upholding of individual interests.


10:45 AM   – Court 02

The Court had moved onto the rebuttals. The judges dissected the respondent would feel if their personal information as part of medical treatment disclosed by the state and how the respondent could justify the violation of right to privacy? The respondent contended that the state was only trying to contain the spread of the virus.

The judges state that the purpose of the tracking app was arbitrary and that the government could have adopted other measures without compromising the rights of the citizen. The petitioner during rebuttal, contends that the surveillance measures of the govt are not in accordance to any provisions of the law. They also point out that the respondents were inefficient in discharging their duty accountably and as such did not have any case.


11:05 AM    – Court 04

During the rebuttals, the counsel for the respondent argued that the Government action of suspending the right to privacy of the citizens was well within its ambit, for it was carried out in the interest of the public. Further, they went on to say that the State’s decision to do away with certain labour legislations was to stabilize the economy and not in favour of the affluent sections of the populace as contended by the petitioners in their pleading. The respondents also bring to the fore, the statement of the petitioners that the vaccination schemes undertaken by the government were ineffective; they had not provided produced statistical evidence or reports to corroborate such an allegation.





12:03 PM   – Court 10

The Petitioner begins presenting their case and submits that the executive order by the government was constitutionally invalid as it violated Articles 14 and 21, as well as opposed to the pertinent doctrine of the separation of powers. They also point out that the government action in the present scenario suffers from an excessive delegation of legislation and curtails essential legal and fundamental rights which are not to be encroached at any time. The Petitioner reasons that such an arbitrary order as in the present case should not have been made by executive action. The judge reasons that a lockdown was the most common adopted measure to counter the pandemic and the counsel asserts that they do not condemn the notion of lockdowns, but only the inefficiency and insensitive inequity with which they implemented it; this resulted in the disparity between circumstances from state to state, rendering certain states carrying burdens they need not have. They emphasize that the need of different states vary and that the government initiatives were not within the ambit of the National Disaster Management Authority Act.


12:25 PM   – Court 16

The petitioner maintains that the data collected by the personal tracking app exceeds the requisites for which the app was intended and that it was not executed in proportion to the State’s interest. They also propound that private rights were exposed to public scrutiny and reminds the court of the drones employed by the State and how it was used as a ‘weapon of surveillance’ and functioned like a ‘Police State’. They submit that the vaccination regulation in action was not reasonable and quite excessive. The petitioner also condemns the curtail of Right to Freedom of Movement and Right to Movement and prays for the court to recognize the invalidity of the government implementation, especially that of suspension of labour laws which is a gross violation of workers’ fundamental rights.


12:35 PM   – Court 15

The respondent stresses that the limited time frame compelled the government to not remain passive and undertake swift action so as to curb the spread of disease, prioritizing its duty to protect the lives of citizens. The judge questions as to what the reason was applied while enforcing the orders and the pleader voices that the criticality of the situation which endangered public health and dismantled the healthcare system practically compelled the government to go through with strict measures. It was crucial to remember that the State did not possess sufficient infrastructural facilities to soften the blow on its economy. They reason that their course of action cannot be labelled unreasonable merely because they are harsh. The question of liberty would come only secondary to that of life. They assert that the unprecedented situation called for hasty but feasible approaches for the primary goal was welfare.


12:49 PM   – Court 13

The judges declare that the economic measures undertaken by the government should have been subjected to review to facilitate an element of efficiency under control. Respondent 1 chooses to highlight the plight of the epidemic and the burden of the government; Fundamentals rights are not absolute.  Respondent 2 takes the stage and insists that the state had to enforce regulation as the restriction were necessary in the face of possible deterioration of the public health machinery. The drones villainized by the petitioners were a mere welfare oriented effort on the part of the State. The judge pursues a line of questioning asking the respondent to justify their contention with relevant case laws.


01:01 PM   – Court 12

The judges question the respondents based on their contentions and proceeds to ask for a definition of human rights as well as the extent of the Right to a decent burial. The Respondent retorts by combing through various provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and stresses the statutory right conferred to the National Authority to adopt ‘any measures for preventing mitigating disaster’. The judge points out the intransient biological effects of vaccination and that it should not be trivialized as a temporary measure while simultaneously questioning why a person should be denied the right to choose or alternatively, the right to not avail the ‘benefit’ of vaccination. The respondent strongly stands ground and supplies that public health will be compromised if even one fails to get vaccinated.



01:30 PM   – Everyone disperses for lunch.


02:39 PM  – Dr. Gigimon V. S., Organising Secretary has announced the qualifiers to the Quarter Finals along with their allotted court rooms.


The following are the eight teams qualified to the Quarter Finals:

CM 02
CM 07
CM 11
CM 13
CM 17
CM 20
CM 22
CM 24



03:45 PM    – Court 04

The bench and petitioner have been going back and forth about the date of a decided case related to lockdown of March 2020. The bench seems to be considering whether their cases quoted in the memorial carry weight. The petitioners have gotten penalized since a paper was passed to the presenter by the teammates when the bench drilled them on Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. It has been clearly stated in the rules that no document or chit can be passed to the presenter by the teammates while they are presenting.


04:20 PM    – Court 03

The respondent contends that there was no violation of labour legislations, and the ordinance was in accordance with Article 123 of the constitution – Power of the President to promulgate Ordinances during Recess of Parliament. The actions of the government, as stated by the respondents, was a result of the unprecedented outbreak of the virus.


04:37 PM    – The Quarter Finals conclude, and participants break for tea.


04:50 PM    – Preparations are underway to conduct the Researcher’s Test. So far, they have accompanied their team members during the Oral Presentation.


05:15 PM      The Researcher’s Test assesses the scope, clarity of thought and language of research and naturally, the knowledge of facts of the case, legislations in question and intricacies of the Moot problem. The questions are posed in MCQ format based on applicable laws, precedents, and facts pertaining to the proposition. We see the students puzzling over the problems.



07:00 PM     The Quarter Finals qualifiers are announced as the teams cheer on in earnest after a hard day’s work of fruitful travail.

CM 11
CM 20
CM 22
CM 24


07:15 PM      – The students fall into easy rhythm around the campus and amidst mutual appreciation and camaraderie, everyone pops into the ever-lively cafeteria for a bite of dinner before bracing themselves for the final leg of the competition.


Day 3

12th November 2022

8:30 AM         – The third and final day of CLEA MOOT South Asian Rounds is all set to begin as the participant teams arrive at the college and help themselves to a hearty brekkie.


9:58 AM         – Esteemed Judges for the day have arrived.


10:00 AM       – The second round of Researcher’s test in the form an interview is first on today’s lineup.


10:12 AM       – The eagerly awaiting teams gather and the session commences with the arrival of the Respected Judges of the day.


10:34 AM        – Court 02

The petitioners advance a compendium to the bench as they interrogate.



