AchievementsLaw School News

   

NLSI Review back in the rankings; NUJS LR remains the top ranked Journal.

Rank Rank Last Month Name of Journal
1 1 National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review (NUJS LR)
2 2 Indian Journal of Arbitration Law (IJAL)
3 5 RGNUL Financial and Mercantile Law Review
4 3 Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University Law Journal (RMLNLU LJ)
5 4 NLIU Law Rev
6 8 Aligarh Law Journal (ALJ)
7 6 Chanakya National Law University Journal (CNLU J)
8 9 NALSAR Student Law Review
9 New National Law School of India Review (NLSIR)
10 7 Journal of Law Development and Politics (GJLDP)

† The Law Reviews will be ranked as per the number of times the articles are accessed on SCC Online® for a calendar month.

NLSIU
Law School NewsOthers

Socio-Legal Review (SLR) is a bi-annual, open access, student-edited, peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal run by the students of National Law School of India University, Bangalore, and published by the Eastern Book Company (EBC). With respect to our mandate, we subscribe to an expansive view on the interpretation of “law and society” in South Asia, inviting articles with a perceived link between law and social sciences. First published in 2005 with the help of a grant from the Modern Law Review, SLR has carried articles by luminaries in the legal and social fields, including Roger Cotterrell, W.T. Murphy, Werner Menski, Asghar Ali Engineer, Pratiksha Baxi and Gina Heathcote.

SLR has also been cited by the Supreme Court of India multiple times. The article ‘Identity and Identification: The Individual in the Time of Networked Governance,’ Nishant Shah, Vol. 11(2) Socio-Legal Review, (2015) has been cited in Justice Chandrachud’s dissent in Justice KS Puttaswamy and Anr v. Union of India and Ors (2018). SLR has also been cited by Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Chandrachud in their respective opinions in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018). The article cited is ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Adulterous: Criminal Law and Adultery in India’, Abhinav Sekri, Vol. 10(1) Socio-Legal Review, (2014).

SLR is currently inviting submissions for its Volume 19(1). We subscribe to an expansive view on the interpretation of “law and society” thereby keeping its criteria for contributions simply that of high academic merit, as long as there is a perceivable link. This would include not just writing about the role played by law in social change, or the role played by social dynamics in the formulation and implementation of the law, but also writing that simply takes cognizance of legal institutions or institutions of governance or administration, power structures in social commentary, and so on. We accept submissions on a rolling basis. Consequently, we never reject articles for failing to meet a deadline. However, submissions received after December 15, 2022 might have to be considered for publication in the issue to follow.

We also welcome submissions for the Socio-Legal Review Forum. The Forum was conceptualized as a platform for informed debate on contemporary developments. The Forum acts as an online companion to our print journal. It accepts short pieces in the form of comments on recent legal developments or book reviews engaging with recent literature. Longer pieces in the form of essays or responses to pieces published in the Review are also accepted.

SLR has been listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals and has been uploaded on Westlaw, HeinOnline and SCC Online.

ADR Competition AnnouncementsLaw School News

   

About the Legal Aid Clinic

The NLIU – Legal Aid Clinic (“LAC”), which is driven by the ethos of Article 39A of the Indian Constitution, has been established under the aegis of the National Legal Services Authority. It is a student-run initiative, which aims to provide free legal aid to the marginalized sections of society. Our aim is to provide pro bono legal representation and advice to the weak and downtrodden sections of society. Additionally, we also organize various legal literacy workshops and training programs to spread legal awareness and to further the cause of legal literacy. All this has been made possible by the constant support of our collaborators, viz.:

1. Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority,

2. District State Legal Services Authority, Bhopal

3. Indian National Bar Association,

4. International Council of Jurists,

5. Committee for Legal Aid to Poor,

6. SCC Online,

7. EBC,

8. LiveLaw,

9. Red FM Bhopal, and

10. Everyday India.

About the Constitution Day: PIL Drafting Competition

NLIU-LAC is delighted to announce the 3rd edition of the PIL Drafting Competition on the occasion of the 73rd Constitution Day. The competition is aimed at providing an opportunity for the students to understand the legal and practical aspects of Public Interest Litigation. The PIL must be drafted on any issue of contemporary relevance.

The last date to register is 20th November 2022.

Link for registration: Click Here

To Know More, refer NLIU-LAC PIL Drafting Competition

Contact details

Payal Dubey

Convener | Legal Aid Clinic

Class of 2023, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

National Law Institute University, Bhopal

✆ +91 6265-292-486

Gaargi Singh

Co-Convener | Legal Aid Clinic

Class of 2023, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

National Law Institute University, Bhopal

✆ +91 9426-336-531

New releasesNews


About the book


VN Shukla’s Constitution of India has proven itself, over thirteen editions, to be the most authoritative and respected academic book on the Constitution of India. Its authoritative exposition of the law has established it at the foremost rank of classical legal textbooks. 

 

This new edition has been thoroughly revised and updated by Prof. (Dr) Mahendra Pal Singh taking into account the developments since the publication of the previous edition. The current edition includes a detailed analysis of the latest Constitutional Amendments [Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018; Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019; Constitution (104th Amendment) Act, 2019; Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021] and landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Common Cause v. Union of India (right of passive euthanasia) [(2018) 5 SCC 1]; Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (LGBTQI+ rights) [(2018) 10 SCC 1]; Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra (Maratha Reservation case) [(2021) 8 SCC 1]; Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., [(2020) 6 SCC 1], etc. 

 

This book has been an ideal study and reference companion for students and practitioners alike and is frequently cited by courts. The Supreme Court of India cited the 11th Edition in Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, [(2011) 7 SCC 179]; the 10th Edition in Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India, [(2006) 2 SCC 1] and the 7th Edition in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, [1986 Supp SCC 401] while the Constitutional Court of South Africa cited the 9th Edition in Ntandazeli Fose v. Minister of Safety and Security, [1997 SCC OnLine ZACC 6]. 

This book will be immensely valuable for law students, professors, judges, practitioners, government officials, NGOs and anyone interested in learning about Indian Constitutional law. 


Table of Contents 


 

Introduction
Preamble 

Part I – The Union and Its Territory
Part II – Citizenship
Part III – Fundamental Rights
Part IV – Directive Principles of State Policy
Part V – The Union
Part VI – The States
Part VII – The States in Part B of the First Schedule
Part VIII – The Union Territories
Part IX – The Panchayats
Part X – The Scheduled and Tribal Areas
Part XI – Relations between the Union and the States
Part XII – Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits
Part XIII – Trade, Commerce and Intercourse within the Territory Of India
Part XIV – Services under the Union and the States
Part XIV-A – Tribunals
Part XV – Elections
Part XVI – Special Provisions Relating To Certain Classes
Part XVII – Official Language
Part XVIII – Emergency Provisions
Part XIX – Miscellaneous
Part XX – Amendment of the Constitution
Part XX I – Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions
Part XX II – Short Title, Commencement, Authoritative Text in Hindi and Repeals 

Schedules
First Schedule
Second Schedule
Third Schedule
Fourth Schedule
Fifth Schedule
Sixth Schedule
Seventh Schedule
Eighth Schedule
Ninth Schedule
Tenth Schedule
Eleventh Schedule
Twelfth Schedule 

Appendix
Subject Index 


 Reviews 


 

“Professor Singh is to be congratulated in maintaining the impetus of research and revision necessary for successive editions of a book which is extremely useful for the purposes of reference and teaching.”?   Cambridge Law Journal, U.K. 

 

“I have already found it useful for references to authorities on particular Articles.” ?  International and Comparative Law Quarterly, U.K. 


 Purchase Link 


 A copy of the book can be bought here.


 

 

Conference/Seminars/LecturesLaw School News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AchievementsLaw School News

Journal of Indian Law and Society enters the ranking; NLSI Review drops out of the rankings

 

Rank Rank Last Month Name of Journal
1 1 National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review (NUJS LR)
2 3 Indian Journal of Arbitration Law (IJAL)
3 8 Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University Law Journal (RMLNLU LJ)
4 4 NLIU Law Rev
5 5 RGNUL Financial and Mercantile Law Review
6 7 Chanakya National Law University Journal (CNLU J)
7 6 Journal of Law Development and Politics (GJLDP)
8 9 Aligarh Law Journal (ALJ)
9 10 NALSAR Student Law Review
10 New Journal of Indian Law and Society (JILS)

† The Law Reviews will be ranked as per the number of times the articles are accessed on SCC Online® for a calendar month.

AchievementsLaw School News

NLSIR regains rank 2; Aligarh Law Journal drops to rank 9

 

Rank Rank Last Month Name of Journal
1 1 National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review (NUJS LR)
2 3 National Law School of India Review (NLSIR)
3 2 Indian Journal of Arbitration Law (IJAL)
4 5 NLIU Law Rev
5 6 RGNUL Financial and Mercantile Law Review
6 8 Journal of Law Development and Politics (GJLDP)
7 7 Chanakya National Law University Journal (CNLU J)
8 9 Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University Law Journal (RMLNLU LJ)
9 4 Aligarh Law Journal (ALJ)
10 10 NALSAR Student Law Review

 

† The Law Reviews will be ranked as per the number of times the articles are accessed on SCC Online® for a calendar month.

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.

Legal RoundUpWatch Now

SCC Online Weekly Rewind | Episode 40 with Devika Sharma


SCC Online Weekly Rewind ft. Episode 40 Devika Sharma, Senior Editorial Assistant is out now. The written episode along with the video episode can be watched and read below.


Supreme Court Updates


‘Motor Vehicle Appellate Tribunals’ may soon be a reality!   

With an aim to curtail the pendency before the High Courts and for speedy disposal of the appeals concerning payment of compensation to the victims of road accident, the Supreme Court has asked the Ministry of Law and Justice to consider constituting ‘Motor Vehicle Appellate Tribunals’ by amending Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act so that the appeals challenging the award of a Tribunal could be filed before the Appellate Tribunal so constituted. 

The Supreme Court has suggested that there is no need for further appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal as the party always has the option of invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for appropriate reliefs.  

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/09/motor-vehicle-appellate-tribunals/  

SC frowns on rising trend to invalidate sexual misconduct proceedings on hyper-technical points 

In a case where there was a minor discrepancy regarding the date of occurrence of the act of sexual harassment of a constable at the hands of his superior i.e. the head constable, the Supreme Court has held that deeming such a trivial aspect to be of monumental relevance, while invalidating the entirety of the disciplinary proceedings against the superior and reinstating him to his position renders the complainant‘s remedy at nought. 

The Court took the opportunity to highlight the rising trend of invalidation of proceedings inquiring into sexual misconduct, on hyper-technical interpretations of the applicable service rules. It hence urged the Courts to be mindful of the fact that there are several considerations and deterrents that a subordinate aggrieved of sexual harassment has to face when they consider reporting sexual misconduct of their superior. 

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/06/sc-frowns-on-rising-trend-to-invalidate-sexual-misconduct-proceedings-on-hyper-technical-points-after-calcutta-hc-reinstates-bsf-head-constable-based-on-minor-discrepancy/  

Consumer Protection| Open to NCDRC to direct deposit of entire or more than 50 % of the amount ordered by SCDRC while staying SCDRC ‘s order 

Explaining the scope of Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Supreme Court has held that NCDRC can pass an order to deposit the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission while staying its order. 

However, while doing so the NCDRC has to assign some reasons and pass a speaking order as such an order on the stay application is not to be passed mechanically. 

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/08/consumer-protection-open-to-ncdrc-to-direct-deposit-of-entire-or-more-than-50-of-the-amount-ordered-by-scdrc-while-staying-scdrc-s-order-sc/ 


High Court Updates


Bombay High Court

Rape by person claiming to have supernatural powers

You must have heard about the unfortunate events happening due to blind faith of people and one such incident was addressed by the Bombay HC recently wherein a person was accused of asking a couple who were issueless to perform sexual acts in his presence and on one such occasion he raped the woman. Court noted that the woman had deep faith in the said man and only on account of such faith the husband and wife indulged in sex in his presence which otherwise could have been quite embarrassing.

Bombay High Court while addressing the matter with regard to rape committed by a person claiming to have supernatural powers expressed that,

“It is significant to note that the blind faith of the parties/victim on the accused is the real driver in such cases.”

High Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 376 IPC.

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/10/rape-by-person-claiming-to-have-supernatural-powers/

Does S. 327(2) CrPC providing for “in camera” proceedings apply to appeals? Bom HC decides while rejecting Tarun Tejpal’s application

The Bombay High Court at Goa rejected Tarun Tejpal’s plea to conduct “in camera” proceedings in connection with the appeal filed against his acquittal in a rape case. The High Court held that:

“Section 327(2) CrPC would only be applicable to ‘inquiry’ or ‘trial’ and that the same will not apply to appeals, either appeal against conviction or an application seeking leave to file appeal against acquittal.” 

The Court observed:

“In proceedings such as these, i.e. rape cases in general, it is expected that all parties conduct themselves with dignity, sobriety and some sensitivity that is required, particularly, whilst reading evidence pertaining to intimate details. This, we think is not too much to expect from the Advocates appearing for the respective parties. Maintaining decorum in the courtroom is not merely a superficial means of protecting the image of lawyers and judges – but it is absolutely essential to the administration of justice.”

