2nd Dr Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2018

Day I – Inauguration, Registration & Researcher’s Test, and Exchange of Memorials

1:00 P.M – Welcome to the 2nd edition of Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2018 organised by National Law University and Judicial Academy Assam, Guwahati! We would bring live updates throughout the course of the competition, so stay tuned for further updates!

2:00 P.M – The teams have arrived for registration, and 27 teams have registered:

1. ADAMAS University, School of Law and Justice
2. Aligarh Muslim University, Faculty of Law
   
3. Amity University, Kolkatta
4. Christ University, School of Law
5. CNLU, Patna
6. DSNLU, Vishakhapatnam
7. GNLU, Gandhinagar
8. ICFAI University, Dehradun
9. ICFAI University, Tripura
10. Jalpaiguri Law College
11. JCC Law College
12. Jorhat Law College
13. KLE Society’s Law College
14. Lloyd’s Law College, Greater Noida
15. MNLU, Mumbai
16. MNLU, Nagpur
17. NUSRL, Ranchi
18. O.P. Jindal Global University
19. Sastra Deemed University, School of Law
20. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
21. Tezpur Law College
22. TNNLS, Trichy
23. UILS Panjab
24. University of North Bengal, Department of Law
25. University School of Law Research
26. UPES Dehradun, Faculty of Law
27. Uttranchal University, Law College Dehradun

3:18 P.M – Teams are welcomed and the chief guests; Prof. (Dr.) J.S. Patil, Vice Chancellor of National Law University and Judicial Academy Assam,  Mr. Manveen Singh, Assistant Professor of Law of O.P. Jindal Global Law School, Prof. (Dr.) Yugal Kishore, Professor of Law of National Law University and Judicial Academy Assam, and Mr. Miftahuddin Ahmed (ACS), Registrar of National Law University and Judicial Academy Assam are felicitated.

3:21 P.M – Ceremonial Lamp lighted by the Chief Guest, and the Moot Court Competition begins!

3:22 P.M – In memory of the namesake of this competition, Late Prof (Dr.) Gurjeet Singh, Founding Vice Chancellor of National Law University and Judicial Academy Assam, a heart-warming video of his farewell speech was shown, where he reminded the Staff and students values which they have to inhibit.

3:37 P.M – The Registrar of National Law University and Judicial Academy Assam, Mr. Miftahuddin Ahmed (ACS) gives a Welcome speech.

3:42 P.M – The Vice Chancellor of National Law University and Judicial Academy Assam, Prof (Dr.) J.S. Patil, gave a speech welcoming the Guest of Honour and talked about the contribution of Prof (Dr.) Gurjeet Singh in shaping the formation of this University.

3:53 P.M – The Guest of Honour, Mr. Manveen Singh, Assistant Professor of Law of O.P. Jindal Global Law School, talked about his father (Prof. (Dr.) Gurjeet Singh) as a father and an academician. He highlighted the failure of the Indian legal educational system in ignoring the practical aspects of law. Furthermore, he talked about extra-curricular activities along with social service and their importance in shaping of a budding lawyer. He also emphasised the crucial role played by academicians in guiding law students and taking forward the Indian legal system to new horizons. In the end he wished the teams best of luck for the competition and their future.

4:08 P.M – The Convenor of the Moot Court Committee of the University, Mr. Krishnakant Jain, gave a vote of thanks

4:13 P.M – The Inauguration Ceremony came to an end, the guests have proceeded for high tea and the teams have been apprised of their schedule.

5:30 P.M – The participants have now gathered for the draw of lots and the memorial exchange, as well as the researcher’s test in the designated location.

Day II – Preliminary Rounds & Quarter Finals

10:00 A.M – We are now back for the second day of the 2nd Dr. Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2018. The judges have arrived, and the teams are locked and loaded for their rounds!

Here is the list of match ups for the 1st Preliminary Round:

1. ICFAI University, Dehradun v DSNLU, Vishakhapatnam
2. MNLU, Nagpur v UPES Dehradun, Faculty of Law
3. Uttranchal University, Law College Dehradun v UILS Panjab
4. JCC Law College v Lloyd’s Law College Greater Noida
5. CNLU Patna v Jorhat Law College
6. Tezpur Law College v Aligarh Muslim University, Faculty of Law
7. TNNLS Trichy v Symbiosis Law School, Pune
8. Jalpaiguri Law College v MNLU Mumbai
9. Christ University, School of Law v Sastra Deemed University, School of Law
10. University of North Bengal, Department of Law v NLUJA Assam (Dummy Team)
11. ICFAI Tripura v University School of Law Research
12. GNLU Gandhinagar v KLE Society’s Law College
13. Amity University, Kolkatta v O.P. Jindal Global University
14. ADAMAS University, School of Law & Justice v NUSRL Ranchi

Preliminary Round – I

TNNLS Trichy v Symbiosis Law School Pune

From the petitioner’s side, Counsel 1 approaches the dais and starts off by introducing the case and moves to present their first argument.

The judges are intently listening to the argument. The counsel relies on cases and arguments in the compendium and the memorial, respectively to substantiate his points.  The judges proceed to ask a  question regarding the maintainability and power of challenging orders under the Juvenile Justice Act. The Counsel wavers and is not able to provide an answer to the satisfaction of the judges. Counsel 2 then proceeds with the second issue.  There is a confusion between the Counsel and the judges with the issues presented. The judges now  start asking questions, the counsel seems to be nervous and is not able to answer the question satisfactorily and seeks permission to answer it subsequently through his arguments. The judges are not satisfied with the authorities referred by the counsel in his argument. Furthermore, the counsel is not able to complete the argument within the time allotted. The judges permit them to wrap up their arguments and proceed with the prayer.  The judges also question the researcher with regards to not including the issues as framed in the memorial as well as further questions related to the facts of the case.

