![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/13th-NMCC-Horizontal-Poster--300x150.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Welcome to the 13th National Moot Court Competition Live Blog<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10.42 A.M – Khushi, the Organising committee member, elucidates on the Moot Proposition in a detailed fashion. She divides the proposition into five parts to make it easier for the audience to comprehend. The Proposition mainly revolves around the issue of the preservation of data privacy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10.51 A.M – Khushi concludes with a briefing of the facts.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10.52 A.M – The Dignitaries enter the Auditorium.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10.53 A.M – The Master of Ceremonies, Shreenidhi, introduces the dignitaries:<\/span><\/p>\n The dignitaries for the event are as follows:<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n He congratulates the students on the great sense of pride that they should be feeling to be entering the 13th edition of the National Moot Court Competition hosted by the School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University). He then elaborates on the plethora of times we have managed to conduct this event successfully in the past. He then dwells on the theme of the moot and hails the Moot Proposition as a combination of Constitutional issues and commercial problems. In his words, Moot Courts are basically a platform for students to experience how real time court problems play out. It can help the democratic system prevalent in our country to a large extent.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n He then proclaims that it is almost a trend for students from the School of Law to start branching out into different fields of law upon graduation. This is an honour in itself and a living testimony to the quality of education that is provided in the college.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Dean then proceeds to personally extend a very warm welcome to the dignitaries and concludes the address.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 11.03 A.M – The Final Round of the 13th NMCC commences.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Final Rounds<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n J. Padmaraj Desai,<\/span><\/p>\n J. Narayana Swamy,<\/span><\/p>\n Justice Sanjay Gowda,<\/span><\/p>\n Mr. Hemanth Krishna<\/span><\/td>\n 11:05<\/span><\/p>\n 11:06<\/span><\/p>\n 11:08<\/span><\/p>\n 11:13<\/span><\/p>\n 11:14<\/span><\/p>\n 11:15<\/span><\/p>\n 11:16<\/span><\/p>\n 11:17<\/span><\/p>\n 11:20<\/span><\/p>\n 11:21<\/span><\/p>\n 11:22<\/span><\/p>\n 11:23<\/span><\/p>\n 11:23<\/span><\/p>\n 11:26<\/span><\/p>\n 11:27<\/span><\/p>\n 11:29<\/span><\/p>\n 11:33<\/span><\/p>\n 11:33<\/span><\/p>\n 11:35<\/span><\/p>\n 11:36<\/span><\/p>\n 11:39<\/span><\/p>\n 11:41<\/span><\/p>\n 11:43<\/span><\/p>\n 11:44<\/span><\/p>\n 11:45<\/span><\/p>\n 11:47<\/span><\/p>\n 11:48<\/span><\/p>\n 11:51<\/span><\/p>\n 11:52<\/span><\/p>\n 11:54<\/span><\/p>\n 11:55<\/span><\/p>\n 11:57<\/span><\/p>\n 11:58<\/span><\/p>\n 11:59<\/span><\/p>\n 12:00<\/span><\/p>\n 12:02<\/span><\/p>\n 12:04<\/span><\/p>\n 12:06<\/span><\/p>\n 12:07<\/span><\/p>\n 12:08<\/span><\/p>\n 12:09<\/span><\/p>\n 12:10<\/span><\/p>\n 12:11<\/span><\/p>\n 12:12<\/span><\/p>\n 12:13<\/span><\/p>\n 12:14<\/span><\/p>\n 12:16<\/span><\/p>\n 12:18<\/span><\/p>\n 12:20<\/span><\/p>\n 12:22<\/span><\/p>\n 12:23<\/span><\/p>\n 12:25<\/span><\/p>\n 12:28<\/span><\/p>\n 12:29<\/span><\/p>\n 12:30\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:32<\/span><\/p>\n 12:32<\/span><\/p>\n 12:35<\/span><\/p>\n 12:36\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 12:39<\/span><\/p>\n 12:40<\/span><\/p>\n 12:41<\/span><\/p>\n 12:42<\/span><\/p>\n 12:45<\/span><\/p>\n 12:46<\/span><\/p>\n 12:47<\/span><\/p>\n 12:48<\/span><\/p>\n 12:51<\/span><\/p>\n 12:53<\/span><\/td>\n Speaker 1 of the Petitioner team has sought permission to approach the bench.<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker 1 has started stating the facts of the present case after seeking permission of the bench.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker 1 has started addressing Issue 1.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses a question whether there exists a right to erase your data under the Act.<\/span><\/p>\n Judge poses a question in regard to what the Speaker means by consent.<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker moves on to address the constitutionality of Section 8 and states that there exists no definition of instrumentality.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker cites references to the case of B. Shama Rao v. The Union Territory of Pondicherry.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge states that \u2018instrumentality\u2019 has been constitutionally defined. The Speaker contends that it is open to interpretation and that provisions under Section 8 are vague.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker cites references to the K.S. Puttaswamy judgement whereby the 3 tests were mentioned.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker further cites the Shreya Singhal v. UOI Case.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses a question regarding the detriment of not having exceptions to which the speaker states that Section 8 (2)(a) provides exceptions which are jurisprudentially recognized exceptions.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker 1 states that waiting for the Central government to analyse is not adequate.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses a question regarding the erasing of data post processing. Speaker 1 states that the same is necessary as the data should be erased immediately after the purpose is met.