![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/IINAUGURATION-300x98.png\")
<\/p>\n
10:00 a.m – The first International Cyber Law Moot Court Competition, 2022 has commenced. The inauguration ceremony begins in the virtual presence of the esteemed guests, Dr. Pavan Duggal, Honorary Chancellor, Cyberlaw University, HMJ (Retd.) Manju Goel, Former Judge, High Court of Delhi, Prof. Dr. Kesava Rao Vurrakulla, Honourable Vice-Chancellor of NUSRL, Ranchi, and participants along with the Moot Court Committee of NUSRL, Ranchi, and the members of the Cyberlaw University.<\/p>\n
10:04 a.m – The inauguration begins with a warm welcome and an introduction to the University. The event moves on to the introductions of the valued guests of the event.<\/p>\n
10:08 a.m – Dr. Pavan Duggal addresses the audience and discusses the importance of conducting an international cyber law moot court competition. As rightly pointed out by him, the internet has become a crucial part of our life and so have cyber laws.<\/p>\n
10:17 a.m – Dr. Kesava Rao, then proceeds to grace the participants with some mooting wisdom. The excitement is palpable in the virtual meet. There is substantial light shed on the process of preparation for a moot. \u201cMoot competition is not for winning or losing, the proper way of perceiving a moot is that it gives an opportunity to observe.\u201d He boosts up the confidence of the participants with his words of wisdom, making them realize that this moot is not a competition of winning or losing but a chance to prepare themselves for the future.<\/p>\n
10:25 a.m – HMJ (Retd.) Manju Goel takes the stage to interact with the audience. She provides the audience with some courtroom wisdom. The former Judge continues to narrate some courtroom instances in order to show that some things can be learned only when they are practiced in real-time. Justice Goel focuses on how a Moot Court Competition prepares one for situations that no textbook can teach. She emphasizes the importance of Courtcraft<\/em>. Her words once again remind the students that it is not the accuracy of an argument alone that takes you to success, but also the manner in which it is presented. HMJ (Retd.) Manju Goel thanked EBC-SCC Online for their contributions in the moot court competition in the capacity of knowledge partners<\/p>\n 10:33 a.m – The inauguration continues with Prof. Dr. Christoph Stuckelberger gracing the audience. Dr. Cristoph is the President and Founder of Globethics.net Foundation Executive Director at Geneva Agape Foundation. The audience and the host thanked the esteemed guest, who, owing to the time difference, joined us early in the morning. He then provides a historical perspective to the discussion of cyber law and cyber ethics in general.<\/p>\n \u201cYou cannot have a law without saying what is the rules.<\/em>\u201d He asserts how it is laws that create a ground for the validity of the norms that exist.<\/p>\n With an example of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, he spells out the importance of cyberspace. Dr. Christoph, through his words, raised significant questions in the minds of the budding lawyers as to what goals does cyberspace fulfill and how it holds importance in the changing times. He further remarks on the ownership of cyberspace and explains how cyberspace is not owned by anyone but how collective responsibility can be used to protect and cherish cyberspace which is a world without borders. International conventions and agreements play a role in international consensus regarding the governance of cyberspace. He moves on to explain who can economically gain and lose in cyberspace. In the light of common good, enterprises need to make cyberspace accessible to consumers whilst also consuming a regulated and sustainable amount of profit.<\/p>\n 10:48 a.m – Dr. Christoph\u2019s words were instrumental in providing an insight into cyber ethics.<\/p>\n The addresses by the esteemed guests are followed by the vote of thanks, presented by Ms. Priya Vijay, Faculty Convenor, Moot Court Committee, NUSRL, Ranchi. She mentions the key highlights of the guests’ speeches. The participants were wished the best for their Moot Court Competition.<\/p>\n Dr. Duggal then proceeds to spring a surprise on the moot teams and explains that the Winning Team, the First Runners up, the Best Speaker Male and Female along with the Best Memorial Team will receive access to paid courses offered by the Cyberlaw University as a reward. This would be in addition to the prizes already announced by NUSRL, Ranchi.<\/p>\n 10:55 a.m – The spirits of the participants are boosted and yet they seem calm after the condensed fluidic addresses of the eminent guests and speakers. The inauguration concludes with wishing the participants well and briefing them about the timeline. With this, the beginning of a long day sums up, while the researchers are gearing up for the researchers’ test to showcase their skills for the title of the Best Researcher.<\/p>\n Preliminary Rounds – I<\/strong><\/p>\n The wait is finally over. The preliminary round begins!!!!