Welcome to the 13th National Moot Court Competition Live Blog
DAY 3: 12th February 2023
10.42 A.M – Khushi, the Organising committee member, elucidates on the Moot Proposition in a detailed fashion. She divides the proposition into five parts to make it easier for the audience to comprehend. The Proposition mainly revolves around the issue of the preservation of data privacy.
10.51 A.M – Khushi concludes with a briefing of the facts.
10.52 A.M – The Dignitaries enter the Auditorium.
10.53 A.M – The Master of Ceremonies, Shreenidhi, introduces the dignitaries:
The dignitaries for the event are as follows:
He congratulates the students on the great sense of pride that they should be feeling to be entering the 13th edition of the National Moot Court Competition hosted by the School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University). He then elaborates on the plethora of times we have managed to conduct this event successfully in the past. He then dwells on the theme of the moot and hails the Moot Proposition as a combination of Constitutional issues and commercial problems. In his words, Moot Courts are basically a platform for students to experience how real time court problems play out. It can help the democratic system prevalent in our country to a large extent.
He then proclaims that it is almost a trend for students from the School of Law to start branching out into different fields of law upon graduation. This is an honour in itself and a living testimony to the quality of education that is provided in the college.
The Dean then proceeds to personally extend a very warm welcome to the dignitaries and concludes the address.
11.03 A.M – The Final Round of the 13th NMCC commences.
Final Rounds
| Court Hall Number | Judges | Time Stamp | Remarks |
| Finals Court Clerk: Amiya M. Arickatt |
AAG Sri Dhyan Chinnappa,
J. Padmaraj Desai, J. Narayana Swamy, Justice Sanjay Gowda, Mr. Hemanth Krishna |
11:03
11:05 11:06 11:08 11:13 11:14 11:15 11:16 11:17 11:20 11:21 11:22 11:23 11:23 11:26 11:27 11:29 11:33 11:33 11:35 11:36 11:39 11:41 11:43 11:44 11:45 11:47 11:48 11:51 11:52 11:54 11:55 11:57 11:58 11:59 12:00 12:02 12:04 12:06 12:07 12:08 12:09 12:10 12:11 12:12 12:13 12:14 12:16 12:18 12:20 12:22 12:23 12:25 12:28 12:29 12:30 12:32 12:32 12:35 12:36 12:39 12:40 12:41 12:42 12:45 12:46 12:47 12:48 12:51 12:53 |
The Petitioner team, the Respondent team and the judges have arrived at the Court Hall.
Speaker 1 of the Petitioner team has sought permission to approach the bench. Speaker 1 has started stating the facts of the present case after seeking permission of the bench. Speaker 1 has started addressing Issue 1. The Judge poses a question whether there exists a right to erase your data under the Act. Judge poses a question in regard to what the Speaker means by consent. Speaker moves on to address the constitutionality of Section 8 and states that there exists no definition of instrumentality. The Speaker cites references to the case of B. Shama Rao v. The Union Territory of Pondicherry. The Judge states that ‘instrumentality’ has been constitutionally defined. The Speaker contends that it is open to interpretation and that provisions under Section 8 are vague. The Speaker cites references to the K.S. Puttaswamy judgement whereby the 3 tests were mentioned. The Speaker further cites the Shreya Singhal v. UOI Case. The Judge poses a question regarding the detriment of not having exceptions to which the speaker states that Section 8 (2)(a) provides exceptions which are jurisprudentially recognized exceptions. The Speaker 1 states that waiting for the Central government to analyse is not adequate. The Judge poses a question regarding the erasing of data post processing. Speaker 1 states that the same is necessary as the data should be erased immediately after the purpose is met. Does Acanti’s Privacy Policy have a provision regarding the right to be forgotten? The Speaker states that all the data collected and shared will be deleted as soon as the account is deleted. The Speaker has moved on to address the constitutionality of Sections 19 and 22. If a notification regarding Section 18(3) clarifying the same will be considered adequate by the counsel. The Speaker states that an executive action of procedural nature will not be adequate to clarify these legislative acts. The Speaker states that Section 19 becomes arbitrary because of the vagueness of the provisions under Section 18. The Judge poses a question regarding the qualifications of the members . The Speaker refers to 19(3). The Counsel states that the same persons having the exemption cannot be the ones appointing the members. Speaker 2 of the Petitioner team has started addressing issues 3 and 4 as the representative of Blue Tick. Post which the Speaker will be addressing issue 2. The Judge poses the question as to whether the parent company of a subsidiary does not have power to control the operations of the subsidiary. As an answer to which the Counsel states that there exists no nexus to prove that Blue Tick had control over operations . The Judge poses a question regarding the reason for such an accusation. The Speaker states that the facts are silent on the same and that the findings are not against them. The Speaker states that although the findings are found to be against Acanti, no notice has been served to them. The Speaker concludes by stating that they are not the necessary party. The Speaker 2 has started addressing Issue 4 as to whether there exists a violation of the Competitions Act. The Speaker is addressing the allegation of dominant position. The Speaker cites reference to Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta v. Competition Commission Of India to contend that there exists no dominant position to abuse the same. The Speaker refers to Section 4(a). The speaker further states that collection of data is carried out by Acanti and draws attention to Terms 3 and 4. The Judge poses a question regarding the ingredients of dominant position. The Speaker states that the answers to the same are: 1. You need to be a dominant entity 2. Eight factors are provided. The Judge poses a question regarding the requirement of money in the abuse. The Speaker states there is no need for the same. The Judge poses a question regarding the difference between product market and geographic market. The Speaker refers to Section 2(r) as an answer to the same. The Judge poses the question whether the parent company owns the data. The speaker answers in the negative and draws attention to terms 2,3,5,7 of the privacy policy. The Speaker states that Section 4 is not violated because even if there exists a dominant position, Blue Tick is not abusing the same. Judge poses a question whether the Competition Commission should have examined Section 3. The Speaker answers that the Petitioners are eliminating all possible sections as the facts are not clear on the same. The Speaker states that the consent acquired for features limits the access to the same. The Speaker states that Terms 3 and 4 specify the purpose for the collection of data. The Judge poses a question on how Dementor accesses the data if the data is encrypted. The Speaker states that there exists no evidence to show that Dementor is hand in glove with Blue Tick. The Judge states that the undercover agencies should remain so in order to protect themselves from softwares like Unicorn. As an answer to a question, the Speaker states that the company is open to any investigation agency looking into the same.
The Judge states that the ‘opt out’ option is irrelevant if the company is in a dominant position. The Speaker states that in any general contract there is agreement on the terms by both sides for it to be a valid contract. The Judge poses a question regarding the absence of free consent since the company is in a dominant position and further that the Unconscionable contract since both the parties are not on an equal footing with regard to power. The Speaker has been granted an extra minute to summarise the arguments for Issue 2. Speaker 2 of the Petitioner team has moved onto the prayer. Speaker 1 of the Respondent party has sought the permission to approach the bench. Speaker 1 has apologised for the mistake as to the petitioner name mentioned. The Speaker states that consent would be deemed when asking for the same can be detrimental. The Speaker states that the commercial interest of the company cannot be considered over the Public Interest of the Nation. The Speaker states that sections are constitutional as it qualifies the three pronged test of proportionality laid down in the Puttaswamy judgement and it protects the Right to Information of the citizens. Speaker cites references to the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Rao Gupta to contend that the government works for the welfare of the state. The speaker also cites reference to the Shreya Singhal v. UOI case. The judge poses a question regarding the application of Article 300-A. The speaker answers that the Right to be Forgotten has to be balanced with the Right to Information. The Judge poses the question as to how the government will obtain the personal data without the consent of the person. The Speaker states the answer to the same as deemed consent. The Judge poses a question regarding the violation of privacy and distorting the basic structure doctrine. The Speaker 1 cites references to the Rohit Pandya v. Union of India case and the Pegasus case to state that the claims were made without any proof. The Judge poses the question of whether the interests of the political party are getting mixed with the interests of the State.The speaker answers that it is in the interest of the public. The speaker cites reference to the case of Union of India v. Indian Express Newspapers. What the purpose is after the Act has been passed to see to the reasonable nexus. The Speaker answers in the affirmative since the suit has been brought before the Court. The Judge poses the question whether a board constituted is above the Fundamental Rights. The Speaker states that the board is not superior to the Fundamental rights and that the board has quasi-judicial functions as per the statute. Speaker 2 of the Respondent team has sought the permission of the Court to approach the bench. The Speaker states that the Vodafone case referred to by the petitioner team was not in the year 2021 but in 2012. The doctrine of single entity under the Competition Act makes Blue Tick and Acanti a single entity. The Speaker states that there is no Consensus Ad Idem in the present case. The Judge poses the question on how the take it or leave it option differs from a contract entered into with the bank. The Speaker states that in the present case the consent is implied for all future usage even though the consent is only taken once. The Speaker states that the users have The Right to erase and the Right to self censorship. The former is stated by citing reference to Vasanthan v. Registrar General and a case in the EU, involving Google Incorporation. The Judge poses the question as to whether consideration can be the data. The Speaker states that the data of the individual should be respected. The Judge poses the question regarding the control of the terms of contract post the signing of the contract. The Speaker states that the contractual rights cannot be given precedence over Fundamental Rights. The Speaker states that there exists no purpose limitation and that the breach is evidence of the same. The Speaker cites the Harshita Chawla Case. The Speaker further states that the Adverse test is employed as per the Competition Act. The Speaker is distinguishing between the geographic market and the product market. The Speaker states that there has been anti-competitive conduct by AAEC along with abuse of dominant position. The Speaker 2 has moved on to the prayer. The Speaker 1 of the Petitioner team has sought the permission to rebut the Respondent’s arguments. The Speaker states that Section 18 is not justified as there is no clarity on the nature of data collected. Section 2(b) also further violates the rights of the citizens. The Speaker 1 of the Respondent team in the surrebuttal addresses the arguments raised during rebuttal. The Speaker states that the petitioners never submitted a complaint to the Data Protection Board but merely wrote letters to the Government. The round has ended and the judges are leaving for the scoring. |
01.26 P.M – The dignitaries initiate the lighting of the lamp to commemorate the success of the event with the assistance of Jayadevan Sir and Ashwin Kunal Sir. (Designations later)
01.28 P.M: The dignitaries proceed to the dais.
01.30 P.M: Address by Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) L. Narayana Swamy (Chief Guest)
The Judge thanks the School of Law for giving him an opportunity to judge this competition. In his opinion, this institution has produced fantastic advocates and judicial officers. A few of the students who have been placed through campus recruitment are doing profoundly well for themselves. After India became a part of the GATT in 1992, corporate institutions increased manyfold in India. He further thanks the faculty and the Dean for encouraging such a straightforward method of knowledge dissipation to young law students.
Through an example, he describes how it is a travesty to have him decide which team has won and which team is runners up as both the teams have fought tooth and nail and performed wonderfully. He also sheds some light on the fact that every case before the court of law is unique. Therefore, there truly can never be a distinction made between a winner and the runners-up.
The esteemed Judge also elucidated upon the Golaknath case, the Kesavananda Bharathi case and elaborated on how great lawyers like Mr. Sorabji and Mr. Nambiar have fought during the Emergency in order to secure our rights. He talks about their sheer willpower to fight for society’s cause. He concluded his speech with praise for Justice H.R. Khanna who dissented against the suspension of the Rights of citizens against the views of his colleagues.
Address by Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Gowda, Judge, High Court of Karnataka
Justice Sanjay proclaims that the students have access to the best education, but even the best education only holds value with practical use. He talks about how Moot Court competitions are a good first step towards learning how to argue in court but reiterates the fact that we still need to be completely ready and that we have to learn the nitty gritties of how to persuade a judge. This primarily comes through experience. The proof of a good lawyer is in his/her sincerity. The most sincere lawyers will have the most persuasive effect on the judge.
Address by Hon’ble Justice Padmaraj Desai – Judge, High Court of Karnataka
Justice Desai is of the opinion that law students are in fact social engineers. A wide range of facilities are available to students post graduation. Thus, these facilities should be used to the maximum. There is no substitute for hard work. He tells the students to do their best and that they will eventually reach the pinnacle of success.
Address by Shri. Dhyan Chinappa – Additional Advocate General for the State of Karnataka
In the AAG’s words, a Moot Court is not about winning a case, it is about proving a point to the judges. Each of these points would take at least an hour or two to cover in a court of law. The fact that the participants are able to condense it to a 15 minute argument to convey their case is quite commendable. He also touches upon the AI v. Humans debate wherein AI is said to replace humans eventually but he believes that the field of law will remain ever resilient against Artificial Intelligence.
Address by Mr. Hemant Krishna – Partner, Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys
Mr. Hemant talks about how he learned about AI through Isaac Asimov and how this author fueled his obsession with AI.
He then gives an insight into Issac Asimov’s principles and how his hard work effectively produced the most efficient outcome. In his experience, Hard work can produce the most effective results irrespective of whichever stream or field you are in.
02:10 P.M – Award Ceremony Begins
Winners : NMCC 21, Aarushi Gupta, Ananya Deshpande, and Ateeb Kazmi, representing National Law University, Jodhpur.
Runner’s up : NMCC 03, Suha Raffi, Bhavani Balaji, and Poorna Shree, representing Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies.
Best Speaker : NMCC 03, Bhavani Balaji, representing Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies.
Best Researcher : NMCC 14, Aiswarya Sahu, KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneshwar
Best Memorial : NMCC 07, RGNUL, Patiala
02:15 P.M: The Award Ceremony concludes
02:16 P.M: The Event Report is delivered by the Event Head, Mr. Nithin Manoj.
02:24 P.M: The Vote of Thanks is delivered by Miss Olivia De, Student Convenor of the Moot Court Society.
02:30 P.M: The event officially concludes.
DAY 2: 11th February 2023
Semi-Finals: 7:30 onwards
Semi Finals – Round 2
| Court hall | Judges | Time stamp | Remarks |
| Moot Court Hall, School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University) | 10:24
10:25 10:27 10:30 10:34 10:39 10:41 10:44 10:46 10:47 10:50 10:53 10:56 10:58 11:00 11:03 11:04 11:05 11:08 11:10 11:14 11:16, 11:19 11:20 11:23 11:26 11:28 11:31 11:32 11:34 11:39 11:42 11:43 11:45 11:50 11:51 11:54 11:56 11:59 12:00 12:02 12:03 12:04 12:06 12:07 12:09 |
The Petitioner seeks permission to approach the bench.
