17th August, 2019
Day 1 -Preliminary Rounds
09:00 am
RGNUL is hosting its 8th national moot competition gaining reputation over time, has received registrations from 72 Law Universities and Colleges from all over the country who will battle it out for the coveted winning position. The day one of the preliminary rounds began in full swing with teams bustling to their respective court rooms. Live updates of the team’s performance will be updated on the blog throughout the day by Dheeraj Awasthi, student of RGNUL, with help from a plethora of talented students reporting the proceedings.
ROUND 1
10:00 am
Court Room H4: [AMITY LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA v. Rayat Bahra University, Mohali]
The speaker 1 from the petitioners’ side has started well, he’s well versed with the case and has answered the initial questions quite clearly and the judges seem satisfied.
After dodging a few questions he organizes himself and continues with his argument.
Speaker 1 has completed his time and requests the bench to extend the time for oral arguments.
The judges are adamant on the timings for oral arguments and are asking speaker to wrap up his arguments.
Speaker 2 from the petitioners’ side started her arguments pretty well and is bombarded with questions on her every argument.
The judges seem dissatisfied with the submissions. The speaker seems under confident and continues with her argument.
Speaker 2 is still under discomfort and overlooks questions to complete her argument.
Well, the time’s up and the arguments are still not over. The judges ask her to sum up and move to prayer.
The Speaker 1 from respondent’s side has started well and uses some proverbs to stress his point. The judges ask him to elaborate on that. The speaker tries to move on but the judges ask him to first answer the current questions.
The judges ask if the high court judgments are binding on us or not and the speaker answers clearly and also answer the subsequent questions.
The speaker 2 from respondent’s side has started and has arrived in the courtroom with a mismatching uniform.
The judges ask him a question even before he can begin. 5 minutes of his time has elapsed and the counsel has now been able to even start his argument.
The speaker 2 has organized himself well and uses emotional appeal to advance his argument. He is answering every question with confidence and is clear with his argument. The judges seem satisfied. Or rather seemed satisfied because he falters on a particular question and the arguments stalls.
Court Room C2: [Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar v. ILS Law College]
Speaker 1 from petitioners:-
The speaker addresses the bench collectively and proceeds towards stating the facts. She takes reference from different articles of the constitution. The judges ask a lot of facts based questions. Speaker seems confused in the beginning but answers the questions smoothly.
The second speaker from the petitioners is also put under discomfort with the relevant questions of the judges. The questions are about landmark cases and their relevance in this very case. He finds them difficult but answers the questions briefly and proceeds towards further arguments.
The first speaker from the respondents approaches and addresses the bench. She introduces herself and the other speaker and speaks about the issues raised.
The judges, as before start firing questions at her. At first, she takes them easily but later she seems troubled as she pleaded some time to frame her further arguments. She pleads ignorance for some questions. She tries to look as confident as possible (but probably is pretty much confused!)She pleads for an extra 2 minutes, which she is granted.
The second speaker begins with the second and third issues raised. She takes reference from the landmark cases and cites the judgment of these cases. She further takes reference from the Upanishads, The Holy Quran and The Holy Bible about the sexual activities between a man and his wife. The judges do not seem satisfied with this argument and counter-question a lot. They point out that all the ancient practices mentioned in the religious texts are not necessarily to be followed in the present society. Speaker is granted an extension of 1 minute and then she further moves towards the prayer.
Court Room H6: [NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law v. Mody University of Science and Technology, lakshmangarh]
The speaker 1 seeks permission to approach the dice and starts elegantly. The judges have bombarded the speaker with questions but she stays confident and maintains her stand. Speaker one is asked about her locus standi to approach the court through PIL. The speaker one concludes a bit messily and was stumbled by the questions asked by the lordship.
Speaker 2 cites dharamshastra for the sanctity of marriage and equal rights for husband and wife. Judges asserted the reasonableness of exception 2 of sect 375. Speaker 2 tried to satisfactorily convince the judges. She also brings up statistical data to construct her arguments. When the speaker mentioned article 21, the judges questioned if there are any restrictions to art 21. Speaker cited international conventions and quoted “Rapist remains rapist regardless of his relationship with the victim”
The lordship asked the speaker 2 to define rape in legal language and the speaker seems to be fallen into trap of the judge’s question about consent related to sexual intercourse
The respondent (speaker 1) TC 28 begins effectively but was asked to stop because the judges wanted to discuss something. This has made him really nervous. The speaker one from respondent side stresses that a new offence can be made for marital rape. Highlights some judgments and guided the judges through the memo but the judges were unable to follow and asked the speaker to go slow?. The lordship questioned about Vishakha case answering to which the speaker said that please let me address one issue first?. The speaker seems to be confused and judges are taking full advantage to bombard him with more questions.