ICFAI University, Tripura v University School of Law and Research

Counsel 1 of the petitioner begins on a hesitant note.

The Honorable Judges seems to be verifying facts but the counsel seems firm and confident. With the clock ticking, the counsel seems likely to regret taking too much time in pondering over the facts. The Judges have now bombarded the counsel with some fundamental questions as they feel it hasn’t been included in their memorial.

Counsel 2 approaches before the judges with a lot at stake. She has to also deal with the issue leftover by Counsel 1 in addition to her own issues. She sounds confident and well versed with the issues. The Honorable Judges are now pelting the Speaker with legal loopholes primarily basing their questions on CWC’s jurisdiction. The Speaker faces a little grilling but somehow manages to save the day!

From the respondent’s side Counsel 1 makes a cautious start but now seems to take pace. It looks like bumpy ride ahead for the counsel as the Honorable Judges are now questioning every legal provision that has been taken up. The counsel however, somehow survives the scare!

Counsel 2 has arrived with a lot of enthusiasm and confidence. There seems to be a laudable effort from the counsel in trying to convince the Honorable Judges by playing with the facts but is stopped in between for the want of further clarity. The Honorable Judges have been persistent in their effort to picking an area that would satisfy the legal as well as the logical aspects and having been asking questions pertaining to the same purpose. The counsel has been patient and calm throughout in dealing with the questions.

Uttranchal University, Law College Dehradun v UILS Panjab

The judges have put forth the question of which is the first landmark judgment of the Courts in India on the matter of “best interest of the child”. The second important question asked is whether the Family Courts in India are functioning as “full-fledged” courts or “designated” courts in all the States. The counsel has been obliged to answer all the questions forwarded by the judges.

Counsel 1, representing one of the Respondents, has commenced the arguments with preliminary objections that the legal provisions that have been cited by the Petitioners are not stand alone provisions.

Preliminary Round – II

NUSRL Ranchi v Tezpur Law College

The Counsel 1 of Petitioner has approached the dais.

The judges seem to be very patient and are allowing the counsel to go with the flow. The counsel is well adept with the precedents. The judges let the counsel deal with all the issues in the stipulated time slot and move over to the other issues which were to dealt with the second counsel. Counsel 2  has approached the dais and the judges seem to be more interested in the issues which have been dealt with by the Second Counsel. They argued on the total of seven issues and have been fluent in all of them. They finally pray that the CWC’s impugned order be declared ultra vires and that the custody of children with the mother.

Counsel 1 of the Respondent is already on the dais. The judges seem to be very curious with the Respondent’s side and are questioning the first counsel on a loop. The judges are querying on basic definition where the Respondents seem to be faltering. The Judges are curious to know that how can it be proven that the children are under threat in the home of her Maternal Grandparents. The Judges have been asking for justifications but the counsel seems under-confidant to address the same. The second counsel has approached the dais and is smartly arguing and defending the Respondent. The Respondents finally pray that the  custody of the children remain with the father and the order against the father be quashed.

Symbiosis Law School Pune v Amity University Kolkatta

OP Jindal Global University v JCC Law College

Counsel 1 on the side of the Petitioner side, has approached the Bench stating that it is a matter of honour to argue before the Bench. As the judges are acquainted with the facts of the case, the Counsel has moved ahead with the Issues and Arguments as per their written submissions. The Counsel has argued on the maintainability of the Review Petition stating that there is locus standi of the party to file the Review Petition. He has cited few cases to support the arguments but has been successful in relating the facts of the instant case with the precedents cited. On one of the questions forwarded by the judges, the Counsel answered that it would be elaborately dealt with by his co-counsel. Counsel 1 has placed the arguments on Issue I and given a summary of the subsequent Issues.

Counsel 2 has been permitted by the Bench to continue with the following Issues and arguments. The Counsel has focused on the due regard that is to be given to the personal laws of the child. She has also stressed on the right of the natural guardian to get custody in the absence of the parents of the child. The right of the maternal grandmother to attain the custody of the child has been asserted by the Counsel. On the questions raised by the judges in regards to the reflection of the principle of best interest of the child in the legislations leaned on by the Counsel, she has effectively answered them to the satisfaction of the judges. The crux of the submissions made by the Counsel is that “paramount welfare of the child is of utmost importance” and that under the Hannafi School, the maternal grandmother is the rightful guardian of the children in the absence of the parents.  As the Counsel has exceeded the time permitted, she quickly concluded with the relief prayed for.

From the respondent’s side, the Counsel 1 eagerly approaches the dais.

Counsel 1 on the side of the Respondents has commenced on the point that an alternative forum would have assured a better remedy in the present case as there already exists a special legislation that supports the facts of the case. The Counsel does not seem to follow the usual mannerisms as is done in any Moot Court Competition and has been very expressive with movements of her hands, perhaps hoping to be more impressional on the judges. The terms used confidently by the Counsel have been questioned by the judges and has been condemned for passingly using terms in her arguments. The Counsel sadly does not seem to be well aware of the laws and has stated that the “motive and intention” are not relevant to the crimes stated by her. The judges seem to be amazed at the ignorance of the Counsel in regards to the basic principles of the Penal and Procedural Codes when she has strongly asserted a varied number of crimes against the Petitioners. There came up confusions on the facts of the case which the Counsel was to a certain extent successful in clarifying. The Counsel “rested their case” to which her co-counsel disagreed that “why would you rest our case now”?

Counsel 2 assertively started with the crux of their submissions being “whether the custody of the child should be given to a legal guardian or to somebody who has deceitfully taken away the child?” The Counsel has constantly been asking questions to the Petitioners rather than putting forth her arguments. This may be, is a new trend in mooting, which one is unaware of. The approach and mannerisms of the Counsel are aggressive to an extent that may go on to cost her points from the judges who are constantly amused by her way of arguing. As she had exceeded her time limit, she quickly summed up her arguments and moved on with the relief sought.