<\/p>\n Court Room 1: Petitioner TC 1 v. Respondent TC 21<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n 12:00 p.m – The courtroom shall proceed ex-parte as the respondents are not present. The petitioner has joined the courtroom and is confident yet anxious about the proceedings. The participants greet the bench. The stage is set!!! The petitioner counsel 1 begins with their introduction and arguments. The speaker seems confident while briefing the judges about the facts of the case. The speaker is careful with the words and is emphasizing points of the facts that are crucial.<\/p>\n 12:10 p.m\u00a0 – And so begins the arguments!! The counsel has no trace of anxiousness and is addressing the bench with the sub-issues. The speaker started strong and is clearing the bench\u2019s doubts. The bench\u2019s questions have made the counsel a bit hesitant, but he continues with the case with his brilliant advocacy. Indeed the words of HMJ Goel had a clear impact on the team.<\/p>\n 12:20 p.m – The counsel continues with the arguments, simultaneously mentioning Articles of The Constitution that is pertinent to the case. The bench is questioning speaker 1 on the intricacies of the case. The judge also asks the counsel to clarify the right to the internet and cryptocurrency. The speaker is trying his level best to convince the judges, but the professionalism of the bench leaves all of us in confusion of to what extent have they been pursued.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:24 p.m – The question of the bench with regard to Article 19 has got the speaker on pins and needles. The judges have made the speaker confused by showing that the petition is wasting the time of the court. But the speaker is yet to prove himself, he accepts the bench\u2019s queries and tries to answer them.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:30 p.m –\u00a0 The bench through its interrogation has made a crack in the speaker\u2019s confidence. Yet the speaker continues with a smile on his face, facing the questions and answering them by citing relevant case laws and facts of the moot problem.<\/span><\/p>\n The judges have raised questions to the speaker about how the right to the internet is crucial to one\u2019s life. The courtroom has gained pace and the judges have made the team go cold feet. The bench asked the speaker about the validity of the special leave petition and the grounds on which it questions the decision of the Honorable High Court.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:37 p.m- Without wasting any time beating around the bush, the speaker 2 takes forth the proceeding, to address the bench on the final issue raised in the case. The speaker continues with zeal to make the bench adjudicate in their favor. The hard work that the counsel put in the research can be seen by how they state laws, cases and use them in their favor. The speaker focuses on the relevant sections of CrPC and highlights rights that the petitioner holds.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:41 p.m- With no questions asked, the speaker 2 moves to the prayer. But alas!! The bench asks the speaker questions regarding differences between specific provisions and to explain the suspension of the constitution. The speaker tries to maintain their calm and provide solutions to the queries raised.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The bench further puts up a question to examine how much clarity does the speaker hold on the facts of the case. The questions of the bench about the facts of the case have made the counsel conscious, choosing every word they say before the court carefully. The precision with which the judge focuses on the moot problem has made the team doubtful about their arguments.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:51 p.m- The bench, through its arduous interrogation, has confused the counsel and made her a little nervous. Speaker 2 states case laws that may answer the confusing questions of the bench.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The counsel continues with answering the question of how the ban on the internet is unreasonable. The speaker looks dazed but tries not to\u00a0 show it on her face. The debate going between the judge and the speaker has everyone at the edge of their seat.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:57 p.m- The courtroom is informed about the end of the time duration allotted to the counsel and with this the proceedings come to a rest. The team, though exhausted by the questions, still looks energetic as ever. Whereas the judges effortlessly appear neutral. The counsel thanks the bench.. With this the first preliminary round comes to an end. The result stands much awaited.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 2: \u00a0Petitioner TC 2 v. Respondent TC 22<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n 12:03 p.m- All the participants and the judges have arrived. The formalities preceding the court proceedings have commenced and the participants on both sides have been asked about their preferred time divisions by the court official. The proceedings begin! The Counsel on the petitioner\u2019s side commences with their opening statement.<\/p>\n 12:11 p.m- The bench enquires the grounds of the counsel\u2019s argument. It substantiates their question on the argument by the counsel and the counsel, effortlessly defends their stand. The court has started to take its stereotypical serious shape.