The speaker two from respondent side tries to undo the loss done by the previous speaker.
She started confidently and judges go a bit easy on her. However, the lordships do assert that married women do not get any protection with regard to rape which subjects them to cruelty and inequality. But the question was dodged by citing the domestic violence act. The only thing which wobbled the speaker so far is not the question but the calls which one of the judges has to receive. This has happened twice and seems to affect the fluidity of the speaker’s arguments.
Court Room C10: [National University of Advanced Legal Studies v. Department of Law, Maharishi Markandeshwar (Deemed to be) University]
Petitioner states that all-round consent for sexual intercourse is not given during the initiation of marriage and then these acts of forceful sex is indeed rape.
Petition speaker 2 Contends violation of article 15(1) of the constitution and that ‘sex’ should be interpreted as sexual intercourse as well, only to be grilled by judges and told that he can’t interpret the laws as he likes.
Court Room H5: [Seedling School of Law & Governance, Jaipur National University v. ICFAI University, Dehradun]
Speaker one is put under scrutiny by both judges for petitioning against the state of Punjab instead of the union of India. He is also questioned about the fact that why has the PIL filed and contended as a violation of article 32. The speaker looks a little perplexed. The 2nd speaker contends that there is a violation of articles 13, 14, 21 and Human rights. She supports her statement using various judgments. She is a confident and articulate speaker. The legitimacy of the proposition is not questioned but the speaker lacks the ability to defend the second issue contended by her. The speaker slipped up by comparing the facts of this case with the case of Independent thought v. union of India. The counsel was to quick to apologize and carry on with her argument further.
The judges strike hard on the respondent speaker’s arbitrary allegations, the speaker claims that If the husband is not allowed to perform marital rape, this will result in adultery. The judges don’t seem to go easy with such comments and the grilling has begun.
The legitimacy of the proposition is not questioned but the speaker lacks the ability to defend the second issue contended by her. The speaker slipped up by comparing the facts of this case with the case of Independent thought v. union of India. The counsel was to quick to apologize and carry on with her argument further.
Court Room C3: [Army Institute of Law v. Banasthali Vidyapith]
Speaker 1’s time was quite dry. While the speaker was eloquent and presented a unique defense by arguing that Right to Freedom of Speech is violated if one cannot express consent in words, the judges asked no questions thus leaving the speaker in quite an awkward position.
Speaker 2, again was quite eloquent, clear and concise. Her argument is also quite mechanical, with the discussion of international conventions, the superiority of Fundamental rights to Conjugal Rights and how Marital rape is only illegal during judicial separation in India. The ball is definitely not rolling in this court.
She starts off in a wobbly manner but is quite clear about her arguments, but just as she starts getting into a flow the judges throw her off by asking a single question, regarding judicial separation. The speaker has to ask the judges to repeat the question twice, and instead of answering the questions, deflects it by arguing that the case is about a class of peoples rather than only the one woman.
The speaker goes beat by beat to argue certain facets of the case, and even argues that Marriage without Sex is “hateful* but the speaker is in such a rush to end the speech, she utilises only 8 minutes of her allotted minutes, most of which went by in a flash, showing that the speaker wasn’t confident in her own arguments to even elucidate them properly
Court Room C11: [Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai v. University of Mumbai Law Academy]
The appellant 1 started on a positive note with proper etiquette and confidence. The judges are hell-bent on grilling the appellant which eventually made the appellant 1 nervous, but was able to answer them to the satisfaction of the judges. The question of the possible misuse of marital rape law being made legal stumped the appellant.
The appellant raises the right to a dignified life and reverses onus clause to counter the misuse of the marital rape law if marital rape is made illegal. The appellant now proceeds to give examples of marital rape laws worldwide and the conventions of the U. N. O.
The judge proceeds to compare social norms worldwide and this grilling sort of makes the appellant nervous. But the appellant has answered it satisfactorily.