The rebuttals by the Counsels of the Petitioners were made on the errors, legal and factual, of the Respondents. As a closing remark, the Counsel form the side of Petitioners thanked the Counsel 2 of the Respondents for their client has not committed a criminal offence, which was taken as a defence by them. The Counsels of the Petitioners raised an objection to a factual inaccuracy to which the contributions were “thanked” by each of the parties. This lead to a minor argument whereby the judges had to step in to stop the teams. With this, the round came to an end with all of us hoping that the teams do not end up in a fight while they await results!

University School of Law & Research v University of North Bengal, Department of Law

From petitioner side, Counsel 1 approaches the dais, he started on a good foot but has been questioned by the judges on the contention of the criminal background of the respondent, to which he was able to answer somewhat but not to a satisfactory mark and has been cut short in his arguments. After the Counsel 1 steps down, Counsel 2 approaches the dais. Judges have been quite inquisitive and been asking questions at a fast pace. The counsel is being pressured to stand ground and prove if Muslim personal laws prevail over codified law how is it for the welfare of the minors.

From respondents side, Counsel 1 appears to have a stronger stand and argues for the decisions of the CWC being right and High Court cannot interfere according to the procedures. Another ground being taken by the Counsel 1 agreeing that CWC decision is an interim order and but till the criminality or guilt of the respondent is not proven the CWC decision stands. Counsel 2 approaches the dais and has presented his arguments confidently in furtherance of the contentions of Counsel 1. The respondents have been submitting to the judges substantive proofs to support their arguments. The Judges have raised the question whether Special Marriage Act has any provision regarding the custody of children to support their case.

There has been some debate during the rebuttal round and whether the researcher on the discretion of the judges can be allowed to rebut. The counsel 1 from the petitioner has decided to present the rebuttal. In the rebuttal round has come to a completion ending on a good note.

UPES Dehradun v GNLU Gandhinagar

The round starts on a high note where the counsel 1 seems to be really confident and everyone is mesmerised with the counsel’s clarity and coherence. The submissions of the speaker is not like a monologue at all as the judges are very engaging from he very moment of the submissions made by the counsel. The counsel, however, could not satisfy the Bench with one of the contentions and pleads ignorance. 

Notwithstanding, how the counsel ended, the second counsel of the petitioner approached the dais and looks quite assertive. It seems that the judges are done being nice and are extensively grilling the counsel. But, the counsel looks well versed with all the facts and cases cited and seems to satisfy the bench with all the queries raised. However, in the end the judge stated that the  Respondents don’t have to pray before this Honourable Court because of the faux pas  the Petitioner made.  

The Respondents have now approached the Dais and began with the submissions but the judges seems to be unsatisfied with the contentions placed before the Honourable Bench and shoots the counsel with a deluge of questions. 

The counsel 2 starts with the submissions but it seems that the judges are apprehensive and has reservations against the submissions made by the counsel. As the counsel is not able to satisfy the Bench it leads to a heated argument between the judge and the counsel. 

The rebuttals goes on in full swing by both the Petitioner and the Respondents. However, the respondents when moves forward with their incomplete contention, the court restrains them with the same. It seems to be a close call between the two.  

KLE Society’s Law College v Jalpaiguri Law College

With a few inspiring words from the Bench, Counsel 1 for the Petitioners approaches the dais. The Judges have asked the Counsel to skip the stating of facts. The Judges have begun questioning the Counsel on the issues. They have dug into the basics of law by asking the distinction between appeal and revision. The Bench is grilling the Counsel intensely with several hypothetical scenarios that might have arisen within the facts of the case. The Bench is also referring to the basics of Family Law with regard to Muslim personal law. The Counsel has been answering the questions with much composure. The Bench has induced a humorous undertone with the questions asked and built a lively atmosphere in the courtroom including relevant references to movies and children’s stories.

Counsel 2 for the Petitioner has also started with his issue with much composure. The Bench has invalidated a reference from an article in an international journal on the ground that it has no binding authority over the Court albeit certain books can be agreed to have a binding authority. The answers of Counsel 2 to the questions have satisfied the Bench to an extent. The Bench continues to interject questions between the arguments. The Judges eventually ask the Counsel to conclude his arguments within the time frame but suo motu allows an extra minute on the ground that several questions have been asked.

After a grueling and confident round by the Petitioners, Counsel 1 for the Respondents approaches the dais and start with the facts of the case. The Bench has been asking questions based on the basics of law, such as the priority of special laws over general law, as well as questions regarding the specific facts of the present case before the Court. The Bench asks the Counsels to substantiate their claims with evidentiary papers. The Judge notes the patriarchal standpoint of the Counsel in her arguments while appreciating her professionalism towards her clients.  Counsel 2 continues with the remaining issues while the questioning continues. He calmly proceeds to answer the questions while categorically refusing to answer questions they are not aware of.

The Petitioners have refused to rebut and the round ends. The judges proceed to provide feedback to both the teams.

MNLU Mumbai v ICFAI Tripura

The counsel 1 for petitioners has approached the bench and started off by taking the permission to proceed with the arguments directly as the judges are already aware of the facts of the case. Counsel 1 is dealing with the first 4 contentions out of the 7 contentions the petitioners have put forward. One of the judges points out the mistake that the counsel is making again and again and ask her to justify her point as well. The judges have been continuously questioning the counsel to which she is trying her best to answer. The counsel has exceeded her allotted time and now has asked for permission for more time for which she has been given 2 more minutes by the judges.

Counsel 2 has now approached the dais with the judges’ permission. Counsel 2 is quite fluent with her arguments and seems to be really comfortable in arguing before the judges. The judges caught her off guards on the submissions of her first issue. The judges are continuously shooting the questions at the counsel to judge her knowledge about the facts of the case and the laws that she has been citing.

