Law School NewsLive Blogging

About the Competition

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow is hosting the 10th edition of the International Media Law Moot Court Competition in collaboration with SCC Online. Ever since the 1st edition in the year 2013, the student community of National Law University, Lucknow has put in days of focused effort to organise this moot court competition which acts as the University’s contribution to the mooting fraternity of National Law Universities. It is very encouraging to see the participation increase consistently with every passing year. This year will see participation from 32 teams including both National and International teams.The teams vie for 4 categories of awards – Winners with a prize money of INR 25000, Runners Up with INR 15000, Best Oralist and Best Memorial with INR 10000 each.

This year’s Moot problem has been drafted by Mr. Anindya Roy and Ms. Ishita Khare. Mr. Anindya Roy is an alumnus of National Law University, Lucknow and is now an Associate at Goodwin Proctor, London. Ms. Ishita Khare, an alumnus of National Law Institute University, Bhopal is a Senior Associate at Khaitan and Co. The Moot Court Competition has come to fruition through the untiring support and dedication of the University’s Moot Court Committee (MCC) headed by Joint Convenors, Arunima Athavale and Deeksha Anand of the 5th Year.

Day 1 – The Opening Ceremony

4:15 PM:The inaugural ceremony of the Competition was graced by the benign presence of Prof. (Dr.) Subir K. Bhatnagar, the Vice Chancellor of the University, and Dr. Prasenjit Kundu, Faculty Coordinator of the Moot Court Committee.  

4:25 PM:The Vice Chancellor addressed the gathering, boosting the morale of all the participants. He talked about the importance of Moot Court Competitions in not only developing legal acumen but also being an important knowledge asset for law students. He thanked all the judges, SCC Online and declared the competition open. 

EBC Session

5:15 PM: Mr. Chetan Singh GillSenior Manager, Eastern Book Company addressed the gathering and held an interactive session about how to access and use the SCC Online database. He also discussed the nuances of mooting, and its importance in law schools.  

Match Ups

6:00 PM:The participants were briefed and after a short while the Match-ups were released post which Memorials were exchanged. The palpability in the meet was conspicuous, the participants left the meet with the mounting nervousness of presenting a case at court tomorrow.  

Judges Briefing 

7:45 PM:  The judges inclusive of experienced senior advocates, partners and associates at reputed law firms, joined the meeting to be briefed on the moot proposition, marking scheme and other technical details

Mr. Anindya Roy and Ms. Ishita Khare, the problem drafters delivered an insightful speech explaining the issues centered around the Moot Proposition.

8:00 PM:  A question and answer session was taken by the problem drafters regarding the issues related to the Moot Proposition.

The judges are ready for tomorrow to witness the preliminary round – 1, wherein 32 teams from the best law schools of the sub-continent present their case. 

Day 2 – Preliminary Rounds and Quarter–Final Rounds

Preliminary Round 1 – 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM

Court Room 1: WBNUJS, Kolkata was up against Villa College, Faculty of Sharia and Law. The counsels were grilled by the judges to extract the most coherent arguments. The participants put up a brave face on as they answered the questions to the best of their ability in order to put forth their most convincing arguments. The judge focused on various peculiarities of law that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments.

Court Room 2: Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar was up against BENNET University, Noida. The participants presented articulate arguments that convinced the judges as to their assertions, backed by the proper authority of law. The judges engaged in questioning regarding authorities and backing of international laws, which was dealt confidently by the counsels. The judges also engaged in procedural questioning. The judges focused on various peculiarities of law and international principles that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments. The round came to an end with engaging rebuttals.

Court Room 5: Christ College, Bangalore had a challenging round against National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi. The participants presented their arguments in a well structured manner, The judges grilled the counsels in order to extract the most cogent arguments. The judges primarily focused on the legal backing of the arguments with relevant case laws and precedents. The participants put a brave face on and answered the questions articulately. Both counsels were asked to submit their prayers following their arguments. The participants gained invaluable experience in the art of answering the queries of the judges with precision and brevity.

Court Room 8: National Law University, Jodhpur was up against SASTRA University,Thanjavur. The participants presented articulate arguments in an attempt to solidify their contention. The participants were questioned by the judges in great detail. The participants gave well thought out answers that convinced the judges as to their assertions, backed by the proper authority of law. Both the teams were equally matched in research and it all came down to the skills of oral presentations.

Court Room 10: Manipal University, Jaipur was up against CLC, Delhi. The participants presented articulate arguments, backed by the proper authority of law. The judges engaged in some grilling questioning, which the participants answered to the best of their ability and the judges were thus thoroughly impressed. Both the teams were given the time extension of 3 mins and later they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. Both the teams were equally matched in research and it all came down to the skills of oral presentations.

