Call For PapersLaw School News

The Chair on Consumer Law and Practice is dedicated to provide a forum for engaging in discussions on varied issues of National and International issues on Consumer Protection Laws and henceforth, publishes an annual peer reviewed journal under its banner.

Contributions have been invited for International Journal on Consumer Law and Practice (Volume 7)  from academicians, practitioners, students of law and allied fields in the form of Article, Research Paper, Essay, Note, Case Comment, Legislative Briefs and Book Review.

Submission deadline for this edition is March 31, 2019.

For Submission Guidelines, Click HERE

For more details, click HERE
Click here to check the Subscription Page.

Submission Guidelines:

The journal welcomes contributions from academicians, practitioners, students of law and allied fields.

Theme: Consumer Protection Laws

Sub Themes:

  • International Consumer Protection Framework & Policy
  • Empowering Consumers
  • Consumer Welfare Legislations
  • New Age Contemporary Issues & Challenges
  • Enforcement of Regulatory Authorities
  • Consumers in Digital Era.
  • Consumer Protection and Mediation.

IJCLP solicits submissions for its Volume VII to be launched in 2019. Authors can make submissions under the following heads:

  • Articles and Research Papers (6,000-8,000 words inclusive of foot notes)
  • Essay(3,000-4,000 words inclusive of foot notes)
  • A Note (2,500 words inclusive of foot notes).
  • A Case Comment, Legislative Briefs (2,500-3,000 words inclusive of foot notes)
  • A Book Review ( 2,000 words inclusive of foot notes)

Send the manuscripts on consumerlaw@nls.ac.in (MS word format) with the subject as “Submissions for IJCLP 2019” along with covering letter on or before 31st March 2019.

Book releasesNews

Science begins with counting. To understand a phenomenon, a scientist must first describe it; to describe it objectively, he must first measure it.

– Siddhartha Mukherjee, The Emperor of All Maladies

These words, written by Mukherjee in his seminal biography of cancer, aptly characterise the principal purpose of DAKSH’s Rule of Law Project, which is to understand the justice-delivery system in India using a data-driven approach.

In 2016, DAKSH released a report, titled State of the Indian Judiciary (SoJR), in which we focused on the most visible face of the justice-delivery system in India — the judiciary. In evaluating the work of the judiciary, we considered its primary challenge — pendency in the courts — as a means to understand how delays in the progress of cases affect citizens and the economy. We also presented findings from our pioneering survey on access to justice, which recorded litigants’ perceptions of, and experiences within, the judicial system.

As we pondered on the composition of DAKSH’s second report, we decided to retain the two principal aspects of the SoJR — delays in the judicial system and access to justice — as the fulcrum of this year’s report also, but examine them both more deeply and broadly. While the SoJR explored the systemic issues of administration and accountability in the judiciary, this year’s report is an in-depth scrutiny of the performance of courts, with an emphasis on their workload, case flow, and efficiency. While the SoJR reflected on access to justice, and in particular, its institutional dimensions (mainly relating to the judiciary), this year, we consider ‘justice’ more expansively — in terms of its underlying ideas, its administration and delivery by non-judicial bodies, as well as the various approaches to it in India.

Shruti Vidyasagar and Ramya Sridhar Tirumalai in Introduction to Approaches to Justice in India (2017)

The complete report has been indexed on SCC Online here:

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!