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/07/does-s-3272-crpc-providing-for-in-camera-proceedings-apply-to-appeals/

Rape, Murder of Ragpicker: Merely because crime is heinous and brutal, it won’t be just to get carried away sans any legal proof to substantiate charges

Bombay High Court while addressing a sordid story of two poor, helpless and hapless victims who had not only been raped but one of them had been brutally murdered, held that,

“…prosecution has utterly failed in connecting the dots and bringing home the guilt of the accused.”

To read the detailed brief, please check out the SCC Online Blog.

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/02/rape-and-murder-of-ragpickers/

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

 Mandatory Vehicle Location Tracker and insertion of Panic button

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the Union government to implement mandatory Vehicle Location Tracking Devices and Panic Button for all public service vehicles in the tune of Rule 125-H of Motor Vehicles Rules. The Bench remarked,

“It goes without saying that the provisions of Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rule 125-H have to be complied with in their letter and spirit. The exemption granted by the Government was limited in a period of time and has since expired.”

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/10/mandatory-vehicle-location-tracker-and-insertion-of-panic-button/

Calcutta High Court

Can mere failure to keep a promise without anything more lead to irresistible conclusion that promise had been dishonestly made from inception?

While addressing a matter under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 Calcutta High Court, observed that, it cannot be said that appellant had no intention to marry from the inception of the relationship, infact the relationship did not fructify due to obstruction from the elders of the family.

High Court observed that

Mere failure to keep a promise without anything more cannot lead to the irresistible conclusion that the promise had been dishonestly made from the inception.

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/09/false-promise-of-marriage-2/


Foreign Court

United Kingdom Supreme Court

 

Man with autistic disorder expresses desire to engage in sexual relations: Does he understand requirement of ‘consent’ from another sexual partner? UK SC explains

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom dealt with a very interesting matter and laid a detailed decisiom regarding ‘consent’ with respect to sexual relations. The matter before the Court raised issues of profound significance under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for persons with a disturbance in the functioning of mind or brain which potentially renders them unable to make a decision for themselves in relation to having sexual relations. The UK Supreme Court expressed that, the fact that the other person must have the ability to consent to the sexual activity and must in fact consent before and throughout the sexual activity applies to everyone in society.

Read here


Legislation Updates 


Tripura Value Added Tax (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2021 

On December 07, 2021, the Government of Tripura has issued the Tripura Value Added Tax (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 2021 in order to amend Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004. 

A new Rule 45A has been inserted which provides “Every registered dealer whose gross turnover in a year exceeds Rs. 40 lakh shall get his accounts, in respect of that year audited by an accountant within 6 months from the end of that year and obtain a report of such audit in Form-XLIV.” 

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/10/tripura-value-added-tax-eighth-amendment-rules-2021/  

Ministry issues clarification on passing general and special resolutions through VC or OAVM 

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has issued a clarification on passing general and special resolutions through Video Conference (VC) or Other Audio-Visual Means (OAVM) or to transact items through postal ballet vide circular dated December 8, 2021. The companies are allowed to conduct their EGMs through Video Conference (VC) or Other Audio-Visual Means (OAVM) or transact items through postal ballot till 30th June, 2022. 

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/09/ministry-issues-clarification-on-passing-general-and-special-resolutions-through-vc-or-oavm/  

 UAE | Government adopts 4.5 days working week 

The UAE Government has adopted a four and half day working week with Saturday Sundays as off days on December 7, 2021. The law will come into effect from January 1, 2022. 

Public sector workers at the ministerial level will adopt a four and a half day working week, with employees working Monday to Thursday. There will be a half day on Fridays. Saturday and Sunday will be the new weekend for government workers. 

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/08/uae-government-adopts-4-5-day-working-week-shortest-in-the-world/  

SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2021 

Delisting provisions introduced vide SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2021 which amends the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011. 

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/12/07/delisting-provisions-introduced-vide-sebi-substantial-acquisition-of-shares-and-takeovers-third-amendment-regulations-2021/  

Legal RoundUpWatch Now

SCC Online Weekly Rewind Episode 36 ft. Nilufer Bhateja, Associate Editor is out now. The written episode along with the video episode can be watched and read below.


Supreme Court 


Land Acquisition| 2-year limitation period as per Section 11A of 1894 Act for passing award in proceedings initiated under the repealed Act, impractical

 In an important ruling on Land Acquisition and Requisition law, the Supreme Court has held that applying the 2-year limitation period as per Section 11A of 1894 Act for passing award in pending cases under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act is impractical 

Noticing that practical absurdities and anomalies may arise if the two-year period under the 1984 Act is applied, the Court said that this would mitigate against the underlying legislative intent behind prescription of time for making of an award in respect of saved acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed 1894 Act.  

It was, hence, held that Section 25 of the 2013 Act would apply to the awards made and published under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. 

Read more.

Rampant increase in heinous crimes not a ground to shift burden of proof on accused

 In a case where the Trial Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court had shifted the burden of proof on the accused merely for the reason that there has been a rise in the incidents of dacoity, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court has held that the Trial Court and the High Court have erroneously drawn adverse inference against the accused, in spite of the Prosecution having lamentably failed to adequately dispense with its burden of proof to depict culpability of the accused. 

  Applying the principle that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer”, the Court said that, 

“It may not be wise or prudent to convict a person only because there is rampant increase in heinous crimes.” 

Read more

Bail can’t be granted by merely “keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case”

In a case where Rajasthan High Court had granted bail by merely “keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case”, the Supreme Court has held that such orders cannot pass muster. 

The Matter pertained to the alleged murder of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The offence is alleged to be committed by the deceased’s brother-in-law on June 8, 2018. The High Court had only recorded the submission of counsel for the first respondent and did not make any mention of factors relevant for the grant of bail. 

In such circumstances, the Court held that  

“The duty to record reasons cannot be obviated by recording submissions, followed by an omnibus “in the facts and circumstances” formula.”  

And that the Courts must indicate brief reasons  basis for granting bail. 

Read more


 High Court Updates 


“No other person whether a passenger or owner of the vehicle was supposed to share seat of the driver”; Kerala HC exonerates insurer, Bajaj Allianz from liability to pay compensation  

  In a case of motor vehicle accident, The Kerala High Court exonerated the insurance company, Bajaj Allianz from liability to pay compensation. The Court made important observation that  

“In a three wheeler goods carriage, the driver could not have allowed anybody else to share his seat. No other person whether as a passenger or as a owner of the vehicle is supposed to share the seat of the driver.”  

Read more

Del HC on Private individuals subjected to assault by Policemen: Law does not permit people to be beaten-up in police custody or during interrogation  

While addressing a very unfortunate incident of police assault, Delhi HC, expressed that  

Let no one have to repeat the tragic last words like George Perry Floyd, Jr.: “I cant breathe”.  

The Court further elaborated that, Punishment for an assault or a criminal act is to be determined by a court of law. The police cannot be a judge in its own cause. The law does not permit people to be beaten-up in police custody or during interrogation.  

Read more

Whether service provided by doctors in lieu of fees is beyond purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019? Bom HC answers  

 Holding that mere repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not result in the exclusion of ‘health care’ services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of service, the Bombay HC, expressed that matter before it was,  

“…a thoroughly misconceived Public Interest Litigation”  

Court expressed that,   

mere repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not result in exclusion of ‘health care’ services rendered by doctors to patients from the definition of the term “service”  

Read more

Turban an essential religious symbol: Photographing an elderly person in injured condition without turban and circulating it on social media: Is it an offence? P&H HC decides  

Noting the incident of prima facie hurting of religious feelings, P&H HC dismissed the anticipatory bail of a person who video graphed a man without turban aged 65 years old who was beaten up repeatedly and his video was circulated on social media.  

Court expressed that, The turban is an essential religious symbol and photographing of an elderly person in an injured condition without the turban and uploading it for public viewing on a social platform would prima facie amount to hurting the religious feelings.  

Read more


  Legislation updates 


 UP Government adds “Married Daughter” in the dependents’ list for government jobs 

UP Government has passed a proposal that married daughter of a government official dying during his service will now be entitled to government jobs on compassionate grounds in Uttar Pradesh. The decision of the Personnel Department was approved by State Cabinet on November 10, 2021. 

Read more 

 Aadhaar (Authentication and Offline Verification) Regulations, 2021 

The Unique Identification Authority of India has notified the Aadhaar (Authentication and Offline Verification) Regulations, 2021. 

  • Under the regulations, UIDAI provides two types of authentication facilities, i.e. yes/no authentication facility and e-KYC authentication facility and other types of offline verification facility have been introduced such as QR Code Verification, Aadhaar Paperless offline e-KYC verification, e-Aadhaar verification, offline paper based verification and any other type of offline verification introduced by the UIDAI from time to time. The other mode of verifications such as OTP and biometric based authentication will also continue along with offline options. 
  • The regulations prescribe a choice to the Aadhaar holder to share the Aadhaar paperless offline e-KYC with the authorised agency for the Aadhaar e-KYC verification process. The authorised agency will match the Aadhaar number and demographic information obtained by the Aadhaar holder with the demographic information in the central database. 

Read more

 Food Safety and Standards (Import) First Amendment Regulations, 2021 

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has notified the Food Safety and Standards (Import) First Amendment Regulations, 2021 vide notification dated November 3, 2021. The regulations amend the Food Safety and Standards (Import) Regulations, 2017 to insert the chapter with respect to registration and inspection of Foreign Food manufacturing facilities. 

Read more

Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Fourth Amendment Regulations, 2021 

The Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 has been amended to provide that in case of formulated supplements for children, a variation of minus 10.0 per cent from the declared value of the nutrients or nutritional ingredients on the label shall be allowed and the nutrient levels shall not exceed maximum limits as specified in the composition tables. 

  Read more

 SEBI: Circular on write-off of debt securities held by FPIs 

SEBI has earlier permitted FPIs who wish to surrender their registration to write-off all shares in their beneficiary account which they are unable to sell for any reason. 

On November 08, 2021, SEBI has issued a circular to permit the FPIs to also write- off all debt securities in their beneficiary account which they are unable to sell for any reason. This shall be applicable only to such FPIs who wish to surrender their registration. 

Read more


Follow us on Social Media


 

Twitter – https://twitter.com/scconline_

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/scc.online/

Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/scconline_/

LinkedIn- https://www.linkedin.com/company/scco

Telegram – https://t.me/scconline

Whatsapp – https://chat.whatsapp.com/IFivYcauiEt

 

Follow Nilufer Bhateja

SCC Online Blog Reports: https://www.scconline.com/blog/search/nilufer%20bhateja

Twitter: https://twitter.com/LucknawiRooh

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nilufer-bhateja-99194a21/

High Court Round UpLegal RoundUp

Monthly Roundup


Here’s a quick run-through of all the latest and interesting updates from the High Court’s section.

Go ahead and check out the September Updates below.


Allahabad High Court


Cow Slaughter Act

  • Is Magistrate empowered to pass order for disposal of property under CrPC when vehicle is seized under U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act? All HC examines

Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J., held that the Magistrate is denuded of his power to pass any order under Sections 451, 452 and 457 CrPC for release of a vehicle seized for alleged violation of provisions of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.

Read more…


Andhra Pradesh High Court


GST

  • Can Commissioner of Central Tax GST Commissionerate withhold the SVLDRS Discharge certificate for transition of disputes credits to GST?

Availing of transitional credit by the petitioner under the GST Act on the Cenvat credit for GTA and C&F Agency services under the Central Excise Act is a subsequent and separate transaction from the declaration made by him under the Scheme and the adjudication of such claim cannot be said to be barred in law or without jurisdiction.

Read more…

Maintenance

  • Daughter turning major, will not be entitled to maintenance from father? Andhra Pradesh HC explains the law

While explaining the law on whether father is obligated to provide maintenance to his daughter irrespective of the fact that she has turned major,Joymalya Bagchi, J., refused to interfere with the decision of lower court.

Read more…

Minimum Wages

  • Whether Minimum Wages Act, 1948 will be applicable to a ‘Math’? In what circumstances can State be permitted to interfere? AP HC explains

Temple and Math are both religious institutions, but the purposes for which they are established and the manner in which they function are clearly specified in Section 2(17) of  A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 Act.

Read more…


Bombay High Court


Right of Inheritance

  • Widow’s right of inheritance after re-marriage: Will mother of deceased be fully entitled to claim dues of deceased son or does wife who re-marries will also have share? Bom HC delves to answer

Addressing a matter pertaining to the widow’s right of inheritance on the property of the deceased husband,S.M. Modak, J., observed that,

Both wife and mother will have an equal share in light of Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, which was in existence at the time of the dispute.

Read more…

Supply of Water

  • Two hours, Twice a month, water supply – Even after 75 years of independence, Bom HC addresses request for regular water supply || State Govt. depriving people of their fundamental right

State Government by providing water to its citizens only twice a month, and that too for a mere two hours, is not only depriving its people of their fundamental right, but in doing so is inviting criticism and tarnishing its image, especially when such is the scenario after 75 years of independence.

Read more…

Rehabilitation

  • Negligent approach of Govt & a cascading effect: Mere right of rehabilitation will be equivalent to right of ownership? Detailed report on how slum dwellers encroached public land and claimed their right

“It is not new that valuable Government land on account of the negligent approach of the officers in charge by not protecting such lands from encroachment have stood extinguished from the Government’s holding, causing a serious cascading effect.”