After an intriguing set of arguments by all of the teams, we have now arrived at the end of the first session of the Prelims.

Preliminary Round 2 – 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM

Court Room 1: DNLU, Jabalpur faced off against Symbiosis Law School, Noida in a competitive round. The judges engaged in constant questioning, which was dealt with confidence by the counsels. The counsels did their utmost to persuade the judges that their arguments were legally sound, otherwise they would have been reduced to mere conjecture.  It was a battle between two premier law schools both equally placed in their research which ultimately came down to who could present their set of arguments in a more cogent and coherent manner.

Court Room 4: Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University were up against Nirma University, Ahmedabad. Before proceeding to the arguments, the judges asked the petitioners to summarize the facts of the case. The teams were well researched and presented convincing arguments to support the case on their respective sides. The judges questioned the participants on the particulars of the law, and international principles centered around the case at hand. After both the sides presented their arguments, they proceeded to the rebuttals.

Court Room 6: BENNET University, Noida faced Christ university, Bangalore and had tough battle. Both the teams presented a set of cogent and impressive arguments. The counsels were questioned by the judges multiple times, but it was dealt by both the sides confidently. The counsels answered the several queries of the judges with precision and brevity. The judges seemed pleased with the ancillary issues presented by the counsels to support their central argument. At the end both the sides engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.

Court Room 8: National Law University Odisha squared up against the equally talented team of National Law School of India University, Bangalore. The participants presented well drafted arguments indicative of the thorough research carried out by them. The participants seemed well versed with the intricacies of the problem and were questioned by the judges on the particulars of the law and its authoritative backing. The participants answered to the best of their ability and the judges were thus thoroughly impressed. Following the arguments, the participants presented their rebuttals

Court Room 11: Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad v. Government Law College, Mumbai was a neck-to-neck round between two premier law schools. The court room saw the bustle as the counsel on behalf of the petitioners receives a round of questions from the Bench, which they answered to the best of their ability. Both the teams were given the time extension of 2 mins and later they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. The feedback was enriching for both the  teams.

Preliminary Round 3 – 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM

Court Room 1: DSNLU, Vishakhapatnam was up against TNNLU, Tamil Nadu. The participants presented articulate arguments that convinced the judges as to their assertions, backed by the proper authority of law. Both the teams had very competitive speakers. Both the teams engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. Judges gave a very motivating and enriching feedback at the end to both the teams.

Court Room 2: Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat squared up against Presidency University, Bangalore in an intense round where the judges grilled the counsels on the intricacies of the moot problem and relevant legal provisions. The judge focused on various peculiarities of law that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments. The participants answered to the best of their ability and the judges were thus thoroughly impressed.

Court Room 4: National Law School of India University, Bangalore and Symbiosis Law School, Pune faced each in a cutthroat round. Fine set of arguments were presented by both the sides accompanied with answering of questions presented by the judges in an attempt to make their respective cases stronger. The counsels presented their arguments with utmost clarity and coherence. The participants were questioned by the judges, and they answered the same with authorities and legal backing. The round came to a successful end after both the teams delivered their rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.

Court Room 5: The National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad v. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala was a close fight between two premier law schools. The participants presented their arguments in an attempt to make their case strong. The judges focused on various peculiarities of law that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments. The participants gave thorough answers to the judges. Following the arguments, the participants presented the Rebuttals. The judges gave an  inspiring feedback at the end and provided insight to the participants on how they can improve.

Court Room 8: NUSRL, Ranchi was up against GNLU, Gandhinagar. The court room saw an engaging round as the judges were asking numerous questions. The counsels attempted their best to try and satisfy the judges of the legal backing to their arguments Later they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.  Both the teams were equally matched in research and it all came down to the skills of oral presentations.

6:45 PM :The Quarterfinals Breaks

After a gruelling two rounds of tough questions and confident rebuttals the teams that have broken into the Quarterfinals of the 10th RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition, with their iron clad cases are-

Tamil Nadu National Law University

National Law University, Odisha

Symbiosis Law School, Pune

West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University

Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar

National Law University, Jodhpur

The Quarterfinals will begin shortly.

7:15 PM :The Quarterfinals 

Court Room 1: Tamil Nadu National Law University were up against National Law University Odisha in the quarterfinals round being judged by Mr. Pushkar Anand Mr. Divyanshu Bhatt and Mr. Victor Das, all of whom are very experienced. The judges grilled both the sides with constant questioning over the binding value of legal provisions mentioned by the counsel. The judges asked several tricky questioned which were answered by the counsels in a tactful manner and this taught them the much-valued art of thinking on one’s feet. The round came to an end with clear rebuttals and sur-rebuttals presented by both the sides.