<\/p>\n 12:14 p.m- The counsel elaborates her answer by quoting relevant statutory provisions and skims through relevant case laws to reinforce the same.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:15 p.m-\u00a0 The ladyship corners the counsel with cross-questions and she resorts to demanding for a further time during the proceeding to answer her technical question.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:18 p.m- The counsel begins with her second issue and in the pursuit to convince the bench, storms the courtroom with analogies, authorities, and relevant corollaries.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:21 p.m- The counsel, gliding effortlessly through her arguments, has been presented by a speed bump by the bench by questioning the relevance of the cited authority.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:23 p.m-\u00a0 The counsel is concluding her argument as directed by the bench due to the exhaustion of her allotted time. Here, counsel 2 starts with the next issue.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:25 p.m- Here comes a cross-examination of the counsel by the bench regarding a term quoted by her. The counsel seems to be well versed with her case.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:28 p.m- The bench questions the understanding of the counsel about one of the cited authorities. The counsel seems to have been taken off guard by this question. Again, due to the humility of the bench, it deals with the issue softly and allows the counsel to move ahead.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:34 p.m- The learned bench is surely giving the counsel a hard time. They are anything but easily convinced!<\/span><\/p>\n 12:36 p.m- Here comes the conclusion of the arguments by the petitioner\u2019s side. The prayer has been made by the counsel and therefore, the petitioner\u2019s case is duly rested.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:39 p.m- Now it is the turn of the respondent\u2019s counsel to steal the courtroom drama. The first counsel humbly puts forward her issues before the learned bench and makes her contentions.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:42 p.m- Answering the bench\u2019s questions with convincing analogies, the counsel exploits her knowledge of the law to defend her client. Alas, that is not enough to overwhelm the intellect and confidence of the bench. A troublesome cross-question by the bench surely ruffles the feathers of the counsel!<\/span><\/p>\n 12:45 p.m- The confidence on the counsel\u2019s part trembles a little since the bench, not only being left unconvinced by the counsel’s previous argument but also shooting her with even more daunting questions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:48 p.m- Tension builds up as the bench roots for its answers and the counsel starts to seem to be under pressure. Lack of cited authorities seems to be troublesome for the counsel!<\/span><\/p>\n 12:52 p.m- Given a go-ahead by the bench, the counsel furthers with her arguments, nearing the end of her allotted time.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:55 p.m- Seems the troubles have not ended for the counsel as she again gets cornered by the bench.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:02 p.m- The counsel concludes her arguments and the second counsel starts her submissions before the court. She has been granted the permission to go ahead with her arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:06 p.m- Overwhelmed by the backlog of unanswered questions\u00a0 by the bench, the counsel pleads ignorance and furthers with the permission of the bench. Thirty seconds of speaking and again, the counsel gets countered by the bench. This certainly is a very challenging situation for the counsel.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:15 p.m: The final conclusion of the respondent\u2019s arguments commence and the prayer has been made before the bench.<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 3: Petitioner TC 3 v. Respondent TC 23<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n 12:04 p.m- All the participants have joined in. Participants are being made aware of the rules.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:12 p.m-\u00a0 The court is now in session. Get ready for an exciting courtroom session! \u00a0 The first counsel on behalf of the petitioner begins with sheer confidence in her voice. The judge is being briefed with the facts. The first counsel proceeds with her arguments. The first counsel refers to various judgments explaining how the freedom of expression is being violated. The ladyship asks questions and the counsel for the petitioner tries to convince the bench with her arguments .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:22 p.m- The counsel proceeds with her second submission. Moving forward confidently with her arguments, the petitioner seems confused regarding some points. Petitioner seeks permission to move to 3rd submission but the ladyship has some questions.