The respondent 1 starts off on a nervous note, the various questions posed show the unpreparedness of the speaker. The incessant grilling of the speaker regarding section 3 of the domestic violence act reminds one of the maxim ‘non plus ultra’ – nothing further beyond. Even though the arguments and answers carry weight occasionally, she stammers and forgets her views, the soft-spoken approach make it worse. The Bhaskar Lal case is raised which satisfies the judges.
The respondent 1 is unable to answer any further questions.
Court Room C8: [SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW v. Baba Farid law college Faridkot]
Speaker 1 started smoothly and directly started with her arguments. The judges soon started grilling her with questions related to conjugal rights, consent within marriage, etc. but the speaker handled them cogently and her sound knowledge of law made her arguments lucid.
Speaker 2 started by answering the question not answered by the former speaker. The judges soon bombarding the speaker with questions, some of which were not answered satisfactorily. Speaker soon started making general statements which made the judges disapprobation with the speaker but the speaker concluded his stance smoothly.
The Respondent’s side did not seem well versed with the case laws and definitions of marital rape, PIL, etc. Soon her arguments were countered by the judges and she was given a lecture by the judges on Right to privacy as she did not know it!
Court Room A4:
Speaker 1 spoke very well. She was well versed with the details of the case and the facts. She mentioned minute details and her confidence supported her arguments. The bench seemed satisfied and didn’t ask her a single question.
For round, 1 petitioner concluded their arguments very well. The bench allowed them to speak for 14 mins each and asked them questions afterward which seemed like a viva more than a moot. However, the speakers managed to answer the questions to the contentment of the judges. They quoted certain judgments and also their own opinions.
Respondents have started with their arguments. speaker 1 seemed to have entered a platform for her faulty speech instead of a court.
Court Room A5: [Hidayatullah National Law University v. Amity university, Rajasthan]
Speaker 1 from petitioner’s side tries his best to look confident. He states a case in his argument, which is too old, as says the judge. He has a fair knowledge of cases as well as basic etiquettes (thank god!?). He takes 4 extra minutes, though.
As soon as Speaker 2 from petitioner side came, the judges started bombing questions at him frequently. Even the definition of ‘dignity’ was asked, along with the source! The speaker, in spite of the grilling, remains calm and composed. He strongly puts forward the arguments, which is impressive.
Court Room A6: [Jamia Millia Islamia v. Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University]
Speaker 1 approached the dais with due confidence and the bench questioned the maintainability of the writ petition at the very onset. He answered the relevant queries regarding the applicability of international law and the scope of the court to look into the matters of marital rape with due eloquence.
Speaker 2 was articulate in her submissions. The bench grilled the counsel regarding the susceptibility of men if such a law is laid down. She fumbles a bit but manages to deflect the contentions of the bench towards the end of her argument.
Court Room- RICE Room: [NALSAR University of Law v. Reva university Banglore]
Speaker 1- starts by justifying the PIL and judges ask her to explain how fundamental rights are infringed, How is a PIL filed, and how the issue affects the public. The judges also ask her if she’s fighting for the victim or all women. Judges grill her about the retrospective effect of the law. The judges ask her to explain her arguments by autonomy involved in the case.
Judges further ask her what legal marriage is. The speaker answers well and calmly. The speaker presses that marital rape should be a crime. Speaker 1 explains why marriage is not all about sexual intercourse.
Judges ask the speaker to calm down 10 seconds after he starts. The speaker is not as confident as the 1st one. The judges ask him about the gender neutrality of the law, the speaker answers. The speaker proceeds to explaining the right to health.
Court Room C4: [School of Law, Bennett University v. Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad]
The speaker 1 sought to prove the validity of the petition in pursuance of Article 32 without facing any rebuttal from the judges who seem convinced with the arguments put forward.
The speaker seems well versed with the law concerned with the issue and is confidently pushing their case with relevant case laws.
The speaker 2 focuses on the ultra virus nature of the IPC provision with respect to article 15. The counsel brands the provision as a perpetuation of the traditional gender roles existing in society. The counsel smartly overturns the logic presented by the judges to their advantage.
The respondent 1 talks about the non-binding nature of the international conventions. He talks about the need for international principles to be incorporated under domestic law to be successfully article. The statement is full of ‘ums’ and other breaks which fail to provide much weight to the arguments being presented.
The respondent 2 asks his co-counsel to hand over the Hindu Marriage Act to the judge which they fail to find in the first instance leading to a very awkward pause.