<\/span><\/p>\n Does Acanti\u2019s Privacy Policy have a provision regarding the right to be forgotten? The Speaker states that all the data collected and shared will be deleted as soon as the account is deleted.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker has moved on to address the constitutionality of Sections 19 and 22.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If a notification regarding Section 18(3) clarifying the same will be considered adequate by the counsel. The Speaker states that an executive action of procedural nature will not be adequate to clarify these legislative acts.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that Section 19 becomes arbitrary because of the vagueness of the provisions under Section 18.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses a question regarding the qualifications of the members . The Speaker refers to 19(3). The Counsel states that the same persons having the exemption cannot be the ones appointing the members.<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker 2 of the Petitioner team has started addressing issues 3 and 4 as the representative of Blue Tick. Post which the Speaker will be addressing issue 2.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses the question as to whether the parent company of a subsidiary does not have power to control the operations of the subsidiary. As an answer to which the Counsel states that there exists no nexus to prove that Blue Tick had control over operations .<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses a question regarding the reason for such an accusation. The Speaker states that the facts are silent on the same and that the findings are not against them.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that although the findings are found to be against Acanti, no notice has been served to them.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker concludes by stating that they are not the necessary party.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker 2 has started addressing Issue 4 as to whether there exists a violation of the Competitions Act. The Speaker is addressing the allegation of dominant position.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker cites reference to Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta v. Competition Commission Of India to contend that there exists no dominant position to abuse the same.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker refers to Section 4(a). The speaker further states that collection of data is carried out by Acanti and draws attention to Terms 3 and 4.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses a question regarding the ingredients of dominant position. The Speaker states that the answers to the same are: 1. You need to be a dominant entity 2. Eight factors are provided.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses a question regarding the requirement of money in the abuse. The Speaker states there is no need for the same.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses a question regarding the difference between product market and geographic market.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker refers to Section 2(r) as an answer to the same.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses the question whether the parent company owns the data. The speaker answers in the negative and draws attention to terms 2,3,5,7 of the privacy policy.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that Section 4 is not violated because even if there exists\u00a0 a dominant position, Blue Tick is not abusing the same.<\/span><\/p>\n Judge poses a question whether the Competition Commission should have examined Section 3. The Speaker answers that the Petitioners are eliminating all possible sections as the facts are not clear on the same.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that the consent acquired for features limits the access to the same.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that Terms 3 and 4 specify the purpose for the collection of data.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses a question on how Dementor accesses the data if the data is encrypted. The Speaker states that there exists no evidence to show that Dementor is hand in glove with Blue Tick.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge states that the undercover agencies should remain so in order to protect themselves from softwares like Unicorn.<\/span><\/p>\n As an answer to a question, the Speaker states that the company is open to any investigation agency looking into the same.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge states that the \u2018opt out\u2019 option is irrelevant if the company is in a dominant position. The Speaker states that in any general contract there is agreement on the terms by both sides for it to be a valid contract.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses a question regarding the absence of free consent since the company is in a dominant position and further that the Unconscionable contract since both the parties are not on an equal footing with regard to power.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker has been granted an extra minute to summarise the arguments for Issue 2.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker 2 of the Petitioner team has moved onto the prayer.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker 1 of the Respondent party has sought the permission to approach the bench.<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker 1 has apologised for the mistake as to the petitioner name mentioned.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that consent would be deemed when asking for the same can be detrimental.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that the commercial interest of the company cannot be considered over the Public Interest of the Nation.