10:45 AM        – Court 02

Oralist 2 of the counsel of petitioners have taken to the dais.



11:00 AM        – Court 01

Oralist 1 of the counsel of respondents takes to the dais.



11:20 AM        – Court 02

The bench maintains that the declaration of lockdown as it went down was illegal as it confines people to their homes, consequently damaging the means of livelihood to which the respondents reply that only non essential services were restricted and that limited rights were not suspended.



11:24 AM  –  Court 01

Oralist 1 of the counsel of petitioners arguments has really captivated the bench as well as the audience while she was delivering her final note.

11:24 AM  –  Court 01

Oralist 2 advances the compendium to the bench through the court manager as she takes on to the dais.



11:39  AM  –  Court 02

Counsel 1 of respondent concludes their argument stating that the constitution will prevail over provisions of International Labor Convention in circumstances of urgency or dispute and thereby the ordinance is constitutionally valid.


11:40  AM  –  Court 01

The Article 41 and the landmark Puttuswamy case are being discussed back and forth between the bench and Oralist 2 of the Respondents. The presenter sheds light upon the importance and benefits of being vaccinated and the statistics of a vaccinated person against a non-vaccinated person in being hospitalized.

11:45  AM  –  Court 02

Counsel 2 for the Respondent contends that they have not violated the right to privacy to which the bench  questions how the data was collected and whether it was based on a contract or compulsion. They note that the mandatory downloading of the app brings in the element of force.


11:52 AM   – Court 01

The respondents present their prayer and the petitioners present their rebuttal on several issues argued by the respondents.


11:59 AM   – Court 01

The session has concluded as the judges proceed to score and evaluate.


12:00  PM   – Court 02

The counsel relies on Mill’s Theory of Liberty and asserts that the State has the authority to curb liberty if it harms members of society. In the case at hand, the speaker maintains that unvaccinated people pose a threat to the health of the public.


12:06 PM     – Court 02

The counsel asks for an extension of two minutes. The bench grants a minute to the counsel to summarize. The counsel concludes with the prayer.


12:07 PM     – Court 02 

The bench asks for a brief rebuttal as both the counsels have covered almost all relevant points.


12:10 PM    – Court 02

The session has concluded and the judges move on to score the teams.


12:20 PM    – Court 03 [ONLINE SESSION]

The sole team from Bangladesh, CM 34 has advanced directly to the semi finals. They are engaged in an online mooting session with CM 29.


CM 22
CM 24




2:16 PM   – The Final Round of the CLEA Mooting South Asian Round commences and the co-counsel for the petitioners takes the floor.




2:19 PM   – The counsel submits before the judge that the executive order by the government is not constitutionally valid and its sudden implementation of lockdown.


2:22 PM   – The Bench asks for a quick rundown of the facts of the case.


2:24 PM   – The bench asserts that the circumstances were extraordinary to the counsel’s plea as they moot against the constitutional correctness of the government.


2:25 PM    – The bench states that there is no right if there is no life and that extraordinary situation calls for extraordinary measures.


2:29 PM     – The counsel contends that the Union ought to have let the states exercise their autonomy so that equitable measures were applied across its states.


2:30 PM   – The bench insists that the burden lies on the petitioners to suggest alternate judicial remedies to the case and the petitioner submits with deference that this responsibility lies with the respondents, which is rejected by the honorable judges.


2:19 PM   – The counsel submits before the judge that the executive order by the government is not constitutionally valid and its sudden implementation of lockdown.


2:22 PM   – The Bench asks for a quick rundown of the facts of the case.


2:24 PM   – The bench asserts that the circumstances were extraordinary to the counsel’s plea as they moot against the constitutional correctness of the government.


2:25 PM    – The bench states that there is no right if there is no life and that extraordinary situation calls for extraordinary measures.


2:29 PM     – The counsel contends that the Union ought to have let the states exercise their autonomy so that equitable measures were applied across its states.


2:37 PM   – The counsel moots that the right to be heard has been taken away the moment the government has suspended a number of legislations emphasizing that ibi jus, ibi remedium and also vigorously vouches for the many sufferings of the marginalized communities and the working class.


2:38 PM   – The counsel begins the second issue and argues that social and economic interests must go hand in hand and that government ought not to have suspended the labour legislation.


2:39 PM   – The counsel sums up the argument for third issue as they have run out of time focusing on the right to privacy, choice and bodily autonomy.


2:44 PM   – The second co-counsel of the petitioners has taken to the dais.



2:45 PM   – The counsel goes on to say that the government has killed the “democratic instinct” of the people. The bench observes that the sharing of personal information with the government was carried out in the absence of any alternative methods.


2:49 PM   – The counsel submits that the data collected was abused thereby putting the privacy of millions at stake.


2:50 PM   – The counsel cites instances of security companies selling off bulk personal information and health data  to the dark web.


2:52  PM   – The bench questions whether restrictions were not imposed in the interest of upholding national security. The counsel replies that there was no exercise of legal mandate behind the practiced procedures.


2:57  PM   – The bench declares that the migrant workers were provided with food and shelter. The counsel directs the attention of the bench to the facts of the case which states that the schemes were carried out inefficiently.


3:00 PM    – The counsel begins to moot for the final issue. They argue that the right to life, fair treatment and dignity extends to not only a living person but of a dead body as well. The bench states that the government had to prioritize the life of the living over the dignity of the dead under such unprecedented circumstances.


3:02 PM    – The bench’s interrogation of the oralist 2 of the counsel of petitioners resumes even as the time limit has exceeded and is conferred extra minutes.


3:04 PM    – The counsel argues that the mandatory vaccination was a violation of right to bodily autonomy and concludes with the prayer.


3:09 PM    – The bench suspends the session for a brief break of five minutes.


3:15 PM    – The court commences and the respondents approach the dais.


3:20 PM     – The counsel 1 for the respondent begins by presenting the compendium to the bench.



3:24 PM   – The bench asks for the provision for medical emergency in the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The counsel states that the pandemic falls under Category L3 as the State government could not efficiently sustain and thereby falls under section 2(d) of the aforementioned act.

3:27 PM   – The bench questions as to which provision with regard to fundamental rights were violated by the government. The counsel argues that there was no violation of any fundamental rights.

3:30 PM    – The bench refuses to accept the reference to Puttuswami case and finds the comparison between the circumstances that led to the former judgment and current pandemic case to be unnecessary.

3:32 PM    – The counsel moves on to cite the Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 which grants the State the power to enact measures to curb epidemics.

3:33 PM    – The bench refuses to accept the reference to Puttuswami case and finds the comparison between the circumstances that led to the judgment and that during the pandemic unnecessary.

3:34 PM    – The bench asks whether power conferred to the Centre, allows the government to take away rights through an executive order. The counsel argues that there were only limited restrictions subject to reasonable conditions.