\u00a0 The counsel was able to convince the bench. <\/span>2 mins left for Counsel No. 1. Let\u2019s see if she can use the time left in her best interest. Counsel 1 gets done with her part of arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:34 p.m- Counsel 2 starts after taking the permission of Hon\u2019ble bench. While addressing the second and third issues, the counsel seemed confident. The ladyship inquired the counsel on some aspects of the issue which made the counsel perplexed.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:41 p.m- Convincing the bench, the petitioner moves ahead with the third issue. Stating various statutes and legislations, the counsel is determined to leave an ever-lasting impression on the bench. The bench directs the counsel to speed up. The counsel proceeds with the prayer.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:51 p.m- The first counsel on behalf of the Respondent starts with his arguments after taking permission of Hon\u2019ble bench. Looks like there is some confusion. The second counsel initiated his arguments. Cross questioning of the bench is giving a tough time to the counsel. The bench doesn\u2019t seem to be convinced. The counsel is fumbling while answering the question.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:57 p.m- After answering a series of questions, the bench looks a little convinced. Counsel seeks permission to move ahead with the second issue.\u00a0 The ladyship inquires the counsel about basic terms mentioned in the problem. The counsel seems to be unnerved with back to back questions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1:15 p.m- The counsel proceeds with her notion on further issues. And look! The counsel comes up with something that brings a smile in the face of judges! Judges seem convinced. <\/span>The counsel moves ahead with the prayer, requesting the Hon\u2019ble court to pass the desired orders.\u00a0<\/span>The petitioner seeks permission for rebuttals. The Permission for which was granted. The counsel starts with great aplomb stating that how the justice should be delivered to them. The respondents put forth sur-rebuttals.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1:25 p.m- The proceedings have concluded and the counsels are allowed to leave the courtroom.<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 4: Petitioner TC 5 Vs. Respondent TC 26<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n 12:16 p.m- The petitioner starts to provide a brief consideration of facts for the enrichment of the bench.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:22 p.m- The first speaker of the petitioner then proceeds to provides to provide the issues that the court has to deal with.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:23 p.m- The counsel of the petitioner begins his arguments with a sense of confidence in his speech.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:27 p.m- The counsel of the petitioner has raised the pitch along with his speed of oration whilst giving his submissions. The change of pace is visible considering the submissions need to be submitted as soon as he can. He has provided his arguments with a lot of case laws indicative that his arguments are adequately backed by law on his side.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:31 p.m- The counsel of the petitioner has concluded his arguments although he seemed dazed and confused at the end which might indicate jitters.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:33 p.m- The second counsel of the petitioner has commenced with her arguments and has provided a structure to the judges present in the beginning indicating a structured and composed argument. <\/span>The counsel seems calm and is comfortable with her moderate pace. Emphasis is put on certain laws and international treaties to show how the defendant violates such fundamental areas of law.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:40 p.m- The counsel of the petitioner has further slowed down the pace of her submissions contrary to the first counsel. The bench has now asked the counsel a pertinent question about the arguments put forward and which the counsel is confident to answer.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:44 p.m- The bench has now asked a question in relation to the case laws used by the petitioner in her arguments, the bench has asked the counsel\u2019s opinion of the same.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:46 p.m- The bench has moved on to grilling the counsel of the petitioner and the counsel seems to be moving brilliantly in handling the question showing composure and ability to handle the question.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:50 p.m- The counsel of the petitioner in answering the queries of the bench has hit some hard-hitting words to qualm the questions of the bench.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:51 p.m- The counsel of the petitioner has concluded their arguments and commenced the prayer and ended the same in a minute.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:53 p.m- The counsel of the respondent has started to commence his arguments. The attack has been brought from the beginning itself and the tension is palpable. The counsel of the respondent is moving at a racing pace and has used phrases spoken by eminent legal jurists to show that the arguments are well researched and well versed in the law.