Counsel 1 of the respondents have started off with the arguments after taking to approach the dais. The counsel has stated that the respondents will be taking up 5 issues in total. The counsel is left speechless by the judges on getting caught on the issue of maintainability itself.

Counsel 2 has now approached the dais and has started with the with the arguments by taking the permission of the judges.The judges have pointed out that the cases cited by the respondents majorly base their arguments on the interim order of the judgments that have been cited. The judges seem to be quite  disinterested in the arguments made by the counsel of respondent as they are not satisfied by the way her arguments are being presented. The counsel is citing facts from the cases to support her arguments.The judges are asking the counsel to proceed with the arguments as they are well aware of the facts.The counsel has exceeded her time and seeks permission for some more to which the judges allow her to take 60 more seconds. The judges ask the counsel to directly skip to her prayer as she is taking more than the allotted time.

The petitioners ask for the permission to approach the dais for rebuttals. The judges allow only 2 minutes for rebuttals. Judges counter the petitioner’s counsel on the points of rebuttals as well., and do not let them let down their guard even in the end!

Day – III Semi-finals , Finals and Valedictory Ceremony

10:30 A.M. – Good morning everyone! We are back for the third and final day of 2nd Dr. Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2018. The judges have arrived and the teams are ready for their upcoming challenge.

Here is the list of match-up for the Semi-Finals:

1. UILS Panjab v MNLU, Mumbai
2. Uttranchal University, Law College Dehradun v NUSRL, Ranchi

Semi – Finals

Uttranchal University, Law College Dehradun v NUSRL, Ranchi

10:26 A.M. – The Teams have arrived and there is ample amount of anxiety present in the room. The Student Adjudicators are also going through their last-minute preparations. To make the competition more interesting the Teams and the Student Adjudicators have been given a new Moot Proposition to feel the adrenaline. The extempore Moot Proposition has set the teams abuzz with anticipation. Let’s see how it unfolds!

10:40 A.M. – The Judges have arrived and the Court in-charges are briefing them of the rules and procedures. The faces of the participants seem to be grim as the competition will commence in a while.

10:45 A.M. – The judges are ready and it begins! The Counsel 1 of the Petitioner’s side is already on the dais. The counsel is briefing the judges of the statement of facts. The counsel seems to be intimidated by the presence of the judges as he is faltering and stammering in every statement. The Counsel is now beginning with his arguments but his confidence seems to be fading away. The judges are pin-pointing the minute details of the arguments which seem to be contradictory. The questions were answered by the Counsel but the Judges don’t seem to be very impressed. They allow the Counsel to proceed nevertheless. The Counsel puts forth that the petition is maintainable under the Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Counsel is now slowly picking up his confidence once again and citing relevant cases in support of his arguments. The judges now question the counsel of the difference between circumstances, circumstantial evidence and solid evidence. The Counsel, although still short on confidence, points to the facts of the case to bring it to his side. Then he refers to the cases in the compendium submitted to the bench beforehand.

11:01 A.M. – The Counsel is now on a good track and beautifully puts forth the circumstances of the cases as an evidence to be used against the Respondents. One more question from the Judges and the Counsel falters again. The Extempore Moot Proposition seems to be taking a toll on the Counsel as he is contradicting himself in one single statement itself. He is now trying by tooth and nail to save himself. The Judges are not impressed and ask for case laws. The Counsel sought ignorance and Judges ask the Counsel to proceed.

11:06 A.M. – The Counsel is now pointing at the loopholes which have been very pertinent to support the criminal appeal filed by them. The Medial Examination, as per the Proposition was carried out after 48 Hrs. And the time is over! But the Counsel is not done yet. He is stating sections after sections but the Judges are still not convinced of the points stated but allow him to continue with his arguments. The Counsel asks for an extension of 2 mins and it is granted by the Judges. He moves on with his submissions.

11:13 A.M. – Counsel 2 asks for permission to approach the dais and judges say that it is her right to do so! She is beginning with the summary of Issue 2 and she is way more confident than her co-counsel. The Judges are already questioning her and asking her to come the main points of offences and allegations. The Judges are asking for proofs that how the evidence is pointing to the offence being committed as the evidences are not direct and circumstantial. The Medical Lapses are being covered very smartly by the Counsel as she is pointing the Medical Jurisprudence Manual already submitted with headers of UV Light Examination and Toxicology. The Judges seem very impressed with the arguments.

11:19 A.M. – The Counsel cites cases and Judges are hearing her out very intently as she is going into the very details of inference of the Medical Examination and the relevant Sections. The Judges now question if there is any statement directly from the victim but the Counsel contends that the Proposition is silent upon the said fact.

11:27 A.M. – The Judge asks for her contention and her prayers. The Counsel prays for quash the order of acquittal of the accused, hold him guilty of Section 12 of POCSO Act, Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and any order which the court may deem fit for the justice, equity and good conscience.

11:30 A.M. – Counsel 1 from the side of the respondent has approached the dais with the permission of the Bench and has directly started off with his arguments. The judge points out some minute loopholes in the submissions of the counsel in the very first minute.

11:35 A.M. – The counsel seems to be confident about his submissions while arguing for his case as he is citing relevant precedent cases continuously to support the respondent’s side. He is accusing the petitioner’s counsel about relying too much on the imaginary facts. The Bench questions the counsel on the accusations made by him and the counsel is trying to justify his argument. The counsel seems to be faltering in justifying his arguments and the judges look unsatisfied.

11:41 A.M. – The Bench asks the counsel as to what defense they will use for the act of the respondent of locking the door from inside with two outsiders in the house? The judges question the intentions of the respondent, to which the reply given by the counsel seems to satisfy the judges that any reasonable man would lock his house from inside when he is inside. To the matter raised by the judges that the two children were outsiders the counsel points out from the facts of the case that it has been mentioned that the respondent was a distant relative. Locking the house from inside does not indicate anything about the intentions of the respondent.