Read more…

Misery of Parents

  • “Daughters are daughters forever and sons are sons till they are married”: Bom HC orders son to vacate flat of 90 yrs old parents

Noting the misery of parents aged 90 years,G.S. Kulkarni, J., observed that,

 “Daughters are daughters forever and sons are sons till they are married” albeit there would surely be exemplary exceptions.

Read more…

Sexual Harassment

  • Fear of stigma, not being believed and being blamed: 17-year-old girl leaving a note to her mother explaining ill deeds of her uncle who sexually harassed her, ended her life | Bom HC delves to know what happened

Unfortunately, we have not been able to create an atmosphere in the Society where parents, teachers and adults in company of the child can identify signs of abuse and make sure children received care and protection.

Read more…

Rape on False Promise of Marriage

  • ‘Astrological Incompatibility’ as reason to refuse marriage: Bom HC refuses to discharge man accused of rape on false promise of marriage

While noting a case of false promise to marry Sandeep K. Shinde, J., refused to allow application wherein a man claimed the reason of astrological incompatibility valid for refusing marriage.

Read more…

Contractual Employees

  • To exercise rights, can contractual employees approach a permanent employer? Bom HC verdict determines

Contractual employees are engaged through contractors, their service conditions are governed by the contracts between them, hence in case of any grievance, they shall approach the contractor and not a principal employer.

Read more…

Conviction under Section 304 Part I Penal Code, 1860

  • “Necessary to read mind of offender and not consider offence devoid of emotions”: Bom HC acquits accused of offence under S. 302 IPC rather convicts under S. 304 Part I IPC

Convicting a person under Section 304 Part I of Penal Code, 1860 Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ., held that,

On finding that there was no hope that his beloved wife would return to matrimonial abode, accused got enraged an lost self-control and assaulted his wife with whatever available just nearby.

Read more…

Cheating

  • Tendency of guaranteeing decision to come in favour of one party or other, amounts to maligning a particular Judge and at large, institution itself by giving an impression that justice can be bought

It is not uncommon feature that when the matter is pending before the particular Court, the parties indulge into transaction under the guise of ‘settlement’ and sometimes it so happens, even without the knowledge of counsel on record, who may prefer to argue the case on its merit. This tendency of guaranteeing the decision to come in favour of one party or the other, amounts to maligning a particular Judge and at large, the institution itself by giving an impression that justice can be bought and the Prosecutors and Judges can be sold.

Read more…

POSH Judgments

  • POSH Judgments and Order to be delivered only in Chambers or in-camera, media disclosure forbidden: G.S. Patel, J. issues detailed guidelines

While addressing an issue revolving around the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and  Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013,  G.S. Patel, J., laid down guidelines with an endeavour to anonymize the identities of the parties.

Read more…


Calcutta High Court


Bengal Post Poll Violence

  • Retired Chief Justice of Calcutta HC Manjula Chellur to monitor SIT in the Poll violence cases

The Full Bench of Rajesh Bindal, ACJ and I.P. Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Subrata Talukdar, JJ., in furtherance to the order passed on 19-08-2021 which had directed the constitution of SIT to monitor the investigation of specific categories of cases monitored by a retired Hon’ble Supreme Court Judge, appointed a retired Chief Justice of a High Court stating non-availability of a retired

Read more…

Illegal Allotment of Plot

  • Did Sourav Ganguly play with the ‘System’? Cal HC pens down its decision in illegal allotment of plot to cricketer against State’s land allotment policy

“It is a fact that Sourav Ganguly has brought laurels for the country in Cricket. But when it comes to law, our Constitutional Scheme is that all are equal and no one can claim to be exclusive, above the law and seek benefits from the State, especially when question arises for allotment of plots for commercial venues.”

Read more…

Domestic Violence Act

  • Is it proper to invoke S. 482 CrPC for quashing Magistrate’s order in a proceeding under S. 12 r/w S. 23 of Domestic Violence Act on the point of maintainability? Cal HC determines

 Bibek Chaudhari, J., considered the question as to whether Section 482 CrPC is applicable in relation to an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Read more…


Chhattisgarh High Court


No work No pay

  • The principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ would not be applicable where the rule expressly direct otherwise; Matter remitted back to consider grant of full pay and allowances

 No Work No Pay’ principle has been laid down keeping in view public interest that a Government servant who does not discharge his duty is not allowed pay and arrears at the cost of public exchequer.

Read more…

Extortion

  • When prima facie ingredients of S. 383 IPC is not made out, then the offence under S. 388 IPC cannot be made out

“…what is necessary for constituting an offence of ‘extortion’ is that the prosecution must prove that on account of being put in fear of injury; the victim was voluntarily delivered any particular property to the man putting him into fear. If there was no delivery of property, then the most important ingredient for constituting the offence of ‘extortion’ would not be available. Further, if a person voluntarily delivers any property without there being any fear of injury, an offence of ‘extortion’ cannot be said to have been committed.”

Read more…

Prevention of Corruption Act

  • Interdicting a criminal proceeding midcourse on ground of invalidity of the sanction order not appropriate unless failure of justice has occasioned as per S. 19(3) PC Act

“…previous sanction for prosecution is required in respect of a public servant who is employed and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government.”

Read more…


Delhi High Court


Trademark Infringement

  • Will the rights of a prior user override those of a subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark? All-Inclusive Report on Trademark Infringement of ‘Rajdhani’

The rights of a prior user will normally override those of the subsequent user even though it had been accorded registration of its trademark.

Read more…

Properties Mortgaged to Banks

  • If Banks have to survive, borrowers must exist and not mere borrowers but productive borrowers: Del HC on whether borrowers have protection against arbitrary disposal of properties mortgaged to banks at low prices? [In-depth Report]

The Banks seek collaterals and security to prevent losses to themselves. It is, but reasonable, to expect the Banks such as the respondent, to also respect the right of the borrowers to maximize their profits from the sale of collaterals/securities by the banks.

Read more…

 Advocates Representation in Labour Courts

  • Representation by Advocates before Labour Courts: Del HC reiterates there is no absolute bar

Judicial decisions on the question of consent, including implied consent, have primarily turned on the facts of each case.

Read more… 

Indian Army

  • Under Indian Army, can mere acceptance of a resignation create a vacancy for being filled up from cadet in waiting? Read what Del HC says

 “Mere acceptance of resignation may not be sufficient to consider creation of a vacancy for being filled up from the cadet in the waiting.” 

Read more…

Eviction Order

  • What are the essential ingredients that a landlord is required to show for purpose of getting an eviction order for bonafide needs? Del HC elaborates

 Jayant Nath, J., while addressing a matter noted the essential ingredients that a landlord is required to show for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bonafide needs.

Read more…

Custodial Violence

  • Remedial action to be taken so that unscrupulous officers at Jail do not take advantage of knowledge of non-working of CCTVs & get away by doing any illegal act

Walls of prison, howsoever high they may be, the foundation of a prison is laid on the Rule of Law ensuring the rights to its inmates enshrined in the Constitution of India.

 Read more…

 Voluntary Retirement

  • Under Pension Rules, if a Government Servant seeks voluntary retirement, he must have completed service of 20 years and may serve notice of 3 months

 Government Servant at any time, after he has completed 20 years of qualifying service, may give a notice of 3 months to retire from the service.

Read more…

 Testimony of Child victim

  • Can testimony of child victim be trustworthy? HC reiterates law on finding child witness competent

 Under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, there is also a presumption regarding the guilt of an accused. As a result, the prosecution has to lay down and prove the fundamental facts regarding the guilt of the accused but the burden of proof on the prosecution is not of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Once the facts are proved, the onus is on the accused to lead evidence to rebut the presumption raised under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

Read more…

 Territorial Jurisdiction

  • Will the place mentioned on invoice decide the jurisdiction of a Court on filing of a suit against it? Del HC explains

 Section 20 clearly provides that a Court within whose local limits the cause of action, “wholly or in part”, arises, would have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

Read more…

 Settlement

  • Person accused under S. 307 IPC if entered into a compromise with victim, can Court quash criminal proceedings in light of settlement? Delhi HC unravels

 “…an offence under Section 307 IPC will fall under the category of heinous offence, and therefore, has to be treated as a crime against the society and not against the individual alone and the proceedings under Section 307 IPC cannot be quashed only on the ground that the parties have resolved the entire disputes amongst themselves.”

Read more…

 Compulsory Retirement

  • On what basis is an employee compulsory retired? An account of Compulsory Retired, IRS Officer | Read Del HC’s opinion stressing on ‘compulsory retirement, a subjective satisfaction’

 Fundamental source of compulsorily retiring an employee of the Government is derived from “Doctrine of Pleasure” which springs from Article 310 of the Constitution of India.

Read more…

Arbitration

  • ICADR Rules regarding procedure come into play only after arbitration commences before appropriate jurisdiction of law: Del HC summarises law on seat, venue of arbitration

 While observing that the role of ICADR Rules shall come into play with regard to the procedure to be followed, only after the arbitration commences before the appropriate jurisdiction of law, Suresh Kumar Kait, J., reiterated the observation of BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC(2020) 4 SCC 234, wherein it was stated that if the arbitration agreement provides that arbitration proceedings “shall be held” at a particular venue, then that indicates arbitration proceedings would be anchored at such venue, and therefore, the choice of venue is also a choice of the seat of arbitration. 

Read more…


 Gujarat High Court


 Gazettes

  • E-publishing of old gazettes to be done within six months; Court directs State to submit compliance report

 “…brought into notice of the Court that as far as the past or old Notifications issued earlier were concerned, such old Gazettes as prayed in prayer (b), the process was underway and the same will be over within a short period.”

Read more…

Detention

  • Detaining authority fell in error in interpreting “dangerous person”; Court allows petition against detention

 Paresh Upadhyay, J., allowed a petition which was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat whereby the petitioner is detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985.

Read more…

Joint family Property

  • Whether permission is required to sell undivided share of minor in joint family property or not? Succinct report on Gujarat HC’s decision

“…interest of the minor son is to be taken care of, while his share of joint family property is being sold.”

Read more…

 Compensation

  • Discretion not to be exercised in blanket form which may otherwise lead to improper exercise of such power and will frustrate object of grant of compensation under Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2020

 R Mohapatra J. allowed the appeals and directed to disburse the awarded amount by liquidating the fixed deposits, if any, to the claimants on proper identification, as expeditiously as possible. 

Read more…


 Himachal Pradesh High Court


Gallantry Medal

  • “Dispatching the gallantry medal directly to the writ petitioner through courier amount to breach of protocol”; Such awards must be given only in ceremonial functions of Independence Day/ Republic Day

Court observed that while promoting acts of bravery and courage, gallantry awards are made for ensuring the spirit of bravery the recipients of awards must be honored in ceremonial functions of Republic Day or Independence Day. It was also observed that delay in the conferment of gallantry awards should be deprecated.

 Read more…

Maintenance

  • “Granting interim maintenance is similar to giving first aid”; Maintenance granted to wife under S. 125 CrPC; Solemnization of marriage under challenge is subject to proof

 Anoop Chitkara J. remarked, “There is neither any illegality nor the maintenance beyond the petitioner’s means; as such, there are no merits in the present petition.” 

Read more…


 J&K and Ladakh High Court


Freedom of Press v. Breach of Peace and Defamation

  • J&K and Ladakh HC | Freedom of Press v. Breach of Peace and Defamation of authority; HC holds no fetters can be placed on the press by registering FIR

“No fetters can be placed on the freedom of press by registering the FIR against a reporter, who was performing his professional duty by publishing a news item on the basis of information obtained by him from an identifiable source.”

Read more…

Right to go Abroad

  • Right to go abroad to pursue studies cannot be denied only on the ground of involvement in a criminal case; HC waives conditional bail order

“The petitioner cannot be denied the right to go abroad to pursue studies only on the ground that he is involved in a criminal case. Looking to the gravity of charge and the young age of the petitioner and his quest to acquire quality education, the request made appears to be genuine.”

Read more…

Right to protect Property

  • Husband is not a stranger; has every right to protect property of his wife; HC dismisses petition challenging husband’s locus standi

“…the husband of the purchaser of the property has every right to look after and protect the property of his wife”

Read more…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act

  • Interim Award v/s Interim Order; HC clarifies prerequisites of S. 31 (6) and S. 17 (1)(ii)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

“While passing an order under Section 17 (1)(ii)(e) of the Act of 1996, an arbitral Tribunal would be justified in considering the prima facie case, the balance of convenience and similar other factors at the time of passing such an order, while making an interim award under Section 31 (6) of the Act, the arbitral Tribunal has to be satisfied that there is an admission or acknowledgment of liability on the part of the party against which the award is proposed to be made.”

Read more…

Rumourous Tweet

  • Will a rumourous tweet make one legally liable even when one deletes it on coming to know it to be untrue? HC decides

“A perusal of the petitioner’s tweet would reveal that it begins with words “JUST HEARD”, meaning thereby that what was uploaded by him was just heard by him and he had no personal knowledge of the same respondents and this subsequent conduct of the petitioner also makes it ample clear that the said tweet was uploaded in a good faith without any criminal intention to generate the consequences as provided by section 505 RPC.”