Court Room No. 2: The room witnessed the round between Symbiosis Law School, Pune and WBNUJS, Kolkata. The bench comprised of Mr. Hari Krishnan, Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, and Mr. Kushal Bansal. The participants seemed exceptionally well versed with the facts and principles of law being applied to the case at hand. Mr. Hari Krishnan questioned the counsels on the principles of law extensively. The various tests applied by the counsels to satisfy the queries of the bench were indicative of the well-researched case being argued in the round. Both the teams were given the time extension of 3 mins and later they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.

Court Room No. 3 : Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University squared up against Symbiosis Law School, Noida. The round was judged by the learned bench comprising of Mr. Ishaan Madan, Mr. Ankit Yadav, and Ms. Kalyani Bhide. The round began with the Team from SLS Noida presenting its arguments. The counsel was asked to throw some light on the facts of the case. Following which the team was questioned thoroughly with respect to International Law. The counsel answered the questions with proper legal backing and sound legal principles. The team from BHU showed great zeal in presenting their arguments and dealt with all the questions thrown at them. This round brought out several interesting insights into the characteristics of the problem and their argumentation.  Following the rounds the judges gave valuable feedback to the participants in order to help them overcome their shortcomings

Court Room 4: The room saw Gujrat National Law University going up against National Law University, Jodhpur. Mr. Anindya Roy, Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Mr. Rishi Mishra were on the bench that posed a series of questions which put the participants in a position to think and come up with the most convincing of arguments. Both sides were confident and articulate in presenting their sides before the judges. The round came to an end with a brief and crisp set of rebuttals and sur-rebuttals.

The rounds came to end with teams from National Law University Jodhpur, Symbiosis Law School, Pune, Symbiosis Law School, Noida, and Tamil Nadu National Law University qualifying for the semifinals. They left the meet with excitement and nervousness for the big day tomorrow.

Day 3 – Semi-Finals and Final Rounds

12:00 PM: The Semi-Finals

Court Room No. 1 : The match-up between National Law University, Jodhpur and Symbiosis law School, Pune was an extraordinary display of skills of in-depth legal research and oral argumentation. Judged by the learned bench comprising of Ms. Ruchira Goel, Mr. Samar Kachwaha and Mr. Anindya Roy. Both the teams were given a time limit of 45 minutes each to present their arguments including rebuttals, the petitioners took an extension of 23 minutes, while the respondents took an extension of 13 minutes. The petitioners and respondents both started their arguments with the issue of maintainability. The teams presented international authorities before the bench to strengthen their case. The judges questioned the teams on the fundamental principles of international law when the speakers were arguing using the principles of freedom of speech expression under international law, judges and were precise in seeking loopholes in their narratives by trying to catch every mis-step of the counsels, which were responded to by both the teams to their best capacity. Both the teams were equally matched in their attempt to present strong and clear cases to the judges. The judges also asked the teams about their locus standi. The judges were well versed with the moot proposition and time and again referred to the same to ask the counsels questions referring to the same. The judges seemed pleased with the ancillary issues presented by the counsels to support their central argument. The round was reflective of the participant’s thoroughness of the law applied. By covering the finer points of the law, all four counsels covered all possibilities and contingencies to the case at hand and hence concluded a hard-fought semi-final round.

Court Room 2: Tamil Nadu National Law University versus Symbiosis Law School, Noida was a fierce round of arguments and counter-arguments. The bench comprised of Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, Mr. Akash Prasad and Ms. Ishita Khare. The round began with the Team from SLS presenting their arguments. The counsel was asked to summarize the facts of the case before proceeding with the arguments. The judges grilled the participant regarding the facts mentioned in the moot proposition. Prachi Shreskar (speaker 2) was questioned in great detail regarding the statutes of the International Court of Justice and the significance of national symbols. The team from SLS concluded their arguments with a total extension of 25 minutes. The team from TNNLU was questioned thoroughly with respect to defamation. The participants answered the questions tactfully and provided the judges with the answers they were looking for. Mr. Aakash Prasad asked well-structured questions in order to gauge the knowledge of facts. The team concluded their arguments with an extension of 15 minutes. The counsels had to balance time-management with the plethora of issues to be dealt with. Fine speaking skills were put on display by the participants. The teams cited various authorities to back their arguments, to the satisfaction of the bench and as a counter to the contentions of the opposing counsels. It was a closely contested round which came down to the rebuttals in the final minutes of the round. The round was hard fought, adding to the anticipation of the results.