The judge poses a question on the eligibility of the parties to the proceeding. Petitioner Speaker one puts forward the contentions on Issue 1, and brings to light the necessary procedure to frame a valid legislation. The judge inquires about the sections of the Digital Personal Protection Act, 2002, being challenged by the petitioners. The Petitioner relies on the K. S. Puttaswamy case to contend that exemptions under Section 18 are extraordinary and disproportionate in nature. The Judges allow the Petitioner speaker to extend her time and continue questioning the Speaker on what constitutes a disproportionate delegation of power. The petitioner moves onto issue 2. The Petitioners use the three-pronged test to establish the violation of Fundamental Rights through the vaguely worded legislation. The Judge asks the Petitioners about the validity and admissibility of the editorial report in the current proceedings. The Speaker concludes her speech. Speaker 2 on the Petitioner’s side approaches the bench. The Petitioner speaker brings to light the inconsistency in the Respondent’s written statements. Petitioner Speaker moves on to Issue 3. The speaker relies on the case of Srinivasa General Traders v State of Andhra Pradesh to establish that the Right to Trade must be fostered to protect individual rights. The speaker emphasizes the need to update the privacy policy to allow the provision of services by Bluetick. The judge asks the speaker whether the exemptions under the law rendered the existing Act unconstitutional. A parallel is drawn by Petitioner Speaker 2 to the In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation to justify that the deemed consent was valid consent to ensure services are provided to the users. Judge asks the speaker whether a leave-it or take-it contract was constitutionally valid. Speaker contends that the treaty of the EU proposes that the information exchange is necessary to boost revenue and expand the product market. The Petitioners conclude their submissions. The Respondents further their case before the bench. Respondent Speaker 1 submits arguments for Issue 1. They contend that Section 8 and Section 18 of the Digital Personal Protection Act, 2002 are constitutionally valid. The Respondent speaker draws the court’s attention to Section 9 of the Act, to the requirement of reasonable processing of personal data. The Judges ask the Speaker what would constitute reasonable use and processing of the personal data of the user. The Respondent speaker states that the redressal mechanism creates an indirect onus on the data fiduciary to process the personal data reasonably. The Speaker states that the credit scoring mechanism strikes a balance between the interest of the data fiduciary and the consumer. Respondent contends that Section 18 of the Act is valid in providence and the State instrumentalizes the exemptions as it is necessary to achieve the legitimate goals of the State. The Respondent elaborates his stance on Section 9(6) of the Act. Judges ask whether the blanket exemptions under Section 9(6) are valid. Respondent Speaker defines the independent nature of the Data Protection Board. Section 22 of the Act further allows the High court to take jurisdiction of these matters. Respondent moves on to Issue 2. The Respondent contends that Article 14 is not violated by the State. Niji Rao’s case is used to establish that security and order were considered sufficient grounds to restrain the right to expression. Respondent Speaker 2 approaches the bench. The Respondent relies on Kahtji Bai v Babu Saheb to establish that the petitioners in a case can not be the respondent. The parties must be altered for the convenience of the proceedings. The Respondent draws the court’s attention to Section 35 of the Advocates Act. The Respondent submits that Acanti is the dominant player in the social media market. The speaker submits that Acanti has abused the dominant position. The Speaker uses the Group of company principle to establish liability over the parent company. The Petitioners submit that the unequal bargaining power of the user is a sign of a dominant position by the data fiduciary. The Court’s attention is drawn to the opt-in contract to establish the lack of choice for the consumer. Automatically collected data is used by the social media platform, which is not consented to by the user (Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Ltd).). The Respondent moves on to Issue 3. Respondent stated that data sharing violated the Information Technology Act, Digital Data Protection Act and the Competition act. The Respondent submits that the sharing of data is similar to the publication of personal data. This was held unconstitutional in the Canara Bank Case. The judge asks the Respondent about the states’ eligibility for exemptions under the Act. The Respondents propose the prayer to the court. The Petitioners tender the rebuttal to the Respondent’s case. They contend that the respondent fails to provide relevance of the GDPR to the current case. The Respondent has heavily depended on the GDPR to establish their case. The Petitioners rest their case. The Respondents submit their sur-rebuttals. The Respondents conclude their submissions. Scoring starts Common Feedback Session starts Court Adjourns
|
Semi-Finals Round 1:
| Court Hall Number | Judges | Time Stamp | Remarks |
| Moot Court Hall, School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University) | 7.42
7.43 7.45 7.48 7.52 7.55 8.00 8.03 8.06 8.08 8.10 8.14 8.17 8.20 8.23 8.25 8.31 8.38 8.40 8.42 8.43 8.47 8.51 8.54 8.57 9.01 9.04 9.08 9.09 9.14 9.18 9.21 9.24 9.25 9.29 9.40 9.45 |
Counsel 1 of Petitioners approaches the bench
The judges pose the question about writ of mandamus and the Counsel answers that the petitions are separately filed. The Counsel then states that they are wrongly filed. Counsel 1 starts addressing issue 1. The Judges are asking for clarity as to why the petitioners approached the court under article 32. The sections filed by petitioners are not a breach of fundamental rights. The judges then ask to continue the arguments. Counsel 1 moves to arguments regarding data privacy and judges pose the question about whether it is a reasonable restriction by the government. Counsel challenges section 18 except 1(b) of Digital Personal protection Act and judges ask if there is a rule mentioned in the Sensitive Data Act. Counsel 1 responds with the help of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Counsel 1 challenges section 18(1) because the consent is not taken. Counsel further argues about consent with the help of case laws. Counsel asks the court to strike down provisions of section 2 and 3. Counsel proceeds to move to section 18(4) regarding the storage of data with the case of Balagopala Krishna vs State of Kerala stating that it directly infringes data privacy. Judges pose the question about instrumentality and Counsel responds that instrumentality is not defined in the proposition Judges give time for arguing against Section 4. Counsel argues that they are pressing charges under Sections 19 and 22 because it creates bias (government handling). Counsel 2 approaches the bench and starts explaining the facts with the permission of judges. Privacy policy of blue tick is discussed and Counsel argues about the better feature policy. Judge poses a question as to how a consumer will benefit? Counsel responds that it enables them to provide live tracking etc. Judge questions the Counsel, “Would you be comfortable as a citizen when a third party interferes with your information”? and the counsel responds that there are options for citizens to avail. Judges asked what will happen if citizens don’t give permission. Counsel convinces the judges that Acanti and Bluetick are integrating for some service and that some services are provided individually. Judges pose the question that Acanti is providing a take it or leave it policy. Counsel responds that it is an option for consumers to avail and in contrast, judges pose another question as to why Acanti provided information to Bluetick. Judges again ask the same question as to what will happen if citizens reject the consent. The second Counsel’s answer however, is unsatisfactory to the judges’ desires. Counsel 2 of Petitioners starts addressing issue 2. Due to the lack of time, judges permit an extension. Counsel 2 moves to deliver the prayer. Counsel 1 of Respondent seeks permission to approach the bench. Counsel 1 starts addressing the issue that it is not violating the data privacy of individuals. Judges pose questions about consent and also as to why a credit score is required. Counsel 1 pleads ignorance and continues the arguments regarding fundamental rights of citizens. Counsel summarizes her argument that it concerns itself with State Security. So, Section 18 is not violative. Judge asks if there is any exemption section if information gets leaked and counsel pleads ignorance. Counsel 2 argues about Section 19 of the act mentioning data protection of citizens and the judge poses the question as to whether excessive delegation is okay. Counsel responds that there will be an issue of authenticity of the board and people will invariably let the government have full control. Judges ask the counsel to address subsection 3. Judges pose the question of whether the government deployed the unicorn? Counsel 2 of Respondents seeks permission to approach the bench Counsel starts addressing issues. Counsel argues that users are weak in the present case and it is against the competitive market. Also, it’s a bad and unjust law. Judges pose the question as to who is collecting the information, Acanti or Bluetick. Counsel 2 responded that Acanti is collecting information. To the contrary, judges pose another question that Acanti should then be made a party to this case. Counsel 2 argues by stating that Bluetick is the parent company. Judges ask counsel to provide them with any specific point from the K.S Puttaswamy case. Council 2 of Respondent moves to deliver the prayer. Rebuttals are initiated by the petitioner. Scoring session starts Common feedback session started Court adjourns. |
|
Judges Briefing Semi-Final : 6:30 P.M TO 7:00 PM
Quarter Finals: 5:00 PM – 7:00 PM
| Court Hall Number | Judges | Time Stamp | Remarks |
| Court Hall 1 | Prashan and Irfana | 5.08
5.20 5.29 5.34 5.39 5.42 5.44 5.49 5.51 5.53 5.57 6.02 6.10 6.14 6.16 6.23 6.26 6.28 6.31 6.41 6.44 6.50 |
The judges, petitioners and respondents have entered and the teams have been given 10 min of preparation time
The speaker 1 of the petitioners have started their arguments. The counsel is addressing each section of the Act to prove it unconstitutional. The judges questions regarding the provision for filing a complaint and why there has been no complaint. The judge questions the speaker whether they should consider the letters as complaints and therefore term it as a PIL. The judge questions the presence evidence regarding the leak. The speaker cites Rohit Pandey judgement which has been dismissed by the judge. The newspaper article has not been substantiated by proper facts. The second speaker of the Petitioner team has started her arguments. The judges have instructed them to refer to them as ‘your ladyships’. They have questioned the speaker regarding the opt out option. The judge questions on how there is ‘unreasonable restriction’ in this case. The judge questions the speaker on the privacy of the consumers and in particular community data. The judge questions the relevance of the petitioners citation no. 67. The judge questions the speaker’s knowledge on what are cookies. The judge asks the speaker to elaborate on the whatsapp case that has been noted in their memorial. The Respondent speaker 1 has been questioned on the relevance of 4 issues and clarifies what issues they shall be dealing with. The judge asks the speaker to get to the point and define what ‘deemed consent’ is. The judge questions why the act has been passed with a voice vote and whether that is the procedure to be followed. The judge instructs that the counsel should justify the entire act before justifying the specified sections. The judge has asked the speaker to sum up issue 2 in 30 seconds. The judge asks the counsel why this spyware has not been banned in the country. The second speaker of the Respondents have begun her arguments. She has been questioned on the title of the case. The judge questions the speaker on the determination of dominance. The judge asks how they determine data ownership. The judge questions on entry barrier in relation to dominance abuse. The speaker has been asked to sum up her arguments due to paucity of time. The rebuttal has begun with the arguments relating to medical emergencies and reveal of personal data. They also point out how the respondents have nt satisfied the 3rd part of the 3 fold test. The judges have moved on to scoring |
| Court Hall 2 | Testha and Shubham | 5:08
5:10 5:11 5.20 5:21 5:22 5:24 5:27 5:28 5:30 5:33 5:34 5:37 5:38 5:38 5:39 5:41 5:45 5:45 5:47 5:48 5:49 5:51 5:51 5:55 5:56 5:57 5:58 6:00 6:02 6:03 6:05 6:06 6:07 6:08 6:09 6:11 6:13 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:17 6:18 6:20 6:23 6.26 |
The petitioners and respondents have entered the court hall and are waiting for the judges.
The teams have been provided 10 minutes to prepare. The judges have arrived at the court hall. The preparation time has been exhausted. The round has begun. Speaker 1 of the petitioner team has started addressing Issue 1. Judge has posed the question whether the hospital, AIIMS, qualifies as a state. As an answer to which speaker 1 has cited references to Federal Bank v. Thomas. Judge poses the question as to why the name of the Hospital has not been changed. The speaker answers that the hospital is an instrumentality of the State. Speaker 1 of the petitioner team argues that the vagueness of the terms has led to excessive delegation and such power can misused in the guise of public interest/ The judge poses a question whether the Speaker 1 is contending that Section 8 of the Act is unconstitutional. The speaker answers in the positive. The judge questions the authority depended on to state that the qualifications of the members must be stated. The speaker answers that the case law for the same cannot be unfortunately recalled. Speaker 1 is addressing issue 2 regarding the constitutionality of the employment of Unicorn Software. The judge questions whether the Act violates any provision other than Art. 21 Speaker 2 has started addressing Issue 3. The judge poses a question as to the clubbing of issues 3 and 4. To which the speaker responds that the two are to separate issues under different Acts. Speaker 2 of the petitioner team has cited references to the Puttaswamy judgement. The speaker contends that the clients’ data will be deleted and that there is no restriction on their autonomy of choice. The speaker cites references to the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar. The speaker states that there is no sharing of data with the parent company and that they value the client’s consent. Speaker 2 has started addressing Issue 4. The counsel distinguishes between the Third issue which deals with data sharing and the fourth issue. Speaker cites the case of Dharmanya Singh v. Union of India where the Court has stated that the availing of the service is one’s personal choice. Allegation that the company is earning money by sharing data is preposterous since it is against company policy and the company has no source of income of any sort The speaker cites the case of Chaitanya v. Union of India. The speaker states that the company is losing a lot of money because of the suit and would soon have to file for insolvency. The speaker cites the case of Singhania Partners LLP v. Microsoft. The speaker further states that the underlying motive is the same as in the present case. The Speaker has moved on to the prayer. Along with declaration of unconstitutionality and other prayers, to issue an order to nullify the initial CCI order. The Speaker 1 of the respondent team has sought the permission of the bench to approach the bench. The counsel has started addressing Issues 1. The speaker states that Section 8, 18, 19 are not violative of the provisions of the Constitution. The Speaker cites the Puttaswamy judgement. The speaker states that deemed consent is necessary for the processing of personal data. The speaker states that requesting consent from each user is impractical and inadvisable. The speaker states that the deemed consent is necessary for the smooth functioning of the The judge poses a question as to the three tests stated in the Puttaswamy judgement. The counsel pleads ignorance. As an answer to the question posed by the judge as to reference to any other authority for the legality of deemed consent, the speaker cites the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. Speaker 2 addresses Issue 2 and states that the Unicorn is not employed by the government and that it is a mere allegation made to tarnish the image of the government. The judge poses a question as to the validity of the contention that it is mere allegation. The speaker states that there is no evidence to prove otherwise. The speaker elucidates on the meaning of ‘employed’ and states that the same does not fit the present scenario. The speaker states that any employment by the Government has to be published in the gazette and the same has not taken place. The Speaker 2 of the respondent team has sought permission to approach the bench and has started addressing issue 3. The speaker states that the policy of Blue tick is arbitrary and does not require the consent of the user. The Speaker cites the Facebook case to imply that a similar devastating situation can be avoided if Blue Tick is constrained from doing so. The Speaker 2 cites the Puttaswamy judgement. The judge poses the question regarding the rights violated of the user. The speaker answers as Art. 21 and 21A. The speaker has started addressing Issue 4. The Speaker contends that the deletion of accounts will result in loss of contacts and connections which is unjust towards the users. The speaker cites the Harshita Chawla case. The speaker contends that the mere silence cannot be considered as implied consent since the same is unjust and immoral. Speaker 2 moves onto the prayer. The Speaker prays that the provisions be declared unconstitutional and that the acts of Blue tick be declared illegal. The Speaker 2 of the Petitioner team rebuts. The Harshita Chawla case regarding the Suo moto inquiry by the Director General is challenged. The Speaker states another case to state that CCI had mentioned that a newspaper article cannot be solely relied upon. The Speaker also states that the case regarding Jammu and Kashmir internet shut down is irrelevant for the present case. The Speaker 2 of the Respondent moves on to Surrebuttal. The Speaker states that the Harshita Chawla case is relevant because the CCI had ordered an enquiry into the working of Whatsapp. The petitioner cannot dismiss by merely stating that cases are irrelevant. The Round has ended. |
| Court Hall 3 | Mega and Sasank | 5:19
5:23 5:25 5:28 5:30 5:35 5:38 5:39 5:41 5:45 5:47 5:50 5:53 5:56 5:57 6:02 6:05 6:07 6:10 6:13 6:16 6:20 6:23 6:27 6:29 6:34 6:39 |
Participants representing both sides have reached the court hall and are now preparing for the respectives sides they’ve been allotted for the quarter finals.