3:35 PM    – To the counsel’s claim that the government performed to its best capacity at the sudden onset of the pandemic, the bench states that the government should have foreseen the pandemic as it moved across the globe and thought out measures following the guidelines of the World Health Organization.

3:38 PM    – The counsel makes a comparison to other nations and their handling of the pandemic to which the bench retorts that India was the only state which imposed a nation wide lockdown.

3:42 PM     – The bench states that the respondents acted without vision as the schemes for providing food facilities were put into action only after a considerable delay during which the people suffered without food.

3:45 PM      – The judges lightheartedly prod that the counsel, asking the respondent to ‘apologize’ for not having sufficient copies for all three judges of the bench.


3:46 PM   – The counsel submits two research papers which evidences that in ,countries where lockdowns were not imposed the transmission rates of the virus were higher. The judges find the research papers to not be credible because they can be doctored by the government themselves. The bench jokes that that they would prefer valid arguments over “humble” submissions.


3:52 PM   – The bench finds that the Centre left the matter of food and shelter to the state government after single handedly imposing the nation wide lockdown.


3:54 PM    – The respondent argues that ordinance only suspends the benefits under labour legislations.


3:57 PM     – The counsel draws the courts attention to the International Labour Organization (ILO) digest which allows derogation of ILO convention in the situation of emergencies.


3:59 PM    The co-counsel for the respondent takes the dais and advances their compendium. The court breaks into laughter when the co-counsel pre-emptively apologizes for not having insufficient copies. The bench amusedly comments that the counsel is a fast learner.


4:01 PM     – The counsel states that in order to curb the transmission of the virus’ identifying the individual and whether they have come into contact with infected persons is necessary and very much requires location data.


4:04 PM     – The respondent argues that by virtue of the Doctrine of Necessity, it is binding on the government to impose restrictions.


4:06 PM      – The respondent contends that any and all drones in use were used only for mandating protocol.


4:07 PM       – The judges state that comparison cannot be drawn from the AADHAR case as the data was not shared or published unlike in the case at hand. The respondent argues that the information was shared in public interest.


4:10  PM      – The respondent draws from a previous judgement of the apex court that data mining for the purpose of proper facilitation of resources and to legitimate beneficiaries, is justified.


4:16 PM       – The respondent states that in view of compelling state interest, mandatory vaccination may be justified and also seeks support from Mill’s Theory of Liberty.


4:19 PM       – The respondent contends that the petitioners did not petition before the Human Rights Commission ,given that it is the fact finding organization in case of human rights violations.


4:22 PM       –  The co-counsel justifies the lack of extra copies of documents as a step towards conserving and sustaining the environment to which the amused bench retorted that their case may go down the drain for this cause.


4:24 PM      –  The counsel moves on to the prayer.


4:25 PM      – The bench grants five minutes for rebuttal as the petitioners take the dais. The counsel for petitioner alleges that the respondents have washed their hands off the consequences of their actions. The bench demands clarification in jest, whether the counsel has moved on from a legal to an emotional approach.


4:32 PM      – The counsel for the petitioners holds up the Constitution and states that the respondents have chosen provisions from the sacred document selectively, upholding only those favouring thier actions.


4:35 PM       – The bench asks whether or not the counsel has taken the vaccination and whether they have not personally benefitted from the same to which the counsel responds that they are unsure as to the effects of the vaccine in the absence of any scientific backing and supplies that she had eventually contracted the disease either way


4:36 PM     – The counsel for the respondent begins the rebuttal. They state that no proceeding shall be instituted against state for undertaking actions carried out bona fide. They also allude to the Doctrine of Pith and Substance. The counsel spiritedly calls out various ‘unsubstantiated allegations’ the petitioners had levelled and endeavors to justify the constitutional validity of the State actions by once more citing statutory provisions.


4:44 PM     – The Final Round  has come to an end as everyone files out of the venue and the honourable judges gather to evaluate and score.



5:00 PM     – The stage is set for the Valedictory Function. The audience eagerly await the distinguished guests for the evening, Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani; Former President, Commonwealth Lawyers Association, Senior Adv., Supreme Court, Adv. R. Santhanakrishna; Honourable Justice Mr. Mohammad Niyas C.P., Honourable Justice Mr. P.V. Kunhikrishnan,  Honourable Justice Mr. C.S. Dias, Prof. Dr. S. Sivakumar, Vice President and Trustee, CLEA; President, CLEA Asia and His Beatitude Baselios Cardinal Cleemis, Major Archbishop Catholicos of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.


5:15 PM      – The event begins as our venerable guests settle into the dais and  hosts for the evening Mohammad Nihal and Sarah Stanley invite the choir for the prayer before the function.


5:32 PM        – The Director, Rev. Dr. Koshy Isaac Punnamootil, delivers the welcome address.


5:42 PM         – Ms. Sushma George Mathew, Asst. Professor and Mooting Secretary delivers the Report of the CLEA Mooting Competition 2022, South Asian Rounds.


5:49 PM          – Prof. Dr. S Sivakumar delivers the Felicitation Address.


6:03 PM           – Adv. R. Santhanakrishnan takes the stage to offer words of cheer and commendation.


6:10 PM      The Guest of Honour, Hon’ble Justice Mr. Mohammad Nias C.P. addresses the gathering, lauds the orchestration of the competition, relates his experience with moots and honest words on how adjudging competitions is not a cakewalk. He earnestly prompts the students to work hard with anecdotes of his law school days.


6:20 PM        The Guest of Honour, Hon’ble Justice Mr. P. V. Kunhikrishnan addresses the gathering and appreciates moot court competitions and encourages students to utilize the opportunity as it is the closest a student of law gets to  actual lawyering experience at court while engaging and developing their skills as well as building confidence.


6:31 PM        – The Guest of Honour, Hon’ble Justice Mr C.S Dias addresses the gathering; applauds the excellent competitors and extols the elegant courtroom of the college. He implores the students to remain patient for the profession surely grants gratification; “A student of law is a student for life.”


6:42 PM       – His Beatitude Cardinal Cleemis, Major Archbishop Catholicos of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, graces the occasion with his words of wisdom. He expresses his admiration for lawyers since his salad days and voices his homage to the dignitaries.


6: 53 PM         – The Attorney General officiates the release of the legal compendium – Handbook on Arbitration, Edited by Dr. Gigimon V.S., Organising Secretary of the CLEA Mooting 2022, South Asian Round, MGCL and Head of Department of Law, MGCL.


6:55 PM           – The Learned Attorney General of India Shri. R. Venkataramani delivers the Valedictory Address. He notes that moot problems are edited versions of reality which offers a glimpse on what one can expect in their lives. Sir admires the campus and shares his heartfelt enthusiasm on witnessing the spirited students and encourages them to explore the intricacies of law. He talks of his roots in Kerala and fondly recalls his Professor Dr. N. R. Madhava Menon. Sir talks about the transformation of the apex court from days bygone and his philosophy of lawyering.