11: 49 A.M. – The judge has directed the counsel to rely on the facts of their own case rather than presenting imaginary arguments from the facts of some other precedent case.

11: 51 A.M. – The judges question the counsel whether granting custody to the mother will affect the defense? To which the counsel replies no. Then the judges shoot another question as to whether the same issue has affected the investigation procedure of the case? The counsel has been left speechless by the judges’ question and has sought for a moment of indulgence to get back to the bench to answer their question. He tries to get back with an answer but seems under confident about his submissions.

11:53 A.M. – Counsel 2 on behalf of the respondent approaches the dais with the judges’ permission and tells the bench about the manner in which she would be proceeding with her arguments.

11:56 A.M. – The counsel points out that as the two children are of the ages 9 and 13 and according to the moot proposition are doing quite well in their academics, it cannot be assumed that they were of such mental conditions that they cannot express or understand if any sexual offence has taken place against them. On this contention the Counsel argues that if her client, the respondent would have committed any sexual offence against the two girls they would have told their mother the very same day.

12:06 P.M. – The counsel moves on to the last issue, citing the relevant cases to support her arguments, and the judges seem to be satisfied by her submissions as they are letting the counsel go on with her submissions. Seems like we assumed it too soon! The judge interrupted the counsel and asked her a question on the jurisdiction and maintainability of the case, to which the counsel replied that jurisdiction and maintainability was her co-counsel’s issue and she isn’t dealing with it.

12:17 P.M. – The counsel ends her arguments with the prayer and asks the bench to uphold the same.

12:24 P.M. – Student Adjudicator 1: The first Student Adjudicator has already approached the dais. She states the contention of the Petitioner of violation of Fundamental Rights should have been dealt with by approaching the High Court under 226 and not 227. Then she moves forward to point that the statement of the Victim must match with the medical report and only then that the evidence is submitted. She then contends that the allegation by the Petitioner were under Section 3 but the prayer stated Punishment under Section 12 which is Sexual Harassment. She says the proper approach could have been asking for punishment of assault or aggravated sexual assault.

The Counsel from the Petitioner’s side is now answering all the questions put forth by the Student Adjudicator and there is a very grim discussion on vital points of the facts which have been stated and missed.

12:31 P.M. – The Student Adjudicator now turns to the Respondents and points that their contention should have been under Section 378 (2) of CrPC rather than Section 378 (1). She further states that semen was to be found only if there would have been complete penetration and not if there was mere rubbing. The contention of the Respondent that the caressing could have been from an affectionate manner but the Student Adjudicator says that it would definitely not include touching all over her body. She says that it is a public duty that any person could report even the apprehension of an attempt.

The Counsel from the Respondent’s side points to the facts and the precise words written in the Proposition to answer the questions raised by the Student Adjudicator.

12:37 P.M. – Student Adjudicator 2 has approached the dais and contends that the case at hand is a complicated one. He starts off with pointing out loopholes and questioning the petitioner’s side. The adjudicator questions the petitioners as to why they have filed the case under section 3 of the POCSO Act and not under Section 7 of the same?

12:39 P.M. – The adjudicator mentions that the default was on the part of the authorities in the investigations. Even after knowing the above fact, why do the petitioners want the accused to be held liable?

12:42 P.M. – The counsel for petitioner is fluently answering the questions of the student adjudicator and also points out from her arguments as to where and what all she has already mentioned to support her case.

12:44 P.M. – Now the adjudicator has started questioning the counsels on the behalf of the Respondent. The adjudicator questions that if the Uncle of the children had good intentions, why did he not inform their parents when the children started feeling dizzy. The student adjudicator questions the intentions of the accused and also points out that the respondents should have approached the court under different section.

12:49 P.M. – The adjudicator has lapsed his time but still continues to point out the loopholes in the submissions of the respondent as he has not been interrupted by the judges. Also, the adjudicator is citing several cases and their judgments to question the respondents.

12:51 P.M. – The counsel for the respondent tries to answer the questions of the student adjudicator and seems to be quite fluent with her facts as she is proceeding with her answers and arguments with ease.

UILS Panjab v MNLU Mumbai

10:41 A.M. – The judges have arrived and the counsel 1 asks for permission to approach the bench.

10:42 A.M. – The counsel proceeded with the criminal appeal under Sec. 361 (b) of the CrPC and Sec. 28 of the POCSO Act and with the issues of the case which was, whether the appeal is maintainable or not? The counsel is describing the important facts of the case with relevance to Sec. 3 of the POCSO Act and Sec. 375 of the IPC. The judges asked questions relating to his stance whereby he argued that the entire penetration is not required for an act to amount for rape and the counsel answers the question by mentioning Sec. 29, 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act.

10:48 A.M. – The counsel elaborately described the facts of the case, the judges interrupted him with queries whereby he answered confidently. However, the Counsel did make a contradiction to his own arguments which was pointed out by the judges but cleared the doubt confidently. The Bench further raised another issue that whether the evidence raised by the respondent could be relied upon, to which the counsel answer says no and also stated that it was not a reliable piece of evidence. The counsel further elaborated that the main question before this Bench is whether the decision given by the session court is wrong and whether there was any miscarriage of justice and not that the accused has committed the act or not.

11:00 A.M. – The counsel further mentions that the trial court has overlooked the compelling evidence which was produced and mentioned Sec. 3 of POCSO Act whereby it states that even though the act is not vade out still they will be convicted with homicide and not murder. He further mentions Sec. 7 of POCSO Act which defines sexual assault and argued that the accused would still be convicted under this Sec. 7 if not Sec. 3. He further substantiates his argument with a case law whereby the Hon’ble SC of India has mentioned the drug facilitated sexual assault and Sec. 9 which mentioned an aggravated sexual assault. The Counsel also refers the newspaper mentioning about the ordinance issued by the Cabinet for validating his argument.