Read more…

Appeal

  • Appeal filed without annexing decree sheet passes admission stage due to lapse on the part of Court Registry; Will the appeal survive? HC decides

“If the Appeal has passed through the stage of admission through oversight of the office, then, the only fair and rational course to adopt would be to adjourn the hearing of the appeal with a direction that the appellant should procure the certified copy of the decree as soon as it is supplied to him.”

Read more…


Jharkhand High Court


Non-Appearance of Counsel

  • Can a criminal case be decided ex-parte? What is the resort in cases of non-appearance of counsel of the accused? HC answers

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., set aside the order of conviction under Section 304A of IPC passed without hearing the accused. The Bench stated that in case of non-appearance of counsel for the accused it is the duty of the Court to appoint another counsel as amicus curiae to defend the accused.

Read more…

Railway Ticket

  • Mere holding ticket for passenger train will not suffice purpose to declare deceased not a bonafide passenger under S. 2 (29) in a benevolent legislation like Railways Act, 1989; Contrary evidence must

“…once the ticket number has been brought on record which indicates that it was from Asansol to Madhupur, the railway ought to have brought on record any material to show that this ticket was never sold by the railway or this ticket was never issued for the express train and only on the argument, that deceased was holding ticket for passenger train will not suffice the purpose to declare the deceased not a bonafide passenger under Section 2 (29) of the Act in a benevolent legislation like Railways Act, 1989.”

Read more…

Protection of Fauna and Flora

  • “Duty of Forest Guards is to guard not only forest but also animals”; HC emphasises on need to protect fauna along with flora

Reprehending the conduct of the forest staffs, the Bench stated,

“The duty of the Forest Guards as also the Range Officers is to guard not only the forest but also the animals for which the staffing pattern to that effect has been made but even though the elephant calf reported to have died 3-4 days ago, nobody was aware about the death which suggests about the functioning of the employees/officers of the Forest Department…”

Read more…

Departmental Proceedings

  • Conclusion of Departmental proceeding on the ground of conviction by Trial Court; will subsequent acquittal by High Court affect the outcome of departmental proceeding?

 “It is well known that the High Court while acquitting the petitioner has decided the criminal case only and the authority concerned has to consider the reinstatement of the petitioner in service while passing a reasoned order.”

Read more…


Karnataka High Court


Maternity Leave

  • Kar HC granted maternity leave to senior resident doctor employed on contract basis who was denied the same by Joint Director, ESIC Medical College & Hospital, Kalaburagi

Court observed that the Office Memorandum dated 11-01-2018 discloses that in respect of Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff they are entitled to 26 weeks of Maternity Leave, subject to the condition that such person must have rendered at least 80days of service in the past 12 months preceding the date of expected delivery, as envisaged in the Maternal Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017.

Read more…

Criminal Trial

  • “Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court” Application of judicious mind sine qua non for setting criminal trial in motion

Section 503 IPC, which defines ‘criminal intimidation’ would direct that whoever threatens another person with any injury to his person, reputation or property by an act, he is not legally bound to do and executes certain threats, commits criminal intimidation.

Read more…

Right to Life

  • Freezing of Bank accounts by investigating authorities would adversely affect right to life under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India

Mohammad Nawaz J. allowed the petition and defreezes the bank accounts subject to a bank guarantee.

Read more…

Perjury

  • “Act of perjury is treated as a heinous offence in all civilized societies”; Delay in consideration of such complaints can pollute the fountain of justice

Krishna S Dixit, J., allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order highlighting the importance of perjury applications to be considered at the earliest.

Read more…

Textbooks in braille

  • Kar HC directs State Government to provide text books in Braille for all special children (visual disabilities) positively within a period of 15 days from the date of order

A Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ. and Sachin Shankar Magadum J. directed the State Government to provide textbooks in Braille for all specially abled children having visual disabilities within a period of 15 days.

Read more…


Kerala High Court


Mental Health

  • “Good Samaritans are absent”; HC issues detailed directions for handling cases of mentally ill prisoners where family/friends shows reluctance to take their custody

“The powerless, voiceless mentally ill prisoners languishing in prisons and mental health centres for years together, embroiled in legal quagmire and abandoned by family and friends. The system and the society presume them to be devoid of knowledge and feeling, thereby turning them into stone.”

Read more…

Criminal Antecedents

  • What sort of reasoning is this? HC slams Authorization Committee for rejecting Kidney donation application because the donor has criminal antecedents

“I hope, they will not reject the applications because the donor is a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, or person in a lower caste after comparing with the religion and caste of the recipient.”

Read more…

Public Servants

  • No prosecution against public servants without prior approval of government; HC dismisses CBI’s revision petition

Narayana Pisharadi, J., dismissed the revision petition filed by CBI due to its failure to obtain prior sanction of government before prosecuting public servants.

Read more…

Post Poll Murder

  • Rejection of bail would result in protraction of trial and indefinite detention; HC grants bail to Communist Party activists in post-poll murder case

Haripal, J., granted bail to the accused involved in post poll murder case of a Muslim League member. The Bench opined,

“No doubt, the allegations against the accused are very grave. Still, so long as the final report is laid, it is not in the interest of justice, unless overwhelming reasons are made out, to keep the suspects in custody.”

Read more…

Violence against Doctors

  • “Attacks on Doctors cannot be condoned”; HC directs State to give publicity to penal consequences of such attacks and increase awareness

Finding it shocking and unbelievable that were 278 attacks against Doctors, Nurses and Healthcare Workers in the State of Kerala, the Division Bench of Devan Ramachandran and Kauser Edappagath, JJ., stated that,

“The attacks on Health Care Workers or an attempt to intimidate or threaten them, for whatever be the reason can never be condoned or tolerated.”

Read more…

Legitimacy of a Child

  • Can DNA test be conducted to determine legitimacy of a child in a divorce petition without the child being on the party array? HC answers

The illegitimacy or paternity of the child is only incidental to the claim for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery or infidelity. The child’s presence is not necessary to adjudicate the relief claimed.”

Read more…

Amendment

  • A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement

V.G. Arun, J., held that no amendment can be allowed in written statement where it seeks to change former admissions.  The Bench stated,

“Even the most liberal approach towards amendment of written statements will not justify the approval of such an application.”

Read more…

Fake Lawyer

  • “If leniency is taken, just considering the fact that she is a young lady, it will be a shame for the whole judicial system”; HC dismisses bail application of infamous fake lawyer

“The illegal activities adopted by her that too before the court of law has to be dealt with an iron hand. If leniency is taken, just considering the fact that she is a young lady, it will be a shame for the whole Judicial system and would shake the confidence of the public in judicial system.”

Read more…

Sexual Assault

  • Priest of Temple commits penetrative sexual assault on young girl: Ker HC observes which God would accept obeisance and offerings of such Priest or make him a medium?

“We wonder which God would accept the obeisance and offerings of such. Priest or make him a medium?”

Read more…

Rape Victim

  • Can the fact that minor rape victim attained majority and married the rapist lead to quashment of criminal proceedings? HC answers

“When it (rape) is towards a child the gravity is all the more severe and excruciating as it may even low self-esteem, self confidence and dignity of the child and that the psychic effect and impact would cause a devastating effect on the minor and result in far-reaching consequences.”

Read more…

Talaq

  • Mere use of word ‘irrevocably’ does not render pronouncement of talaq illegal if intention of the husband shows otherwise; HC states

“Notwithstanding the use of the word ‘irrevocably’ in the talaqnama, the respondent must be seen as having pronounced a talaq ahsan, that became irrevocable only on the expiry of the period of three lunar months immediately following the single pronouncement of the talaq…”

Read more…


Madras High Court


Currency Notes

  • There are many known heroes and unsung heroes. Whether printing the photo of National Leader Netaji Subash Chandra Bose on Indian Currency is possible or not? Detailed Report

If every claim is started to be entertained, there will not be any end.

What is the use of printing images of Great Leaders, who fought for our Independence without following their principles, in currency notes?; merely because the portrait of Mahatma Gandhi is appearing in the currency, does it mean that the currency is used only for legal purposes. Whether the currency should have the portrait of a particular leader or otherwise is the policy of the Government.

 Read more…

Supreme Court Benches 

  • Madras HC on setting up Benches of Supreme Court: An Indian, from a far-flung corner, has been unable to approach great Citadel of Justice, hailed as the ‘sentinel on the qui vive’

“Litigants are compelled to accept the wrong orders in view of inaccessibility to New Delhi and the exorbitant expenses towards engaging a counsel.”

Read more…

Bumper to Bumper Insurance Policy

  • Mandating coverage of bumper to bumper insurance policy: Not logistically and economically feasible? Has Madras HC modified its earlier decision? Read full report

Vaidyanathan, J., cancelled the bumper-to-bumper policy which was made mandatory by this Court’s order for new vehicles for a period of 5 years.

Read more…

IT Rules, 2021

  • ‘Oversight mechanism to control media by Govt. may rob media of its independence’: Madras HC’s prima facie observation

The Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee, CJ and P.D. Audikesavalu, J., prima facie observed that an oversight mechanism to control the media by the government may rob the media of its independence and fourth pillar, so to say, of democracy may not at all be there. The High Court was hearing a challenge to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Read more…

Illegal encroachment

  • Are Courts bound to protect the interests of the “deity” in temple? Madras HC’s ruling on “Deity” in temple a “Minor”

When the trustee or the Executive Officer or the custodian of the idol, temple and its properties, leave the same in lurch, any person interested in respect of such temple or worshipping deity can certainly be clothed with an adhoc power of representation to the protect its interest.

Read more…


Madhya Pradesh High Court


Flag Code

  • Flag Code is not “law” under Art. 13 of Constitution, but mere compendium of executive instructions; flying of National Flag between sunset and sunrise not contemptuous

S.A. Dharmadhikari, J., allowed a petition which was filed invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashment of FIR registered alleging offence punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

Read more…

Bail

  • Much to be done in the field of Forensic Sciences and its use in Administration of Justice and Legal Education; Court draws attention towards pendency of matters

Anand Pathak, J., while hearing a matter related to Section 439 CrPC for grant of bail which was his fourth application, highlighted some major issues related to advancement of Forensic Sciences and its use in Administration of Justice and Legal Education.

 Read more…

Transfer

  • Transfer of the only teacher in school stayed until State’s reply; Court holds order as illegal, without application of mind and contrary to the public policy

Sanjay Dwivedi, J., decided in the matter of a petition which was filed challenging an order whereby the petitioner had been transferred from Government Middle School Sewara-Sewari to Government Middle School, Batyawada.

Read more…

Elections

  • Parliament is empowered to frame law as regards conduct of elections but conducting elections is the sole responsibility of the Election Commission; Court dismisses PIL

The Division Bench of Mohammad Rafiq, CJ. and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J., dismissed a PIL which was filed by the Nagrik Upbhokta Margdarshak Manch with a prayer that the Election Commission of India may be directed not to conduct bye-elections of Parliamentary Constituency of Khandwa and Assembly Constituencies of Prathvipur, Jobat and Rajgarh in the State of Madhya Pradesh and direct the respondents to conduct the bye-elections only after assessing the ground situation of coronavirus in the State.

Read more…


Meghalaya High Court


COVID-19 Vaccination

  • State not to insist on production of Aadhaar Card as the only proof of identity for vaccination

The Division Bench of Biswanath Somadder, CJ. and H.S. Thangkhiew, J. heard a PIL which was filed with two primary issues. The first issue was with regard to the mandatory vaccination which was dealt by the order dated 23-06-2021. The other issue was with regard to the method of implementation of the Government Welfare Schemes meant for the marginalized section of the society in the State of Meghalaya.

Read more…

Meghalaya Resident Safety and Security Act

  • Constitutional validity of Meghalaya Resident Safety and Security Act, 2016 challenged; Court directs State to explain purpose of facilitation centres

The Division Bench of Biswanath Somadder, CJ. and H. S. Thangkhiew, J., dealt with a PIL which was filed challenging the constitutional validity of Meghalaya Resident Safety and Security Act (MRSSA), 2016.

Read more…


Orissa High Court


POCSO Act

  • “India will be free when the women feel safe to walk in the streets of India in the midnight”; Conviction upheld under S. 341 IPC and S. 4 of POCSO Act

“Court observed that the act of the appellant in coming in front of the victim and her sister and catching hold of the handle of the bi-cycle to stop their movement which led them to fall on the ground…”

Read more…


Patna High Court


Right to Appeal

  • Victim’s Right to appeal; Is there a right conferred on victim to appeal for enhancement of sentence? HC answers

The Division Bench of Ashwani Kumar Singh and Arvind Srivastava, JJ., reiterated that a victim has no right to maintain an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC on the ground of inadequate sentence.

Read more…


Punjab and Haryana High Court


NDPS Act

  • Huge recovery of contraband drug, failure to register FIR under NDPS Act; HC senses attempt to protect the offender by the authority; hands over the case to CBI

“This is a serious lapse and inaction on the part of the Punjab Police as well as the Drug Controller and this clearly reveals that everything is not normal with the investigation of the NDPS cases in the State of Punjab.”