2:45 PM: The much awaited results of the Semi-finals have been declared, the teams making it to the Finals of 10th RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition  are –

National Law University, Jodhpur

Tamil Nadu National Law University

3:00 PM: The Final Round


The applicant, Tamil Nadu National Law University presented their submissions first –

Speaker 1

The proceedings started with agent 1 giving a brief submission of facts for the perusal of the judges.

The speaker then went on to systematically list out the issues to be argued by the counsel and the co-counsel hence lending a comprehensible structure to the method of argumentation. 

The first argument presented by the petitioners was that the current dispute in Issue-I is mainitable in front of the court. The counsel referred to Article 36(1) of the statute of ICJ in their first leg of arguments. In addition to all this it was argued that the court has jurisdiction over the presidential order passed, as both the parties are members of WTO and signatories of GATT. The judges questioned the agent regarding the jurisdiction and the type of International Law which is being applied in the present case. The judges also questioned whether a case of such commercial nature has ever been presented before ICJ and not WTO at any prior instance.

The petitioner answered the question by citing the case of Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, which led to further questioning by the judge over the relevancy of the cited case in the present matter. 

The judge then asked the counsel to define defamation against the state, the counsel defined the same using international law and said that this issue will be dealt with by the other speaker and moved on to the next issue i.e. freedom of speech and expression enshrined both in the Winlandan constitution and the International Law. The judge questioned the counsel over the locus on the issue, the counsel answered the same by talking about the erga omnes obligations that it draws from the UN Charter and ICCPR. The petitioner further argued about the merits of the ban, and how the ban does not fulfill the restriction by applying the 3 part test prescribed under article 19 of the ICCPRThe arguments under which were – 

Not prescribed by law

Lack of Legitimate aim

And it is not necessary and disproportionate. 

The judge asked the counsel to elaborate what facet of public international law has been violated, and how do they relate the state law with the international law, which was answered by the counsel.

The counsel dealt with the queries raised by the learned bench, gracefully and the court mannerisms and etiquettes were on full display during the course of argumentation.


Speaker 2 

The speaker started her submission by highlighting the 4th issue, which is – Whether the ban on Chirp under the Presidential Order is tenable under the principles of International law. And talked about the most favored nation treatment that the member nations of WTO get. 

The judges mentioned to the counsel that of the entire case of the petitioner s is merely based on trade disputes then why is wto not the correct forum for them and why have then approached ICJ, the counsel answered the same by clarifying that the case is not merely a trade disputes but includes more aspects than that.

The counsel argues that no good faith exception can be made in the present instance as time and again president palapatine has made anti qinquestian statements.

Then the counsel moved to make submissions on the issue of defamation and submitted that they are aware that there is no distinct definition of defamation of state hence they said they shall rely on Domestic laws and 38(1)(c) of statute of International Court of Justice, and they interpreted attributability from the same.

The counsel pointed out that an Additional context that needs to be considered is that in sickness runerians were being considered super spreaders who are majority in the country.

Therefore, by providing a wide perspective of the general narrative argued by the Plaintiff’s the co-counsel rested their case. 


The Respondents National Law University, Jodhpur presented the counter arguments next –

Speaker 1

After a stellar performance by the petitioners, the counsel for the respondent had their work cut out for them. 

The counsel on behalf of the respondent started by laying down their course of action for their submissions and said that they would discuss the first 2 issues. 

Their first submission was around the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability of the court in the present case. The respondents said that the dispute is not maintainable before the court as the court does not have the jurisdiction.

The counsel presented that Art. 42(1)(b) provides that a state party can refer the matter of alleged violation of provisions of ICCPR by another state party to the Human Rights Committee established under Art. 28(1) for the same purpose which has exclusive jurisdiction ,ICCPR does not confer jurisdiction upon ICJ and any dispute involving an alleged violation of human rights treaty as the subject matter cannot be adjudicated before this court and the same is not admissible, special jurisdiction will prevail and and this court will not have jurisdiction over the same.

The case of Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) was cited by the speaker, but the judges questioned the relevance of the case in the present situation as that case was about consular access. Iran v United states was also mentioned and judges questioned them about the facts, but the respondents were unaware of the same which was not appreciated by the judges. Further the judges asked the counsel for the authority which was answered by the counsel by citing the case of Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America which led to further cross questioning around the facts and principles of the same. 

Then the agent presented that defamation of state does not fall within any of the 3 sources of law presented by the petitioners, and hence the matter does not fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this court.

The agent submitted that the present case fulfills the 3 part test under article 19 of ICCPR i.e.   

Prescription by law

Legitimate aim

Necessity and Proportionality

The judges questioned them on the aspect of national security, and asked them to not only rely on the facts but also mention the law to know the basis of the exception, which was then dealt with by the speaker.