7:25 PM            – The long awaited results are finally announced! Shri. R. Venkataramani unveils the winners and the prize distribution ceremony for the participants, commences. Trophies, certificates and cash prizes are given away by the esteemed dignitaries.


7:43 PM            – The Principal, MGCL, Dr. John P.C, renders the Vote of Thanks, bringing the Valedictory Ceremony to a stately end.

Law School NewsLive Blogging

Dr M. V. V. S. Murthi 3rd National Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2022 | Organised by GITAM School of Law, Visakhapatnam

GITAM’s Moot & Advocacy Committee (GMAC) is proud to announce that GITAM School of Law, Visakhapatnam, is organising  Dr M. V. V. S. Murthi 3rd National Virtual Moot Court Competition for the year 2022.

As Mooting forms an essential part of any legal education, we at GITAM School of Law recognise the need for training students in it and honing their argumentative skills. GMAC was created in 2019, to provide students with an opportunity to improve their interpersonal and advocacy skills.

GITAM School of Law had successfully organised the National Moot Court Competition on Space Law in 2020 and 2nd National Virtual Moot Court Competition in 2021,  both of which been huge accomplishments. This year, GMAC is back with the 3rd edition of Dr M.V.V.S. Murthi National Virtual Moot Court Competition, from 1st – 4th of September 2022.

The team of GMAC is delighted to welcome you and keep you updated through out the event!

Itinerary of the Competition:

1st September, 2022 (Day 1) – Inaugural Ceremony and Researchers’ Test

2nd September, 2022 (Day 2) – Preliminary Rounds – Session 1 & 2

3rd September, 2022 (Day 3) – Quarter-Finals and Semi-Finals

4th September, 2022 (Day 4) – Finals and Valedictory Ceremony

The following teams have registered and shall be competing in the competition:

  1. NLIU Bhopal
  2. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  3. Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya
  4. Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
  5. Law college Dehradun, Uttaranchal University
  6. Government Law College, Ernakulam
  7. University of Mumbai Law Academy
  8. United world School of Law, Karnavati University
  9. Department Of Law, University Of North Bengal
  10. Kristu Jayanti College of Law
  11. School of Law, Christ(Deemed to be)University
  12. Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University
  13. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
  14. CHRIST (Deemed to be University)
  15. Vels school of law, VISTAS
  16. Manipal University, Jaipur
  17. Central University of South Bihar, Gaya
  18. Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida.
  19. School of Excellence in Law
  20. NALSAR, Hyderabad


1st September, 2022


Inaugural Ceremony



As the first day of our event begins, we are overjoyed with gratitude in our hearts and excitement in our minds!


Inaugural Ceremony and Researchers’ Test: 4:00 PM


4:05 PM – The session has been initiated by Ms. Nishitha Kirty (Student Coordinator, GMAC)

4:08 PM – The welcome note is given by the Director of GITAM School of Law Prof. Dr. Anita Rao. Ma’am has given a brief about the necessity of moot court competitions for law students and the importance of artificial intelligence and intellectual property, upon which the moot proposition is based. She has also encouraged the participants and law students to take part in moot courts to develop problem solving abilities to excel as future advocates.

4:10 PM – The link for the Researchers’ test has been sent to the participants and the test has begun.



4:20 PM – Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor of GITAM Deemed to be University, Prof. Dayananda Siddavattam has addressed the importance of patent law. Sir has emphasized the necessity of training the students in patent laws as future legal professionals. He has noted the increasing scope of hiring legal experts in pharma companies. Finally, Sir gave his word of appreciation to the participants, sponsors and the organising committee.

4:32 PM-  GITAM Deemed to be University’s President M. Sri Bharat has addressed the gathering by giving his valuable insights with relevance to the law and justice system in India. Sir has shared his life experiences with the local judicial system. He advised students choosing different streams in the field of law to maintain the importance of law to uplift social justice. He further talked about the importance of future lawyers and how helpful they can be for the well being of the society.

4:40 PM-  The Researchers’ Test ended. We hope the all the Researchers have done well!

4:44 PM-  The Director, School of Law has convened her gratitude to the President and Vice-Chancellor, GITAM University.


4:45 PM-  Dr. D. Gunasekaran, Registrar, GITAM Deemed to be University, has emphasized that even as legal system is complex, rendering justice is important. Sir has encouraged the students to participate in moot courts to augment their argumentative and research skills as future advocates. He has expressed his note of thanks to GITAM School of Law for organising the moot and Adv. Shri V. Ravindra Prasad, President, Visakhapatnam Bar Association for conceding to be the Guest of Honor.

4:47 PM – Adv. Shri V. Ravindra Prasad, President, Visakhapatnam Bar Association, the Guest of Honor, has conveyed his regards to the organisers, sponsors and participants of the Moot Court Competition. Sir has noted that the rise of virtual moot courts has been necessitated due to the pandemic scenario. However, he expressed his hope for the organising of a physical moot court competition in the future.

4:53 PM – Asst. Prof. GITAM School of Law, Mr. Vardhman S. Panwar (Faculty Coordinator, GMAC) has addressed the gathering by briefing about the schedule for the following 3 days (2nd – 4th September, 2022). He explained as to how the prelims, quarters, semis and the finals are to take place.

5:00 PM The Vote of thanks has been extended by Asst. Prof. Ms. Rhea Hundal to all the honorable dignitaries present, and the participants across eminent law schools of the country. Further, she thanked the Director of GITAM School of Law for her support at every moment. Ma’am has also expressed gratitude towards the management of the GITAM University, faculty of GITAM School of Law and the team of GMAC for their diligence in organising the event.

5:05 PM – National Anthem

5:15 PM – Asst. Prof. Mr. Vardhman S. Panwar has virtually drawn the lots to match up the teams for the preliminary rounds.

~ End of DAY 1, eager to head into DAY 2 ~ 




2nd September, 2022

Preliminary Rounds – Session 1


10:00 AM – The preliminary rounds are about to begin, it’s surely going to be a brainstorming discourse on IPR Law.

10:02 AM – The teams are all prepped up and are enthusiastic for the day’s proceedings.

10:03 AM  – With an unfettering zeal, the proceedings in the courtrooms have duly begun!

10:05 AM – All the Courtrooms are officially in session.

10:07 AM – Team VMC 22 (petitioners) started presenting the factual matrix to the judges.

10:08 AM Team VMC 11 (Petitioners) presented the facts and moved further to argue by presenting the issues to the Hon’ble judges.

10:09 AM – In Courtroom 1, Team VMC 21 has respectively stated the division of time for their arguments.

10:10 AM – The Hon’ble judge in courtroom 5 has questioned the petitioners about jurisdiction of the case.