The oralist does not seem well versed with legal arguments and hence concedes to the questions raised.
The rebuttals were one side and the petitioners seemed to have presented their arguments in a quite effective way.
ROUND 2
12:00 PM
Court Room C1: [DELHI METROPOLITAN EDUCATION GGSIP UNIVERSITY v. University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU]
Petitioner 1 started out strong citing the issues he would address i.e., maintenance of the PIL and validity of section 375 exception 2. He was well versed with the facts of the case and explained them well to prove his points. He first talked about the locus standi.
The judges pointed out the mistake of the petitioners in their memorials cover page where they had written appellent instead. The speaker apologized and continued with the argument citing a few cases as well.
The speaker 2 started out fumbling a few words but tried to stress on his important points. He started out with his first contention that is inadequacy laws for women.
Court Room H4: [Rayat Bahra University, Mohali v. Mody University of Science and Technology, lakshmangarh]
Speaker 1 is starting to conclude his arguments and is now being cross-questioned by the judges. The time is up yet the speaker continues with permission to answer the questions and finally ends his argument.
The Speaker 2 from the petitioners’ side and has been handed over numerous chits and compendiums by his team in the first minute itself.
But the speaker seems confident and eloquent.
The speaker questions that in a relationship between a girlfriend and boyfriend wherein consent is important for sexual intercourse while no consent is needed in a marital relationship for sexual intercourse? The judges question him on the same and he answers perfectly. The questions have been scarce and therefore the speaker continues his argument in a good flow.
The speaker 2 moves to the next issue after talking about that its the duty of the court to protect the rights of women. He’s citing various case laws to support his argument and there have been no questions so far.
Court Room C11: [University of Mumbai Law Academy v. National Law University Odisha]
The appellant 1 proceeded with proper etiquette. She is soft-spoken, hence even forceful arguments don’t have the same effect. The speaker stumbled while answering questions relating to basic facts of the case and general legal knowledge with regards to filing a PIL. The judges are grilling the appellants so mercilessly that hell would seem like a heaven for them.
Court Room C9: [NLIU, Bhopal v. Department of Law, Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Indore]
Speaker 1 has divided the topic into two issues one is the maintainability of the PIL which he says was for the public good, thus was maintainable. The second issue being, the constitutionality of the exception of marital rape.
Speaker one is as eloquent as he was in the last round but this time around, the judges are barely letting him speak without getting interrupted. The best part is that, even though the interruptions, he is maintaining a very good flow of speech and is stating his arguments the way he had initially wanted to.
The judge kept asking a persistent question as of whether the man required consent after marriage because sexual intercourse is an element of marriage.
The second speaker from the appellant side starts on a drab note by blaming patriarchy and Indian society for the condition of married women. The judges were clearly not satisfied with her subjective opinions and asked her to move onto case laws.
Court Room C3: [Banasthali Vidyapith v. Symbiosis Law School, Noida]
Judge questions the filing of the case under Article 32 rather than Article 226, which leaves the Respondent without a right to appeal and how Article 21 is violated here, with speaker stumbling and trying to defend but the Judge remains unconvinced.
Court Room A5: [Amity University, Rajasthan v. Campus Law Centre]
Speaker 1 (P) speaks abruptly without taking appropriate pauses, which makes the speech rather unclear at times. The judges ask her what are the alternate remedies instead of a writ under article-32 which she does not have any clue about. She anyhow manages to explain the question of how society is changing.
Court Room H6: [NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law v. Himachal Pradesh National Law University]
Speaker one initiates arguments effectively. No questions were asked for the first 5 minutes and things seemed to be sailing smoothly but the judges finally interrupted. However, the speaker did not stumble and proceeded elegantly. Speaker 1 needs to commended for her assertion and fluidity. The judges asked questions relating to Indian society not being ready for accepting marital rape as an offence but she dodges the question by citing the revolutionary Triple Talaaq judgment. The lordships also inquired about lack of evidence in marital rape cases as a problem to which speaker could not satisfy them. Speaker 2 proceeds for his arguments.
Court Room A6: [Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University v. School of Law, UPES Dehradun]
Speaker 1(A) puts forth his contentions quite smoothly without any interference from the bench. He lucidly contends the grounds for the writ petition. The bench asserts that this petition if allowed will belittle the sanctity of marriage. The counsel hastily responds to the stark questions raised by the Hon’ble court and concludes his arguments taking extra time.