Speaker 1 for the petitioner has approached the bench with their permission and will be addressing issue 1 and 2 of the proposition. The Judges have asked the speaker who she is representing to which the speaker responds that she would be representing Socialist Liberal Party and puts forward the respective issues. Speaker 1 for the petitioner says that she would be addressing issue 1 regarding the constitutionality of Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022 (“Data Protection Act”) with 4 submissions and starts her arguments by citing the case of Puttaswamy v. Union of India. She puts forward the exceptions of legality, aim and proportionality put forward in the case above, that a policy infringing right to privacy must satisfy. Speaker 1 for the petitioner puts forward the reasons why section 8, 18, 19 and 22 of the act in question does not satisfy the test and exceptions put forward in the case of Puttaswamy v. Union of India. Speaker 1 highlights the possible ambiguity that may arise while interpreting the provisions and section of the Data Protection Act in question. She cites the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babulal to which the Judges question her with respect to the issues laid down in the cases she cited. Speaker 1 puts forward the section of the act in question, lack accountability, transparency and hence violates the fundamental rights laid down in the constitution. Speaker 1 summarises her submissions under issue 1 and proceeds with issue 2 of the proposition. Speaker 1 for the petitioner highlights that the Government employing Unicorn spyware is ultra vires of the constitution and violates article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Judges ask the speaker to wrap up her arguments and conclude. Speaker 2 for the petitioner approaches the bench with the permission of the Judges and specifies that he would be addressing issue 3 and 4 of the proposition. Judges ask the speaker who he is representing to which the speaker says that he is representing Bluetick. Speaker 2 says that the contract that Bluetick puts forward with respect to the absence of opt-out option is not an unreasonable or unfair standard form contract. Judges question the speaker on the manner in which consent was obtained and how the absence of opt-out option is not unfair and unreasonable. Speaker 2 answers the questions posed to him by the judges saying that the contract in question is to facilitate services for the users. He refers to para 2, clause 4 of the privacy policy claiming that the same is in place to promote safety, security, integrity and prevent abuse. Speaker 2 for the petitioner refers to the case of Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta v. Competition Commission of India and Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd to substantiate his arguments under 3 of the proposition. Speaker 2 for the petitioner puts forward reasons why Bluetick cannot be considered to have an unfair advantage over its users and was not in a dominant position in addition to arguing why users did have an option to switch to other applications citing the case of Shri Vinod Gupta v. Competition Commission of India. Speaker 2 requests the Judges to refer to Rule 5, clause 3 of IT rules 2011 to prove knowledge, purpose, intended recipients, name and address of the agency highlighted under the referred clause. He says that the data collected by Bluetick is end-to-end encrypted. Judges have asked the speaker to wrap up his arguments in twenty seconds. Due to paucity of time, speaker 2 for the petitioner is unable to address issue 4 and moves onto prayer as instructed by the Judges. Speaker 1 for the respondent approaches the bench with their permission and specifies that she would be addressing issue 1 and 2 of the case. Speaker 1 starts putting forward her arguments with respect to the exceptions under the Puttaswamy case that the section of Data Protection Act satisfies. Judges ask the speaker how the act is constitutionally valid and to substantiate on the concepts of rational nexus with the objective of the act and intelligible differentia as far as the questioned section under the Data Protection Act is concerned. Judges ask the speaker to substantiate and define “public interests”. Speaker 1 for the respondent answers the question above in addition to multiple questions posed to her by the Judges. Speaker 1 for the respondent cites multiple cases to define “compelling state interest”. The Judges ask the speaker if the legislation in question was drafted in a reasonable and responsible manner to which the speaker answers in the affirmative. Speaker 2 for the respondent cites the case of Ram Ram Narain v. State of Bombay. Judges ask the speaker to conclude her arguments under issue 1. Speaker 2 for the respondent moves onto issue 2 with the permission of the Judges. Speaker 2 refers to section 101 and 104 of the Indian Evidence Act to argue that the claim with respect to the Government employing Unicorn spyware is an unsubstantiated fact and the burden of proof lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in the existence of the evidence and claim made. Speaker 1 wraps up her arguments and speaker 2 for the respondent approaches the bench with their permission due to paucity of time. Speaker 2 starts addressing issue 4 by putting forward the objectives of the Competition Act to which the Judges ask the speaker what anti-competition practices are. Speaker 2 for the respondent refers to the Competition Act and puts forward that even a non dominant entity can use its power to enter the market and occupy a dominant position thus seeking to do away with the question as to if whether or not Bluetick had a dominant and unfair advantage. Judges ask the speaker if there is any legal ground to show that the standard form contract of Bluetick is invalid and how data is being monopolized. Speaker 2 for the respondent refers to the case of Meta v. Competition Commission of India pending before the Supreme Court of India which she does specify but uses it considering the same has persuasive value. Speaker 2 for the respondent rebuts a point put forward by the petitioners with respect to the data collected from users to facilitate provision of services. Speaker highlights that the same is collected not for public interest or to facilitate the provision of services but for commercial gains. Judges ask the speaker to mention the facts of the case Harshita Chawla v. Whatsapp Inc. and Others she cited. Judges have asked the speaker to wrap up her arguments in one minute. Speaker 2 for the respondent puts forward her final submissions and moves onto prayer. Rebuttal and Sur-rebuttal Scoring and Feedback session |
| Court Hall 4 | Gaurav & Vaishag | 5:18 pm
5:24 pm 5:30 pm 5:33 pm 5:34 pm 5:38 pm 5:43 pm 5:48 pm 5:50 pm 5:54 pm 5:56 pm 5:58 pm 6:00 pm 6:04 pm 6:19 pm 6:21 pm 6:25 pm 6:31 pm 6:33 pm 6:36 pm 6:38 pm |
The judges and participants have arrived. The participants are given 10 minutes of prep time, post which the round will start.
The petitioner speaker 1 starts with her arguments on issue 1 of the case – various parts of the Personal Data Protection act are unconstitutional. The speaker advances that it violates the right to privacy. The speaker draws the inferring of K Puttaswamy judgement to the point of the speaker. Further the speaker moves on to prove section 18 of the Act is unconstitutional. The speaker mentions that a data fiduciary can save the data for a certain time for a “Business purpose”. However the term business purpose is not defined in the act, which would lead to a broad perspective of the term. And therefore indirectly will factors to unconstitutionality. The Judges pose questions of what are objectives of the act, and how these sections violate the objective of the case. And the speaker advances her arguments to answer. The speaker moves on to issue 2 of the case, speaker 2 moves on to issue 3 & 4 of the case. The speaker mentions that it is a traditional process to share the data and process the data with the parent company. The speaker also mentions the Ajay Hassia case, to prove whether the body is a state or not. The speaker tries to advance her arguments to prove that it is not a state body. The speaker moves on to issue 4 of the case. Speaker tries to prove that they are not violative of Competition Act And there is no abuse of dominance of the Bluetick. Speaker mentions the Raghav committee report, Neeru Cab V Ola and Flipkart to prove their point – They are not in the position of Dominance. The speaker points out that even if they do not have “opt out” option, they have an option to shift to other options. And their privacy policy does not violate any laws. Further the speaker moves on to the Prayer. The Respondent speakers have initiated with their arguments. The speaker answers to the question posed by the judge – the terms in the act is not vague and actually can be inferred with clarity. The speaker further continues to advance his arguments and answers the questions posed by the judges on issue 1 & 2 of the case. The speaker concludes his arguments. Respondent speaker 2 addresses the bench with his arguments. The speaker mentions the Khatija V Baba Sahib case to enunciate his arguments. The speaker moves on to issue 4 of the case. Speaker further mentions Jawaharlal Varman V UoI, to contend that any contract accepted is not subjected, and also contends that Bluetick is not in dominance position and even being dominance will not be a crime under competition act. The speaker moves on to issue 3 of the issue. He advances the argument there is no need for “opt out” option. The speaker moves on to the Prayer. The teams have further moved on to their rebuttal and surrebuttal respectively. |
4:00 P.M TO 4:30 P.M Release of result and Draw of Lots
Fixtures __ 13th NMCC 22-23 – Quarterfinals
2:30 PM Onwards: Octa Finals
Octa Rounds
| Court Hall Number
Court Hall 1 |
Judges
Rohit Kamath and Anant Bhat |
Time Stamp
2:25 2.29 2.33 2:34 2:36 2:39 2:40 2:42 2:48 2:50 2:55 2:56 2:57 2:58 3:01 3:04 3:05 3:07 3:15 3:17 3:20 3:21 3:25 3:33 3: 45 3:50 |
Remarks
The judges and the participants have entered the court hall With the permission of both the judges, speaker 1 for the petitioner has started mentioning the facts of the case. The speaker 1 has started the briefing about the facts of the case The judges are posing a question relating to the need to differentiate the need of data and the speaker stated the facts of Puttaswamy case The speaker one has started with issue 2. The judges are posing a question relation to the procedure established by law The speaker 2 has started with arguments 2 and 3 The speaker is addressing section 8 of the data Protection act. Speaker 2 is citing the case of CCI v. Whatsapp for the data Protection Act. The speaker has exceeded the time and has been granted extra 2 mins The speaker again exceeds the time and the judge told to summarize and tell in 1 min The petitioners are stating their prayer The respondents have seeked permission to start. The speaker 1 has started with the arguments 1 and 2 The speaker is directing the attention to section 8 of the Data Protection Act The speaker is stating the case of Puttaswamy v. UOI. The speaker has started with issue 2 The judge poses a question regarding the legislation The speaker 2 has started with the arguments regarding objectives of the competition act. The speaker is citing the Harshita Chawla case regarding the end to end encryption The judges are posing a question of what according to the respondent is the relevant market and what is the relevant geographic market in the present case The respondent speaker two is stating how section 4 (2) (e) is violated And that there should have been an opt out option. Speaker 1 is done with her rebuttal and the 2nd speaker of the responding party now moves on to her surrebuttal. Since both the parties are done with their speeches and arguments they are instructed to leave the breakout room The judges are giving feedback to the participants The judges left the court hall and The participants are seeing their respective scores Both the teams have left the court hall
|
| Court Hall 2 | Divyang and Shravan | 2:30
2:32 2:33 2:35 2:36 2:37 2:39 2:50 2:53 2:55 2:56 2:58 2:59 3:06 3:12 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:18 3:21 3:24 3:26 3:33 3:38 3:42 3:53 3:54 3:55 3:58 |
Participants from both teams have joined and are waiting for the judges.
With the permission of both judges, speaker 1 for the petitioner has started mentioning the facts of the case. The speaker states that they’ll be dealing with issues 1 and 2. To support their statement, the speaker cites various case laws. The speaker talks about deemed consent The judge asks questions regarding the statement made by speaker 1. The speaker has exceeded their time considerably The speaker 1 has started speaking on issue 2. Speaker 1 of the respondents has started stating the facts of the case. Speaker 1 of the respondent is speaking about the district data protection act. The speaker speaks about whether newspaper evidence can be used as evidence by the court. The judge starts posing questions to the speaker. The speaker gives a concrete response, but the judges want the speaker to be more concise. The speaker has exceeded their time but the judge permits it. The speaker concludes the statement but has exceeded their time by nearly 8 minutes. Speaker 2 of the petitioners has started with their statement. The judge asks the speaker to state the facts of the case. The speaker talks about Baglekar Akash Kumar v. Google LLC The speaker mentions the case of National Restaurant Association of India v. Zomato Ltd. The speaker requests the judges to go through paragraph 10 of the privacy act. The speaker talks about Blue Tick’s privacy policy. The speaker proceeds with issue 4. The speaker speaks about Harshita Chawla v. WhatsApp Inc. Speaker 2 of the Respondents has started with their statement. The speaker relates how the company that owns blue tick occupies a dominant position in the market. The speaker talks about the privacy policy of blue tick. The judges ask the petitioners to proceed with their rebuttal. The petitioners proceed with their rebuttal. The respondents proceed with their sur rebuttal. Both the petitioners and the respondents are done with their oral rounds. |
| Court Hall 3 | Sidhart Vale and Sneha Philip | 2:35
2:36 2:38 2:39 2:41 2:45 2:46 2:47 2:48 2:51 2:52 2:53 2:54 2:58 3:00 3:01 3:05 3:08 3:10 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:17 3:21 3:23 3:24 3:27 3:29 3:32 3:33 3:36 3:41 3:45 3:47 3:50 3:52 3:53 3:54 3:55 4:22 |
The participants representing both the sides have joined and we are waiting for the judges to commence the round
Speaker 1 from the petitioner’s side started presenting the Facts of the case pertaining to issue 1&2 Speaker 1 confidently started with the constitutionality of the different sections of the act. The judges raised a query regarding the sections stated in the memo. The speaker one answered the judge’s question regarding the section 8 of the act. Judges wanted the speaker to direct them to the facts that are relevant for the Issue 1 Speaker moves on to the second submission and states that section 8 of the act is violative of fundamental right. The judges raised a question about the instrumentality of the state and the speaker 1 confidently answered the question. Judges asked the speaker to wrap up the arguments by moving to issue 2 in two minutes. Judges posed a question on the authority of the report Judges asked for case laws relating to the issue. Speaker 1 is done with her arguments and the speaker 2 has approached the bench with the permission of judges Speaker 2 starts his arguments by citing a case decided by a High court and the judges asked to state the issue of the above said case. The judges posed a question on why the data is being collected, the speaker 2 confidently comes up with an answer but the judges want the speaker to be more specific. The arguments are progressing as an answer to the question asked by judges regarding the opt out feature. Judges wanted the speaker 2 to go back to section 5 and the speaker explained further. Judges asked the speaker to conclude his arguments by moving on to the next issue. Speaker 2 explains the network effect and the judges asked to explain the facts pertaining to the same. Speaker 2 concluded his arguments by stating the prayer. Speaker 1 from the respondent side has approached the bench and started off with arguments. Judges wanted the respondent speaker to brief out the facts that are against the respondents. Speaker proceeds with the first submission with the permission of the judges. Speaker states the proportionality test and the judges had not raised a query yet. Judges asked to state the argument pertaining to the constitutionality of section 8 of the act and the speaker confidently came up with a precise statement.
Judges raised a question for the scope of an appeal on account of a misuse of the data by the government. The speaker gives an example of the pandemic time to substantiate her arguments on the collection of data. Judges asked the composition of the data protection board. Judges asked for the exemptions on the liability of the government stated in the sections of the act. The speaker has moved on to the next issue by directing the judges to paragraph twelve of the moot proposition. Judges asked for the procedure of section 69 of the IT act and the speaker came up with an answer and concluded her arguments. Speaker 2 from the respondent side has approached the bench and started off with arguments.
The counsel wanted the judge to refer to clause one of the Privacy Policy and has moved on with the argument. The speaker has referred to the Sri Vinod Kumar Gupta vs Competition Commission of India and the judges asked to state the issues of the above said case. The speaker with the permission of judges proceeded with a second submission. Judges raised a question on section 7 of the moot proposition and the speaker focused on the third line and answered the question. Judges asked the speaker to sum up the arguments in 2 minutes as the speaker had exceeded the time limit. Respondent party concluded their arguments with prayer. The counsel representing the petitioners started rebuttals stating three points from the respondents arguments, particularly focused on the dominance of the government. Speaker 2 from respondent side made counter arguments for the allegations made against the respondent party. Both the teams are done with their oral rounds. The participants are requested to move out and the scoring session has begun. Judges and the participants had left the court hall after the feedback session.
|
| Court Hall 4 | Mallows Pricilla and Meghana Lal | 2:20
2:25 2:27
2:29 2:30
2:31 2:32 2.33 2.34 2:34 2:38 2:41 2:42 2:43 2:45 2:47 2:48 2:50 2:53 2:56 2:58 2:59 3:00 3:01 3:02 3:03 3:04 3:07 3:07 3:08 3:09 3:10 3:12 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:20 3:21 3:22 3:23 3:24 3:25 ‘ 3:26 3:27 3:28 3:29 3:30 |
The judges have entered the Court hall and are waiting for the participants.