10:20 AM – In Courtroom 9 , Team VMC 16 stated that the suit is maintainable under the jurisdiction of the High Court and the powers conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution.



10:22 AM – In Courtroom 4, both the teams are battling it out (VMC 10 v. VMC 03). Speaker 1 of VMC 10 duly informs the bench that he shall be dealing with the issues 1 and 2 while their co-counsel would be dealing with issue 3 and 4.

10:25 AM – Time division has been allotted to the teams (VMC15 and VMC 08) in Courtroom 7.

10:27 AM – The Judge in Courtroom 2 question Team VMC 12 (petitioners) how can the High Court overlook the Arbitration clause.

10:32 AM – The Judge in Courtroom 4 questions the counsel regarding the proper acronym of a writ petition on their memorial and asks the researcher of their team to find it out.

10:36 AM – The petitioners in Courtroom 3 argued that both the petitioners and the respondent had a contract for service and the software in question is an independent project of the petitioner and was not a part of his work as an employee.

10:41 AM – Courtroom 2 is heated up with the judge asking about different ways of filing a patent to the speaker of VMC 12. The speaker answers took the citation of an English jurisdiction. The arguments by the counsel representing the petitioners took support of the employer and employee rights.

10:45 AM – The Judge of Courtroom 4 reprimands the counsel for beating around the bush, as the counsel struggles to justify the substantial issue of law and the memorials make use of cases suggesting alternate form of remedy.



10:49 AM – The Counsel 2 in Courtroom 5 started to argue about the validity of the patent with the law of the land and with concern to the company’s terms and conditions. The counsel has proven the case’s jurisdiction with the present court of law.

10:54 AM – The speakers of Courtroom 1 (Team VMC 21) submitted that when there is an agreement, whether it is a contract for service or contract of service, the contract is not conclusive with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

11:00 AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 15 presented their arguments, asks for the prayer and concludes the issues.

11:04 AM – Team VMC 16 of Courtroom 9 duly appeals to the court that the invention made by the petitioner is done during his free time and hence the employer has no right of claim on it.

11:06 AM – The Judges in Courtroom 10 are dissatisfied with the arguments presented by the speakers and asked to proceed with clearer arguments.

11:08 AM –  Judge Ashish Kumar has sought further clarification pertaining to the agreement between the employer and employee, and the nature of Ediostech Ltd. The judge further questioned whether the petitioner can be considered as a consultant or not.

11:10 AM – Speaker 2 of Team VMC 19 is dealing with their issue 2 in Courtroom 8  and successfully justified their arguments backed with the Constitution.

11:12 AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 8 stated about the employer – employee agreement and cites s. 70 of the Indian Contract Act.

11:15 AM – The respondents (VMC 06) in Courtroom 9 started presenting their arguments. The counsel states that there has been a violation of patent and files a writ petition under Art. 226 for the violation of fundamental and legal rights.

11:18AM – The Judge in Courtroom 2 asked the speaker of VMC 09 to interpret the term “course of employment” literally.



11:21 AM – The respondent counsel started presenting their arguments in Courtroom 10.

11:24 AM – Counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 8 (VMC 19) submitted their prayer to the Judge.

11:25 AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 09 in Courtroom 2 cites s. 39 of the United Kingdom Patent Act and pleads defense of “duty to invent”

11:26 AM – The respondents in Courtroom 3 began arguing the maintainability of the writ mandamus filed by the petitioners. Further, they put forth the argument that the software was developed within the consultation period.

11:29 AM – The respondents (VMC 05) in Courtroom 1 have been asked to give clarification with regard to the nature of the contract, i.e.,  whether it is contract “for” service or “of” service and the counsel sought permission to venture a guess and responded that it would be contract of service.

11:30 AM – Team VMC 08 start the rebuttal stating that Ediostech Ltd. did not clarify as to what kind of company they are and made statement regarding the jurisdiction.

11:31 AM – Counsels for petitioners in Courtroom 8 are barraged with a wide array of questions by the opposing counsel.

11:32 AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 09 was asked about the difference between a holding company and subsidiary company.

11:33 AM – Counsel 2 of VMC 01 submits the prayer before the Judge. The counsel of VMC 11 presents the rebuttals before the honorable judges and VMC 01 submits their sub-rebuttals. Thereafter, the opposing counsel submits their sub-rebuttal 2.

11:34 AM – Speaker 1 of VMC 21 commenced with their rebuttals stating that Ediostech Pvt. Ltd. is not a rightful owner since the employee is not under the employer’s payroll. He further states that the petitioner is only a consultant for six months and not an employee.

11:35 AM – The respondents in Courtroom 03 bring up the concept of fiduciary relationship between the company and the employee.



11:36AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 12 rebutted saying that the English laws have a persuasive value.

11:37 AM – Both the counsels of Courtroom 1 started  presenting their rebuttals and sub-rebuttals.

11:38 AM – The proceedings in Courtroom 09 have concluded.

11:39 AM – The Judges of Courtroom 10 has allowed both counsels for the rebuttals, but they refrained.

11:40 AM – Speaker 1 of VMC 07 requested for a 2 minute extension to conclude their submission. The Judge duly agreed to their request and granted an extension.

11:43 PM – The proceedings in all courtrooms have successfully come to an end.


After an intriguing set of arguments by all the teams, we have arrived to the end of first session of the preliminary rounds! 


Preliminary Rounds – Session 2 



2:00 PM – All the participants are now ready to battle each other in the 2nd session of the preliminary rounds.

2:03 PM – The proceedings in all the courtrooms have now officially begun!

2:05 PM – Speaker 1 of VMC 04 in Courtroom 9 started with stating the facts and issues of the case.

2:08 PM – Speaker 1 of VMC 07 has been solicited by the Judges to substantiate their arguments with case laws.

2:12 PM –  The counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 2 successfully put forth issue 1.

2:15 PM – Team VMC 9 (Petitioners) has enthusiastically put forwards the facts and issues of the case.



2:18 PM – The Judge in Courtroom 4 sought for clarification regarding the difference between a consultant and an independent contractor from the speaker.

2:21 PM – Speakers of VMC 02 in Courtroom 2 have started addressing their issue 2.

2:23 PM – Counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 8 and 10 have successfully put forth their facts and issues.

2:26 PM – The Judges of Courtroom 4 have questioned the counsel regarding the jurisdiction of the case.

2:29 PM – The team VMC 08 in Courtroom 7 started explaining about the arbitration clause of the privity.

2:31 PM – In Courtroom 1, the Judge asks the counsel representing petitioners about “reasonable restrictions”.

2:34 PM – The Judges in Courtroom 6 seek clarification from the respondents asking how far is Art. 12 of the Constitution is applicable in the present case.