Read more…

 Motor Vehicles Act 

  • Difficult to fathom Corpn. was oblivious of Statutory requirements; HC comes down heavily on Patna Municipal Corpn. for failure to get its vehicles registered under MV Act

 “It is difficult to fathom that Patna Municipal Corporation, a municipal body originally established in 1922, was oblivious of the factum of the requirement of getting 925 vehicles (Approx.) registered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”

Read more…

  • Driving license and income tax record suggest contradictory age details; HC resolves the age controversy in an accident claim case

 Anil Kshetarpal, J., denied interfering with the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with regard to age assessed by the Tribunal wherein two contradictory evidences were placed to prove the age of the deceased. The Bench stated,

No doubt, there is a difference between the date of birth in the driving license as well as the income-tax record of the deceased-late Sh. Ravinder Kumar, however, neither of them is a document to prove his age. 

Read more…

 Proof of Age

  • Is Aadhaar Card a firm proof of age? HC answers while granting protection to a couple who married against wishes of family

 Amol Rattan Singh, J., directed protection to couple who were facing threats after getting married against the wishes of their family.

Read more…

Illegal Migrants

  • Make people aware of mechanism for identification and deportation of persons suspected to be illegal migrants; HC directs Bihar government

 The Division Bench of Sanjay Karol, CJ and S. Kumar, J., asked the State government to sensitize people regarding the consequences of illegal migration, how to identify them and requirement to inform the officers concerned of the presence of illegal migrants in the State.

Read more here…

 Live-in Relationship

  • No offence by married person being in live-in; HC differs with Allahabad High Court’s decision

Amol Rattan Singh, J., held that since adultery is not an offence, no offence would be committed by a married person by him/her being in live-in even when his/her divorce petition is pending before the Court.

Read more… 

Honour Killing

  • “Culpable failure to supervise investigation”; HC slams police for laxity in investigation, issues detailed directions for effective dealing of Honour Killing cases

 Arun Kumar Tyagi, J., while addressing bail application of accused in a case pertaining to Honour Killing, stated it to be a,

“Glaring example how the directions given by Supreme Court are flouted, how the necessity of protection to the couple marrying against the wishes of their family members is ignored.” 

Read more…

 Child Marriage

  • Where minor wife fails to obtain decree of nullity before attaining age of majority, the marriage becomes a valid one; HC interprets

 The Division Bench of Ritu Bahri and Arun Monga, JJ., held that in case of child marriage, the marriage is voidable not void and a petition for nullity under Section 13(2)(iv) could only be filed if she-wife had got married at the age of 15 that too only before she attains the age of 18.

Read more…


Rajasthan High Court


Vaccination of Transgenders

  • Court directs State to abide by the guidelines framed by the Centre for vaccination of the Transgenders

The Division Bench of Sangeet Lodha and Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ., disposed off a petition with directions which was filed seeking directions to the respondents to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination for transgenders of the State of Rajasthan.

Read more…

 Law of Precedence

  • According to Law of Precedence, judgment passed by Coordinate Bench binding, whereas judgment of other High Court has persuasive value; transfer order once executed cannot be cancelled, altered or modified 

Read more…


Tripura High Court


Bail Application

  • Custodial interrogation necessary to book associates to the offence; Court denies bail application of accused under S. 409, IPC

 The essential parameters for consideration of bail are the nature of offence, the punishment thereto, possibility of his tempering with the prosecution evidence in case of his release on bail, likelihood of his fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the court etc. 

Read more…

Reimbursement of Medical Bills

  • To determine emergent and immediate exigencies, authorities concerned must be rationale; Court allows petition of reimbursement of medical bills of judicial officer and wife

Arindam Lodh, J., allowed a petition which was filed against the rejection of his application for reimbursement of medical bills by the State Finance Department and the Treasury Officer.

Read more…

Live-in relationship

  • Constitutional Morality to override societal morality; Directs live in partners where the lady is married to another man to make representation before the Station House Officer and necessary orders may be passed

 It is well- settled that it is not in the Court’s domain to intrude upon an individual’s privacy. Any scrutiny or remark upon the so-called morality of an individual’s relationship and blanket statements of condemnation especially in matters where it is not called into question, to begin with, would simply bolster an intrusion upon one’s right to choice and condone acts of unwarranted moral policing by the society at large.

Read more…


Uttaranchal High Court


  • State directed to ensure that land owner who donated the land for establishment of sugar mill, their future generation should not be left starving

 Lok Pal Singh, J., allowed a petition which was filed mainly seeking a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner in terms of the agreement executed between their forefather and sugar factory. 

Read more…

AchievementsLaw School News

NUJS Law Review at No. 1 and Aligarh Law Journal (ALJ) gains Rank 5 from Rank 7

The rankings† for June 2021 are:

 

Rank Rank Last Month Name of Journal
1 1 National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review (NUJS LR)
2 2 National Law School of India Review (NLSIR)
3 3 Indian Journal of Arbitration Law (IJAL)
4 4 Chanakya National Law University Journal (CNLU J)
5 7 Aligarh Law Journal (ALJ)
6 5 Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University Law Journal (RMLNLU LJ)
7 6 NLIU Law Review
8 8 NALSAR Student Law Review
9 10 Nirma University Law Journal (NULJ)
10 New Journal of Indian Law and Society (JILS)

 


† The Law Reviews will be ranked as per the number of times the articles are accessed on SCC Online® for a calendar month.

AchievementsLaw School News

NUJS Law Review at No. 1 and RMLNLU Law Journal gains 1 rank to No. 7

The rankings† for March 2021 are:

Rank Rank Last Month Name of Journal
1 1 National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review (NUJS LR)
2 2 Indian Journal of Arbitration Law (IJAL)
3 3 National Law School of India Review (NLSIR)
4 4 Aligarh Law Journal (ALJ)
5 5 NALSAR Student Law Review
6 6 RGNUL Financial and Mercantile Law Review
7 8 Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University Law Journal (RMLNLU LJ)
8 7 Nirma University Law Journal (NULJ)
9 9 GNLU Journal of Law Development and Politics (GJLDP)
10 10 Chanakya National Law University Journal (CNLU J)

† The Law Reviews will be ranked as per the number of times the articles are accessed on SCC Online® for a calendar month.

NewsWatch Now

SCC Online Weekly Rewind Episode 2 where we curate the most important and interesting stories to keep you abreast of all the latest developments in the field of law.

The second episode, featuring our Associate Editor Prachi Bhardwaj, has brought significant judgments delivered by the Supreme Court and High Courts last week, along with legislation updates and fact check.

SUPREME COURT 

  • No more asking sexual offence survivor to tie Rakhi or get married to the accused; Supreme Court calls for gender sensitisation of judges and lawyers. Read Directions –

https://bit.ly/3tFEfba

  • Ineligible promoters under Section 29A IBC can’t propose compromise or arrangement schemes under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013: Supreme Court –

https://bit.ly/30Yc8HB​

  • Proceedings instituted under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 not to be transferred to fora created under 2019 Act with newly prescribed pecuniary limits –

https://bit.ly/3r4T9pt​


HIGH COURTS

  • Kerala High Court| “We cannot take recourse to the outdated provisions of 1948 to deal with the realities of life in the year 2021”; Kerala HC directs NCC to consider enrolment of a trans woman in the female wing –

https://bit.ly/3tDdoMB​

  • Bombay High Court| Does Copyright Act requires mandatory registration to seek protection under the Act? Justice G.S. Patel explains –

https://bit.ly/3cQ6cWH​

 

  •  [Amazon v. Future Retail] From Emergency Arbitrator to Group of Companies Doctrine – Delhi HC covers all while restraining Future Group from proceeding further with Disputed transaction-

https://bit.ly/3f0vaWi​


FOREIGN COURTS

Amsterdam Court | Uber to provide access to the individual ratings of private hire drivers -

https://bit.ly/2OU2Qdt​


LEGISLATION

  • Rajya Sabha passes Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2021  -

https://bit.ly/3f6xIBY​

  • Companies Act, 2013 amended –

https://bit.ly/2OU5ekr​

  • All India Tourist Vehicles (Authorisation or Permit) Rules, 2021 notified –

https://bit.ly/3r053RH​


FACT CHECK 

Will the Salaries of MPs increase from April 1, 2021? –

https://bit.ly/3qYYfne​


Read More:

SCC Online Weekly Rewind Volume 1 Episode 1

Law School NewsLive Blogging

A warm welcome to all of you to the 6th Dr. Paras Diwan International ‘Energy Law’ Moot Court Competition, 2016.

Participants from all over the country as well as outside are going to slug out for this year’s competition. They will be vying for Web Edition 1 year Subscription – 9 access cards worth Rs. 2,00,000 with SCC online, Books worth Rs. 25,000, one month SCC subscription to all the participants worth Rs. 1,00,000 as well as cash prizes worth Rs. 1,20,000.

The whole event will be hosted for a span of four days – Day of Registration & Inauguration (7th April, 2016), Energy Moot Stage 1 (8th April, 2016), Energy Moot Stage 2 (9th April, 2016) and Judgment Day (10th April, 2016).

  1. Day of Registration & Inauguration (7th April, 2016)

After the lunch scheduled at 01:00 PM, the registration process is going to start from 02:00 PM. Thereafter inauguration ceremony will begin at 03:00 PM. Researcher’s Test, Release of Fixtures and Exchange will be done at 06:00 PM. We have others events such as SCC Online Lecture in between.

2:15 PM Now that all the participants have arrived after the lunch, the registration process is going to begin. A cursory roll call has been done. Following teams have attended:

  1.  Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan
  2.  Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi University
  3. GLC, Mumbai
  4. Glocal University, Sahranpur
  5. The Faculty of Law, ICFAI University
  6. DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
  7. GNLU, Gujarat
  8. National Law University, Odisha
  9. NUALS, Kochi
  10. RGNUL, Patiala
  11. Tamil Nadu National Law School
  12. NMIMS School of Law, Mumbai
  13. Renaissance, Madhya Pradesh
  14. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderbad
  15. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  16. SLS Pune
  17. SOEL, Chennai
  18. University of Dhaka
  19. University of Lucknow
  20. Vivekananda Institute Of Professional Studies
  21. Amity Law School, Delhi
  22. LC-1, Faculty of Law, DU
  23. Kathmandu School of Law, Bhaktapur, Nepal
  24. NLSIU, Bangalore
  25. NLU, Mumbai
  26. Jindal Global Law School

A special shout out for the Teams from Kathmandu School of Law and University of Dhaka who are visiting from Nepal and Bangladesh respectively. Welcome Guys!

2:45 PM With the registration process finished, we are awaiting for the Inauguration ceremony. All the laptops and study materials are out. The teams are utilizing this period for further research. No wasting of time for them it seems!

3:10 PM With the inauguration ceremony underway, we are privileged to be in the presence of our Hon’ble Guests Ms. Kahkashan Khan, Additional Secretary (Law), Govt. of Uttarakhand; Mr. Biswajit Sarkar, Managing Partner, Biswajit Sarkar and Associates; Mr. Amit Sevak, CEO, Laureate [AMEA-Africa, Middle East & Asia] Region; Dr. Parag Diwan, Chief Academic Officer, Laureate International Universities; Prof. Utpal Ghosh, CEO-Laureate, UPES; Dr. S.J. Chopra, Chancellor; Dr. Shrihari Honwad, Vice-Chancellor; Mr. Sanjeev Zutshi, Senior Director- Operations, Mrs. Deepa Verma, Director, Institutional Affairs; Mr. Arun Dhand, Director-Government Relations; Dr. Tabrez Ahmad, Director, CoLS; Dean and Heads of other colleges in UPES; Administrative Heads; DSA Head and members; and the Faculty members of College of Legal Studies.

3:50 PM The event was declared open with the lighting of the lamp. And we were enlightened by the words of wisdom imparted upon us by the Honored Guests.

We will be taking a break for Group Photographs and the High Tea.

5:15 PM  The SCC Online presentation is well underway. The representatives from SCC Online have divulged nuances about legal research and the working machinery regarding how the cases are reported and cross-referenced. A feast for the researchers! Extra incentive of gift packs have also been handed out for the questions correctly answered by the audience.

6:10 PM With the insightful presentation provided by SCC Online coming to an end, it’s the time for the Release of Fixtures, Exchange of Memorials and the Researcher’s Test. Coming down to the business end!

6: 30 PM The researchers are away for the Researcher’s Test. And their teammates are drawing their opponents for the preliminary round fixtures scheduled tomorrow as well as the sides for which they would be arguing.

7:30 PM The Researcher’s Test has been done away with. The memorials have been exchanged. The teams have gotten a glimpse of what they will be facing tomorrow. So the stage is all set for tomorrow’s rounds. And if the determined faces of the participants are anything to go by, it will turn out to be a very high octane affair.

          2. Energy Moot Stage 1-(8th April, 2016)

Hello! It’s the second day of the competition and we are now to the business.

We will be having preliminary rounds today. Each team will have two rounds on the basis of which they would be moving to the Quarter Finals. Much is at stake. In the evening session, results will be declared. And the exchange of memorials will be done for the next round.

10:30 AM Briefing of Judges is being done. And the participants are taking their place in the court rooms. All the volunteers of MCA are looking alert and up to the task. The round will start anytime now with the conclusion of briefing.

11:00 AM Finally the briefing has ended. It took one and a half hours. Apparently the moot problem took its time in being tamed. Kudos to Moot Court Association who have drafted the problem under supervision of Ms. Pallavi Arora & Ms. Mary Sabina Peters.

11:05 AM The rounds have started at last! Now you all will get the juice on court proceedings for which you must have been waiting.