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that sections are constitutional as it qualifies the three pronged test of proportionality laid down in the Puttaswamy judgement and it protects the Right to Information of the citizens.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker cites references to the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Rao Gupta to contend that the government works for the welfare of the state. The speaker also cites reference to the Shreya Singhal v. UOI case.<\/span><\/p>\n The judge poses a question regarding the application of Article\u00a0 300-A. The speaker answers that the Right to be Forgotten has to be balanced with the Right to Information.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses the question as to how the government will obtain the personal data without the consent of the person. The Speaker states the answer to the same as deemed consent.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses a question regarding the violation of privacy and distorting the basic structure doctrine.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker 1 cites references to the Rohit Pandya v. Union of India case and the Pegasus case to state that the claims were made without any proof.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses the question of whether the interests of the political party are getting mixed with the interests of the State.The speaker answers that it is in the interest of the public. The speaker cites reference to the case of Union of India v. Indian Express Newspapers.<\/span><\/p>\n What the purpose is after the Act has been passed to see to the reasonable nexus. The Speaker answers in the affirmative since the suit has been brought before the Court.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses the question whether a board constituted is above the Fundamental Rights. The Speaker states that the board is not superior to the Fundamental rights and that the board has quasi-judicial functions as per the statute.<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker 2 of the Respondent team has sought the permission of the Court to approach the bench.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that the Vodafone case referred to by the petitioner team was not in the year 2021 but in 2012.<\/span><\/p>\n The doctrine of single entity under the Competition Act makes Blue Tick and Acanti a single entity.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that there is no Consensus Ad Idem in the present case.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses the question on how the take it or leave it\u00a0 option differs from a contract entered into with the bank. The Speaker states that in the present case the consent is implied for all future usage even though the consent is only taken once.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that the users have The Right to erase and the Right to self censorship. The former is stated by citing reference to Vasanthan v. Registrar General and a case in the EU, involving Google Incorporation.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses the question as to whether consideration can be the data. The Speaker states that the data of the individual should be respected.<\/span><\/p>\n The Judge poses the question regarding the control of the terms of contract post the signing of the contract. The Speaker states that the contractual rights cannot be given precedence over Fundamental Rights.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that there exists no purpose limitation and that the breach is evidence of the same.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker cites the Harshita Chawla Case. The Speaker further states that the Adverse test is employed as per the Competition Act.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker is distinguishing between the geographic market and the product market.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker states that there has been anti-competitive conduct by AAEC along with abuse of dominant position.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker 2 has moved on to the prayer.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker 1 of the Petitioner team has sought the permission to rebut the Respondent\u2019s arguments. The Speaker states that Section 18 is not justified as there is no clarity on the nature of data collected. Section 2(b) also further violates the rights of the citizens.<\/span><\/p>\n The Speaker 1 of the Respondent team in the surrebuttal addresses the arguments raised during rebuttal. The Speaker states that the petitioners never submitted a complaint to the Data Protection Board but merely wrote letters to the Government.<\/span><\/p>\n The round has ended and the judges are leaving for the scoring.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n <\/p>\n 01.26 P.M – The dignitaries initiate the lighting of the lamp to commemorate the success of the event with the assistance of Jayadevan Sir and Ashwin Kunal Sir. (Designations later)<\/span><\/p>\n 01.28 P.M: The dignitaries proceed to the dais.<\/span><\/p>\n 01.30 P.M: Address by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) L. Narayana Swamy (Chief Guest)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Judge thanks the School of Law for giving him an opportunity to judge this competition. In his opinion, this institution has produced fantastic advocates and judicial officers. A few of the students who have been placed through campus recruitment are doing profoundly well for themselves. After India became a part of the GATT in 1992, corporate institutions increased manyfold in India. He further thanks the faculty and the Dean for encouraging such a straightforward method of knowledge dissipation to young law students.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Through an example, he describes how it is a travesty to have him decide which team has won and which team is runners up as both the teams have fought tooth and nail and performed wonderfully. He also sheds some light on the fact that every case before the court of law is unique. Therefore, there truly can never be a distinction made between a winner and the runners-up.