2:36 PM – Team VMC 09 fails to answer a few question posed by the Judges.

2:38 PM – In Courtroom 7, the counsel was asked to interpret the word “any” in their issue.

2:41 PM – The Judge in Courtroom 6 asks the counsel of VMC 09 whether the employer has granted the equipment for the patent. the Judge seeks further clarification on patent law.

2:44 PM – In Courtroom 9, the counsel of the respondents argued that the petitioner has received benefits from the respondent and shall therefore be made the owner of the patent.

2:47 PM – In Courtroom 4, the counsel started to state the reasons for justifying the revocation of the patent grant to Ediostech Ltd.

2:50 PM – In Courtroom 1, the respondent started presenting their arguments and concentrated on IP time duration limitation. The Counsel talked about how previous judgements hold much value in current case scenarios.



2:53 PM – The Judge questioned the speakers about the employer contract, to which the petitioner responds referring to a case, in Courtroom 7.

2:55 PM – The rebuttals have begun in Courtroom 2.

2:57 PM – The respondents in Courtroom 5 began arguing about the contract and put forwards their rebuttals about the consultation period.

3:00 PM – In Courtroom 4, the counsel was asked how the Appellant court is the alternative remedy for the petition.

3:03 PM – The counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 9 rebutted that the petitioner developed the patent not during the course of employment. To this, the opposite counsel responded with substantial case laws and legal provisions in order to prove their argument.

3:06 PM – In Courtroom 6, the Judge asked the counsel regarding the relationship between an employer and employee with respect to Supreme Court Judgements.

3:08 PM – The counsel representing respondents in Courtroom 10 submit their prayer before the bench and proceed to the rebuttals. The opposing counsel counter with their sub-rebuttals.

3:10 PM – In Courtroom 8, Speaker 1 of VMC 21 retorts the rebuttal by the opposing counsel with profound assertion.

3:12 PM – The Judge seeks clarification on different factual and legal points from the counsel representing the respondents, in Courtroom 6.

3:14 PM – The proceedings in all the Courtrooms have adjourned for the day.

We now arrive at the end of session 2 of the preliminary rounds 


After an intense day of the preliminary rounds, here are the teams that have made it to the Quarter-Finals: 


CONGRATUALTIONS TO THE TEAMS!  (in no particular order)

  1. VMC01
  2. VMC02
  3. VMC05
  4. VMC08
  5. VMC11
  6. VMC12
  7. VMC15
  8. VMC21

~End of DAY 2~



3rd September, 2022





Today as we commence the Day 3 of the event, we await to witness the engrossing Quarter-Finals!

In Courtroom 1, we will see Team VMC 11 v. VMC 08.

In Courtroom 2, Team VMC 15 will take on Team VMC 05.

In Courtroom 3, Team VMC 21 facing Team VMC 01.

In courtroom 4, Its Team VMC 12 v VMC 02. 


9:59 AM – The Courtrooms are all set for the commencement of Quarter-Finals. All the best to the Qualifying teams!

10:03 AM – All the four Courtrooms are officially in session.

10:05 AM – Speaker 1 of VMC 15 (petitioners) in Courtroom 2 is establishing the maintainability of the suit before the High Court.

10:08 AM – The team representing the petitioners in Courtroom 4 is being asked several interesting questions regarding their grievances.

10: 12 AM – Team VMC 11 representing the petitioners in Courtroom 1 is addressing the Bench regarding the jurisdiction of the case referring to Art. 226 and 12 of the Constitution.

10:15 AM – In Courtroom 3, the petitioners have successfully established the facts of the case before the Judges.



10:18 AM – Speaker 1 of VMC 11 referred to s. 17 of the Indian Contract Act and contended against the alternate remedy clause used as a defense by the respondents.

10:20 AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 15 in Courtroom 2 contends that the petitioner was not consulted by the company before filing for the patent.

10:22 AM – The Counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 3 are explaining the issues before the Bench.

10:25 AM – Team VMC 11 in Courtroom 1 was questioned by the Judge as to why the case was filed as a Writ and not an Appeal.

10:27 AM – In Courtroom 4, Team VMC 12 was asked a question about their memorial by the Judge as to why they have involved the UK Patent Act and not the Kalosia Act. The Counsel’s justification was found to be satisfactory to the Judge.

10:30 AM – Speaker 2 of VMC 11 has started presenting the arguments of issues 3 and 4.



10:32 AM- In courtroom 3, the counsel representing the petitioner are questioned by the judge about the writ Jurisdiction and the remedy they seek for their client.

10:35 AM – The speaker 2 of VMC 11 contended that the petitioner was not an employer, rather he was a consultant. he further discussed the importance of privity of contract and gave insights regarding the morality of patent laws.

10:37 AM – In Courtroom 2,  the respondents argued on the grounds of alternative remedy and questioned the maintainability of the petition before the High Court.

10:40 AM – The Respondents in Courtroom 4 have started their arguments on the Jurisdiction of High Court and contended that the Writ of Mandamus is not maintainable. One such argument is deemed irrelevant by the Judge.

10:43 AM – In Courtroom 3, the speaker 2 of VMC 21 addressed the bench stating that the petitioner developed the software not in the course of employment but during his free time. They answered the questions of the judges about the nature of employment of the petitioner.



10:47 AM – The speaker 1 0f VMC 08 presented the arguments basing on issue 1 and contended that the court does not have territorial jurisdiction.

10:50 AM – In Courtroom 02, the judges pointed out that the company’s laptop was simply being used because the petitioners laptop could not be used and questioned if this comes under use of company’s resources.

10:52 AM – The counsel on behalf of respondents in Courtroom 01 began presenting the arguments based on Issue 2.

10:56 AM – The counsel representing the respondents in Courtroom 3 address the bench by submitting the compendium.

11:00 AM – In courtroom 2, the Counsel for respondents highlight the essentials of a contract and make reference to s.10, 11 of the Indian Contract Act. They further attempt to establish that the petitioner was competent to contract act and should therefore abide by the consultancy agreement.



11:03 AM – In courtroom 04, a fierce round of rebuttals stared between Teams VMC12 and VMC 02. And with the end of that round the proceedings in Courtroom 04 comes to an end.

11:07 AM – The speaker 1(petitioners) in Courtroom 01, rebutted the points raised by the respondents referring to the Labour courts. To this the opposing counsel sub-rebutted saying that the subject matter of the contract makes the petitioner a party to the contract.

11:11 AM – In Courtroom 03, the counsel for respondent answered the questions put forth by the judges regarding the timeline and registration of the patents.

11:13 AM – In the rebuttals happening in courtroom 02, a reference is made to the doctrine of waiver by the respondents to justify the alleged waiver of the petitioners rights over the software

11:16 AM – The proceedings in all courtrooms have successfully concluded!

We now arrive at the end of Quarter-Finals!