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:57 p.m- The body language seems promising and the use of hand gestures are very helpful to show a well-established argument.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:02 p.m- The second counsel of the petitioner has started her side of the argument. <\/span>An urgency is visible from the side of the petitioner.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 1:07 p.m- The respondent in her pace has fumbled quite a few times now but is still able to move on with her arguments. The respondent provides some kudos to the petitioner showing to the bench certain parts of the law which the respondent will seek to change the perspective.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:10 p.m- The bench intervenes with the argument of the respondent for an important clarification in their arguments. The bench seems confused and elaborates that the clarification given by the side of the respondent is not satisfying the bench at all.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:15 p.m- the co-counsel of the respondent intervenes with a valid hypothetical argument that seemingly satisfies the bench.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:16 p.m- The counsel starts to proceed with the next issue and starts to provide a general knowledge lesson to the bench which seems disconnected with the argument.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:22 p.m- The bench has put forward a question that seeks to change the very essence of the argument of the respondent and the court has reached a fever pitch. The respondent seems dazed in her answer which is seemingly not pleasing the bench.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:23 p.m- The co-counsel has again intervened but now the co-counsel is also not able to save the arguments of the respondent as he was before.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:27 p.m- The counsel of the respondent has ended the prayers and the rebuttal round begins with a boxing day pace. The counsel of the petitioner has put forward a very long and dizzying question that is indistinguishable from boosting his side or asking a valid question pertaining to the argument of the respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:33 p.m- The bench has stopped the counsel of the petitioner from proceeding any further and has asked him some very important question in relation to the moot.<\/span><\/p>\n The counsel of the petitioner has is stuttering and seems unsure of his perspective in view of the arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:39 p.m- The counsel of the respondent has started to answer the questions put forward by the counsel of the petitioner and has started to contradict the side of the petitioner with stride albeit the Co-counsel of the respondent does seem to repeat some points.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:41 p.m- The other co-counsel has taken over his teammate and aims to expand on the argument of his co-counsel. The co- counsel took a significant 2 seconds to restructure his answer to the needs of the question and has done is job in helping the the answer.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:46 p.m- The arguments are over and the bench proceeds to provide a feedback to all who is present as a way to help them learn from their mistakes and make better decisions in the future. The bench commended the teams for their enthusiasm and their passionate arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 5: Petitioner TC 6 v. Respondent TC 27<\/strong><\/p>\n 12:05 p.m- All the participants have arrived. The sheer enthusiasm and nervousness can clearly be seen on their faces.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:10 p.m- Everyone awaits the arrival of the judges.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:19 p.m- The participants have been informed that the judge will join shortly. It seems that with every passing minute, the anxiety of participants is increasing.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:21 p.m- The Hon\u2019ble judge has arrived!\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:26 p.m- \u201c<\/span>Competition is always a good thing. It forces us to do our best. A monopoly renders people complacent and satisfied with mediocrity.<\/span><\/i>\u201d Keeping these words of Nancy Pearcy in mind, the competition begins!<\/span><\/p>\n 12:30 p.m- The proceedings have commenced and the Counsel of the Petitioner starts presenting the facts of the case as well as the submissions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:34 p.m- The Hon\u2019ble judge asks its first question of the competition! The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has taken the bull by its horns and is diligently answering the question.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:38 p.m- The Hon\u2019ble Bench is grilling the Counsel with continuous and seemingly confusing questions. The Counsel seems to grapple with the attack but it is clear that the grilling has not shaken their confidence! The second judge has arrived as well.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:42 p.m- The Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner continues with their submissions. The confidence of the Counsel has been shaken by the tough questions put forward by the Bench.