<\/span><\/p>\n The esteemed Judge also elucidated upon the Golaknath case, the Kesavananda Bharathi case and elaborated on how great lawyers like Mr. Sorabji and Mr. Nambiar have fought during the Emergency in order to secure our rights. He talks about their sheer willpower to fight for society\u2019s cause. He concluded his speech with praise for Justice H.R. Khanna who dissented against the suspension of the Rights of citizens against the views of his colleagues.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Address by Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Gowda, Judge, High Court of Karnataka<\/strong><\/p>\n Justice Sanjay proclaims that the students have access to the best education, but even the best education only holds value with practical use. He talks about how Moot Court competitions are a good first step towards learning how to argue in court but reiterates the fact that we still need to be completely ready and that we have to learn the nitty gritties of how to persuade a judge. This primarily comes through experience. The proof of a good lawyer is in his\/her sincerity. The most sincere lawyers will have the most persuasive effect on the judge.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Address by Hon’ble Justice Padmaraj Desai – Judge, High Court of Karnataka<\/strong><\/p>\n Justice Desai is of the opinion that law students are in fact social engineers. A wide range of facilities are available to students post graduation. Thus, these facilities should be used to the maximum. There is no substitute for hard work. He tells the students to do their best and that they will eventually reach the pinnacle of success.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Address by Shri. Dhyan Chinappa – Additional Advocate General for the State of Karnataka\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n In the AAG\u2019s words,\u00a0 a Moot Court is not about winning a case, it is about proving a point to the judges. Each of these points would take at least an hour or two to cover in a court of law. The fact that the participants are able to condense it to a 15 minute argument to convey their case is quite commendable. He also touches upon the AI v. Humans debate wherein AI is said to replace humans eventually but he believes that the field of law will remain ever resilient against Artificial Intelligence.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Address by Mr. Hemant Krishna – Partner, Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys<\/strong><\/p>\n Mr. Hemant talks about how he learned about AI through Isaac Asimov and how this author fueled his obsession with AI.<\/span><\/p>\n He then gives an insight into Issac Asimov\u2019s principles and how his hard work effectively produced the most efficient outcome. In his experience, Hard work can produce the most effective results irrespective of whichever stream or field you are in.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 02:10 P.M – Award Ceremony Begins<\/strong><\/p>\n Winners\u00a0 <\/b>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0: NMCC 21,\u00a0 Aarushi Gupta, Ananya Deshpande, and Ateeb Kazmi, representing National Law University, Jodhpur.<\/span><\/p>\n Runner’s up <\/b>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0: NMCC 03, Suha Raffi, Bhavani Balaji, and Poorna Shree, representing Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies.<\/span><\/p>\n Best Speaker\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/b>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0:\u00a0 NMCC\u00a0 03, Bhavani Balaji, representing Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies.<\/span><\/p>\n Best Researcher<\/b>\u00a0 :\u00a0 NMCC 14,\u00a0 Aiswarya Sahu, KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneshwar<\/span><\/p>\n Best Memorial \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/b>:\u00a0 NMCC 07, RGNUL, Patiala<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 02:15 P.M: The Award Ceremony concludes<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 02:16 P.M: The Event Report is delivered by the Event Head, Mr. Nithin Manoj.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/h3>\n
DAY 3: 12th February 2023<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/WhatsApp-Image-2023-02-12-at-11.37.21-300x225.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n1.Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) – L Narayana Swamy, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka<\/strong><\/div>\n2. Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Gowda – Judge, High Court of Karnataka<\/strong><\/div>\n3. Hon’ble Justice Padmaraj Desai – Judge, High Court of Karnataka<\/strong><\/div>\n4. Shri. Dhyan Chinappa – Additional Advocate General for the State of Karnataka\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n5. Mr. Hemant Krishna – Partner, Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nWelcome Address by Dr. Jayadevan S Nair, Dean, School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University)<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n10.54 A.M – Mr. Jayadevan S. Nair, Dean, School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), initiates the address by welcoming the guests, the faculty, the participants and the students.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n
\n Court Hall Number\u00a0<\/b><\/td>\n Judges\u00a0<\/b><\/td>\n Time Stamp\u00a0<\/b><\/td>\n Remarks<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Finals<\/span>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>Court Clerk:\u00a0<\/span>Amiya M. Arickatt<\/span><\/td>\nAAG Sri Dhyan Chinnappa,<\/span><\/p>\n 11:03<\/span><\/p>\n The Petitioner team, the Respondent team and the judges have arrived at the Court Hall.<\/span><\/p>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n