Court Room No.1  –  National Law University, Odisha v. LC-1, Faculty of Law, DU

Agent 1 for the Applicants seemed very confident as she took the dais. As a matter of fact, she had a smile on her face. In her oral submissions she did fumble a bit but regained her composure remarkably well. The Judges raised the question as to why the specialized forum of ICSID was excluded. The speaker persisted with answer and the Judge didn’t pursue with it further. But she finished her issues within the allotted time.

Agent 2 for the applicants now begins. His confident manner and a baritone voice inspires conviction. The judges are applying constant efforts towards entrapping the speaker but despite stumbling couple of times, the speaker digs out his way using the Fact sheet. The judges asked for the authority but the applicants have apparently failed to include it in their Compendium. The allotted extension time has also expired a while back!

Agent 1 for the Defendants begins the submission and Judges immediately try to corner him. He is doing his arguments in a very aggressive manner. When the judges raised a question, he carried on with his submissions citing the reason that the question has been dealt with in subsequent arguments. But the Judges seem put off and ask him to address the questions immediately. The defendants have now submitted a screenshot of a webpage as authority. This is followed by a lecture by the Judges on importance of Compendium and seriousness of the forum. The speaker again overrides the Judge and didn’t let him finish his question!

Agent 2 is now on the podium. He seems like a calmer version of his co-agent. He has satisfied the Judge on his first issue. But they continue to cite unacceptable authorities. The Judges caution them that submitting “random pages from random books that I do not know of” is not helping their case. And thereby, he rejects the authority. The agent also slips up by referring to his fellow co-agents as “friend” and this point is picked by the Judges. The agent has overshot the time by a huge margin. And he has promised to take “due care” of mistakes as has been pointed by the Judge.

Court Room No.2 – Renaissance, Madhya Pradesh  v. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

The agent 1 for the applicants is going on with the statement of facts. The judges seem to be annoyed by the submissions going on. The response by the Judges have applicants breaking into a cold sweat. Meanwhile the Counsels for the Defendants almost seem disinterested. One of them is yawning!

The agent for the Defendant is submitting his arguments. But as they have now started with their statements, their seems to be a ray of hope on the face of Applicants. Their seems to be a hint of smile on the faces of applicants as they look at the judges. Now the researcher seems busy sending chits to their speaker. However, the speaker is not even able to understand the writing and the parties ends up laughing.

Court Room No.3. – Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies v. GLC, Mumbai

The agent no. 1 applicant seems to believe that she can win the war just by being loud. The judges don’t really seem to be interested in whatever she is saying. They are just playing with her by confusing her with queries. And it seems to be working well! It’s like a parliamentarian being asked a question about his actual accomplishment! That does tend to make them go silent. The agent is speaking so fast. It seems that she wants to save the courts time by not utilizing her full quota. And just as the agent was about to bow out, the judges just had to call her back.  The second speaker stood up thinking it was her time to shine but she was asked to sit down by the judges. If there’s one thing to be said then it must be noticed that the speaker didn’t lack for conviction.

Now it’s the turn of Agent 2. This one might have been more eloquent than the first one but her pace exceeds even her team-mate, so one can’t be sure. Like what did they have for breakfast?

As far as the researcher for the team……..wait……what is the researcher of the team doing?

All she is doing is to sit like a duck and warm her bench while her teammates are getting hammered by the judges very conveniently. Honestly, not much she can do from there at this stage. This is just one of the moments where you see the speakers swimming against the tide and the researcher is just chilling in the lovely weather of Doon!

Now it’s the turn of Defendants. The way this agent has started has actually caught the eye of the judges and also of their opposition. She has a very nice flow, with a lovely tone which makes everyone believe that she is making good points regarding her issue. The judges are actually paying attention to the speaker as she is making valid points. The agent stumbled a bit but it seems that she managed to pull a rabbit out of the hat and saved herself there. Very eloquently, she ended her statement and bowed out of the court room impressing everyone present here.

The Agent no.2 has a clear, peaceful voice and a very lucid language. He is making his assertions well and is substantiating them marvelously. He is actually managing to convince the judges because the judges have their eyes on him and not on the list of authorities which have been provided to them to make his life a living hell. If making one’s points subtly is the key then this guy is the key maker. About time that the judges started posing questions to him, but the manner in which he made his submissions and the way he connected all the dots has been beautiful.

Court Room No.4-  University of Lucknow v. NMIMS School of Law

The first Agent on behalf of the Applicant has started with the facts. There are a lot of questions coming from the Judges. The Judges are grilling the agent not only on the questions of law, but on the questions of fact as well. The Agent is unable to frame proper arguments and is speaking in an unclear and confusing manner.

The Judges then turn to the researcher to seek clarifications. The researcher on the other hand is unable to help the agents. He is completely blank about what is going on.

The second Agent takes the dais to do some damage control. Contrary to the first agent, the second agents seems to be handling the situation well and is succeeding to address all the questions raised by the judges.

The Agents on behalf of the defendants have started with their arguments. She seems to have marvelous speaking skills and has a way of convincing the judges. Oops! Someone’s phone has started ringing, it manages to seek everyone’s attention. The Agent confidently continued with her arguments. The judges point out that neither of the teams have requested extension of time.

The second agent on behalf of the defendants takes the dais. In the words of our reporter, she is a “Beauty with Brains”. She manages to get positive feedback from all the judges.

Court Room No.5- NLSIU, Bangalore v. Amity Law School, Delhi

With the arrival of the judges the proceeding can now begin. The looks on the faces of judges makes everyone aware that they mean business and won’t beat around the bush.

Agent 1: Taking the permission to address the court the agent for the applicant walks up to the podium looking pretty confident about his research. By the looks of it can be said that he’s going to go for the kill from the very beginning.  While making his statements he was being sarcastic but was making his points clear. At that very instance the judges decided to york him. It felt like his attitude towards the situation brought to his downfall. However, he did manage to dodge every question asked and move on.

Agent 2: The second speaker seeing the downfall of his teammate decided to be the smart guy and was very polite while making his approach in front of the judges. But as they say that the first impressions might be the ones that last, some pertinent questions were raised by the judges to him which left him dumbfounded. He went on beating about the bush and the judges were all intelligent about the agent’s mistakes and sent him for a toss.

The agent 1 for the defendant comes up with poise and is very calm about the entire situation. She knows not to lose her cool as it would cost her team. She’s making her points known to the judges slowly and steadily. Her pace is rising as she is gaining some confidence in herself. The judges albeit impressed by her still wanted to test her ability on how much she can rise. With the number of questions being asked the agent does get worried. She goes on a spree of making mistakes which starts disappointing the judges. The judges, perhaps, still dissatisfied by her performance asked her to wrap her statement.

Agent 2 for the defendant knowing that there was a lot of mess to clean, came up with a plan. All she had to do is to make valid points of law and finish off her arguments quickly and also have enough time to restore the former agents arguments as well. Soon she realised that the mess was just too much to handle. Soon her magical belief of completing things in a smooth manner vanished when she realised that she had a lot of problems to deal with her own. She was sure that she knew the law well but the judges knowing the proper way to toy with agents made her doubt her ability and also made her lose her track. Thus, this led to the end of the arguments of the second agent wherein she tried fighting an uphill battle but soon she came tumbling down.

Court Room No. 6 RGNUL, Patiala v. Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi

The First Agent on behalf of the applicants seemed a little nervous at first, but recovered in a very informative and confident manner. The agent seemed to know the memorial really well. The judges asked direct questions regarding jurisprudence of investment which were efficiently answered along with case laws.

The second Agent is speaking well enough to substantiate on the issues, but, is unable to answer the questions raised by the judges satisfactorily relating to the topic of state liability and its exceptions.

The Agents on behalf of the respondents have started with their arguments and she sounds a little nervous. The Judges on the other hand are grilling the agent with questions. She is unable to answer the questions properly. It seems that there are many loopholes in the arguments, which are not managed properly by the agent.

Court Room No.7 –  GNLU, Gujrat v. Symbiosis Law School, Noida

The Applicants have started with their arguments. And the Judges don’t look satisfied one bit. They failed to answer the questions raised by the Judges. The Judges are giving a disappointing look. And from their face it doesn’t seem that the team is improving much. Simple question such as difference between strict liability and absolute liability.

The Defendants seem to continue in the same vein as that of the applicants. While a lot of arguments were being raised, as far as Judges are concerned, they weren’t substantial enough to impress them.

 

12:30 PM Now the next set of teams are going to start.

 

Court No. 1 – Glocal University, Sahranpur v. Faculty of Law, ICFAI

The agent for the applicant has taken to the podium. Even though he was very confident when the round had commenced, he started fumbling on having a look at the judges. From the get-go he fumbled by making his submission as an appeal to the ICJ and also confirmed that it was an appeal even though the judge caught his mistake. The agent is failing to inspire confidence and authority. The judges seem unconvinced with the agent’s submissions and actually ask whether the team researcher can be provided with a chance to make submissions. Obviously, such a change cannot take place in reality and therefore, the agent continues his task. With a faulty piece of document provided to the judges which set their mood off. The judges request the agent to take his seat and allow his fellow agent to make the rest of the submissions.

The agent 2 for the applicant tries to make submissions to redeem his team and is actually an improvement from that of the former but he alone cannot clean up the mess of his fellow agent. The judges had extended a little support to the agent but he failed to recognize the help made to him.

On taking up the podium the agent for the respondent in a mellow voice brings to everyone’s notice that he would be making points and submissions which are crucial to the case. The agent is pretty sure of the case and that is something that he also portrays to the judges. At some point of time it seemed as if his confidence turned into overconfidence. The judges not impressed with the sudden change in the behaviour decided to bring them back to earth by asking them to pay up for the losses incurred by the applicant. On certain instances there were notes passed by the researcher to the agents to make sure that they do not stray from their path. The Speaker concludes by partially satisfying the judge.

The agent 2 for the Respondent starts making submissions in a manner that was confident and made everyone believe that he was a responsible agent. His exemplary skills impress the judges and he continues making his submissions with remarkable clarity. He is able to elucidate effectively. Pertinent queries were raised by the judges and they were answered well by the Respondent. He took his stand well and made his team proud.

 

Court No. 2 – Kathmandu School of Law v. SOEL, Chennai

Now, the second session has started with the arrival of Judges. The 1st Speaker on the side of the Applicants seems to be nervous and has lost her grasp on her arguments and is floundering after Judges have started grilling her. Judges seems to be unconvinced after the Arguments of 1st speaker. One of the Judge seems to be enjoying his Juice and Samosa. To their credit the applicants did finish well.

However, after listening the Defendants, who are answering smartly they have smile on their face.  They have started asking about different International agreements so as to confuse them. However, they have been able to justify their claim and Judges are totally convinced. The respondent paraded to the finish with only a slight hiccup.

 

Court No. 3 – Jindal Global Law School v. Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan

The clock is ticking right about now and the participants are really expecting the judges to start the round. They have this excitement which can only be seen in a moot court competition.

As the judges permit to start with the round, agent one comes up to the podium to deal with the first issue. The round was a pretty normal considering that the agent did nothing special other than to read from the memorial and then using a case law or two to support her claim. The judges asked her a couple of questions and finally relieved her of all her duties.

The second agent was properly dressed and it seemed that he was ready to bring the house down. The judges not impressed by this brash behaviour of the agent, started grilling him from the top. Queries after queries left the agent to doubt in his own abilities.

Respondent

Agent 1 put forward her arguments before the bench with flair. She took the base of various principles in order to substantiate her arguments and managed to satisfy the judges on the various questions raised by them. Speaker 2 too took the base of various international laws to support her arguments and put forward her arguments in a clear and crisp form.

 

Court No. 4 – DSNLU v. Tamil Nadu National Law School

The agents for the applicant were very aggressive. But the judges tried to trap them on the issue of jurisdiction. The speaker did find his way out but it wasn’t without damage. The agent also committed a couple of error in addressing the Judges. They were confused between ‘Your Excellency’ and ‘Your Lordship’. The second speaker though was calm and composed. Overall the judges did concede to couple of their arguments.

But as far as the agents for the respondents are concerned, they committed an absolute blunder. They were totally moving beyond the facts provided to them. The time management was lacking and their oral submissions exceeded that which they had provided under the written submission.

Court No.6 – SLS, Pune v. NUALS, Kochi

The proceeding was an interesting one. The judges had questions lined up for all the agents. The applicants had no chance of going through smoothly. The agents from the Applicant side spoke with confidence and the judges put forth direct questions regarding definitions, articles and jurisdiction. He is tensed and is not able to put up his arguments efficiently. The researcher is continuously passing chits and giving hints to get the speaker back on track.

The second agent has taken the podium. She displays confidence and is well off than the first agent. She was questioned on the latent defect to which the researcher passed a chit. It looks as if none in the team apart from the researcher is well versed with their submissions. Now she is being questioned over conventions and their authoritative powers. The question on circumstances, effect and nullification of a treaty were left unanswered.

The agent for the respondents has taken their place. She seems a bit loud and assertive. But Judges it seems are none too pleased. They are completely grilling the agent. The researcher is furiously passing on cheats to the concerned agent now. The agent is quite expressive with her rapid hand movement.

The second agent too is well versed with every point involved. And he is speaking quite confidently. Apart from the occasional and cursory queries, they seem quite satisfied with the submissions.

We will be breaking for a late lunch now after which the next Preliminary round will start. 