After a fierce session of the Quarter-Finals, here are the teams that have made it to the Semi-Finals: 



CONGRATUALTIONS TO THE TEAMS!  (in no particular order)

  1. VMC01
  2. VMC11
  3. VMC12
  4. VMC15





The stage is now about to be set with the commencement of the exciting semi-finals, with the teams pitted against one another for a thrilling show of events. All the best!


In Courtroom 1, we will see Team VMC 11 v. VMC 15.

In Courtroom 2, Team VMC 01 will take on Team VMC 12


2:02 PM – Courtrooms 1 and 2 are officially in session!

2:05 PM – Speaker 1 of VMC 01 started to present their arguments before the Judges in Courtroom 2.

2:10 PM – The petitioners in Courtroom 1 have presented the factual matrix to the Judges.

2:12 PM –  Speaker 1 of VMC 01 discusses the cases involved in the substantial question of law. The counsel claims that the case does not include proper evidence and requires no proper documentation.

2:16 PM – In Courtroom 1, the petitioners argue stating that the rights of the petitioner have been infringed by the actions of the respondent.

2:20 PM – Team VMC 01 was questioned by the Judge in Courtroom 2 regarding the alternative remedies available to the petitioner.

2:23 PM – The counsel for petitioner in Courtroom 1 states the relevant remedies available to them and explains as to why they have rightfully approached the High Court.

2:27 PM – The questions asked by the Bench in Courtroom 2 were diligently addressed by the counsel for petitioners. Further, the counsel proceeded with their submissions.

2:30 PM – In Courtroom 1, the counsel argues that the petitioner is not an employee of the company but only a consultant, as per the consultancy agreement. They stuck to the argument that a company cannot exercise any control in their capacity to deploy the petitioner.



2:34 PM – The Speaker 2 of VMC 01 in Courtroom 2 has clearly made two broad contentions, i.e., that the company shall become the owner by default and the employer cannot become the owner of the IP at all. The team was further asked about the usage of company resources and it was satisfactorily answered through their submissions.

2:39 PM – In Courtroom 1, the argument stating that a use of single computer cannot be used to constitute as usage of the company’s resources to the extent that the company can gain authority over the IP, was put forth by the petitioners. The counsel was questioned by the Judges regarding the rise of the concept of vicarious liability. The speaker 2 also sheds light upon the question as to why ownership is granted in case of patents.

2:43 PM – In Courtroom 2,  Team VMC 01 moved on to their final submissions regarding the duties and responsibilities clauses the Contract. Further, it was claimed that the petitioner was not duty-bound. The Counsel thereafter requests for a 2 minute extension to conclude their submissions, which was duly granted.

2:46 PM – In Courtroom 2, VMC 12, the counsel for respondents have begun to address the issues.



2:50 PM – The counsel representing the respondents in Courtroom 1 argued that the Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as the patent office has diligently followed the process of providing a patent.

2:53 PM – VMC 12 in Courtroom 2 cited the case Union of India v. T R Varma to prove that there has not been a cause of action.

2:55 PM – The Judges in Courtroom 1 asked the necessity for the registration of a patent.

2:58 PM –  In Courtroom 2 the counsel for the respondents explained the meaning and importance of exclusive rights.

3:02 PM – The Counsel representing the respondents in Courtroom 2 was asked whether a software can be patentable. And the counsel diligently answered the question with a satisfactory explanation.

3:06 PM – VMC 01 in Courtroom 2 have begun their rebuttals stating that the remedy is time-barred and the Writ of Mandamus is the only way. The counsel for petitioner rebutted the contentions made by the opposing counsel.

3:10 PM – In Courtroom 1, the respondents in their prayer ask for the Writ of Mandamus to be quashed.

3:12 PM – The petitioners in Courtroom 1 rebut by stating that the confidentiality clause has not been violated by the petitioner as the software was developed outside the course of employment. To this, the opposing counsel put forth sub-rebuttals.

3:15 PM – The proceedings in both the Courtrooms have come to an end.

With this, the Semi-Finals have concluded!  




4th September, 2022




As we finally commence the last day of the event, we are eager to witness the enthralling final rounds and the joyous valedictory session with our honorary dignitaries!

After a fierce session of Semi-Finals, here are the teams that have made it to the final rounds:



We congratulate and wish the teams VMC 01 and VMC 11 all the best, hoping the best team wins!


2:05 PM – Asst. Prof. Ms. Rhea Hundal has addressed the gathering and welcomed the honourable Judges.

2:08 PM – The proceedings in the Courtroom have now officially begun!

2:10 PM – It was announced that the team VMC 11 shall be the counsel for petitioners and VMC 01 shall be representing the respondents.

2:15 PM – Speaker 1 of VMC 11 started presenting the factual matrix before the Hon’ble Judges.

2:18 PM – The counsel argued regarding the maintainability of the petition citing Art. 300 A of the Constitution.

2:21 PM – The team VMC 11 was asked to present the oral evidence and the speakers replied that there were none.

2:25 PM – The petitioners humbly submits that the jurisdiction cannot be satisfied as a part of privity of contract.

2:29 PM – The Speaker 1 of VMC 11 was asked about granting a decree under the Writ of Mandamus, and the counsel answered with utmost diligence.

2:33 PM – The Counsel further argued that the petitioner had a contract for service and cannot be considered an employee.

2:37 PM – Speaker 2 of VMC 11 took over and started presenting their arguments.

2:43 PM Speaker 2 argued that the petitioner was in the capacity of a consultant. The Judge questioned whether working between the hours of the contract between the parties amounted to working under the company, to which the Counsel replied satisfactorily.

2:48 PM – The Counsel cites Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and was questioned by the Judge to question the essential ingredients of the Order.

2:52 PM –  Speaker 2 of VMC 11 was asked to justify their arguments by citing a case where Writ of Mandamus was to give out the rights regarding software production.

2:56 PM – The Counsel for petitioners humbly submits their prayer to the court requestion to pass an interim injunction over the usage of the patent in question.



3:00 PM –  Team VMC 01 began presenting their arguments before the Judges.

3:10 PM – Counsel for respondents are almost done presenting the issue 1.

3:14 PM – The Team representing the Respondents was asked about the algorithm to grant a patent.

3:18 PM – The Counsel argued that the petition of Mandamus shall not be maintainable as there are alternative remedies.

3:22 PM – The Speaker 2 of VMC 01 began their submissions with respect to issue 2.

3:26 PM – The Counsel for respondents stated that the patent office has rightfully granted the patent. They further talked about the creation of software during the course of employment.

3:30 PM – The Speaker 2 was questioned about the petitioner being a consultant and not an employee by the Judge, to which the Counsel answers diligently stating that employee or consultant maybe immaterial, but the rightful assignment is to identify the rightful owner of the software.