11:06 A.M. – Judges ask question regarding Sec. 2 whereby the Counsel answers with confidence and the judges look satisfied. Counsel 1 further leave the dais to his co-counsel to argue for the subsequent issues dealing with evidence and cases.

11:07 A.M. – The Counsel 2 asks for permission to approach the dais and begins his arguments.

11:08 A.M. – The Counsel 2 argued that the order given by the Sessions Court is not only horrendous but insensitive by giving case laws and mentions Sec. 147 of the Evidence Act. He further argued that the medical proof is insufficient and inclusive and that rape is a legal term and not a medical term. The judges asked questions regarding the inclusive medical report which was answered confidently by the counsel through various case laws. He also argued that the even though there are no external marks on the body of the accused, it does not mean that he did not commit rape. He validates his argument with case laws and also gave reasons such as protection or incompetency of the accused. He also mentions Sec. 375 of the IPC which states that even the touching of the female part by the male part is penetration and argued that the SC of India has held that the slightest contact even without rupturing hymen would constitute rape.

11:16 A.M. – The Counsel argued that rape is a crime and not a medical conclusion and that it is a legal term. The Counsel also describes the Society in India whereby the mother is the support base for the female child and that her support is responsible for building up her personality which was held by the SC. He also stated that the CWC has a principle of utmost importance to give the custody of the child to the mother. The judges proceeded with a query as to why the father should not get the custody and how could you say that custody is given to the mother when both the mother and father live together? He answered the queries with confidence and the judges were satisfied. The counsel concludes his argument and proceeds to the prayer.

11:21 A.M.– The Counsel 1 on behalf of the respondents approaches the dais. She starts with proving that the appeal is not maintainable as there is no compelling or substantial reason for the court to interfere and that there was no malicious intent on the part of the Respondent as contended by the Appellants.

11:27 A.M.– The counsel further contends on the reliability of the statement of the child stating that the children being merely 9 and 14, their statement cannot be taken into consideration. She signs backing up the same with case laws and analysis of the instant case.

11:34 A.M.– Moving further with the contention of maintainability, the counsel states that this Hon’ble Court should not interfere with the functioning of the lower courts. Moreover, the respondents contend that there was no illegality and so the decision of the lower court must be upheld.

11:36 A.M.– The counsel now moves to her second contention. But due to the lapse of time, the counsel quickly summarises the contention.

11:37 A.M.– The co-counsel has now approached the Dias beginning with the remaining contentions. With the permission of the Hon’ble court, the counsel argues that the one-finger test is no ground of rape whereby the judges questioning of the facts of the case, the counsel stated that there was no rape in the instant case with relevant provisions of medical jurisprudence.

11:44 A.M.– The judges questions on the validity of the section 7 provided by the Appellants and the respondents contends that fresh charges should be made under section 200 of the IPC. But, the judges seems to be unsatisfied with such an argument presented by the counsel as the  counsel contends that the case at hand just includes section 3 of POCSO and not section 7.

11:49 A.M.– Moving to the fourth issue, the counsel contends on the validity of the medical reports with various case laws but the judge questions the presence of spermatozoa after 48 hours. However, it looks like the counsel is well-versed with theories and analysis provided by various medical experts.

11:53 A.M.– Coming to the fifth issue, the counsel argues that there was no penetration on the child substantiating it with various case laws.

11:56 A.M.– The respondents move to their prayer and rests their case.

11:57 A.M.– the rebuttals are now on the go where the counsel on behalf of the Appellants states that the validity testimony is not admissible by the Respondents is nowhere mentioned in the facts and is baseless. Moreover, the counsel contends that as the Appellants have disregarded and avoided some very important facts in order to avoid the charges framed.

12:01 P.M.– Now, the Respondents begins with that presumption of innocence, burden of proof and guilt beyond reasonable doubt are the rights of an accused, but however, the judges question the counsel sheerly on the facts about these rights presented by the counsel.

12:06 P.M. – The Student Adjudicator 1 raises a question regarding the allegations that have been put against Anil. She also mentions that Appeal is a matter of right under Art. 21 of the constitution and substantiates the same with case laws.

12:08 P.M. – She further points out that why no contention has been made regarding Suman and also mentions Sec. 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

12:09 P.M. – The Student Adjudicator further mentions Sec. 22 describing malicious intent of Ram and backed her statement with case laws.

12:10 P.M. – She further asks how is Ram not aware of the 48 hours rule of cross examination of the CrPC?

12:11 P.M. – The Adjudicator points out that there is no report to proof the evidence of sedatives (coca cola).

12:12 P.M. – She further asks that how do you concretely proof that the children are still relevant in this case? With Sec. 124, she also mentions that the argument of the Counsel 1 from the petitioner’s side is contradictory, whereby the children does not tell anything to the parent because of the fear of scolding. She also asks that why an FIR was not filed to the police after the incidence?

12:23 P.M.– The Second Adjudicator 2 has now approached the dais. The adjudicator starts with common question to both the sides about the maintainability under the POSCO Act. Moving forward with section 7, hymen being intact and penetration in the instant case.

12:27 P.M.– The adjudicator questions on the validity of the testimony of Suman and section 3 as there is no direct evidence.

12:29 P.M.– Intention can only be used as a presumption until proven guilty is how the adjudicators rests his arguments.

12:30 P.M.– The counsel has approached the Dias in order to answer the relevant questions presented to both the sides.

12:34 P.M.– The court is adjourned and it looks like a close call.

01:10 P.M.- And that brings us to the end of the Semi-Final rounds. What a thrilling contest. Hold your breaths, we’ll be back with the results soon!