Speaker 2(A) begins with absolute clarity but struggles to differentiate between cruelty and marital rape. She lays sheer emphasis on the premise that forensics can be used to determine whether marital rape has been committed or not, but fails to substantiate it with evidence. Furthermore, the judges stress on fundamental queries. She manages to satisfy the judges towards the end of her submission.
Speaker 1(R) speaks with proper court etiquette. However, he is quite monotonous in his submissions. He goes on uninterrupted and therefore concludes way before the stipulated time.
Speaker 2(R) expresses similitude with her co-counsel in terms of monotony. She backs her contentions with a plethora of judgments. She talks of alternative ways to deal with marital rape like conciliation which would, hence, preserve the sanctity of marriage. The bench seems satisfied with her submissions.
3:30 PM: RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY ROUNDS DECLARED
The teams which qualified for Quarter-finals are-
- National Law University, Odisha.
- Army Institute of Law.
- School of Law, Bennett University.
- Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
- University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU.
- Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
- Himachal Pradesh National Law University.
- Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai.
4:00 PM: QUARTERFINALS
The 8 teams moving ahead are given no time to revel their winnings as the quarter-finals begin as soon as the results are declared. They are allotted their courtrooms where they will contend to enter the semi-finals. Be tuned in as the qualified teams have proved their worth by beating 55 other astute teams and have an uphill battle to face.
Court Room H4: [Himachal Pradesh National Law University v. Army Institute of Law]
Speaker 1 Petitioner firmly begins her argument by Questioning the Locus Standi of the very case. Furthermore questioning the reasonability of distinction between married and unmarried woman. Also questioning the element of consent. Contending that married woman is subservient to the man which is violative to article 14. Judges questioning the reasonability of the discrimination which is based on the societal changes.
Speaker 2 confidently commenced her arguments quite fluently!! Holding her grounds firmly she contends that there should be a reflection of International conventions and Legal Treaties in the Indian Laws. So far she has firmly held her ground without judges questioning in between.
Court Room H2: [Symbiosis Law School, Noida v. School of Law, Bennett University]
Speaker 1 started out confidently with explaining the facts concisely bombarded by the question of the judges she handled the situation perfectly. Furthermore, judges questioned about the practicality of the law and its misuse the speaker dwindled in answering the queries at first but she handled it well in the last minutes.
Speaker 2 started out fine establishing her arguments before being showered by questions, she talked about how underreported rape in this country is and the ground reality at this juncture. Speaker seems well versed in law she but she dwindled while answering the questions she seems like she is struggling with the queries of the judges. But she handled the situation diligently.
She seems not to be very well acquainted with the law. Speaker accidentally agreed with the opposition. Judges had to give her a hint as she was not able to make her own argument. The judges have grilled her a lot.
Judges spoke more than the speaker herself.
Court Room H1: [Symbiosis Law School, Pune v. Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai]
The speaker 1 from the petitioners’ side has started quite well and is lucid. She has answered all the questions put before her clearly and with confidence. She has concluded her argument and speaker 2 has now started arguing.
The speaker 2 has started her argument confidently and contests that the autonomy of the wife in a relationship is being infringed upon.
She is now citing certain relevant cases and is being cross-questioned about the same. The judges are now questioning the counsel on the matter of consent in the present case.
The judges have been grilling the speaker about various aspects of divorce laws and other facts of the case and the speaker are answering well. The judges have now told the speaker to wrap up and move to the prayer. Overall the judges seem satisfied with her answers and arguments.
Speaker 1 from the respondent’s side has now started her argument and a general question was targeted at her immediately and she answered correctly.
The speaker is confident and starts by contesting that there has been no breach of a fundamental right, therefore, the writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable.
The judges grilled the speaker regarding the inherent powers of the Supreme Court and High courts and the remedies available which she had some difficulty in answering satisfactorily. She now moves to another issue and has cited a recent case.
The judges have reprimanded the speaker about not having full judgment in her compendium.
The judges have asked the speaker to wrap up and move to the prayer.
The main arguments are now over.
Court Room H3: [University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU v. National Law University Odisha]
The speaker is well mannered. The Judges are trying to grill him on the relevance of the criminalising marital rape but the speaker stands firm holding his ground. The Judges have taken the argument to the emotional side of marital rape and the speaker handled it well. The Judges did let him complete, he ran out of time.