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:48 p.m- The ball is now in the Co-counsel\u2019s court. They proceed with their arguments with great confidence and enthusiasm with the permission of the Bench.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:53 p.m- The Co-counsel continues with unshaken confidence and faith. The Bench starts questioning and the Co-counsel answers them in the same bold tone and continues with their submissions. They seem very thorough with their points.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 01:00 p.m- The Co-counsel faces the wrath of a poor network connection! Luckily, the connection was restored soon and the Bench asked the Co-counsel to summarize their arguments before asking a few questions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 01:05 p.m- It is now the turn of the Counsel on behalf of the Respondent to proceed. Their tone and speed make it evident that they are quite nervous. After all, it is such a stressful situation!<\/span><\/p>\n 01:09 p.m- The Hon\u2019ble Bench politely intervenes with certain questions. This adds to the stress and anxiety of the Counsel for the Respondent and they do not seem so well-versed with their arguments.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 01:17 p.m- The Bench bombards the Counsel with another set of questions. The Counsel struggles to respond properly. The demeanor of the Counsel for the Respondent evidently shows their mental exhaustion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 01:24 p.m- The Counsel summarizes their submissions and now it is the duty of the Co-counsel to bring some action to the proceedings!<\/span><\/p>\n 01:26 p.m- The Co-counsel begins presenting their arguments and has filled the Courtroom with some energy again! However, the Bench soon questions the validity of their arguments in reference to the present case which takes the Co-counsel by surprise.<\/span><\/p>\n 01:32 p.m- The Co-counsel has been taken aback by the twisted questions put forward by the Hon\u2019ble Bench. The struggle of a Moot Court is real!\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 01:35 p.m- The Bench seems doubtful of a case cited by the Respondent.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 01:36 p.m- The Co-counsel for the Petitioner starts with the re-buttal with great conviction and very enthusiastically presents their questions for the Counsel of the Respondent to respond which they answer quite vehemently.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 01:40 p.m- The Hon\u2019ble Bench provides feedback to the participants. They motivate the participants and provide generous comments. The Bench is quite impressed by the presentation of the Counsels for the Petitioner.<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 6: <\/strong>Petitioner TC 7 v. Respondent TC 29<\/b><\/p>\n 12:07 p.m– The judges have arrived along with the respondents but the petitioners are nowhere to be seen. Everyone waits for the petitioners to join.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:15 p.m– The bench inquires for the whereabouts of the petitioners and asks about the rules for penalty for joining late.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:20 p.m– The court master tries to contact the team and gets a message that they would join shortly. The courtroom seems to be in havoc of whether they should wait or not, the question still persists about the petitioners joining. It is notified that team 7 is having technical issues on their part so there will be no penalties.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:30 p.m- The bench asks for ex-parte! The discussions are going on. Yes, they are going for an ex-parte hearing. There would be no rebuttals. The counsel 1 &2 would speak now for 15 minutes each.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:40 p.m – As counsel 1 proceeds, he is interrupted by the bench as he mentions a case that was not mentioned in the memorial. The bench allows him to mention the case but it won’t be taken into consideration.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:50 p.m– <\/b>The bench remarks all his arguments as mere allegations. Then, the second counsel proceeds with his arguments. The bench prohibits the counsel to argue on maintainability as it was already taken up with the first counsel. He seems nervous but still proceeds with other arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n 01:00 p.m– The bench questions the second counsel thoroughly!\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 01:10 p.m- Counsel tries to answer the questions confidently. The bench then asks the respondents to say their prayers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 01:17 p.m- The court master thanks everyone and asks the judges to fill in the score sheets. Everyone departs!<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 7: Petitioner TC 30 v. Respondent TC 9<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n 12:15 p.m- Preliminary round 1 began after a minor delay. The counsel 1 for Petitioner enthusiastically started with the statement of jurisdiction and will deal with first two issues of the moot proposition and the second counsel will be contesting the rest of the issues.