01:50 P.M.- The wait is finally over. Thank you for your patience. the following teams have advances to the Finals:

1. UILS Panjab
2. Uttranchal University, Law College Dehradun

The Finals will be beginning shortly, we will be updating you with the actions as it unfolds! Stay tuned.

Final Round (“The Finale”)

Uttranchal University, Law College Dehradun v University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab

02:20 P.M. – The Judges have arrived and here, in the Finals of 2nd GSMNMCC 2018, the teams would be facing a bench of 5 Judges comprising of Mr. Hasibur Rahman, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Mr. Angshuman Bora, Mr. Probal Mukherjee and Mr. Krishna Kanta Mahanta. The Courtroom is abuzz with activities and last minute clarifications.

02:21 P.M. – The Judges have allowed the Counsel from the Petitioner side to commence and he has approached the dais. He begins by briefing the Judges with the Statement of facts and the Judges so far are listening intently. The Judges look very serious and have a grim expression. The Counsel seems to be stammering at points which can be because of nervousness of Finals and facing a bench of 5 esteemed Judges.

02:25 P.M. – The Counsel proceeds to deal with the issues. The Petitioners would be contending for in total of five issues of which the first Counsel will be dealing with the first two issues and the subsequent issues would be dealt by the second Counsel. The Counsel seems to be gaining his confidence bit by bit and is now submitting his arguments with utmost fluency. The Judge points a couple of errors and then they proceed.

02:29 P.M. – The Judges are going through the Bare Acts to confirm the sections being quoted by the Counsel. One of the Judges interject and question if there are any provisions in the POCSO Act which state that the provisions of CrPC will be applicable? The Counsel smartly puts forth the relevant section but the Judge points to a more precise section for the said question. The Counsel is intimidated a bit but the Judges are more of in a learning discourse rather than grilling.

02:33 P.M. – The Judges are so far very patient and hearing out the Counsel very intently and referring to the cited cases’ judgments. They agree with the Counsel and move forward with the submissions. The Counsel refers to the submitted Compendium and Judges look impressed with the Judgment which have been referred to.

02:36 P.M. – The next contention of the Counsel is on the Medical lag which was definitely not in favour of the Petitioner. The procedural lapse has led to the present situation due to which the Petitioner is still suffering. The Judges seem to agree with the submission.

02:40 P.M. – The Counsel submits that the victims of the crime are minors and hence, the future of the country. The welfare of the minors was not taken into consideration and that there was a grave injustice done. He cites the case of Kiran Bedi (1986) where it was mentioned that there was Right to Reputation and likewise in the case of Maneka Gandhi where it was contended that an individual has a Right to Live with Dignity. The Counsel finishes his submission but one of the Judges has a query with regard to a section.

02:42 P.M. – The Counsel answers beautifully that the facts are silent on the said issue which has been raised by the Judge. The Judge is satisfied but has a tail question. The Counsel contends that the said issue will be dealt with by his Co-counsel. Another judge interjects and explains the issue elaborately to the Counsel. As already stated above, the Judges are more of into a learning discourse rather than grilling.

02:46 P.M. – The Counsel moves forth to the second issue which is with regard to the handing over the custody of the minor girls to their mother. The Counsel submits the relevant sections and Judges agree. The Counsel further contends that the Statement of Facts clearly state that the mother was of a caring nature and the CWC was right in giving over the minor girls to their mother.

02:49 P.M. – The Counsel has finished submitting his arguments but one judge has raised another query. The Counsel answers the query dutifully. One of the learned Judges points out the practical facts as a part of learning discourse.

02:51 P.M. – The first Counsel has left the dais with the agreement of the judges.

02:51 P.M. – The Counsel 2 for the petitioners approaches the dais with the judges’ permission and asks for a moment of indulgence before starting up with her submissions.

02:52 P.M. – The Counsel seeks permission to start off with her arguments to which she gets a permission. She starts off with stating the facts that support the contentions she is pleading for before the esteemed judges.

02:54 P.M. – The counsel moves on to state the medical facts of the case in pointers to make her submissions more easily understandable for the judges. She also provides the judges with the document containing the medical facts.

02:56 P.M. – One of the honorable judges after going through the documents provided by the counsel interjects the counsel and asks questions on which the counsel pleads that the facts of the case are silent. But this interjection seems to have affected her confidence a bit.

03:00 P.M. – The judges have caught the counsel off guard on a minute loophole of their submission which seems to have lowered the confidence of the counsel. However, she is still trying to maintain her composure while making her submissions.

03:03 P.M. – The judges point out a section from the POCSO Act that supports the arguments of the petitioner which the counsel seems to have omitted. The counsel pleads that it indeed is an important point that she missed and should be taken under utmost consideration while delivering the judgment.

03:06 P.M. – The counsel seems to be quite fluent with her arguments as she is proceeding with utmost ease citing all the important and relevant precedent cases to support her arguments along with providing the judges with documents that they need to refer to understand her points better.

03:08 P.M. – The judges point out an important contention  that the counsel has missed in her argument but not with an intent to question the counsel for the same but rather to provide her a learning guideline.

03:12 P.M. – The counsel proceeds towards her prayer as she is done with her submissions and seeks permission for the same. The judges ask the counsel to justify some of the points that are unclear from the petitioner’s prayer and she complies with the same. It is now time for the Respondents to make their case.

03:15 P.M. – The counsel on behalf of the Respondents seeks permission to approach the Dias. The counsel starts the proceedings with a procedural objection and a preliminary objection to the prayer presented by the Appellants. The Counsel brings to the notice of the Hon’ble Court about the procedural lapses and that no clear evidence has been presented by the Appellants, stating that the appeal is frivolous. 

03:19 P.M. – As the counsel states that there was no evidence however, the judges interrupts the counsel by throwing light on the facts of the case by circumstantial evidence. But, the counsel very confidently answers the pertinent question presented to him through the testimony of one-testimony test. 