The petitioner team has entered the court hall. The respondent team has entered the Court hall. The Round has commenced with speaker 1 of the Petitioner team seeking permission to approach the bench. Speaker 1 of the petitioner team has sought the permission to state the facts and the judge has instructed to keep it brief The counsel has sought the permission to address issue 1. Judge has posed the question whether a political party enjoys the freedom of fundamental rights. The speaker has stated that every citizen has the right to fundamental rights. Judge raises the question whether a political party has the right to freedom of speech The speaker answered by citing references to the case of Express Newspapers v. Union of India. Speaker 1 draws judges attention to paragraph 12 of the moot proposition. Speaker1 has been granted 5 minutes to complete his arguments. The Speaker has moved on to address issue 2. The speaker has cited Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India and explains the relevance by explaining the negative impact of a person being spied on in the Pegasus case. The Speaker moves on to the violation of Art 21. And cites the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India. The judge poses the question whether the court can direct the Government to act. The Speaker 2 of Petitioner team has sought the bench’s permission to approach the court and has started arguing on issues 3 and 4. Speaker 2 argues that section 3 of the Competition Act 2002 is being violated. Speaker 2 contends that Acanti has violated its own privacy policy. Judge poses the question whether an opt out option would make it constitutional and nudges the speaker to move on to issue no. 4. Speaker 2 is granted 2 minutes to sum up his arguments. Speaker cites the PUCL v. Union of India case for stating that phone tapping is violative of citizen’s Right to privacy. Speaker 2 requests for an extension of 1 minute. The same is granted. Speaker 2 cites the case of Facebook Ireland. Speaker 1 of the Respondent team seeks permission to approach the bench. Speaker 2 is addressing Issue 1. Speaker draws attention to the first case in the compendium. The judge poses the question regarding the need or reason for the passing of the new Act. The Speaker answers that the Act has been passed to pacify the public. Rohit Jain v. Union of India cited to state that the court cannot rely solely on articles published with reference to Annexure-1. Judge poses the question as to the necessity of the new Act when the IT Act already exists to protect the data. Speaker answers that the scope of the new act is wider covering technology in general. Speaker 1 states that Article 226 can only be invoked when Art. 14 has been violated and that the opposing counsel alleges that Art.19 has been violated. Judges pose questions regarding the classifications under the Puttaswamy judgment. The judge requests the speaker to state the 3rd test. The speaker answers the same as the test of proportionality and elucidates. Speaker 1 moves on to address issue 2. Speaker 1 cites Anuradha v. Union of India. Speaker 2 states that counsel is representing the Competition commission of the Union of Kennedy and has started with addressing issue 3. Counsel states that the Privacy policy of Blue tick violates Section 7(1) as there is no free consent on the part of the users. Judge poses the question whether it is legal to track others who are not children to which the speaker answered that with consent the same shall be done Speaker cites the case of Karmanya Singh v. Union of India. Speaker 2 has begun with issue 4 regarding the abuse of the position of dominance. Counsel cites the Harshita Chawla case, in which whatsapp was found to be in a position of dominance. Counsel 2 requests for 2 minutes to sum up the arguments. The counsel states that there is a Committee being formed to overcome the shortcomings of the Act. Counsel 2 ends with a question to the bench on how the bench would react to a breach of personal data. Speaker 1 of the Petitioner team approaches the bench for rebuttal and states that the two speakers are contradicting each other and that the right to Privacy is being violated. Respondent team forfeits their sur-rebuttal. Both the teams have left the court hall for scoring. |
| Court Hall 7 | Skanda Kumar and Prabhu Savvanur | 2.37
2.45 2.49 2.52 2.56 2.58 3.01 3.03 3.06 3.12 3.16 3.29 3.34 3.37 3.40 3.48 3.50 |
Petitioner speaker 1 has started his arguments after briefing the judges on the facts of the case.
The speaker cites Madras Bar Association v UOI case to draw inference regarding the reviewing of High Court’s decision The speaker cites KS Puttaswamy judgment to emphasize on Right to Privacy The judges question the purpose of the speaker’s client in collecting data from its users. The petitioner speaker has started the arguments citing judgements from the Delhi High Court inferring that the users can voluntarily choose to not share their data and that their client is not coercing its users to disclose their data. The judge on furthering questioning asks the speaker to state their briefing of the facts. The judge questions the speaker’s knowledge of the Ola Uber case. The speaker moves to issue 4. The judge refers to a report mentioned under the moot proposition to point out the dominance of the counsel’s client in the market. The petitioner speaker has begun her prayer. The judge questions the wordings of the prayer and asks to explicitly state the provisions of the act that needs amendment. The Respondent speaker one begins by stating the time split and the issues the counsel and co-counsel shall be dealing with. The judge questions the speaker regarding who they are representing. The speaker makes emphasis on the prevalence of public interest The judge has asked the counsel to elaborate on the Puttaswamy judgment. The judge states how newspaper reports are inadmissible as they are hearsay unless substantiated with facts. The Respondent speaker 1 has completed her arguments and handed over to her co counsel. The Respondent speaker 2 is arguing on issue 3 and 4. The speaker refers to GDPR definition of an Opt out to put across the legislative intent. The counsel refers to the Right to be Forgotten. The counsel cites a case to point out how there is a lack of knowledge regarding what the cookies are and how pre-ticked terms and conditions boxes are violative of the user’s rights. The speaker seeks permission to proceed to the obligations of a data fiduciary. The speaker moves to their prayer and the judge points out how ‘any order the court may deem fit’ has to be made specific. The petitioner has moved on to rebuttal and the respondent has made their response. The scoring has begun. |
| Court Hall 5 | Arjun Rego and Nikit Bala | 2:29
2:32 2:37 2:39 2:41 2:41 2:43 2:47 2:50 2:51 2:54 2:54 2:55 2:57 3:00 3:02 3:06 3:07 3:08 3:10 3:20 3:20 3:23 3:24 3:25 3:53 |
Petitioner speaker 1 has started to present facts of the case.
Judges are questioning the speaker as to what was the purpose of collecting the data. The judge questions if the acts of the petitioner are against the interest of the public. Petitioner speaker 1 is granted 2 mins extra time by judges to sum up his second issue. Petitioner speaker 1 talks about the right to privacy. Petitioner speaker 2 starts addressing issues 3 and 4. Petitioner speaker 2 requests judges to address issue 4 first followed by issue 3 for better relation to the case. Petitioner speaker 2 contends that Acanti is not liable in this case and supports it with the Uber India case. The judge poses a question against this case and seeks for reasoning for the relation of this precedent. The judge asks the speaker to sum up her 2 issues by clubbing them due to paucity of time. Speaker is awarded 2 mins of extension in time by the judges. The speaker presents the prayer. Respondent speaker 1 starts her arguments with issue 1 and issue 2. Respondent addresses issue 1 and contends the fundamental rights of the Constitution. Speaker presents her arguments relying on the sections of the Act as against what the petitioners had contended during their arguments. The speaker moves to addressing issue 4 by presenting 2 case precedents as mentioned in their memo. The judges question the speaker with regard to legitimacy of the agency report and agree that the report is not binding. The judges ask the speaker to sum up her arguments. Speaker sums up her two issues. Respondent speaker 2 starts to address issues 3 and 4. Speaker presents that the right to privacy is not just a vertical but horizontal right also. She addresses 2 case precedents, one being Kaushal Kumar case. The judge poses a section under the IT Rules and questions the speaker in this regard. The judges and the speaker argue on what is the basis for “additional information” as mentioned in their app. Speaker is asked to sum up her arguments and is given an extension in time. Petitioner speaker 1 argues in her rebuttal against the statements made by respondents. Petitioner argued keeping the Vinod Kumar case as her precedent. Respondent speaker 1 presents sur-rebuttal against the arguments of the petitioners. The judges and participants have vacated the court hall. |
| Court Hall 6 | Alwyn Sebastian and Aditi Roy | 2.32
2.34 2.36 2.38 2.39 2.41 2.44 2.45 2.48 2.50 2.51 2.52 2.55 2.57 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.10 3.12 3.14 3.15 3.17 3.19 3.21 3.24 3.25 3.28 3.31 3.32 3.35 3.38 3.39 3.41 3.44 3.47 |
The participants have entered the court hall and the judges have also entered the court.
The judge has asked the petitioner to brief the facts. Speaker 1 asked the judges to move on with the arguments. The petitioner claims about the consent. The judge asks a question to the petitioner regarding section 8 of the Act. The judges ask whether section8 and section 9 violate fundamental rights of an individual. Speaker 1 has exceeded the time. Speaker 1 asks to strike down section 18,20 and 22 of the Act. The judge asks about the facts of Justice K.S.Puttaswamy case. The judge asks whether section 8 fulfills the test of reasonableness. The judge is emphasizing that the Speaker should not compile the functions of both legislature and executive. Speaker 1 has moved to the second issue and the time has already been exceeded. The judge questions whether the petitioner has any other case than K.S. Puttuswamy case. Speaker answered that they only have Puttaswamy case. Speaker1 has handed over issue 3 and 4 to Speaker 2. Speaker 2 has started arguing and has started by stating a case. The judge has asked a question and the petitioner answered the question. Speaker 2 argues that the consent can be withdrawn in the policy and does not invade privacy. Speaker 2 has moved to the 4th issue and argues that the petitioner is involved in healthy competition and the judge emphasizes that the petition is dismissed. Speaker 2 has referred to a case in order to state that the information will be safely kept and is not violating any privacy. The judge asks the speaker to read section 3 of the Competition Act. The judge asks Speaker 1 to refer to the moot proposition for getting more clarity. The judge asks Speaker 1 to read about section 423 of the Companies Act. The prayer is submitted by the petitioner side. Speaker 1 of respondent side has started with issues. Speaker 1 states that Section 18,19 and 22 of the Digital Protection Act are not violating the fundamental rights of the Union of Kennedy. The judge asks a question whether there is excessive delegation and speaker 1 answers that the government is not excessively delegating its powers. The judge asked the Speaker that on whose behalf the council is presenting the case and the speaker answers that the counsel was on behalf of the government. The judge asks for clarifications on section 18 of the Act and Speaker 1 has kept the question to answer by the end of the session. The judge asks the counsel to move to the second issue. Speaker 1 of the respondent side has referred to Section 69 of IT Act. The issues were then handed over to speaker 2. It was submitted by Speaker 2 that Bluetick gets only required information and the information is end-to-end encrypted. The information collected by Bluetick is for improving the transactions and has stated para 7 of the moot proposition. The judge confirmed whether speaker 2 is representing the Competition Commission or not.The judge also remarked that speaker 2 is contradicting. Speaker 2 moves to the fourth issue. The judge asks speaker 2 to directly say yes or no to the fourth issue. The judge asked about the contention of the speaker. The judge convinces the speaker 2 that they are representing the commission and not Bluetick. The judge asks about a case for more clarifications and facts. The prayer was submitted by the respondent side. The petitioner came up for rebuttal and the judge questioned why they are petitioners. The judge asked whether they could include the government to blanket exemption. The judge emphasizes that speaker 1 of the respondent side should be well versed with all the issues and should not pass to the other speaker. The judge asks about issue 3 and 4 of the moot proposition and to answer a yes or no to the same. The judge asks the speaker to read the constitution later and to have a better view of the same.
The participants are asked to wait outside the courthall for scoring. |
| Court Hall 8 | Shurti Ashok and Jyothi | 2:25
2:30 2:32 2:33 2:41 2:43 2:45 2:46 2:47 2:51 2:53 2:56 2:59 3:01 3:03 3:05 3:06 3:07 3:08 3:11 3:15 3:17 3:18 3:20 3:22 3:25 3:26 3:28 3:29 3:30 3:31 3:32 3:33 |
The judges and participants have entered the court hall
With the permission of both the judges speaker 1 for the petitioners has started with the facts of the case Speaker 1 has started with the arguments for issue 1 Speaker 1 is being questioned about consent and Section 7 of the Data Protection Act Speaker 1 is talking about Sec.18 of the Data Protection Act The judge is questioning speaker 1 about exemptions in statute. The speaker mentions the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment. Speaker 1 proceeds with the arguments for issue 2. Speaker 1 has exceeded her time and is given an extension of 1 minute. The judge asks a question as to how the government is violating the fundamental rights The speaker mentioned the case of RamJethMalani v. Union of India The judge asks a question about how the government’s actions can be deemed to be unreasonable With the permission of both the judges, speaker 2 for the petitioner starts the arguments for issue 3. The judge asks the speaker as to what the modus operandi of Blue Tick is for not having an opt out option Speaker 2 discusses the Competition Act The judge questions the speaker about the parameters for dominant position Speaker 2 has exceeded his time and is given an extension of 2 mins, and proceeds with the arguments for issue 4. Speaker 2 is given an extension of 30 seconds to summarize his arguments. Speaker 2 proceeds with the prayer, and the judges ask him a question pertaining the same. With the permission of both the judges, speaker 1 for the respondents has started with the arguments for issue 1. The judges question the speaker as to her position in representing the government. The judge has asked a question regarding the scope of rule Speaker 1 is being questioned about the arbitrariness of the Act. The speaker has exceeded the time, gets an extension of 2 mins and mentions the two test theory under Article 14 and the case of Govt of A.P v. Lakshmi Devi Speaker 1 moves on to the arguments for issue 2. With the permission of both the judges, speaker 2 for the respondents has started with the arguments for issue 3. The speaker mentions the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment The judge questions the speaker regarding the privacy policy. The speaker moves on to the arguments for issue 4. The speaker mentions the case of Sri Vinod Kumar Gupta v. Whatsapp Inc. Speaker 2 has exceeded the time and is granted an extension of 1 minute. Speaker 2 moves on to the prayer Speaker 2 for the petitioner has started with the rebuttal Speaker 2 for the petitioner has gotten an extension of 20 seconds for the rebuttal Speaker 2 for the respondent has started with the surrebuttal. |
Draw of Lots: 11:00 AM – 11:30 AM
The fixtures for the Octa-final rounds are as follows:
Fixtures __ 13th NMCC 22-23 – Octafinals
Judges Briefing: 1:30 PM TO 2:30 PM
Octa Finals: 2:30 PM – 3:45 PM
DAY 1: 10th February 2023
Inaugural Ceremony : 9:30 A.M to 11 A.M
The 13th Edition of National Moot Court Competition, of School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), scheduled from 10th – 12th February, 2023 in the Bangalore Central Campus.
Chief Guest – Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) N Kumar, President, Judicial Academy of Karnataka and Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka
Guest of Honor – Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) K N Phaneendra, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka and Upalokayukta
Guest of Honor – Mr Ravi Raghavan, Senior Partner, Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys
9:36 a.m: The introductory statement begins with a brief monologue on the panelists for today as well as a succinct description on the NMCC.
9.39 a.m: The panelists initiate the lamp lighting ceremony in order to inaugurate the auspicious ceremony.
9.42 a.m: The head of the Department of School of Law, Ma’am Sapna, delivers the welcome address and warmly welcomes the two guests, Mr Ravi Raghavan (Senior Partner, Laskhmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys) and Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) K N Phaneendra (Former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka and Upalokayukta). Furthermore, she deemed their presence to be of the highest honour that could be bestowed on the NMCC event.