Then the respondents submitted that the misinformation from the app led to ostracization of minorities, problems in hospitals, and the judges questioned the respondents on the same as it was their people using a foreign app spreading misinformation against their own people which was allowed by them themselves and now they are accusing a foreign entity of the same, which was dealt by the speaker.

Then the counsel moved on to their last argument about proportionality. With this the counsel rested their case and handed the podium to the co-agent.


Speaker 2

The second speaker on behalf of the respondents presented the third, fourth and fifth issue of the case.

They submitted that neither the external self determination nor Internal self determination can be attributed in the present case. 

The case of Guinea v Democratic Republic of Congo was cited by the counsel to strengthen their arguments.

They submitted that the ban on chirp was effectuated for national security and public interest reasons, the judge then inquired as to  why this app was allowed to operate in the country earlier.

Judges asked whether the person joining the app was forced the give the information or has the choice to refuse, the respondent then said that there exists a privacy policy and the users were aware of the same, but there have been instances wherein chirp data has been sold illegally and consent provided by users is only for use of app not for other such illegal purposes, as used by the Chirp app.

Upon questioning by the judges the counsel submitted that the ban of chirp deals with all the issues such as miniformation, national security threat and hence if the ban on chirp is upheld by the court they would not approach the court again for the same claims. However, the judges still were not convinced with the issue of maintainability in the present case. 

Then the respondent moved to argue the merits of the case. 

The judges asked for the recourse that the respondents have for all the rights that have been violated, the speaker answered the same briefly. 

In order to prove the legitimate aim of the measure it is contended that there were several aims in the mind of the government like National security- national intelligence law required all organs to cooperate with the QCP regarding data collection. 

The counsel brought to notice Article 7 of National Intelligence Law Of The Socialist Republic Of Qinques states that The National Intelligence Law requires all Qinquestian enterprises and organizations to cooperate with the QCP in terms of data and information sharing with the government. 

The judges questioned the agent on their domestic laws, their intricacies and application in the present case. 

The counsel for the petitioner then proceeded with the following rebuttals: 

The first being that Clause 3b of the global financial powers act on pg 8 of clarification does not provide power to the president to curb free speech. 

The second being that the Special committee report did not ever actually recommend that the app needs to be banned and is an act of legislative overreach. 

The petitioner further submitted that the Unfortunate events that happened in private hospitals show no proof of any action taken by the government. Moreover, the Internal problems cannot be termed as national security, failure of govt to handle the situation is being labeled as a threat to national security.

The respondent then proceeded with the following Sur- rebuttals:

The counsel submitted that the Supreme Court has interpreted statutory provision and held it valid in terms of powers of the president.

The agent further submitted that Privacy of  individuals was getting hampered, and hence the action was needed.

The arguments of the both the sides, concluded, the bench now had to make a decision.


5:00 PM – The Closing Ceremony and Declaration of Results

Nervousness hung in the air as the teams joined the meeting for the declaration of results. After a brief address by Mr. Atul Kumar Tiwari, acting Vice Chancellor of the university wherein he welcomed everyone to the 10th edition of  RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition and thanked our sponsors for the support they have given to this competition from the last 10 years. He thanked the problem drafters for drafting a problem that dealt with such contemporary issues. Then an address was delivered by our Guests of honour Mr. Rahul Goel, Mr. Murali Neelakantan,and Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Justice S. S. Shamshery who gave valuable feedback to the participants. They emphasized that one must give more time researching and less time rehearsing. 

The results of the 10th RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition were declared –


Best Memorial –  Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala

Best Speaker –  Symbiosis Law School, Noida, Aakshat Khetrapal

Runner’s Up – National Law University, Jodhpur 

Winner – Tamil Nadu National Law University

Tamil Nadu National Law University won the the RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition and thus concluded another successful edition of the sub-continent’s most reputed Moot on International Media Law.

New releasesNews

Table of Contents


Indian Courts and Divorce in Muslim Personal Law- A Case of Transformative Constitutionalism for Triple Talaq

Abhishek Mishra   1

Patent Regime and Drug Pricing Regulations: An Intertwining Thread in Determining Accessibility and Affordability of Essential Medicines in India

—Uday Shankar & Nidhi Mehrotra   28

Entrenching Access to Justice Via Court Annexed ADR in Nigeria: Its Benefits and Challenges

—Ayinla, L.A. & Afolabi, Y.S.   46

Development and Environment Discourse: An Understanding with Reference to Uttar Pradesh

—Sanjay Singh  . 59

Presumptions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: A Jurisprudential Analysis