03:22 P.M. – Further, the counsel contends that the FIR is completely frivolous and baseless. Also, the PIL cannot be used as a vengeance as done in the instant case. 

03:25 P.M. – The counsel states that there was no medical report, no evidence presented, and the appellant has admitted all of these. To this, the Judge asks for evidence on the side of the Respondents to prove their case and contends the presumption of innocence as mentioned by the counsel under section 29 of the POCSO Act and section 129 of the Evidence Act. 

03:29 P.M. – There seems to be a dissatisfaction on the part of the Judges by the counsel’s response to the volley of questions and the counsel is trying his best to convince the Bench with both the statutes and the facts. 

03:31 P.M. – The counsel moves forward to his next issue regarding the medical reports whereby he starts with discharging the charges based on the elements mentioned in the report. The counsel further mentions that the hymen was intact, there was no injury on the private parts and so the charges are invalidated. 

03:33 P.M. – The counsel contents that for a sexual offence to happen there must be the presence of sexual intent but the absence of the same discharges any liability imposed on the Respondents and now there lies presumption of innocence on the part of the Respondent. 

03:35 P.M. – The counsel moving forward additionally prayed that the Hon’ble Court should under section 21 of the POCSO Act must convict Ram and with that, rests his argument.

03:37 P.M. – The counsel with the permission of the Bench approaches the dais. He starts off with the issue of maintainability that was mentioned by his co-counsel and also the appeal that was given by the petitioner side. He argues that the petitioner has no foundation to prove that the accused has committed an offence. He further contends that for the sake of making his organisation reputable Ram has used his political connections. This was questioned by the judge and he answers the question with confidence. However, it seems like the bench is not satisfied with his argument, but the counsel went on and proceeded to another issue. The queries raised by the Bench with relation to Section 29 of the POCSO Act was answered and further substantiated by the Counsel with a case law.

03:48 P.M. – It seems that the Counsel is not well aware of the facts of the case and does not have a sufficient answer to the question raised by the bench. He further states that Suman has not filed an FIR within the stipulated time which shows that there is some criminal intention with it. He also stated relevant Sections from the Juvenile Justice Act to prove his case. When the question was raised by the Bench as to how does it affect his interest, the counsel was not able to answer to the satisfaction of the Judges. The Counsel now proceeds with the prayer.

03:56 P.M. – The Counsel for petitioner has now approached the Bench for the round of rebuttals. One of the esteemed judges has cracked a joke to release the pressure of the tensed up environment of the finals Court room.

03:59 P.M. – The Counsel for the petitioner points out several lacunae on the part of the respondents while taking into consideration the facts of the case. The Counsel rests her case.

04:00 P.M.– The Counsel on the behalf of the Respondents approaches the dais for sur-rebuttals. The counsel is arguing that FIR can be filed only after conducting the General Data Entry. Presumption is only prima facie and further argues that sexual intention should be proved by the Petitioner. It seems as if the Bench likes grilling him but he surely has a stance and confidently comes out of the tricky situation presented before him by the Hon’ble Bench. He further strengthens his arguments by stating the principle that presumption has to be proved before reasonable doubt.

04:03 P.M. – The first Student Adjudicator has already approached the dais with due permission of the learned Bench. He commences by questioning the Petitioner’s Side and cites a case in which negates one of the submissions made by the Counsel. Next, he moves forth to discuss about the sections of POCSO Act and the general and specific sections which could have better helped the Petitioner’s argue. Also, he asks about the non-application of certain sections which could have been pertinent to their submissions. He questions the principle of ‘mens rea‘ ?and says that the contention would have been better with certain amendments. The Student Adjudicator has lapse his time limit but the judges allow him to move forward nevertheless.

The Petitioner answers the questions raised by the Student Adjudicator beautifully with all the facts and figures. One of the Judges seem to be in a very jolly mood and cracks one more joke to lighten the atmosphere. She cites the relevant sections and rests her case with the learned bench.

04:11 P.M. – The Student Adjudicator turns to the Respondent’s and questions them about the maintainability of the suit and cites a case where it was judged that the court should not be swayed on the emotional ground as the matter is of a serious nature. Next he points the factual issues raised by the Counsel and questions about the gray area. He cites another case and quotes the judgement. Another contention of the Respondent submitted said that the Children are minor and hence, the suit is not maintainable. He cites a Supreme Case where it was judges that a young girl won’t level her reputation by alleging false facts about her chastity. He also stated that the welfare of child was of paramount importance and that children are not chattels to be played around with. They are the future of the country.

The Respondent also is very well adept with the cases and cites them back to back to answer the Student Adjudicator.

04:19 P.M. – The second Student Adjudicator has approached the dais. She starts with questioning the petitioners on how was there no vested interest of Ram. Though contended by the appellants that there was no presence of semen to which the adjudicator questioned that the hymen cannot be repaired even when the semen can be washed off? The adjudicator contends why did Ram not take the minor to a nearby hospital even after knowing about the 24 hours rule? How can the statement of the minor be valid when the course of their statement later? She ends with a question of information to the mother at least about such an act taking place.

04:24 P.M. – The counsel on behalf of the Appellant puts forward their arguments answering the queries put forth to them.

04:26 P.M. – The adjudicator seeks permission to question the Respondents with circumstantial evidence seeking a reasonable doubt in order to break the chain to prove any presumption of innocence. Moving forward, the adjudicator seeks how will the counsel defend the case when there was still smegma and no semen. Finally, what authorities do the respondents have in order to prove any such authorities.

04:29 P.M. – The counsel on behalf of the Respondents puts forward their arguments answering the queries put forth to them.

04:32 P.M. – The court is adjourned and may the best team win. 

04:33 P.M. – The Grand Finale has finally come to an end and we must say that it was Clash of the Titans! What a round! Such perfect arguments! Such perfect skills! May the best team win!

Valedictory Ceremony