9.46 a.m: Following what was quite an outstanding performance by the SLCU choir, the guests were escorted to the dais.
9.52 a.m: The Pro Vice Chancellor, Rev. Fr. Joseph CC addressed the gathering and spoke in length on about how legends are not born but are made through their constant desire to succeed despite the hardships in life.
10.02 a.m: The first guest, Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) K N Phaneendra was given a warm welcome by Mr. Ashwin Kunal Singh, Assistant Professor, School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University). Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) K N Phaneendra began by addressing the students on how they should aspire to be judges in the future and how litigation could probably change their lives.
10.36 a.m: The second panelist, Mr Ravi Raghavan, Senior Partner and Regional Head, Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys, explained the way in which cases should be analysed while keeping the facts of the case in mind.
He also elucidated on the various ways in which provisions can be interpreted and understood by law students.
10.59 a.m: Towards the end of the ceremony, the HOD declared the competition open.
11.02 a.m: The panelists leave the dais.
SCC Briefing for Participants: 11:15 A.M to 12:15 P.M
We thank our Knowledge Partners, SCC Online and Eastern Book Company, for being a part of this event!
SCC Online is a legal research platform that provides access to a comprehensive database of Indian case laws, legislation, and commentary. During an orientation session for SCC Online, attendees are likely to learn about the various features and functionality of the platform.
The SCC Online platform is designed to help legal professionals and researchers access the most relevant and up-to-date information on Indian law. The platform features a vast database of case law, legislation, and commentary, making it an essential resource for anyone working in the field of law in India.
As part of the Knowledge Partnership, an orientation session was organized to aid the the participants and attendees to the various search tools and functions available on the platform. These include advanced search options, such as Boolean operators and field-specific searching, as well as the ability to save and organize search results for future reference.
The session was facilitated by Chetan Singh Gill, Senior Manager at Eastern Book Company with assistance from Allen Benny Mathews, Student Ambassador, SCC Online – EBC Reader, 2022-23. The attendees were shown how to access and use the platform’s extensive collection of Indian case law. This included cases from the Supreme Court of India, High Courts, and Tribunals, as well as case law from other countries that have been cited in Indian court decisions.
Attendees also learned about the platform’s comprehensive collection of Indian legislation, including the Indian Constitution, Central Acts, and State Acts. They were shown how to search for specific legislation, as well as how to browse the legislation by topic or jurisdiction.
The session covered the platform’s collection of legal commentary, including articles, treatises, and journals. Attendees would learn how to access this valuable resource, and how it can be used to supplement their understanding of complex legal issues.
Finally, the session concluded with a Q&A session, allowing attendees to ask any remaining questions and clarify any points of confusion. The session’s goal was to provide attendees with a thorough understanding of the SCC Online platform and how to use it effectively to support their legal research and analysis, which from the feedback from the attendees, were achieved.
In conclusion, the orientation session on SCC Online gave an excellent opportunity to legal professionals and researchers to learn about the platform’s capabilities and how to use it to support their research and moot.
Lunch: 12:30 P.M onwards
Draw of Lots: 1:30 P.M – 2:00 P.M
The draw of lots in a moot competition refers to a process where teams are randomly selected to participate in the competition. This is done to determine the pairing of teams for the preliminary rounds of the competition, as well as to allocate teams to different courtrooms for the preliminary rounds.
The purpose of the draw of lots is to ensure fairness and impartiality in the competition, as it ensures that the allocation of teams to different rounds and courtrooms is done in a random and unbiased manner. This helps to eliminate any potential biases or advantages that might otherwise arise from a manual allocation of teams, and ensures that all teams have an equal opportunity to perform to the best of their abilities.
In most moot competitions including this one, the draw of lots is conducted in a public setting, and is witnessed by representatives from each participating team.
The fixtures for the rounds are as follows:
Fixtures __ 13th NMCC 22-23 – Prelims 1
Fixtures __ 13th NMCC 22-23 – Prelims 2
THE RESEARCHER’S TEST : 2:30 PM – 3:30 PM
The researcher’s duties include performing in-depth legal research to locate pertinent legislation, court decisions, and other legal sources that may be utilized to enhance the team’s position. Reviewing lower court judgements, appellate court opinions, and pertinent law review articles may be required. The researcher should get familiar with the particular rules of procedure and evidence that are applicable in the mock court and should collaborate with the rest of the team to establish tactics for effectively utilizing these rules.
In addition to conducting legal research, the researcher may also play a key role in drafting the written brief that is submitted to the judges. The brief should be well-organized, clearly written, and persuasive, and should present the team’s argument in a logical and coherent manner. The researcher shall assist the team in answering questions from the judges and other competitors, and should be able to explain the legal basis for their argument with clarity and confidence.
Pursuant to this, the Researcher’s Test, under the blanket of the 13th NMCC, is thus a flagship event wherein 28 researchers will compete with each other in order to determine who the Best Researcher is! This test, scheduled to be held at 2.30 pm, would require the participants to answer 25 Questions for two marks each which is intended to test their procedural knowledge.
JUDGES’ BRIEFING 2:30 PM – 3:30 PM
The judges that are supposed to preside over the moot competition were briefed in detail at 3 pm about the rules and regulations that should be followed in the NMCC. Moreover, any doubts they may have with respect to the moot proposition were cleared through this briefing.
Preliminary Round 1
| Court Hall Number | Judges | Time Stamp | Remarks |
| Court Hall 1 | Subrahmanya Kaushik R S
Maya Menon |
3:20
3:35
3:41 3:50 3:51 3:54 3:56 3:57 4:02 4:04 4:06 4:07 4:11 4:12 4:14 4:19 4:21 4:22 4:25 4:27 4:32 4:33 4:34 4:35 4:37 4:39 4:41 4:46 4:48 4:51 4:52 4:55 4:57 5:10 5:17 5:18 |
Judges have joined the breakout room and are waiting for the participants to join.
The participants of the Respondent side have joined the court hall. The participants of the Petitioner side have joined the court hall. There was a confusion among the participants and judges asked the petitioner to proceed with the arguments according to their memorial. Participant one from the Petitioner side approached the bench after seeking permission from the judges. Judges questioned what order the Petitioner was challenging. The Petitioner has started with Issue 1. The judges questioned about Puttaswamy v. Union of India. The judges gave the Petitioner 2 mins extra to conclude her arguments. Speaker 1 of Petitioner’s side exceeds her time limit but the same is not objected by any of the judges. The judges continue to ask more questions. Speaker 2 of Petitioner side has started her arguments. How it violates the IT act. Judges question the speaker about bluetick and how they can trust the international undercover agency. The judges ask if the SC can consider the undercover agency and if the court can give judgment based on an article. The speaker exceeds the time limit and the same is not objected to by any of the judges. The judges continue to question regarding the order passed by the magistrate. The speaker moves on to the prayer. Speaker 1 starts presenting her arguments regarding the 1st Issue after seeking permission from the judges to address them collectively as your lordship which nobody objects to. The judges asks the speaker to look into the act as she was not able to justify her point. The judges question the speaker regarding Publicly available personal data and infringement of privacy. Speaker proceeds to section 19 of the act. Speaker exceeds the time limit. Judges question on how to deal with excessive delegation. The speaker proceeds with the second issue. Speaker 2 from the Respondent side starts with his arguments. The judges question him if it is lawful or unlawful according to him. A question regarding the test of proportionality is asked. The judges question him on the issue of privacy as to why you are bound to give permission and to substantiate with material. The Judges ask questions based on issue 3. The speaker exceeds the time limit and the same is not objected to by any of the judges. The speaker moves onto prayer and the judges ask if they have to allow the petition or dismiss the petition. Speaker 1 from the petitioner moves onto rebuttal. The Respondents were unable to answer the question raised by the petitioner. Participants from both sides go out as the judges start their scoring and discussions. The judges started with the feedback. The judges finished feedback and the score sheets are distributed to the respective teams for reference. The participants are requested to step out as their round is over. |
| Court Hall 2 | Abhilash Srinthan |
3:26
3:42 3:50 3:52 3:54 3:59 4:00 4:02 4:03 4:05 4:07 4.10 4:10 4:12 4:13 4:15 4:18 4:19 4:21 4:23 4:26 4:28 4:30 4:32 4:35 4:38 4:39 4:40 4:43 4:45 4:48 4:49 4:55 4:57 4:59 5:01 5:05 5:06 5:07 5:09 5:10 5:12 5:13 5:28 5:34 |
The judges have joined the court hall and are waiting for the participants to join.
The participants have joined the Court Hall. With the permission of the judges, speaker 1 for the Petitioner has started mentioning the facts of the case. Speaker 1 is confidently answering the question posed by the judges regarding the facts of the case. Speaker 1 moves before the bench and starts laying down her arguments regarding issue no. 1 before the judges. The speaker 1 is answering the questions put forth by the judges. The judges question speaker 1 about the accuracy of the data collected. Speaker 1 moves on to issue 2. The judges question about the software Unicorn, for which the speaker 1 answers confidently. The judges question what are the fundamental rights violated because of the software. The speaker 1 talks about the various rights being violated. The judge asks whether freedom of press is a fundamental right, to which the speaker 1 provides her facts about it being a fundamental right. The speaker 1 has concluded her arguments. Speaker 2 has approached the bench and has started with his arguments. Speaker 2 talks about Section 2 of the Companies Act. The judges ask about who speaker 2 is representing. Speaker 2 says that he is representing Bluetick. Speaker 2 talks about the company’s policies and directs the judges attention to it. The judges ask about the information retained by the company to which the speaker 2 replies that only Bluetick can see the messages sent by the sender. The judges ask how the company will bifurcate the information which is required by the company. Speaker 2 confidently answers the things which are required by the company. The judge asks whether the company is ready to comply with the data protection bill provided by the government. Speaker 2 says that the company will comply with the bill and do whatever is required by the government. The speaker 2 exceeds the time limit. The judges do not object to the extension of the time limit requested by the speaker. The speaker 2 now argues for the fourth issue. He brings the judges’ attention to the Competition Act. The judges question about the article provided in the proposition. The judges ask speaker 2 to wrap up in 30 seconds. The judges ask speaker 2 to move on to the prayer. The speaker couldn’t comprehend what the judges said at the first, hence there was a bit of confusion. The speaker 2 says the prayer. The judges discuss among themselves. Speaker 1 for the respondent approaches the bench and begins his opening statement. Speaker 1 argues that the sections are not violative of the fundamental rights. The judges ask which clause of the act does it belong to. Speaker 1 replies confidently. Speaker 1 has used Puttaswamy v. Union of India as reference. Speaker 1 draws the attention of the judges to section 8 of the Competition Act. Speaker 1 exceeds his time limit. The judges agrees to extend the time limit for the speaker to respond to the questions imposed by the judges. Speaker 1 begins his arguments on the second issue. The judge questions how did the software end up on the phone. The judge asks whether respondent party is willing to provide the private data to prove their arguments, to which the speaker 1 agrees to do it. The judge asks the Parliament to rework their documents. The judges ask the speaker to summarize issue 2. Speaker 1 has concluded his arguments. Speaker 2 for the respondent approaches the bench and begins her opening statement. She informs the judges that she will be dealing with issues 3 and 4. Speaker 2 answers the questions posed by the judges confidently. The Judge asks to proceed with the next argument. The speaker 2 talks about section 7 of the Act. Speaker 2 time is up, for which she asks extension from the judges. The judges allow her two minutes to argue. Speaker 2 begins with her issue 4. The judges ask her to be brief about it. Speaker 2 draws the attention of the judges towards the moot proposition for her arguments. The speaker 2 cites references from Harshita Chawla vs Whatsapp Inc. And Others in her arguments. The speaker 2 concludes her arguments. She begins her prayer after seeking permission from the judges. The prayer is concluded. The speaker 2 for the petitioners begins rebuttal. Speaker 2 ends his rebuttal. Speaker 2 from the respondent side begins the sur-rebuttal. Speaker 2 ends the sur-rebuttal. The judges are evaluating the scores. Feedback is going on. Done with the session. Courthall adjourned and scores were displayed. |
| Court Hall 3 | Geethanjali
Raghav |
3:30
3:41 3:42 3:44 3:47 3:48 3:50 3:53 3:57 3:59 4:02 4:06 4:06 4:08 4:10 4:12 4:14 4:17 4:19 4:22 4:23 4:24 4:26 4:28 4:29 4:30 4:43 4:46 4:50 |
The judges have entered the court hall and are waiting for the participants.
Participants enter the court hall. With the permission of both the judges, speaker 1 for the petitioner has started mentioning the facts of the case. Speaker 1 confidently starts presenting his arguments on Issue 1 of the case. Speaker 1 cites the Puttaswamy v. Union of India as reference. The judges as the Speaker 1 questions related to the procedural aspects and the grounds for challenging the case. Speaker 1 now moves on to presenting his arguments pertaining to Issue 2. Speaker 1 of petitioner’s side exceeds his time limit but the same is not objected by any of the judges. Speaker 2 of the petitioner’s side, begins with presenting her arguments on Issue 3 With no questions asked by any of the judges, Speaker 2 now moves on to presenting his arguments pertaining to Issue 4. The judge asks the question related to Issue 4 to Speaker 2 and the Speaker 2 is confidently answering it. The judge asks Speaker 2 to cite a Landmark Judgement to support her arguments related to Blue tick. The Speaker 2 answers the question vaguely and goes forward with the prayer by exceeding the time limit. Speaker 1 for the respondent approaches the bench and begins his opening statement. The judge asks the speaker not to read out but summarize his arguments in speech. Speaker 1 seeks permission to go ahead with the arguments related to Issue 2. The Judge 1 poses the question related to consent. Speaker 1 answers the question with the help of a landmark judgement and the judges are satisfied with the answer. Speaker 2 of Respondent’s side approaches the bench and seeks permission to go ahead with her arguments and starters with Issue 3. Speaker 2 asks the judges if they are satisfied with the arguments and seeks permission to argue according to Issue 4 . The speaker 2 cites the case of Harshitha Chawla v. WhatsApp to support her arguments related to Blue Tick. The speaker 2 explains that only abusive dominance is prohibited but not mere dominance. Respondent speaker 2 is done with his arguments and since neither of the judges objected nor raised any issues the counsel is reciting prayers. Speaker 2 of Petitioners side poised a question to Speaker 2 of the Respondent and in reply, the Respondent’s side argues that the Petitioners Side failed to understand the facts. Since both the parties are done with their speeches and arguments they are instructed to leave the room. The judges are doing the Scoring The judges 1 started giving the feedback Speaker wise and the common ground is not to read from the paper and be confident in speech. The judge 2 is giving feedback to both the teams simultaneously and asked both the teams to understand the facts in depth. Done with the session, Courthall adjourned and scores were shown to both parties. |
| Court Hall 4 | 3.30
3.40 3.58 4.01 4.05 4.09 4.13 4.17 4.25 4.28 4.30 4.35 4.42 4.45 4.50 4.53 4.56 5.00 5.16 5.26 5.35 5.45 |
The judges have entered the court hall and are waiting for the participants.