The Judges are very actively questioning the speaker 2 about the misuse of the provision in this case. She was grilled for 5 minutes straight. After which she presented all the issues. And was asked to leave in a good way.
The respondent starts with “there are enough legislations available to the women that is cruelty, etc so we don’t need to criminalise marital rape” contending that if the legislation is scrapped there will be misuse, The judge crushes her saying false complaint still can be filed under sec 498A.
She said as soon as a complaint is filed the husband will be behind bar for at least 6months to which the Judges grill her alot.
The Judges are enjoying grilling her on the art 19 arguments.
5:30 PM: RESULTS OF QUARTERFINALS ROUND
The four teams which qualified for the Semi-final rounds are-
- Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
- University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU.
- Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
- Army Institute of Law.
6:00 PM: SEMIFINALS
Court Room H1: [Symbiosis Law School, Noida v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune]
The speaker 1 from the petitioners’ side starts with the violation of fundamental rights of married women and presents a survey to prove marital rape victims as a class and the judges don’t accept it. The speaker is confident and well prepared. She’s going all Patriotic, stating “we’ve reached the 73rd independence day and how far have we come when it comes to women”.
She gave the reason behind why the exception (2) of the legislation should be scrapped. Cites a lot of relevant judgments and J S Verma committee. I’m surprised, The judges couldn’t grill her at all not even when she was explaining art 15 related to the issue.
The speaker 2 from the petitioners’ side starts with the right to freedom of speech and expression. Then explained why there are no remedies right now provided the existence of exception (2), which was not convincing at first but later explained very well why a case for cruelty is not a remedy. The judge grilled her on the degree of proof required.
She said, “Unless there is a law we can presume it’s misuse”. She was asked citation of a judgment which was not with her.
The speaker 1 from respondents’ side argues that this petition is not maintainable and that judiciary is not competent to create a new offence. The speaker cites a lot of cases, and the Judges question them. Goes on about how the exception (2) violates art 14 and describes how the rights of married women are different from that of unmarried women. And mentions the ’73rd independence’ statement of the petitioner team saying, “how could we have celebrated this independence day with children” to which the judge said, “I think the population is growing too much”.
The speaker 2 from respondents’ side quotes ” marriage without sex is anathema”. The speaker replies to the Judge’s questions saying live in a couple are not entitled to any right of a married couple The speaker is without proper citation of the judgments and without the surveys, she has stated.
The rebuttals take place and the petitioner owned the respondents in the rebuttals.
Court Room H2: [Army Institute of Law v. University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU]
The petitioners started their submissions very well. The counsels started with International law and Comparision between specifically US and UK, and if it can be criminalized in India. Further, she is quoting international conventions that allow India to work in the said principles, right now she is handing of Cases from the UK and reemphasizing the doctrine of curvature.
After the prayer, the bench questions the speaker on the essence of consent, she seems to handle it with facts, again quoting several cases. The judge questioned the gender-specific principles of the law. The discussing is further processing into the consent age. The speaker handles the entire session pretty calmly.
The respondent begins with the definition of rape and how it is not violated in the said case. He is further proceeding with relating Article 14 with the case of Saroj Rani, where discrimination between married and unmarried women was made, to protect the institution of marriage. He is further supporting his argument by pointing out what makes the argument Rational. In addition to the regular arguments regarding the said case. The speaker points out that criminal courts. should not interfere in civil cases.
The respondents emphasize on why Indian cultural composition can’t allow the said laws to be criminalized. And she further vaguely elaborates on how India has alternatives to protect married women. And emphasizing on the other alternatives which can be used in place of irrational suggestions. She concludes that the institution of marriage has already been protected. The judge questions the speaker if the Parliament is the right authority to judge the legislation. To which the speaker politely replies in 2 fold arguments- 1. the court doesn’t have the power to create a new law. 2. And the court cannot repeal the death penalty. Which wasn’t even slightly related to the asked question.
The semi-final rounds are over now and we wait for further updates.
8:00 PM: RESULTS OF SEMIFINAL ROUNDS
After the exciting Semifinals, the results have arrived! In the first Semi-Final between Symbiosis Law School, Noida and Symbiosis Law School, Pune, Noida has emerged as the clear winner and have entered into the finals to set up an exciting clash!