3:36 PM – The Counsel put forth an argument that the petitioner has used the resources of the company.

3:40 PM – The Respondent Team began summing up their arguments.

3:43 PM – The Counsel prays before the Court that the Writ petition shall be quashed as it is not maintainable.

3:45 PM –  Both teams have now started their rebuttals.

3:48 PM – The petitioners rebutted the points raised by the respondent counsel saying that a written assignment is required.

3:50 PM – The Counsel sticks to the point that the petitioner is a mere consultant but not an employee during the course of employment.

3:55 PM – In the sub-rebuttals the counsel for respondents highlighted that a patent is a territorial right, even if it is registered intentionally it can be filed again in another country.

4:00 PM –  After an engrossing round of rebuttals, the proceedings in the Courtroom have come to an end.


The Final Round has now come to an end and we eagerly await the results!


Valedictory Ceremony 



This is the moment we’ve all been waiting for, the Valedictory ceremony for the Dr M. V. V. S. Murthi 3rd National Virtual Moot Court Competition has officially begun!

5:00 PM – We are pleased to have with us for the Valedictory Ceremony:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy – Judge, Madras High Court

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha – Judge, Calcutta High Court

Shri M Sri Bharat – President, GITAM Deemed to be University 



5:04 PM – The Ceremony Began with Prof. Dr. Anita Rao ma’am addressing the gathering followed by Asst. Prof. Ms. Rhea Hundal welcoming the honourable guests and dignitaries.

5:12 PM –  Asst. Prof. Mr. Astle Singh introduced himself and spoke about the various courses offered by GITAM School of Law.

5:15 PM – Mr. Astle Singh introduced the Guest of Honour Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, Judge, Madras High Court to address the gathering.

5:17 PM – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy conveyed his message about the importance of participating in Moot Court Competitions. He applauded the finalists and encouraged law students to participate in more such moots to hone their skills. He emphasized the importance that moot court holds in developing critical skills for advocacy for law students as future legal professionals.



5:25 PM – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, Judge, Calcutta High Court began to address the gathering. He particularly underlined the necessity of moot court and the importance of making friends and network with exchanging of ideas that shall help them brainstorm ideas and solutions. Both the judges have reminisced the time they took part in a Moot Court Competition together back in their Law School days and came together to judge today’s Competition.



5:32 PM –  Prof. Dr. Anita Rao ma’am congratulated all the participants, the committee members and faculty advisors. She then proceeded to announce the results of the Dr M. V. V. S. Murthi 3rd National Virtual Moot Court Competition.

The most awaited results:

Best Researcher: Apurva Pandey (VMC 04, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur) 

Best Speaker: Divyansh Morolia (VMC 01, NLIU, Bhopal)

Best Memorial: VMC 01, NLIU Bhopal

Runner-up of the Competition:  VMC 11, Christ Deemed to be University

Winner of the Competition: VMC 01, NLIU Bhopal



5:40 PM – Moot Court Convener and Asst. Prof. Mr. Vardhman S Panwar talked about the inspiration behind the Moot Court Proposition, which was the exploitation of the employees by Companies in stealing their ideas as they were developed in the course of the company’s employment. He extended his vote of thanks to the honourable Judges, participants, teaching and non-teaching staff. He also congratulated the winners and runner-ups of the competition.


~ End of the Final Day ~











Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

The Centre for IPR Studies and Moot Court Society, School of Law, Galgotias University  jointly will  be organizing its First Galgotias University National Moot Court Competition (GUNMCC) from 28-29 September, 2018 at Galgotias University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The problem is based upon IP mainly the important debate regarding access to creations versus their legal protection. The human and economic stakes are huge in these debates and thus we thought it would be appropriate to introduce our law students to them through this moot court competition. To check the environmental and economic costs involved in our traditional moots, we have decided to keep the competition completely paperless. Hence, no hard copies of the memorials are required.

Key Dates:

Last Date for Submitting Clarifications

30 August 2018

Date of Publishing Clarifications

2 September 2018

Last Date of Completing Registration Formalities

7 September 2018

Date of Team Code Allotment

10 September 2018

Last Date of Memorial Submission


25 September 2018


28-29 September 2018

Key Information:

1. Only 24 teams shall be allowed to participate on first come first serve basis.

2. Registration fee: Rs 4,000 per team (including food and lodging).

3. All communications to be directed at:

Phone: Mr. Mohammad Umar, Assistant Professor, SoL (8742962096); Mr Nizam Khan, Assistant Professor, SoL (09953747624)

To view the Moot Problem, click HERE.

To view the Rules and Regulations, click HERE.

To view the Registration Details, click HERE.

To download Registration Form, click HERE.

To download Travel & Accommodation Form, click HERE.

Conference/Seminars/LecturesLaw School News

Mooting is an engaging and challenging co-curricular activity in law school. Requiring application of legal provisions and principles to hypothetical fact situation, mooting helps inculcate research, drafting and advocacy skills. With a view to broadening the perspective of budding pleaders and researchers towards mooting at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA, the college brings to students a series of three workshops. Moot Court Society, Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA has organsied series of workshops as follows:

1. August 04, 2018 (Title – Introduction to Mooting – Mr. Arunadhri Iyer);

2. August 11, 2018 (Research for and Drafting of Memorials – Mr. Edupunganti Shreyas); and

3. August 18, 2018 (Pleading – Ms. Jayashree Parihar).

This endeavour is to introduce students to culture and expectations of mooting.

First Workshop will be conducted by Mr. Arunadhri Iyer, Advocate, the Supreme Court of India on August 4, 2018 from 01:30 pm – 04:30 pm. It has two sessions:

Session 1 – An introduction to Mooting –Seeks to discuss about the basics, as well as finer nuances of mooting. The workshop aims at being accessible for both beginners as well as experts. While a basic understanding of what moot courts may help before you attend it, the workshop aims at discussing all the steps, skills and discipline expected of a mooting team and

Session 2 – An Introduction to Drafting and Formatting –The workshop aims at dissecting the magic sauce that goes into a well researched, well presented (and pretty looking) memorial. It will introduce the concept of a memorial, and discuss the steps to take (and avoid) in making a memorial for a moot.

About the Resource Person: Mr. Arunadhri Iyer, Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Mr. Iyer is an Advocate practicing primarily in the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court of India. Formerly Mr. Iyer has worked with Khaitan & Co, Mumbai, with Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR, and was a Law Clerk in the Delhi High Court. He practices primarily in civil and commercial matters, as well as arbitrations.  Mr. Iyer is avid mooter and has successfully represented Symbiosis Law School, Pune in various national and international moot court competitions. He has a continuing relationship with mooting and Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA.


Workshop on Introduction to Mooting – August 04, 2018





 Introduction to Mooting

 01:30 pm – 02:30 pm


An Introduction to Drafting and Formatting

 02:45 pm – 04:30 pm