Kumar Askand Pandey & Shivani Tripathi   75

Take or Pay Clauses in Fuel Supply Agreements in India: An Overview

Badrinath Srinivasan   86

From Dream to Broken Relationship – Fraudulent Non – Resident Indian (NRI) Marriages in India: A Critical Study

Sangita Laha  . 109

Gender, Political Parties and Representation: A Study of Lucknow Municipal Corporation

Shailja Singh   121

Emerging Dimensions of Consumer Protection Law in India

Manoj Kumar  . 133

Unity in Diversity: Fratricidal Issues in India

Suvir Kapur  . 150

WTO’s Interpretation of GATT Article XX Chapeau: A Disguised Restriction on Environmental Measures

Sakshi Gupta  . 158

Snag of Electronic Evidence

—Vipul Vinod  . 166

A Critical Analysis of the Implication of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 on Corporate Governance in India

—Kumud Malviya  . 176

Language and Future of Legal Education: Contemporary Challenges

—Subir Kumar & Priya Vijay  . 191

Decoding the Law on Frustration of Contract: The Case of Satyabrata Ghose

—Iish Vinay & Assem Kumar Jha   200

Case Comment

The Issue of Consequential Seniority Pursuant to Reservation in Promotion in Government Services: Comment on B. K. Pavitra v. Union of India

—Manwendra Kumar Tiwari  . 211


Whether Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 is Against the Concept of Secularism: An Appraisal

—Rajneesh Kumar Yadav   220

Book Review

Disaster Management and Protection of Human Rights in India: With Special Reference to International Law and Practice by Subhradipta Sarkar

Debasis Poddar  227

New releasesNews

Table of Contents

What does it Take to be a Human Being: Issues of Conferring Citizenship and Civil Rights on ‘Intelligent Machines’

Ravi Shankar Pandey 1

Victims of the Virtual Vortex: Regulating the Video Game Industry in India

Aaroha Kulkarni 18

Tackling Illegal Sports Streaming: Time to Strengthen the Copyright Regime?

Mohit Kar and Shreya Sahoo 33

To Censor or Not to Censor: Regulation of Content on OTT Media Platforms in India

Astha Pandey and Pranjal Pandey 46

Law School NewsMoot Court Achievements & Reports

Priyanka Sunjay, 5th Year, National Law University Jodhpur was adjudged as the best negotiator at the 5th RMLNLU National Mediation Competition 2019.
The team comprising, Shreya Poonia and Priyanka Sunjay won the award for the best team.
Law School NewsLive Blogging

20 January 2019


The award for the Best Team goes to NLU Jodhpur on the basis of Preliminary rounds with a cash prize of Rs. 5000. Runners Up Negotiator goes to Rituparna Padhy, NLU Orissa and cash prize of Rs. 7,500. Best Negotiator has been won by Priyanka Sunjay, NLU Jodhpur and she is awarded with cash prize worth Rs. 15,000. Runner-Up Mediator is Arshia Roy, NUJS Kolkata and is awarded with cash prize worth Rs. 7,500. Best Mediator is Aditi Pradeep, Jindal Global Law School, who is honored with a cash prize worth Rs. 15,000.


Hon’ble Vice Chancellor has delivered his address, lauding the participants for taking steps towards ADR mechanisms, in light of the shift towards out-of-court settlements as a preference over litigation.


The Valedictory Ceremony has begun. Hon’ble Justice AR Masoodi of Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench is presiding as the Chief Guest.


The Post-Consultation session with the Mediators is over. There are no questions for the Negotiators. Result is awaited.


The parties have delivered their closing statements. Judges shall be conducting a Post-Consultation session, beginning with the Mediators.


The Round is set to be completed in 10 minutes. Both teams are adamantly negotiating on point of control over property.


The Negotiators have reached a settlement on several issues and are currently negotiating settlement for others.


The Mediation session is 90 minutes long and the agenda has been set by the Mediators. Negotiations have begun on the first item of three, on the agenda- valuation of land sold to Plaintiff, Housing Society of Universal Software Employees (House).


Negotiator N10 is delivering her opening statement, highlighting facts of the case on behalf of her client, Nafeesa, in a dispute regarding sale of ancestral land.


The Negotiators have introduced themselves and presently Negotiator N12 is making her opening statement.


Both Mediators are making their opening statements, familiarizing the negotiators with the process and aspects of mediation.


The Final Rounds have begun.


The Final Rounds’ preparation has commenced, with Mediators from NUJS and Jindal Global Law School and Negotiators from NLU Jodhpur and National Law University Orissa, having qualified. Confidential information has been released. Judges’ briefing is currently underway. The Finals’ problem has been drafted by Mr. Hari Krishnan, an alumnus who is practicing at Kerala High Court.