3:00 PM The teams are back after having their lunch and their Preliminary Round – 2 has started. While some teams would be attempting to continue their performances in the prior round, few will be contemplating how to improve upon their previous performance.

And the second preliminary round is under way..!!!

 

Court No. 1 – SLS, Noida v. Renaissance, Madhya Pradesh

The agent for the applicant is making her submissions in a competent manner. However the team has failed to carry case laws on which they are relying. The judges have asked the researcher to highlight the points in issue and have asked the speaker to proceed. After repeated  extensions the speaker finally concludes.

Second agent begins well however during course of arguments she admits contributory negligence on part of applicants!!! She recovers quickly and denies this! That could have gone horribly wrong. The arguments proceed at a steady pace and speaker concludes on a positive note.

The first agent takes over the podium. She appears confident and ready for the questions! The speaker is receiving much help from the researcher who supplies notes with every question. However this team too has failed to carry a bound compendium which again hampers the submissions.

The second speaker is very confident and speaks in an assured manner. The judges question her on common but differentiated responsibility. She is clueless but dodges the question cleverly and confidently. The speaker 2 concludes after considerable extensions.

Court No. 2 – Campus Law Center, Faculty of Law, DU v. NLU, Odisha

After the lunch Judges and participants are looking energentic. With the arrival of the Applicants, grilling by the Judges has started. The Applicants are too soft spoken and they are like the butterflies whispering in the air. The judges are finding it hard to go with their pace. The Applicants have started floundering and it seems that they are now being afraid of their own shadow (too nervous). But one can’t take it away from them they are well prepared.

However, after the coming of Defendants the situation has changed. The speaker on the side of the Defendant is calm composed . Every attempt made by the Judges to entrap is being countered courageously. Also, the second speaker is trying best to move on a secured path.

Court No. 3 – NMIMS, School of Law, Mumbai v. GNLU, Gujarat

Applicants started the proceedings with facts. She continues with the statement of jurisdiction submitting to the compulsory jurisdiction. The judges are bombarding her with questions. She seems unaware about the prayer.

The second agent on behalf of the applicants is pleading that the decision of albrosa was ex parte and in violation of natural justice. She seems very confident with her submissions.

The defendants have started their submissions in a very smart way. She has clarified all the judges’ doubts regarding jurisdiction. Despite continued efforts, the judges are unable to confuse or divert the agent.

The second agent has started with her submissions and the judges have started grilling her.

The applicants have started with rebuttals, which include interim reliefs which is being appreciated by the judges.

Court No. 4 – Amity Law School, Delhi v. Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies

Now the time has arrived as the judges arrived and they made one really interesting statement. “Let’s take mooting to a different level”.

The first agent for the applicant comes up in a manner which shows that the pressure is catching up to her. Somehow, the calm attitude has totally evaporated and she is sweating profusely. The Judges asked her simple question to which replied well enough. But still the Judges didn’t look satisfied.

The second agent looks calm and composed and her arguments convinced the judges. She was at ease with whatever questions that were posed to her. There wasn’t much of grilling from the side of the Judges. The team has managed the time well.

The first agent for the respondents started confidently with her arguments. However, when the questions were being posed, the speaker managed to answer them but the judges still don’t seem completely satisfied. The speaker exceed the allotted time and failed to plead for any such extension of time.

The second agent too started in the same manner. And she tried her level best to keep up with the bombardment of questions. She didn’t come out of this unscathed.

Court No. 5 – GLC, Mumbai v. RGNUL, Patiala

The Agents representing the Applicant State were very well prepared and confident with sound speaking skills. The interesting point in their argument was that they invoked the jurisdiction of ICJ on violation of Customary International Law and not due to violation of 123 Agreement by the Respondent State. The arguments put forth by agents were well structured and contentions were backed by law. In the end the Applicants badgered the respondents with multiples points of rebuttals.

The Respondents Agents were an equal match to the Applicants and presented their case in a well-structured manner. The contentions put forward by the agents before the court were backed by laws. As per the judges all the Agents spoke very well but the contentions put forward by the Applicants became too factual in the sense that they were reading in-between the lines of the fact sheet and the Respondents though had had good grasp in law and facts lacked the structure.

Court No. 6 – SLS, Hyderabad v. NLSIU, Bangalore

The first agent didn’t start on a positive note. He mixed up the citation of cases which resulted heavy scrutiny by the Judges and was followed by a trail of unanswered questions. But it is to be credited to the Agent that he kept his composure even in front of such aggressive treatment.

After watching the aggressive approach of the judges, the second speaker is doing none too well. He extends the trail of unanswered questions a bit longer. But again he shows a fighting spirit. Although, he did succumb to the pressure put on by the Judges and he was ultimately asked to move onwards to the Prayer.

In contrast, the agent for the respondent started his arguments with poise. But the Judges were not in the mood to curb their wrath and the speaker had to face the brunt of it. Couple of questions relating to jurisdiction did go unanswered. But he made a good comeback.

Our reporter is of opinion that performance of agent two was one of the stellar performances of the day. He was well versed with the facts and the nature of the problem. There was a healthy discussion going on between the Judges and the agent. Even though the Judges did succeed in applying pressure on the agent, the comeback was terrific and it left Judges impressed.

Court No. 7 –  LC-1, Faculty of Law, DU v. University of Lucknow

After a little delay in starting of the rounds, the agents on behalf of the applicants have started with their arguments. The agent seems confident and soft spoken. The judges begin grilling and the agent politely answers all the questions. Somehow, he is not able to satisfy the judges with his answers. The debate is getting intense and judges are extending time again and again. Poor Court Bailiffs! Their repeated cry for expiry of time was being ignored not only by agent, but judges as well.  There is a sign of relief on the face of second agent as the judges say that they will “manage time”.

After the long submissions of Agent one, Agent two takes the dais. He is asked to sum up his arguments in 5 mins.  In his urgency,  he seems a little nervous.  He regains his composure as the judges start asking questions. Again the time limit has expired and the judges are grilling the agent with questions.

After watching so much grilling, the respondents have started their submissions on a nervous note.  And the grilling begins. The agent seems to stammer,  trying to answer the questions raised by the judges. He does not seem to be thorough with the facts. Agent two on the other hand is handing note over note to the speaker,  desperately trying answer the questions and at last she succeeds.!
Now it is the turn of agent two to shine. She seems nervous as she takes the dais. The judges shower her with questions, most of which are answered. She seems nervous and hence is taking her own time to frame the arguments properly.  

Now the next set of teams!

Court No. 1 NUALS, Kochi v. Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal

The teams are stoic in their appearance and look prepared for submissions. The judges, perhaps, to avoid the instances in first round have directed the teams to stick to their written submissions.

Agent one for the applicant almost looks excited to commence with the arguments, but soon it gets serious as the judges all come down to the business. Finally, a light note as reference is made to Titanic being unsinkable and equipments being resistant to earthquakes. The speaker takes it all in stride and makes extra submissions which other teams haven’t.

Agent two goes on highlighting the difference between a “nuclear incidence” and “nuclear disaster”. The judges are throwing blatant hints as to how they would like the proceedings to unfold, but the speaker carries on with his merry way. On the second argument, the bench specifically declares that “when a pot is called black, the pot cannot defend itself by stating that the chimney is also black”.

The agent for the respondent is bamboozled by the vibrant approach of the judges. They are raising unconventional queries and circumstances which results in the speaker turning a bit pale. And, she eventually commits a blunder by accepting a point that undermines her entire case. The judges are quick to point it out.

Agent two isn’t faring a bit better as the pressure is being applied on him. He manages to evade few trap questions and is commended by the bench on a job well done. The bench also put forth a riddle to identify one thing for which he should pray to solve his problem, and the speaker fails.

Court No. 2 Swing Team v. Glocal University, Saharnapur

The judge clearly mentions that the arguments should be precise and not used as the Bible!

The Agent for the applicant remains composed and competently puts forth his arguments. The judges left no stone unturned in their efforts to break through the speaker’s resilience. They raised a myriad of questions that rendered the speaker unsure.

The second agent was highly tensed and was stammering initially. But he kept up his spirits and even though there were gaping holes in his argument, he concluded on a positive note.

The defendant’s agent was inaudible initially, but after the prompt by the judges, he improved his stature.Though the lack of confidence was quite clear. He was quite unsure of the content of the memorial and his approach was quite lethargic.

In comparison, Agent two performed quite well.

Court No. 4 Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan v. Damodaran Sanjivayya National Law University

Last Session, still the Judges and Participants seems full of life and energy.

It can be seen that the Applicant is having bundle of documents. Now the first speaker comes up and after listening to certain point of Arguments the Judges seems disappointed. The speaker is not able to answer the questions. One of the Judge finally  asked ” do you even know what are  the Sources of International Law”. That too has not been answered. Now the last question being asked by the Judge is what is ” latent defect” and surprisingly the Answer comes out the things which are visible.

The same is the situation with the Second Speaker.

Now comes the side of Defendant. She is answering well but then again she is panicked. The fellow members have now opened their Laptops and are continuously cross checking all the provisions and Articles.

Court No. 5 SOEL, Chennai v. SLS, Pune

The Applicant missed article 40 of the ICJ Statute defining the jurisdiction of the court and could not  satisfactorily answer the judges with regard to the jurisdiction of court. The Co- Agent raised  contentions with regard to the damage to the marine ecosystem and how imposition of moratorium  was a justified action of the Applicant State.

The defendant’s Agent approached the dais very confidently but the questions put forward by the judges acted as a game changer. The Respondents could not differentiate between General Principle of International Law & Customary International Law. They could not satisfy the court on the definition of Forum Non-convenience. The first agent summed up his arguments as – “ so basically if there is an alternative rule available ICJ jurisdiction should not be invoked.”  The Co-Agent in several instances mentioned points which were not there in their memorial which was time and again pointed out by the judges.

The Researcher of the team looked more prepared as compared to the agents and at one point the judges even asked the researcher to clarify the contentions. Upon the question raised by the judges with regard to moratorium the researcher took over the case from the Co-Agent and presented their case therefrom.

 

Court No. 6 Faculty of Law, ICFAI University v. University of Dhaka

The first Agent for the applicant is clear and to the point. He has raised some extra issues that the judges appreciate very much but still insisted that focus should be on the issues provided under the fact sheet. The speaker in the end had to summarize his arguments due to the lack of time.

The second speaker was asked by the judge to put forth his argument on certain issues. The speaker despite fumbling at start ultimately satisfied them with his points.

The agent from Dhaka has a different accent but it doesn’t prove to be a hurdle for him in putting forth his arguments eloquently. The second agent did start well but lost her thoughts in between and fumbled in her agreements. But ultimately on the prompt of Judges, she calmed down and concluded on a positive note.

And the proceedings are adjourned for the day!

      3. Energy Moot Stage 2– (9th April, 2016)

11:45 AM The Judges for today have been briefed. And the teams have taken their place in Court Rooms. Rounds will start anytime now.

12:05 PM So the QUARTER- FINALS are UNDERWAY!

Court No. 1 – Jindal Global Law School v. NLSIU, Bangalore

The session begins. The judges seem comfortable. All smiles. The teams look solemn though.

Agent one for the applicant looks confident as she begins her submission and she is very thorough with her case. She has tackled a difficult question 2 mins into her submissions. Finally! The speaker has moved on to her second issue. She remains unfazed despite of constant doubts being raised by the bench. The jurisdiction issue seems priority for the bench! They are urging the speaker to argue upon it despite of her time being over! The judges are difficult to please and they claim that the speaker is ‘harping on the same point!’ But to her credit the speaker bravely continues in a polite tone.

As the second speaker takes the podium, the Judges immediately ask to do away with formal opening statements and come to the crux of the matter. The Judges are making a constant effort to undermine the Applicant’s position. This raises a smile on the faces of defendants. They do realize that tables are going to be turned soon? Speaker 2 carries with him the same calm demeanor of his co-agent. This a difficult feat in light of the aggressive treatment of the Judges. The speaker has finally concluded.

The first agent for the Defendants takes the dais now. The Judges keep on the heat and ask the speaker to move to his strongest argument first. How the tables have turned. But the speaker has a humble demeanor and is quickly responding to the question raised by the Judges. The Defendant speaker is still defending his stand on jurisdiction. The bench is quizzing him on a range of subjects from investment law to customary international law. The panel in particular is looking for the respondent to cite a particular case law. The respondent has confidently replied that he is not aware of such a case, but furnishes alternative arguments before the bench.

Now the second speaker has taken over. The Judges are trying to throw the speaker in a loop. The speaker takes time to rephrase and continue without dropping his line of argument. The heat on the defendants is at all time high. The speaker has been put on spot. There are analogies and examples floating around, all offered by the judges. The end of submission was very abrupt as the Judges ask the speaker to take his seat.

With no rebuttals on offer, the proceeding in this court room has come to an end.

Court No. 2 –  University of Dhaka v. LC-1, Faculty of Law, Delhi

Before the start of the Session, both the parties are having brainstorming session. Finally after the arrival of the Judges the session has now started.

The 1st agent has very brilliantly stated the facts and enumerated the issues. However, as The Judges start raising queries regarding the Jurisdiction, the speaker has also started to fumble. The speaker is bombarded with questions. Finally the speaker asks for 15 extra minutes to conclude his arguments. But the Judges being charitable, provide 2 extra minutes to conclude the arguments.