Participants entered the hall and judges need one more bench memo. With the permission of both the judges, speaker 1 for the petitioner has started mentioning the facts of the case. Judge asked the facts of the Puttaswamy judgment and how it is relevant to their issue. Speaker 1 answered confidently about it. Due to an insufficient amount of time, Speaker 1 moved to issue 4 and judges asked about the sections of the Competition Act. With the permission of both the judges, speaker 1 for the petitioner has started presenting issue 3. The judges started asking about the purpose of the data protection act to the counsel 2. Judge 1 asks about how the violation of data privacy would take place and tells the counsel to use any judgement except K.S Puttaswamy judgement to prove the same. Counsel 2 ended the arguments and moved to prayer. The respondent Speaker 1 has started her arguments for the issues with the permission of the judges. The question as to who is interfering when the public interest is involved was posed and the counsel took 5 minutes to convince the judges. Fundamental right or constitutional right is the question raised by judge 2 and counsel couldn’t convince the judges. Respondent speaker 2 started addressing the issue of privacy policy under section 7 and the judges ask the counsel who is he representing. Counsel 2 tried to convince the judges about the privacy policy with judgments. But the judgments have a mere persuasive value. Judges asked the counsel to sum up the case in a few minutes. Judges raise the question whether government is bound by data protection and can government spy on its citizens. Counsel 2 couldn’t answer to that question. Petitioner started rebuttal, raised the question about fundamental or constitutional right. Respondent did not respond to Petitioner’s questions. Scoring started and participants are outside the court hall. Feedback session started for Petitioners Feedback session started for Respondents. Judges called for joint feedback session for petitioners and respondents. Done with the session Courthall adjourned and scores were displayed. |
|
| Court Hall 5 | Shanika Bhowmick and Archita Prawasi | 3:52
4:00 4:03 4:05 4:08 4:10 4:13 4:15 4:18 4:22 4:24 4:29 4:30 4:35 4:39 4:42 4:45 4:49 4:50 4:52 4:56 4:59 5:01 5:03 5:05 5:07 5:08 5:10 5:26 |
The participants representing both sides have entered the court hall.
Speaker 1 for the petitioner approaches the bench with the permission of the judges and is stating the facts of the case. Speaker 1 starts with her arguments addressing issue 1 and 2 on the constitutionality of Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2022 (“the Data Protection Act”) and the Government employing the services of Dementor that created the spyware Unicorn. The Judges ask the speaker to mention the facts of the case of Chief Information Commission v. State of Manipur that she cited following which the speaker presents the facts in a nutshell. The Judges question the speaker on reasonability and rational nexus with the objective of the act under section 19 of the Data protection Act and ask her if whether or not the right to be forgotten is a fundamental right. Speaker 1 has finished answering the questions Judges asked. Due to paucity of time, the judges have asked the speaker to sum up arguments for issue 2 in two minutes. Speaker 1 has been given an additional one minute to sum up the arguments for issue 1 and issue 2. Speaker 2 approaches the bench with the permission of the judges and informs the judges that she would be addressing issue 3 and 4 of the proposition. Speaker 2 for the petitioner puts forward the arguments for issue 3. Speaker 2 is being questioned by the judges on an argument regarding the terms and conditions policy of Bluetick-social media platform and invasion of right to privacy. Judges question the speaker on an argument put forward with respect to how the opt-out option of the social media platform in question can be looked at to place the onus on the users and to not hold the platform responsible in cases of alleged malpractices. The Judges have asked the speaker to sum up arguments for issue 3 in one minute and proceed with issue 4. Speaker 2 for the petitioner sums up her arguments. Speaker 1 for the respondent approaches the bench following the permission of the judges. Speaker 1 starts with his arguments for issue 1 and refers to Keshava Madhava Menon vs State of Bombay specifying Doctrine of Eclipse and the instances wherein the Government has the responsibility to put forward certain policies for the best interest of the public. Speaker 1 for the respondent puts forward the exceptions under right to Privacy for the Government citing Puttaswamy v. Union of India highlighting points regarding national interests and emergency. The Judges question the speaker asking him about how the the Data protection Act seems self-serving for the government and how the policies put forward are beneficial to the people of the country following which the speaker goes about to confidently answer the question posed. Following the Judges’ instructions, speaker 1 for the Respondent starts addressing issue 2. He refers to the case of PUCL v. Union of India to support his arguments. Speaker 1 requests for an extension of one minute to sum up his arguments for issue 2. He cites cases of Anwar Ali Sarkar v. State of West Bengal and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to explain his arguments with regard to reasonable restrictions. Speaker 1 sums up his arguments. Speaker 2 for the respondent approaches the bench with the permission of the Judges and highlights that he would be addressing issue 3 and 4 of the proposition following which he goes about with his arguments. Judges tell the speaker that they would not be accepting his arguments with respect to the jurisdiction of the court being challenged. As requested by Judges, speaker 2 sums up his arguments for issue 3 and starts arguing for issue 4. The Judges have asked speaker 2 for the respondent what Dominant Position is and what the relationship between Bluetick and Acanti is following which he confidently puts forward the definition asked for and explains the relationship between Blue Tick and Acanti. Speaker 2 for the respondent cites the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India to justify rational nexus and proportionality of the privacy policy of Bluetick. He also refers to Puttaswamy v. Union of India to answer a question that the judges ask him, saying that there are legitimate interests of people involved as far as the privacy policy is concerned. Speaker 2 for the respondent answers a question posed to him by the judges concerning aspects of undue influence possibly exercised by Bluetick to keep the users from switching to other platforms. Judges question the speaker asking him to explain why the policies on paper are not meted out in real life following which the speaker requests for a time extension. Judges ask the speaker to sum up his arguments in 2 minutes. Speaker denies allegations against the respondent concerning privacy policies of the Government requesting a probe into the claims put forward by the speaker which the Judges question the speaker on. As instructed by the Judges, Speaker 2 for the respondent concludes his arguments and moves onto his prayer. Speaker 1 for the petitioner approaches the bench with their permission, for rebuttal. Speaker 2 for the respondent approaches the bench for sur-rebuttal. The participants have moved out of the court hall while the judges score. Participants have seen their scores and the Judges are now giving individual feedback to the participants. |
| Court Hall 6 | 3:28
3:51 3:56 4:01 4:08 4:10 4:19 4:21 4:22 4:23 4:32 4:34 4:36 4:43 4:47 4:50 5:04 |
The judges have entered the court hall and are waiting for the participants to enter.
Participants of both the teams have joined the court hall and verification has been done. Petitioner 1 has started speaking about the facts of the proposition. The judge has raised a query and asked the speaker to read a particular section. The judges have granted an extension of time to the speaker. Petitioner 2 has started speaking and will deal with issues 3 and 4. Refers to the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI. The speaker exceeds the time but it is not objected to by the judges. The speaker is citing prayer. Speaker 1 from the Respondent’s side has started speaking. The judge asks the speaker to refer to para 16. The speaker argues that no Fundamental Right has been violated as far as issue 2 is concerned. Speaker 2 of the respondents side has now started speaking. The speaker talks about the new privacy policy. The time has lapsed so the judge has asked the speaker to summarise issue 4. Rebuttals have started. Scoring has now started. Feedback has started. |
|
| Court Hall 7 | 3:28
3:46 3:48 3:53 3:55 3:58 4:02 4:04 4:07 4:10 4:11 4:16 4:18 4:20 4:26 4:27 4:29 4:34 4:35 4:36 4:41 4:45 4:47 4:48 4:50 4:53 4:55 4:59 5:02 5:05 5:09 5:10 5:14 5:16 5:17 5:18 5:21 5:25 5:48 5:58 |
RSpeaker-respondent speaker
PSpeaker- petitioners speaker The judges have entered the court hall and are waiting for the participants to enter. Both sides have joined the court hall and are waiting for the rounds to start. The verification and details of the time slots are being noted down. The Pspeaker 1 has started speaking about their issues. Judge asked them a question related to the act. The judge asked to state the facts in 2 phases – one in their favour, one against them. PSpeaker 1 is stating facts. She is dealing with issue 3 & 4, and asked judges to refer to paragraph 11 of the moot proposition. She is continuing her argument. Judge asked the most commonly used OTT platform in the state of Kennedy and Pspeaker answered blue tick. Judge is asking if the dominant power of the particular app will make me click on the ‘I agree’ button taking example of Whatsapp, speaker 1 said they will answer in further part of argument. Judge asked the facts of Puttaswamy judgment and how it is relevant to their issue. PSpeaker 1 answered confidently about it. PSpeaker 1 is now moving to issue 4 and referring to the privacy policy in annexure 2. The PSpeaker 1 has extended the time limit and is now concluding her arguments. Judge is now referring to the old question she asked related to dominance of apps like Whatsapp and the app click trap concept and the speaker said she will deal with it later in accordance with the Companies Act. PSpeaker 1 answered the question. Judge asked PSpeaker 2 to sit for 1 min so they could look into the memos and mark points. PSpeaker 2 was asked about the test of proportionality. He started stating it but the team did not have a compendium so the judges then asked how they’ll possibly know the facts and hence asked them to narrate all of it. PSpeaker 2 stated the facts of the Puttaswamy case and moved on with his arguments. Speaker 2 is confidently presenting his arguments. Judge is asking if there’s been any case law which talks about sovereignty and integrity of the country. They named the case but don’t have facts for it and will come back to it later. Judge asked if the committee provisions are binding and the PSpeaker 2 said it is not binding but relevant. Judge asked to summarize the last argument. Judge is asking if the petitioners already have filed the case in companies committee why are they filing it here again. The speaker is referring to the data protection act section 19(1). Judge asked what the prescribed procedure is and the difference between a bill and an act. The speaker answered the question and the time was extended to 2 mins. He is giving a summary of his arguments. Judge asked where the basis of the argument was other than the media basis? Paragraph 13 is being referred to along with a case. Judge questions as to how the article can have a legal sanction. The speaker is taking a while to answer the question. Judges asked to wrap the arguments. PRAYER OF PETITIONER’S SIDE IS DONE Rspeaker 1 came and judges asked who and why should be the respondent and asked them to state facts against them. The speaker1 said that the co-speaker will deal with the issue and is stating facts. Judge asked what is a fair and reasonable restriction. RSpeaker 1 cited Maneka Gandhi v. UOI. The speaker didn’t answer the question. 2 mins are left and the speaker is asked to wrap up the argument. Judges asked if the country should sell out their information if they have friendly relations with other countries? RSpeaker 2 is being asked the facts of the case to which she pleads ignorance. Judges gave 4 mins to summarize the arguments. Judges asked why to suppress the opposite party’s voice then and how media being the 4th pillar of the constitution so they’re relying on the report. RSpeaker 1 ends the argument. RSpeaker 2 reaches the bench and starts addressing the bench. Judges asked do the facts say that Whatsapp v. Competition Commission of India can fully be implemented here as they are the same. Judges asked if the Black law dictionary has been cited by any court if yes then name it. RSpeaker 1 pleads ignorance. Judges asked if reasonable security restrictions have been implemented under the act or not. Counsel responds confidently. Which court decided Whatsapp v. Competition Commission of India and rationale of case? Counsel answered that it was the High Court of Delhi and Whatsapp holds a dominant position as rationale. The judge told not to use her question as the argument. Speaker 2 mentions abuse of dominance of position mentioned in section 4. The judges are not satisfied with the last arguments of the council. And are continuously asking questions RSpeaker 2 is concluding the arguments. PRAYER OF RESPONDENT’S SIDE IS DONE Rebuttals from petitioners side Sur rebuttals from respondents side Judges are discussing. Scoring done Feedback done |
|
| Court Hall 8 | 3:32
3:53 3:58 4:06 4:08 4:10 4:14 4:16 4:18 4:20 4:23 4:25 4:26 4:28 4:30 4:31 4:33 4:35 4:37 4:42 4:45 4:46 4:47 4:48 4:50 4:51 4:54 5:12 |
The judges have entered the court hall and are waiting for the participants to enter.
Both sides have joined the court hall and are waiting for the rounds to start. Petitioner Speaker 1 seeks permission to approach the bench and seeks the necessary permissions to proceed. The judges have allowed the speaker to skip the briefing of the issues and the arguments have begun. Judge questions the discrepancy over the issues framed by the speaker in the memorial which cannot be changed once the court has framed it. The petitioner argues that in light of justice, the issues were tweaked and seeks forgiveness. Speaker 1 transfers the responsibility to Speaker 2. Speaker 2 seeks forgiveness and proceeds to talk about the violation of their fundamental right and the bindingness over the state to protect the citizens’ right to privacy. The counsel answers a question of the judge over the government’s exemption to protect data of the citizen of the country. The judge questions the liability of the government for the breach of data by a third party. The counsel puts forth the concept of public accountability and answers the question. The judge exempts the speaker from arguing over the issue of Bluetick being an instrumentality of the State and tells him to proceed with other arguments. The speaker 2 proceeds with Issue 4. The judge cites Page 8 of their memorial and asks a question. The counsel seeks forgiveness. The judge questions the government’s liability when a Data Protection Board is already in place. The counsel contends that the government holds responsibility in event of a breach. The counsel proceeds to the prayer and the judge questions their manners in event of their teammates not standing. Counsel seeks apologies and proceeds. The respondent counsel speaker seeks permission to approach the bench and states the time splits for the reference of the judge. The counsel states that he will be dealing with Issues 1 and 2. The counsel puts forth a perspective and the judges interject. The counsel proceeds with a newer argument. Speaker 1 confidently argues that the intervention of the Government is justified. The counsel explains the concept of deemed consent and correlates it to Section 8. The judge cites Section 8(8) of the Act and Section 2(18) which defines public interest and questions the inconsistency. The counsel states the doctrine of harmonious construction and justifies the same. Counsel seeks permission to deal with the next Section. The judge questions the existence of a rational nexus of this act with the four pringed test laid down in K S Puttaswamy vs UOI. The judge allows an additional two minutes of argument. The judge cites the report on paragraph 13 of the moot proposition and questions how it can be “baseless”. The counsel answers that the authority is not a constitutional one and that is why it is to be considered as illegitimate and baseless. The counsel 2 seeks permission to approach the bench and states that he would be dealing with issue 3 and 4. The counsel is taken off the road when he misstates a contention and the judge aggressively questions it. The counsel allows for some silence while the judges look through their memorial. The counsel states that the no opt-out policy gives scope for abuse of dominant position. The counsel states that for the reason that they do not have an alternative. The judge questions the abuse of dominance because there is no act of sale involved. The counsel takes extra time without permission. The judge and counsel exchange a series of arguments over the division of paid and unpaid state in the data transaction. The judge provides the counsel with extra time and tells him to wrap up with the prayer. The counsel seeks permission to deal with issue 4. The judge tells him to summarize it in 30 seconds. The counsel deals with the same and proceeds with the prayer. The counsel proceeds to the rebuttal and the judge states that the counsel can only rebut to the argument and not bring in fresh perspectives. The counsel points out to a fallacy in the facts that the respondents stated in the facts. Respondent Speaker 1 answers the rebuttal by justifying the fallacy through the K S Puttaswamy case. The judges are scoring the participants The participants were called back in. The feedback is being given |
|
| Court Hall 9 | VidyhashreePrateek | 3:30
3;45 3:50 3:55 3:57 3:59 4:00 4:02 4:06 4:10 4:11 4:13 4:15 4:17 4:18 4:21 4:23 4:28 4:30 4:32 4:35 4:36 4:45 |
The judges have entered the court hall and are waiting for the participants to enter.
The participants from both the sides have entered and are seated.