The Semi-Final Rounds commenced, on a problem drafted by Mr. Ankit Yadav, an alumnus who has pursued his Masters from New York University and is currently practicing at the Supreme Court. The problem revolves around a dispute regarding granting asylum to refugees, between two neighbouring countries with differing ethnic compositions- Republic of Kamanya and Peoples’ Republic on Kronica. The dispute has been referred by the UN Security Council vide a special resolution, to a special panel of mediators under the supervision of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees.

19 January 2019


The first Preliminary Round commenced at 11am. The problem was drafted by Mr. Gaurav Pathak, an alumnus of RML, currently practicing Law in Delhi and acting as General Secretary of think-tank, Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change. It concerned a dispute between a parent company Alpha, responsible for engineering a knee replacement device that turned toxic due to release of metal debris and an association of patients, SOS Association, claiming damages for the same. The problem was drafted with the objective of focusing on the process of dispute resolution over the outcomes.


The second Preliminary Round was based on a problem drafted by Mr. Abhishek Dwivedi, an alumnus working in the Dispute Resolution Team at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. The conflict was due to trade by two countries, Republic of New York and Democratic Republic of Ceylon via a Port located in the semi-autonomous Region of Texus. It also included a dispute on seeking consular access to a New York citizen, studying in Ceylon, who was charged with treason and attempt to incite war against Ceylon. The rounds were expectedly intense and judges were overall quite satisfied with the performance.


Breaks into the Quarter-Final Rounds have been announced. The rounds will commence in 15 minutes.


Confidential information has been disclosed to the participants.

18 January 2019


The 5th edition of the RMLNLU National Mediation Competition started with two workshops on developing Negotiation and Mediation skills. The first session on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution was conducted by Ms. Ishana Tripathi, a graduate of NALSAR, Hyderabad. She engaged the participants in three highly interactive case studies, with the objective of inculcating the importance of strategizing to a negotiator, by building an informed opinion and suggesting appropriate solutions at the right time. Her Workshop emphasized, “good advocacy is when your client feels like a winner.” While it is necessary to understand that negotiations are win-win, it is of  paramount consideration during the conduct of the session that your client be fully-satisfied with the outcome.


The second workshop on Mediation and Conflict Resolution was held by Mr. Pascal Comvalius, an International Mediation Institute Certified mediator whose objectives were to help students communicate better, a skill required in every day life, since negotiations are a very integral part of living it. He sought to help students understand the important questions one must ask themselves and others, as a tool for self-reflection. He designed a questionnaire that was used as a tool to know oneself better and acknowledging the differences in how individuals approach conflict and deal with it. His session was replete with trust-building and simulation exercises.


The Organizing Committee and its members conducted the Inaugural Ceremony, graced by the Respected Vice Chancellor, Chairperson of Legal Aid Committee, Dr. Manish Singh and the Chief Guest, Prof. Dr. Ashok Patil, Director, Online Consumer Mediation Centre and Coordinator for Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC), NLSIU. The Competition was declared open by Coordinator, Legal Aid Committee RMLNLU, Dr. Prem Kumar Gautam.


An Orientation Session was conducted by Mr. Nisshant Laroia and Mr. Pitamber Yadav, to familiarize the participants with the format of the Competition. They found the session to be highly participatory, as all questions raised were based on experience and knowledge. The process of Mediation was discussed and the roles of both Mediators and Negotiators were evaluated in light of the marking scheme and a mock was conducted by RML students to familiarize participants. Match-ups were declared soon after. We look forward to a great start with both Preliminary Rounds scheduled for 10 am, 19 January 2019!

Law School NewsOthers

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow has proven its worth as a young and budding institution. We at RMLNLU believe in discovering the unearthed and innate values of culture. A culture that despite being so close to its roots, allows individuality to breathe and breed. It is an unfathomable ride that speeds on wheels of colour, fuelled by dreams and designs. It rushes through the streets of every imagination. It dances to every laugh and chuckle. A culture so deeply ingrained, it breathes colour into our designs, imagination and an unfathomable passion and vigour into our existence. It is this very passion that pushes us, after the success of Riwaayat 1.0, to host the second edition of our vibrant and effervescent cultural festival “Riwaayat 2.0” from 7th to 10th February, 2019. Your coveted institution is invited to be a part of this experience at Riwaayat 2.0.
It is with wholehearted enthusiasm that we invite you to come and join us for the spectacular events and our amazing hospitality over those four days. Give us the honour and privilege of being your hosts. We are eager to have you be a part of the RMLNLU Lucknow culture. We would like to cordially invite you and receive your confirmation at the earliest to our fest, which will allow us to ensure quality experience to all the participants.
The official invite shall follow in the month of November. Come experience shades of life in a way you never have at Riwaayat.
The Cultural Committee would be happy to answer any and all the queries that you may have in this regard.
Ankana Mukherjee – 8400807459; Rishi Sehgal – 9455063268;
Pragya Yadav – 7982968186; Ankur Kumar – 8090019297;
Swarnika Suryavanshi – 7755888277; Shriya Sonkar – 7570813599
New releasesNews