Now the 2nd speaker on the side of Applicants started dealing with Issue No. 3. The Judges have started asking for Authoritative Sources. The overwhelming amount of questions inevitably led to the shortage of time. Bench at the end of the arguments didn’t seem entirely convinced.

Now comes the chance of the Defendant. The 1st speaker after following all the formalities has expeditiously started with his arguments. The questions are also being answered smartly.  The Judges seems to agree on the points stated brilliantly by the speaker. The agent maneuvers himself beautifully throughout and ends on an amazing note.

The second speaker from the defendants also started his arguments energetically. The Judges raised various questions which were calmly handled by the Defendant. He has given certain clarification on various points. The Agent has also put full blame on the Applicant for the disaster.  In all, it has been a praise worthy performance. But it remains to be seen if the Judges concur with it.

Court No. 3 – GNLU, Gujarat v. DSNLU

The Agent for the applicants has started smoothly and is sticking to her issues. Though soft spoken, she is answering all the questions in an appropriate manner. It seems that she has convinced the judges. Despite the heavy inquest by the panel, she has maneuvered herself well. Towards the end of her allotted time, she tries to summarize her arguments, but the judges seem hell-bent on questioning her even further.

The second agent, immediately after taking the dais impresses the panel even more by answering the barrage of questions. But as was the will of the judges, they finally trapped the speaker on the issue of jus cogens. This rendered the speaker unsure and nervous. To her credit, she answers the question in her next issue and even manages to escape the liability of contributory negligence.

The judges, in no mood to spare, tried to trap the first agent for the defendants as soon as she took the dais. She was asked to state only the facts which were against her. The whole team seems to be in hyperactive mode as they keep passing notes to the speaker as well as authorities to the judges. She manages to recover from the initial slump by answering the subsequent questions. At one point, she did stumble when she failed to properly comprehend a question. The researcher to the rescue! As she finishes her submissions, the judges seem impressed and even concede that the defendant are “too good a supplier”.

The agent two on behalf of the defendants seems very confident with his submissions. But as soon as the judges started giving him a hard time, he started to stammer a bit. To his credit, he did manage to get out of the trap. The judges lay another trap in form of liability of “other two nations”, and despite his continuous efforts, the agent could not completely satisfy the judges. The judges didn’t even spare the defendants during their prayer. Questions were raised on the validity of counter claims or lack of it when they have not submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.

Court No. 4 – NUALS, Kochi v. RGNLU, Patiala

The agent for the Applicants has started well enough. Her approach displays confidence. The Judges also seem to be accommodating in nature. While they are posing numerous questions, the prompt is in a manner that isn’t quite as harsh compared to what we have seen. And inspired by it the speaker is also putting forward her arguments with flair. But she ended up exceeding her time by a good margin, though the Judges also seem to be disinterested in the Court Bailiff’s signal for allotted time being over.

But the same treatment as before was not afforded to the second agent who was bombarded with constant questions as soon as he took the dais. And a significant time was expended only in reaching to the main argument. Apparently not satisfied by it, the judges asked him to move to his second argument. The speaker raised to the occasion and satisfied the Judges in the second argument by replaying to the questions posed.

Same was the case for the Defendant’s speaker who started it off with a warm statement. The same frequency of questions were afforded to the speaker. The Judges went into a lot of detail and raised numerous question which were relevant to the issues. And the speaker worked admirably to sate the requirements.

The second speaker did commit couple of mistakes but the Judges did look convinced on the points that raised.

2:45 PM The quarter finals are over and all teams are breaking for lunch. We’ll be shortly back with the results!!

3:30 PM The results have been declared and we have our Semi-finalists. Our heartous congratulations to:

GNLU, Gujrat

LC-1, Faculty of Law, DU

NUALS, Kochi

Jindal Global Law School

04:00 PM The semifinal Rounds have started.

Court No. 1 – LC-1, Faculty of Law, DU v. GNLU, Gujarat

The first agent for the Applicant starts with his opening statement and is immediately stopped by the Judge on some account for which clarification has been demanded. And the Judges have asked for a restart and stopwatch is clocked to zero again. So now there will be a reboot of proceedings?

The agent again starts in his soft voice. He displays an immaculate mannerism and appears very humble. But it doesn’t seem to have any effect on the Judges as they immediately torpedo the speaker on the issue of jurisdiction. They are quoting all the sections and conventions for the ‘convenience’ of the speaker. One thinks that the speaker would gladly waive such convenience. A point blank, yes or no, question has been shot at the speaker with the Judge pressing for the response before the chit from the speaker’s teammate arrives. It’s a race between the speaker holding his resilience against the constant chant of Judge’s ‘yes or no’ and chit being passed through the Court Bailiff! Even though the chit won the race, the answer wasn’t entirely satisfactory in Judge’s view. Now all the Judges are hounding on the sovereignty issue. The speaker’s shoulder though slumped and his mannerism deflated; he is still maintaining the same polite and humble mannerism. But the Judges remain unsatisfied with the answers provided and considering that time has bled away like a river, they abruptly ask him to finish.

The second agent is much more energetic and zealously tries to remedy the damage done previously by trying to answer the questions posed to first speaker. The Judges categorically declare, ‘it is for the speaker’s benefit only that those questions shouldn’t be raised once again.’ A warning to heed perhaps. The second speaker does move on. And moves on to citing Keshvananda Bharti! Now the Judges are smiling and have asked the speaker not to cite such authorities. Regardless, he seems to be faring a bit better than his team mate. Though, he seems to be evading the questions, he is doing so confidently. The Judges again end the arguments abruptly and send the speaker back.

Now it’s the turn of Defendants. Their first agent is again interrupted in her first statement. A point blank question. Why are the speakers even bothering with stating the arguments? There is a barrage of question and to her credit the speaker is maneuvering herself perfectly while tackling such aggressive treatment. She is using succinct language and for the first time in this proceeding we see a speaker submitting her argument for a stretch without any interruption. She is gaining speed and is rallying her arguments. As if on cue, the Judges strike back. They try to drag the speaker into a downwards barrel and the speaker cleverly evades it. But it leaves the Judges dissatisfied. However it has to be said that it looks more like a discussion rather than the massacre that happened earlier. In contrast to applicants, she isn’t being defensive. Rather she is cheekily skirting around the traps. The same pattern is repeated again on the issue of ‘investment’. And as she was leaving the dais, the Judges had to stop her once again for a last question. However she answered it in a satisfactory manner.

The second agent fails to continue the streak set by her co-agent. She buckles under the immense pressure and actually concedes on the issue. Oops! That has to be counted as a blunder. And that is followed by wrong comprehension of questions asked. She remains unsure and under-confident throughout her arguments. Even the Judges turned disinterested at last while picking her off.

Court No. 2 Jindal Global Law School v. NUALS, Kochi

The court is set for the second semi-finals and one can see the anxiety on the faces of the participants.

The first agent on behalf of the Applicants takes the podium and commences her speech by summarising the arguments. She moves on to the arguments submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. A panel comprising of four judges was more than ready with its questions. The first one being the relevance of applicant No. 2 & 3 in the case. The agent, though soft spoken and a little nervous, seems to efficiently answer all the queries raised by the judges. But the judges have trapped her in a debate about hierarchy of courts and they simply ask her to explain the jurisdiction of ICJ over all other courts quoting the example of Supreme Court. The sheer volume of the questions is causing the speaker to stammer a little. But the veracity of her answers seems to carry her through his hurdle. On the other hand, judges are pointing out the use of remotely improper words by her. Even after numerous attempts to confuse her, she did not concede to any of the points.

The second agent for the defendants has taken the dais in a bold manner. Though he is soft spoken, his stance reflects the confidence in his submissions. But this confidence seems to break as the judges pose questions regarding the liability of applicant one against other applicants. Meanwhile the opponents seem to be active probably noting a point to rebut. The judges question him regarding arbitrariness of their actions, and at this point, he is unable to interpret the question rendering him a little nervous. However, he succeeds in satisfying the judges with his answers.

Now, it is the agents on behalf of the defendant take the dais. The first agent seems very confident, in fact, she wears a slight smile. Similar to the applicants, she begins her submissions with a summary of the issues. The first issue she raises is regarding the relevance of “other two islands”, as they are not a party to the agreement. Even after being grilled by the judges, she still manages to wear a smile and argues with same confidence. At this point one cannot help but notice the nervousness on the applicants’ faces. Even after conceding to first issue, she manages to answer most of the questions posed by the judges, with the help of her team. After a lot of cross questioning and grilling, the judges compel her to say “Counsel is not sure”, when she was asked to back her views on position of “responsible states” by case laws. Towards the end of her arguments, the judges ask her to sum up in 2 minutes.

The second agent for the defendants has taken the dais rather zealously. He seems very confident with his submissions. He seems to have a good command over the memorial. But, the judges corner him when he challenged the evidentiary value of the only expert report available on the dispute. His team on the other hand is constantly handing him notes, in desperation to get him out of the trap which was very intelligently placed by the judges. Even though the judges are not completely satisfied with his answers, they move on to the next issue. Oops, the agent has committed a little mistake! In order to list alternatives, he seems to have contradicted his own statement while giving an example. Now the judges seem to have hounded against him. They are bombarding him with questions, and his answers are interrupted be questions. But this guy is simply not ducking out! Judges summarize their claims which are again denied by the agent. His resilience holds through all the attempts made by the judges to dislodge his arguments. To his credit, he is clear about one thing, that is, he will not concede, no matter what. He is sticking to his arguments and that seems to impress the judges.

06:30 PM The rounds have finished and the teams are enjoying their Brownies! No doubt they will be anxious, for the results are going to announced within few minutes itself.

06:50 PM The teams going into finals are:

NUALS, Kochi 

GNLU, Gujarat

Congratulations to both the teams for making their way into final amidst such intense competition and not to mention the hostile Judges.

          3. Judgment Day  (10th April, 2016)

So we have arrived to the Judgment day! The two deserving teams are going to battle it out on the grand forum.

10: 30 AM The honorable members of the Grand Jury have taken their place and the teams are raring to go.

GNLU, Gujarat v. NUALS, Kochi

10:35 AM The submissions for the applicants has started. The first agent is poised and looks ready to tackle the might of the Jury. And they do look ominous! She goes on fluently into her submissions with only few prompts by the Judges in between. And the speaker enjoys this as she rallies with her points. But the Judges are slowly getting into the act as they, in tandem, raise various queries. The speaker tries her best to engage the Judges in a positive manner. This proceeding is in direct contrast to what was happening in the semi-finals yesterday. Rather than the heavy and aggressive grilling, today, we see a slow roasting. Now it seems that the Judges are orchestrating a tune, as they are quoting the submissions made earlier and slowly leashing the speaker. But to her credit, the speaker has remained assured throughout and has finally concluded her submissions on a positive note.

But the second speaker is interrupted only in her first statement. And that sets the mood for her entire proceeding. As she isn’t getting any fluency in her submissions. The numerous questions have made her unsure and she steps into the proceedings very lightly. This reflects in the lack of conviction in her arguments. She only seems to be brushing upon the questions that the panel is posing rather than going into the detail as is the wish of Panel. And the fumbling isn’t helping her in any way. But she is shows a lot of spirit as she persists in front of a full assault. As was the case with her co-agent, several time extensions have been provided. And in the end, she has to conclude her arguments in a hurry and go straight to the prayer.

 The first agent for the respondents is clear and concise. Even the Judges take a while before raising their first query. Steadily and slowly, the panel tries the same tactic as used for the earlier speakers. But the speaker in this instance seems much more assured as she weaves around the small prompts. And when the point blank questions do arrive, she has taken an innovative approach and gone with the wishes of the Judges in arguing upon the questions raised. She isn’t using the evasive approach. It is reflected upon the the Judges as they seem satisfied on couple of issues. And as the Panel points out a mistake, the speaker admirably maneuvers it into a lighthearted moment. But again due to the paucity of time, the Judges ask her to conclude in a jiffy.

The second agent is much more energetic and vibrant. But he isn’t as collect as his co-agent. Regardless, he also progresses with his arguments fluently and tackles the wants of Judges satisfactorily. The Judges raise basic conceptual questions and the speaker convincingly answers them. The Judge points out a blunder in the footnoting of the submission by the defendants. The speaker immediately admits and apologies for such mistake. But he manages to maintain his composure and goes well into his conclusion.

So the final proceedings have come to an end. This proceeding was not as boisterous as the previous rounds. But it was on conceptual levels that the Judges queried upon and the long discussions were, simply put, very enlightening.

00:45 PM The participants have gone for the lunch. After the lunch we will be having the Valedictory ceremony.

01:45 PM The participants have had their lunch and from their expressions one thinks that they had been provided some delicious food.

After some wonderful words by the dignitaries such as Mr. Venkatramini, Senior Counsel, Supreme Court and Prof. K.L. Bhatia.

AND THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED!!

WINNER : NUALS, KOCHI

RUNNER-UP : GNLU, Gujarat

Best Researcher : Ms. Shruti Joshi, GNLU

Best Speaker : Md. Naimul Hussan, University of Dhaka

Best Memorial : NMIMS Institute of Law, Mumbai

Best Foreign Team : University of Dhaka.

Congratulations to the winners!

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
  21. SKVM, NMIMS
  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

Congratulations!

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!