The speaker 1 from the petitioner’s side has approached the bench and has proceeded with the arguments without stating the facts. The speaker 1 has quoted the ‘ Shaira Bano case’ and is proceeding with the 1st issue. The speaker 1 has started proceeding with the 2nd issue without any questions being asked by the judges. The speaker 1 is talking about the ‘Right of Privacy’ and has quoted certain judgments. The speaker 2 from the petitioner’s side has approached the bench and has proceeded with her arguments on the 3rd issue. The speaker 2 claims that fundamental rights under article 21 has been violated and has further proceeded to elucidate on the same. The judge has asked a question relating to how exactly is the right of privacy violated with respect to the various apps used online. The speaker 2 has completed her submission on the said issues. The speaker 1 from the respondent side has started her arguments without stating the facts. The judge has asked a question pertaining if the section 7 and 8 are contrary to each other. The speaker was not able to answer the said question and has proceeded with the 2nd issue. The judge has asked another question that if the union has the right to obtain the personal information of the citizens and how will that affect the privacy situation. The speaker 1 was able to answer the above question and was posed with another question relating to the ‘Puttaswamy Judgment’ which she was not able to answer. The speaker 2 from the respondent’s side has started his arguments pertaining to issue 3. The speaker 2 is discussing Section 3 of the IT act. The judge asked a question relating to the privacy of citizens and information leaking where the speaker was not able to convince the judge with his answer. The speaker 2 is now proceeding with the prayer as directed by the judges. The petitioner’s are now moving on with the rebuttals. The judge has asked a question relating to data fiduciary and consent to the speaker 1 from the petitioner’s side which the speaker has answered and convinced the judges regarding the same. The respondent had no counter arguments for the rebuttals posed by the petitioners. The judges have started scoring. The judges have finished the scoring and have started the feedback. |
| Court Hall 10 | Joseph and Divyang | 3:35
3:52 3:54 3:57 4:00 4:04 4:06 4:09 4:14 4:17 4:20 4:22 4:25 4:26 4:30 4:33 4:36 4:37 4:40 4:43 4:47 4:49 4:51 5:10 |
Judges have entered the courthall and are waiting for the participants to enter.
The participants have entered and are seated. Speaker 1 for the petitioners has begun with the arguments, discussing issues 1 and 2. Speaker 1 has started arguing issue 1 after summarizing the facts. Judges question the speaker on “Sensitive” and “Non-sensitive” personal data. The speaker is arguing about fundamental right violation, with specific reference to Art. 21. Speaker has exhausted time and has requested additional 2 minutes for arguing issue 2 briefly. Speaker 1 argues a violation under S 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the case PUCL v. UoI Petitioner speaker 2 approaches the bench and argues issue 3, regarding privacy violation owing to data-sharing of users with parent companies after acquisition and relates it to how data was shared with Bluetick. Speaker 2 contends that Bluetick is not a State since it is not owned by the State of Kennedy and nor is it a monopoly, and hence it cannot be charged with privacy violation.
Speaker argues regarding the opt-out feature and Bluetick’s privacy policy by citing the case of Ola cabs. Further, the speaker answers the judges’ question of whether Art. 21 can be enforced against non-state actors. The speaker’s time is up and the judges are posing questions regarding cases cited in the memorial. The judges have permitted an additional 2 mins and the speaker is arguing issue 2 stating that Bluetick’s terms and conditions have not violated any provision under the Competition Act, 2002. The petitioners side concluded with their prayer claiming fundamental rights violation against the Union of Kennedy. Speaker 1 for the respondent, on behalf of Union of Kennedy, has begun the arguments for issue 1. The judges question the speaker on “deemed consent” from the PDP Act, and on further questioning, counsel pleads ignorance. Speaker 1 proceeds to issue 2 with 2 mins remaining. Speaker cites the case Mr. X v. Hospital Z to support the argument that the right to privacy is not absolute. Speaker has exhausted the allotted time and judges pose the question of spying through the Unicorn software. Speaker 2 is arguing issue 3 and speaker 1 requests permission to answer the question about the opt-out policy. Speaker 2 pleads ignorance for the questions posed by the judges. Speaker proceeds with issue 4 and contends that Bluetick’s policy is not anti-competitive, citing case Vinod Kumar Gupta v. WhatsApp. The judges question the speaker on the above case’s ratio. Speaker receives an additional minute to conclude with the arguments and proceeds to the prayer. Petitioners proceed with the rebuttal and are questioned by the judges. Respondents commence their sur-rebuttal and are questioned on why they are siding with Bluetick despite representing the Govt. Feedback |
| Court Hall 11 | 3:55pm
3: 58 pm 4:03pm 4:05pm 4:06pm 4:11 pm 4:12pm 4:16pm 4:20pm 4:22 pm 4:24 pm 4:26pm 4:34pm 4:37pm 4:38pm 4:42pm 4:45pm 4:52pm 4:55pm 4:57pm 5:00pm |
The judges and participants have entered the court hall. They have a short prep time, post which the rounds will begin.
The speaker 1 of the petitioner has started their arguments with a briefing of facts of the case. And the petitioner speaker has further went on to the issue of the case. The petitioner speaker answers to the questions posed by the judges – on “Sensitive” and “Non-sensitive” personal data. Further, the petitioner speaker draws attention to privacy data law, to prove her point. The speaker goes on to answer the questions posed by the judges, meanwhile the time expires out. Meanwhile the judges extends time for 2 min. The petitioner draws the Romesh thapar case. To prove her argument pointers. The petitioner speaker 2 begins her arguments n “opting out of data sharing, anti competitive policy” The petitioner speaker answers to the question: why do the general public need to use apps that breach the data policy rather than using simple apps that does not breach privacy. The speaker moves on to speak about privacy policy, such as the apps of messaging. The speaker moves on to issue 4 of the case, which deals with competition law and how it is affecting the present case. The speaker answers to the question posed by the judges -m “the lock in effect”. The speaker moves on to the prayer. The respondent speaker begins with introduction with the opposing argument with the “triple test” of Puttaswamy case. The speaker draws attention on procedural safeguard and regulation of data. The speaker answers to the question posed “ how is the potential breach, or breach is regulated. The speaker summarizes the issue 2 at hand, and ends with it. The respondent speaker 2 begins her arguments with the objectives of competition law, to prove her points for issue 3 and 4. The speaker draws attention to the Harshita Chawla vs Whatsapp Inc. and Others case. The speaker tries to argue that Blue Tick has abused their position of dominance. The speaker notes about how the privacy contract affects the privacy policy. The speaker concludes with the prayer. The rebuttal and sur-rebuttal proceeds. Scoring. |
|
| Court Hall 12 | Aishwarya and Shilpa | 3:42
3:51 3:52 3:56 3:59 4:01 4:02 4:04 4:07 4:09 4:12 4:14 4:15 4:17 4:20 4:24 4:29 4:29 4:34 4:37 4:39 4:40 4:41 4:42 4:46 4:57 |
The Judges have entered the court hall, have been briefed and are now waiting for the participants.
The respondents have entered the court hall and are seated The petitioners have entered the court hall and are seated The petitioners have started their submissions. Speaker 1 addresses the judges and has been asked to state the facts. Speaker 1 starts with the arguments for Issue 1 Speaker 1 has 5 mins left and has stated the Kharak Singh Jugement Speaker 1 has started with issue 2 and has 2 arguments to support the same has stated the Puttaswamy case. Judge has asked a question from the Speaker Speaker 2 has started with their submissions and deals with Issue 3 Speaker 2 has 8 mins left and takes in support of the Harshita Chawla v. WhatsApp Inc. (2020) and has been questioned about the facts, ratio and the court of the case. Speaker 2 has 5 mins left Speaker 2 starts the arguments relating to issue 4 Speaker 2 has 2 mins left and has been asked about the other competitors and there are Speaker 2 has now completed their submissions and now moves on to the prayer and has been asked by the judges that apart from the 1st issue to elaborate further on their prayers. The respondents addresses the bench and speaker 1 has started with their arguments pertaining to issue 1 The speaker 1 has been questioned regarding the principles related to the international conventions that they had stated. The speaker 1 has now completed their submissions The Speaker 2 has now started with issue 2 and states that the users have also the choice to opt out and has been questioned regarding the section 2 of the Act. The Speaker relies on the information technology act and states that it is in tandem with compliance policy and data is protected The speaker 2 has been questioned regarding the measures being taken to protect the data and relies on the end to end encryption system The Speaker relies on the argument of no social cost and The necessity doctrine and elaborates on bluetick’s dominant position Speaker 2’s time is up and has been asked by the judge to state the case in support of their last argument The speaker 2 states their prayer The speaker 1 of the petitioners has started their rebuttal and have stated that right to privacy has been violated for day to day activities The speaker 1 of the respondents relies on Section 18, similarities of the IRDA and competition act and also states right to privacy not being an absolute right Both the teams have moved outside and Judges have started the scoring. Scoring has been completed and the the participants are shown their score. |
| Court Hall 13 | 3:55
4:05 4:07 4:09 4:11 4:13 4:15 4:17 4:18 4:19 4:20 4:21 4:22 4:26 4:30 4:36 4:41 4:44 4:45 4:46 4:50 4:53 4:57 5:00 5:02 5:03 5:04 5:06 |
The judges and both teams are in the court hall
Speaker 1 for the petitioner has clarified a mistake in the memo and started discussing the facts of the case Speaker 1 has mentioned the K.S. Puttaswamy case The judge has asked a question about a relevant provision, and speaker 1 has mentioned the Shayara Bano case Speaker 1 is talking about Article 19 and the judge has asked a question about delegation of power. Speaker 1 has mentioned Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and has asked for an extension of 2 mins. Both the judges are questioning speaker 1 with regards to the validity of their grievance. Speaker 1 starts the arguments relating to Issue 2 With the permission of both the judges speaker 2 for the petitioner has started arguing for issue 3 Speaker 2 is discussing Article 19 and mentioned the M. J. Sivani and Others v/s State of Karnataka and Others case. Speaker 2 has mentioned Rule 19 of the IT Rules 2021 The judge is questioning speaker 2 regarding the privacy policy, dominant position of the company and ethics Speaker 2 has started with the arguments for issue 2 and has asked for a time extension and is discussing the Competition Act The judge has questioned the speaker regarding a clause in the privacy policy Speaker 2 has moved on to the prayer With the permission of both the judges, speaker 1 for the respondent has started with the arguments for Issue 1 Speaker 1 from the respondents side discussed the Data Privacy Bill The judge is questioning the speaker regarding persuasive value and how a law is made The judge asked a question pertaining to legitimate interest Speaker 2 has started with the arguments for issue 2 Speaker 2 mentioned the case of Govind v. State of MP and is being questioned regarding the interception of data The judge has asked a question regarding a case law pertaining to surveillance. With the permission of both the judges, speaker 2 for the respondent has started with arguments for issue 3 The judge is questioning the speaker regarding the privacy policy Speaker 2 is discussing the IT Rules, 2021 The judge has asked a question pertaining to the IT Act and the speaker has moved on to the arguments for issue 4 The speaker quoted the Competition Act Speaker 2 has moved on to the prayer Speaker 1 for the petitioner has started with rebuttals and mentioned that the respondents have not mentioned K.S. Puttaswamy in their written submission. Speaker 1 for the respondent has started with surrebuttal and has mentioned the Telegraph Act. The participants have been requested to move out from the court hall and scoring has started |
|
| Court Hall 14 | 3:35
3:50 3:57 4:01 4:02 4:04 4:06 4:07 4:10 4:12 4:14 4:15 4:20 4:22 4:25 4:27 4:31 4:36 4:37 4:38 4:41 4:43 4:45 4:47 4:48 4:50 4:51 4:53 4:55 5:16 |
The Judges have entered the court hall, have been briefed and are now waiting for the participants.
Both petitioner and respondent have entered the Court Hall. With the permission of both the judges, speaker 1 for the petitioner has started mentioning the facts of the case. Speaker 1 has begun addressing the issues of the case and structure of arguments. Speaker 1 quoted the Puttaswamy Judgement. Speaker 1 mentions the Maneka Gandhi Judgment. Speaker 1 mentions how Section 19 of the Act has unconstitutional words. Judge questions speaker 1 about Speaker 1’s argument made on Section 18 failing the proportionality test. Speaker 2 with the permission of the bench has begun arguing on Issue 3 and 4. Speaker 2 has begun speaking on the Sensitive Information Rules. Judges asked for a copy of the SIR rules. Speaker 2 mentions Section 7 of the Digital Protection Act. Judges questioned Speaker 2 about arguments Speaker 2 has begun with prayer and is left with Speaker 1 of respondents with the permission of the bench has started addressing a clarification in the facts of the case. Speaker 1 argues on Issue 1 and 2 confidently. Stating that the petitioners have no grounds. Judge questions speaker 1 on the relevance of the word “deemed”. Speaker 1 mentions a public emergency. Judge questions on the why this Act is required Speaker 2 started speaking. Speaker 2 gives the example of Amazon and its functioning. Speaker 2 mentions the situation of Whatsapp and CCI and Facebook and Supreme Court. Speaker 2 starts arguing on Issue 4. Speaker 2 has started the prayer and the speakers as well as the researcher have stood up. Speaker 2 of petitioners has started rebuttals with the permission of the bench. Judges question petitioner about the rebuttal Speaker 1 of the respondents have started the surrebuttal. Speaker 1 finished arguing and thanked the bench. Scoring of the participants has started and the participants have been escorted out. Feedback started, |
Refreshments : 5:30 PM – 6:00PM
Preliminary Round 2 : 6:15 PM – 7:30 PM
| Court Hall Number | Judges | Time Stamp | Remarks |
| Court Hall 1 | Subrahmanya Kaushik R S
Maya Menon |
5:45
5:50 5:53 5:58 6:00 6:04 6:07 6:08 6:09 6:12 6:13 6:17 6:20 6:21 6:22 6:25 6:27 6:29 6:31 6:34 6:37 6:40 6:41 6:47 6:48 6:49 6:50 6:51 6:52 6:53 6:54 6:55 6:55 7:05 7:06 7:10 7:10 7:11 |
The judges have joined the Court Hall and are waiting for the participants to join.