On Capital Punishment

— Prof. Faizan Mustafa & Yogesh Pratap Singh …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1


Collegium and Appointment of Judges at Supreme Court: Has Supreme Court Become Imperium in Imperio

— Abhishek Mishra ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18


Development and Participation under the New Land Acquisition Legislation: A Paradigm Shift or A Safety Valve

— Amita Punj ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42


Stem Cell Patents and Related Policy Issues in Biotechnological Research

— Manish Singh & Shambhavi Mishra ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 56


Social Audit of Child Care Institutions (CCIs): Experiences from Uttar Pradesh

— Kumar Askand Pandey & Anurag Bhaskar ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 70


The Challenges and Prospects of International Commercial Arbitration in India

— Prasenjit Kundu ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 87


Critique of the Jurisprudential Case Against the Constitutional Socio-Economic Rights

— Manwendra Kumar Tiwari ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 101


Human Right to Primary Education in India: Are We Achieving the Objective of RTE? A Study of Slum Children in the City of Ludhiana, Punjab

— Aman A. Cheema ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 119


Reasonable Accommodation of the Differently Abled – Expanding The Horizons Towards More ‘Meaningful’ Accommodation

— Aparna Singh & Ashna Singh K ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 132


Role of TRIPS in Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies to Developing and Least Developed Countries

— Mohammad Umar …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 146


A Critique of The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012

— Priyanka Majumdar ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 159


Cyber Stalking and the Plight of Women in India – A Legal Perspective

— Archana Sarma ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 175


Fostering Inclusive Growth Through A Thrust on Women Entrepreneurship

— Mitali Tiwari …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 193



Subscribe online at or access the articles on

Law School NewsOthers

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow has successfully conducted the fourth edition of its National Mediation Competition from 18th-21st January 2018. While Varsha Manoj from NLU Jodhpur and Lakshana from NALSAR emerged as the Best Mediator and Runners-up Mediator, respectively, Sanjana Kakodkar from VM Salgaokar College of Law and Karan Vijay from NLU Delhi bagged the Best Client and Runners-up Client award, respectively. Also, the team comprising Aryan Agarwal and Arjun Varma from WBNUJS, Kolkata was adjudged as the best team.

The competition, this year, was complemented with a conference and several workshops on different issues relating to Alternate Dispute Resolution. On 18th January, Dr. Claudia Winkler, an Austrian Lawyer who runs an online negotiation training course called The Negotiation Academy, conducted a workshop on mediation for the participants of the competition and RML students. On 19th January, an orientation session for participating Mediators was conducted by Jonathan Rodrigues, a listed mediator with the Indian Institute of Arbitration and Mediation, and Tom Valenti, a Chicago based conflict resolution practitioner. An orientation workshop was also organized by Mr. Pascal Comvalius, an International Mediation Institute certified mediator, and Mrs. Catherine Davidson, a nationally accredited mediator practicing in Australia.

On 20th January, the stage was set for the RMLNLU International Conference on “The Challenges and Prospects of Arbitration and other forms of ADR in India”. The first technical session, chaired by Mr. D Sengupta, Additional Director-Registrar, Indian Council of Arbitration and Dr. Atul Kumar Tiwari, Associate Professor, RMLNLU, was on “The Challenges of International Commercial Arbitration in India: Role of the National Court- the Legislature and Executive.” The second technical session was centered on “Online Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Prospects and challenges in India.” It was chaired by Mr. Sumit Rai, Advocate, Bombay High Court and Dr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Associate Professor, RMLNLU. The third and last session of the day was chaired by Mr. Sumit Rai and Mr. Sheelendra Kumar. It focused on “Emerging Issues in International Commercial Arbitration.” On the next day, the conference taking forward the discussion of its previous sessions started with the fourth technical session on the “Role of Mediation, Conciliation & Lok Adalat as ADR Mechanisms: Growth and Contemporary Challenges.” It was chaired by Prof. (Dr.) SC Srivastav, National Professor, UGC and Mr. GP Tiwari, Secretary, DLSA, Lucknow. The final and the concluding session was conducted by Prof. (Dr.) SC Srivastava and Mr. Prasenjit Kundu, Assistant Professor, RMLNLU.

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!