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:23 p.m- The first counsel is moving ahead with the arguments confidently and is discussing Article 136 of the Constitution and she briefs about substantial questions of law concerning the petitioner\u2019s freedom of expression and right to the internet. She claims the petition to be maintainable.<\/span><\/p>\n The counsel coherently elaborates that discretion of the President under Article 352 can\u2019t be questioned and claims that the ground under which the emergency is proclaimed can\u2019t come under the purview of the aforesaid mentioned article. She relied upon the landmark case of\u00a0 \u201cMinerva Mills\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:32 p.m- The time limit is up! The counsel pleaded for extension of time in order to complete the arguments. She was granted the extension of one minute by the bench. Hon\u2019ble judge have also started questioning the arguments of the counsel as soon as the counsel lays down with her arguments. After the attempt to answer the questions put forward by the judge, the first counsel rested the case to the second counsel.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:38 p.m – The second counsel from the petitioner has started with her arguments in a self-assured manner but the bench has been fairly active in bombarding questions. The counsel highlights the importance of the right to privacy under Article 21. She explains that keeping users\u2019 data at risk violates the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression and mentions the recent landmark case on right to privacy i.e. the \u201cPuttaswamy case\u201d. The counsel claims that the cyber security law contains provisions in derogation of human rights and in light of protecting users\u2019 data it is breaching data privacy. Relying on case laws the counsel concludes that the cyber security law and cryptocurrency law is unconstitutional.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:47 p.m- The hon\u2019ble judge has been grilling the speaker; however, the speaker seems unfazed by the cross-questioning. Relying on case laws the counsel concludes that the cyber security law and cryptocurrency law is unconstitutional. The questioning does not stop here. The courtroom scene is becoming more heated and interesting. The judge showers the counsel with provisional questions and at last, the counsel pleads ignorance.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:50 p.m- The petitioners have concluded their contentions by reciting the prayer before the Hon\u2019ble court.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:57 p.m- The counsel for the respondent started with her arguments. The counsel is moving ahead with an aim of establishing the validity of cyber security law, cybercrime law, and crypto currency law. She concludes that the laws are not arbitrary and are constitutional because the restrictions imposed upon the right of freedom of speech and expression are reasonable and are to protect public order.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:05 p.m- The esteemed bench has pointed out to clarify about the reasonable restrictions imposed by the laws. Through the cross-questioning the hon\u2019ble judge has been trying to get greater clarity on the arguments advanced to them. The judge seemed to be fairly satisfied with the answer.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:08 p.m- The Judge asked the first counsel to sum up her arguments and soon the co-counsel of the respondent started by briefing her issues.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:15 p.m- The second counsel is also pressing on the point of legitimacy of the aforementioned laws and their validity based upon various international conventions. She submits that cyberattacks can be compiled as external aggression and thus proclaiming emergency and suspension of fundamental rights is legal and valid.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:20 p.m- The esteemed bench has started questioning and the counsel is confidently trying to answer the questions. The bench seems unimpressed, the counsel\u2019s initial confidence seems to be fading in the face of relentless questioning. With this, the judge asks the counsel to move on with the prayer.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:23 p.m- The petitioners have started giving the Rebuttals to the arguments advanced by the respondents.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:26 p.m- The Respondents seek to submit the Sur-Rebuttals.<\/span><\/p>\n 1:30 p.m- The Preliminary round 1 concludes.<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 8: Petitioner TC 14 v. Respondent TC 32<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n 12:20 p.m- <\/span>All the participants have joined in. Participants are being made aware of the rules.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:25 p.m- Here comes a besieging question from the bench regarding maintainability of the lawsuit.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Inauguration-1-1-300x134.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/PR-1-300x142.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n