In the second Semifinal between Army Institute of Law, Mohali and University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU however, we have a tie in the speaking scores! Talk about a close-knit competition! With the tie in place, the Organising Committee has deliberated and after consulting the Rules of the Competition, Army Institute of Law has emerged as the winner of the round based on their superior written submission scores. Just when you advance into the knockout stage and leave your Memorial scores behind, comes the tie to make you realise its importance.
Well, after an eventful day here at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, the two teams who would be fighting for winning this prestigious Moot are Symbiosis Law School, Noida (Petitioners) and Army Institute of Law, Mohali (Respondents). We’ll take your leave for the day with this, and promise to come back tomorrow with an exciting Final Round.
The two finalists are-
- Symbiosis Law School, Noida (Petitioners).
- Army Institute of Law, Mohali (Respondents).
See you tomorrow, folks!
18th August, 2019
10:00 AM: FINAL ROUNDS
After the exciting semifinals rounds, we are here with the finals. The two teams which have qualified for finals are ready to present their best.
MOOT COURT HALL: [Symbiosis Law School, Noida v. Army Institute of Law, Mohali]
Petitioners-
The oralist 1 starts off with the confidence of someone who knows the facts and laws involved like the back of their hand, but within the first 4 minutes, the honorable bench brings up the absence of Bona Fide from the counsel’s arguments regarding the basis of the PIL. The Bench publicly addresses this for the counsels and the audience. Speaker 1 then moves to her arguments regarding the filing of PIL and such, wherein the honorable bench shows their legal prowess and highlights the shortcomings of the Speaker.
The judges are now concerned with the implementation of the proposed changes, the burden of proof in marital rape and section of cr.pc which needs to be followed and so on.
The hierarchy of courts which will be followed in the due implementation process and provisions for bail is questioned and the judges further strong answers for “why do you think domestic violence and cruelty is not enough? And why do you specifically need the striking down of this specific clause?
The judges feel the civil, criminal and international law as well are interdependent and interconnected as well and they feel that other laws might satisfy the purpose as well.
The Speaker 2 also begins comfortably, but the bench again barely allows the speaker to say anything as the speaker is bombarded on matters such as violation of Fundamental rights, cruelty, etc. The Bench asks the speaker to end without prayer, in a good way as they are aware of it. And in seconds, she is bombarded with questions.
The judges point out that the enamel of the argument is not based on law per se but on the issue in general. The clerks are looking at their watches, again and again, ringing the bell simultaneously. Finally, the speaker was allowed to submit her contentions after judges were satisfied with the answers.
Respondents-
The speaker 1 begins and attacks the case with the precision of a professional. Her use of the ARE style of argumentation is quite clear, holding even the bench in rapt attention. The speaker now radically contends that because Exception 2 to Section 375 does not prevent Women from saying no, that if Wife is forced into Forceful sexual intercourse by husband, then it is a violation of Section 498, that is cruelty, rather than Section 376, Rape.
The judges bombard the speaker with questions and Don’t seem to give her time to breathe, there are rapid questions being posted by the judges, the council holds on to all the questions of the bench and gives cut-throat answers to all the questions with proper fact and legal support and judges don’t seem to disagree . this shows their strong research base which they have built their performance on.
The judges are saturated over questions (they just said “sorry for asking so many questions”) and are beginning to accept the proposal of the respondents, the speaker 2 moves on with confidence and the judges take good interest in her arguments which is reflected in their questions. The topic further moves beyond the enclosure of the given case and comparisons with various other sections of IPC and various constitutional amendments are made which increases the depth of the finals.
2:00 PM: RESULTS OF FINAL ROUNDS
After a grueling final where both the teams fought tooth and nail to prove their respective sides with zeal and utmost vigor. The esteemed judges decided the case in favour of the respondents.
AIL Mohali have been declared the winners of the 8th RNMCC, 2019.
They have emerged victorious! A very well deserved win for the team from AIL. The team is elated upon the announcement, scenes of joy all around.
Symbiosis Law School, Noida fought hard with impressive arguments but could only finish as runners up. But this is the story of the final, no matter how good a team is, one has to finish second.
Time for the presentation ceremony.
Best Speaker: Mahek Dalmia, Symbiosis Pune
Best Researcher: Suprabh Garg, National Law University, Odisha
Best Memorial: National Law University, Odisha
That brings us to the culmination of a successful competition where mooting at the highest level was done by teams from all over the country. Congratulations to all the winners and the participants.
See you next year. Ciao.