The Petitioners side has joined court hall for round 2 The respondent team has joined the court hall Speaker 1 from the petitioner confidently starts presenting his arguments on issue 1 The judges question on how is it violative of personal rights and fundamental rights The judges question him on section 18 of the act The judges question on article 19(6) The speaker exceeds the time limit and the same is not objected by any of the judges The judges continue to question the speaker on how article 22 can be unconstitutional considering article 19 Speaker 1 concludes his arguments. Speaker 2 of petitioner confidently starts his arguments with issue 3 The judges question about dominant position The judge questions the speaker on not giving an opt out option and what is a relevant market. The judges also ask for examples of apps that provide all services other than this company. The judges questioned the speaker on voting rights and managerial control of the company The speaker proceeds with the prayer The judges question the speaker on how he can request for prayer 2 (Compensation) – interest on political party. Speaker 1 joins speaker 2 in answering the questions raised by the judge on the prayer Speaker 1 from the respondent starts presenting her arguments regarding the 1st Issue after seeking permission from the judges. The judges question the speaker on Public interest, delegation and how its called disproportionate by referring to the Puttaswamy judgment The judges question the speaker on how is Operation of search engines a violation of privacy The speaker answers the questions raised by the judges referring to the sub section of 9 The judges question on how the speaker justifies sub section 2 of section 18 The Speaker 1 of respondent’s side exceeds her time limit but the same is not objected by any of the judges. The judges ask the reply of the respondent for the Section 19 of the act as petitioners refers to it being unconstitutional Speaker 2 of the respondents starts with her arguments confidently Question on privacy policy and end to end encryption On what basis did the govt ask for snooping on people and how will the respondent justify the same. The Speaker 2 of respondent’s side exceeds her time limit but the same is not objected by any of the judges. What was the judgement by Delhi high court on a case law The judges question on Dominant position and violating competition act Speaker Accepts on being in the dominant position Speaker 2 starts presenting her Prayer on dismissing the petition The judges allow for Rebuttal on issue 1 and 2 as 3 and 4 is not completed by either side The speaker from petitioner side raises a question to the respondent for rebuttal A speaker from the respondent concludes her reply to the respondent Both the teams are requested to stay out as the judges start with scoring and discussions. Both teams are called in the court hall for feedback The judges started with their feedbacks The judges have given their feedback base on the teams performance Court clerk had distributed the score sheet to the respective teams Both teams are escorted by the floor volunteer to the waiting room. |
| Court Hall 2 | Abhilash Srinthan |
6:01
6:14 6:17 6:18 6:20 6:21 6:26 6:27 6:30 6:31 6:32 6:34 6:36 6:37 6:40 6:41 6:44 6:46 6:47 6:50 6:51 6:53 6:54 6:55 6:57 6:59 7:02 7:04 7:06 7:11 7:12 7:14 7:17 7:18 7:20 7:21 7:24 7:25 7:28 7:30 7:32 7:34 7:35 7:36 7:38 7:39 7:47 |
The judges have joined the Court Hall and are waiting for the participants to join.
The Petitioners has joined court hall. The respondent team has joined the court hall With the permission of the judges, speaker 1 for the petitioner has started mentioning the facts of the case. Speaker 1 moves before the bench and starts laying down his arguments regarding issue no. 1 before the judges. The judge provides a detailed overview of the article 136 of the Indian Constitution and provides the speaker 1 a clarity about the petitions to be filed. The judges ask about the exemptions to the clause to which the speaker 1 replies confidently. The judge questions about the various aspects of the data principles to which the speaker 1 answers in clarity. The speaker 1 moves on the second sub-issue. The judges question about the essential legislative functions. Speaker 1 answers to his question. The speaker 1 moves on further with her argument. The speaker 1 moves on to the second issue with the permission of the judges. The judges ask whether the petitioners should have filed a petition against the government enquiring about its role to begin with. Speaker 1 answers to his question. Speaker 1 asks the judges whether she can summarize the argument due to less time. The judges ask what provisions of the IT act are involved in this. Speaker 1 answers accordingly. The speaker 2 of the petitioners has approached the bench and asked the judges to begin his arguments. The judges permits him. Speaker 2 begins the arguments. Speaker 2 answers the judges questions regarding issue 3. The judges question about the users data base. Speaker 2 explains how the user data base is being violated in the present scenario. Speaker 2 is now giving the second submission to the third issue. Speaker 2 draws the judges attention to the privacy policy. The speaker 2 is explaining about AI bots which are being used. Speaker 2 asks the judges permission for the fourth submission. The judges inform to make it short as the fourth issue is left to deal with. Speaker 2 has begun with the fourth issue with the permission of the judges. Speaker 2 draws the attention of the judges to the moot proposition for his arguments. Speaker 2 time is up. The judges extend the time for another 2 minutes. Judges ask to go with the next submission. Speaker 2 begins with the next submission. Speaker 2 gives his last submission. He concludes his arguments. Speaker 2 says the prayers. Speaker 1 of the respondents approach the bench with their permission. Speaker begins the arguments of the case with permission from the judges. The judges questions about the IT rules stated by speaker 1. The speaker 1 answers confidently. Speaker 1 talks about General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) based on which the judges question her. She answers to the judges accordingly. Speaker 1 talks about the consent provided by the people who use the various softwares. Speaker 1 refers to the Google and Double Click merger case. Speaker 1 refers to the case of Harshitha Chawla vs. Whatsapp. Speaker 1 ends her arguments. Speaker 2 approaches the bench with their permission. Speaker 2 begins his arguments. The judges question about the sub-section 8 of the clause 8. Speaker 2 refers to his submissions to answer the questions posed by the judges. He is struggling to answer the judges questions. The judges question about the data infringement aspects of the definition provided by the Parliament. Speaker 2 argues that the definitions of public interest is different to this regard. Speaker 2 struggles to answer the questions posed by the judges. Speaker 2 moves on with the next permission regarding to the Data Protection Act on the order of the judges. Speaker 2 quotes the judgement from Hari Chand vs. State of Delhi. The judges ask speaker 2 to wrap up the arguments. Judges ask the speaker 2 to provide satisfactory arguments on issue 2. The judges extend the time for speaker 2 in order to answer the questions posed on him. Judges ask speaker 2 to wrap the arguments within 30 seconds due to lack of time. Speaker 2 concludes the arguments and begins the prayer. Speaker 2 concludes the prayer. Speaker 1 of the petitioners begins the rebuttal. Speaker 1 is done with rebuttal. Speaker 1 of respondents side begins with the sur- rebuttal. Speaker 1 is done with sur-rebuttal. Evaluation of scoring by the judges begins. Feedback by the judges begins. |
| Court Hall 3 | Geethanjali
Raghav |
6:10
6:12 6:13 6:15 6:19 6:20 6:21 6:25 6:27 6:29 6:31 6:32 6:38 6:39 6:39 6:40 6:40 6:44 6:45 6:47 6:48 6:50 6:52 6:55 6:56 7:00 |
The participants and judges are in the court hall.
Speaker 1(Petitioner’s Side) is seeking permission to address the bench and to start the opening statement Judge 1 asks the Speaker 1 (Petitioners side) to brief out the facts Speaker 1 starts her arguments with respect to Issue 1 Judge 1 poised question to Speaker 1 to specify the grounds of the legitimacy test. Speaker 1 positively answers to it by referring to Puttaswamy Judgement. Speaker 2 approaches the bench and seeks permission to address Issue 2 Speaker 2 starts her arguments in respect to Issue 2 Judge 2 posed questions related to the arguments of Speaker 2 about Vodafone Deals v. Union of India Speaker 2 seeks permission from bench to address Issue 3 Speaker 2 takes her arguments further to Issue 4 with the permission of the bench Speaker 2 of petitioner’s side exceeds her time limit but the same is not objected by any of the judges and starts her prayer. Speaker 2 of the respondent’s side begins with presenting her arguments. Judge 2 asks the Speaker 1 to skip reading the sections but to go ahead with the arguments Judge 1 posted a question to Speaker 1 about the validity of deemed consent and asked her to cite a case law related to the same. The Speaker 1 seeks ignorance from Judge. Speaker 1 seeks permission from the bench for extension of time limit and the Bench allows it. Speaker 2 of Respondent’s Side seeks permission to approach the bench. Speaker 2 of Respondent’s Side begins with presenting his arguments in accordance with Issue 3. Judge 1 posted a question and Speaker 2 confidently answers it. The Judge 1 rebuts the answer of Speaker 2 and the speaker positively answers it. Judge 2 asks the Speaker 2 (Respondents side) to cite a case law in support of his arguments but the Speaker failed to answer. Judge 1 posted a question about the sensitivity of data collected through IP Address and the Speaker 2 positively answers to it. The Judge is satisfied with the answer. With the permission from the Bench, the Speaker 2 starts addressing Issue 4 and starts his arguments related to the same. With questions asked the Respondent’s Side presents their prayer Speaker 1(Petitioners Side) presents her rebuttal in relation to the citation of Puttaswamy Judgement by Speaker 2 (Respondents Side). With the Respondents side not doing rebuttal the Arguments and the speeches for the rounds ended, and the participants are instructed to leave the room. The judges are doing the scoring. Scores aree shown to both the parties, Court hall is adjourned. |
| Court Hall 4 | 6.09
6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.25 6.32 6.36 6.40 6.44 6.46 6.47 6.49 6.55 6.56 6.57 7.00 7.03 7.06 7.13 7.14 7.18 7.23 7.29 7.35 7.48 |
Exchanged the memorandum between petitioners and respondents and given 10 minutes.
Speaker 1 is seeking permission to address the bench and to start the opening statement speaker 1 for the petitioner has started mentioning the facts of the case Judges stopped the timer to clarify who is representing blue tick. Reactivated the timer. Counsel 1 continued addressing the issues. Judges started asking question regarding the board Counsel 1 couldn’t complete the two issues with the stipulated time and judges asked the counsel to summarize issue 2 within few minutes. Counsel 2 seeks permission from bench to address issue Judges started asking questions and counsel responded with examples of real life social media platforms like WhatsApp to convince her argument. Counsel 2 pleaded ignorance when judges asked further questions. Council continues addressing the issue of privacy policy. Due to lack of time, judges allowed the counsel to finish the issue 4 within 2 minutes. Judges ask the council the question which counsel 2 is not dealing so the questions are directed to council 1 for further clarity. Counsel 1 even didn’t give proper answer to the judges questions. Counsel ended the arguments without stating the prayer. Counsel 1 of respondent approaches the bench. Counsel 1 seeks permission to address Issue 1 and 2 Judges started asking questions about whether government was aware of blue tick? The judges further asked more questions regarding government power and excessive delegation to retain information to counsel 1. Counsel asked 1 minute to summarize the 2nd issue. Counsel 2 of respondent side approached the bench and asked for permission to move on issue 3. The judges continued asking about the privacy policy Judges allowed more time to summarize the issue of counsel 2. And counsel convinced the bench how is their chat based system different from other social media platforms in union of Kennedy. Counsel 2 of respondent concluded the arguments and petitioner asked permission for rebuttal and respondent answered. Scoring session started Feedback session started for petitioners |
|
| Court Hall 5 | Shanika Bhowmick and Archita Prawasi | 6:22
6:24 6:25 6:29 6: 31 6:32 6:34 6:38 6:43 6:46 6:47 6:50 6:54 6:58 7:01 7:03 7:06 7:09 7:13 7:16 7:27 |
Speaker 1 for the petitioner approaches the bench with the judges’ permission. They instruct the speaker to directly move on to her arguments and not give the facts of the case. Speaker 1 says that she would be addressing issue 1 and issue 2 of the proposition.
The Judges have asked the speaker to not beat around the bush and address the issues regarding the constitutionality of Digital personal Data Protection Act, 2022 (“the Data Protection Act”) and the Government employing the services of Dementor that created the spyware Unicorn. Speaker 1 for the petitioner cites the case of Puttaswamy v. Union of India and goes to argue why section 8,18, 19 and 22 of the Data Protection Act are not violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution separately. The Judges ask the speaker to give the facts of the case to which speaker 1 pleads ignorance. Judges question the speaker on the facts of the case. Speaker 1 for the petitioner cites People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India to argue that telephone tapping violates right to privacy. Speaker 1 sums up her arguments. Speaker 2 for the petitioner approaches the bench with the permission of the judges and highlights that he would be addressing issue 3 and 4 of the proposition. Speaker 2 for the respondent refers to section 8(b) of the Data Protection Act to go about with his arguments under issue 3. Speaker 2 for the petitioner argues that Bluetick should have released a standard form contract and the platform should have an opt-out feature for people to choose to not share their data following which the Judges question the speaker and ask him to specify the essentials of a valid contract in response to which the speaker pleads ignorance. Judges question the speaker on certain inconsistencies in the petitioners’ memorial and his arguments. They ask the speaker to move on to prayer. Speaker 1 for the respondent approaches the bench with the permission of the Judges. He says that he would be addressing issue 1 and 2 of the proposition and puts forward the time splits. Judges question speaker 1 for the respondent to justify his arguments logically as to how the absence of the policy put forward by the Government threatens the security of common people and not just on a legal basis using the terms of National security and integrity. He refers to the case of Puttaswamy v. Union of India highlighting the exceptions under right to privacy. Speaker 1 for the respondent moves onto issue 2 with the permission of the judges. He justifies the Government employing the spyware on the basis of the 3 fold test put forward in the case of Puttaswamy v. Union of India including legality and proportionality. Speaker 1 is answering a few questions put forward by the Judges citing the case of S Prathap Singh v. State of Punjab. The Judges are asking the speaker how protests against the government can be construed as threat to national security to which he responds and concludes his arguments. Speaker 2 for the respondent approaches the bench with the permission of the judges and goes on to address issue 3 and 4 of the proposition. She refers to EU law which is questioned by the judges. Speaker 2 responds that it holds persuasive value. Speaker 2 argues that there is no meaningful choice given to the user wherein they can opt-out of the condition that requires them to share their data due to which the same should be available in the platform. Speaker 2, with the permission of the judges, moves on to address issue 4 of the proposition. Judges question the speaker on why the terms and conditions of Bluetick are abusive. Judges ask the speaker to cite the case she referred to after which she went forward to argue that following an investigation and analysis carried out by Competition Commission of India on the terms and conditions of Facebook, results showed that the absence of an opt out option was considered to be abusive and unfair to people using it. Speaker 2 argues that practices employed by Bluetick are violative of section 4(2) of the Competition Act following which the judges ask the speaker if it is a crime to collect data to which the speaker responds that it is not a crime as long as a meaningful choice is given to the users. Due to paucity of time, Judges ask speaker 2 for the respondent to move onto prayer. Speaker 2 confidently puts forward her submissions and thanks the Judges. Both the teams did not want to go ahead with the rebuttal rounds. Judges are scoring the participants. Feedback session. |
| Court Hall 6 | 6:17
6:28 6:29 6:38 6:40 6:41 6:51 7:01 7:14 7:19 7:29 |
Speaker 1 from the petitioner’s side has started speaking and the judge has asked her to state the facts in brief.
The judge has asked the speaker to give a summary on how the government has violated the fundamental rights of citizens. Speaker 2 from the petitioner’s side has now started speaking. The judge asks the speaker regarding section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act. The judge asks to complete his argument by saying the prayer. The speaker 1 from the respondent’s side has started addressing issues 1 and 2. The judge has asked to state any 3 relevant facts against the respondent. The speaker asked for an extension and the judge granted it. Speaker 2 of the respondents side has now started speaking. The judge has asked the speaker to summarize the issues. The rebuttals are going on. Scoring is being done.
|
|
| Court Hall 7 | 6:19
6:21 6:23 6:28 6:30 6:38 6:39 6:44 6:47 6:50 6:53 7:00 7:05 7:10 7:13 7:14 7:15 7:20 7:23 7:26 7:31 7:32 7:34 7:37 7:41 7:43 7:45 7:46 7:47 |
Clarifications on the error of respondents’ side is being clarified to the judges and the other team.
PSpeaker 1 has been asked to state 5 in their favor and 4 against them. Judge asked when the party came into power. The council first answered wrong and then corrected themselves. Judges are asking questions related to data protection bill like who are the data fiduciaries. Judge mentioned 19(2) and asked a question related to it. Speaker 2 moves to 2nd issue. How r the council taking into account the report of an undercover agency which is not even a reputed one. The PSpeaker 1 answered that it is circumstantial evidence. PSpeaker 1 concludes the argument. PSpeaker 2 starts. Judges asked What are click trap agreements? PSpeaker 2 answers it confidently. Judges asked questions taking examples of Whatsapp and telegram. If basic info is given to Instagram, still ads are shown so u are taking more info than required. Council says all ad preference wise ads are shown. Judges asked what is abuse of dominant position in the market. Counsel answers Judges refer to 2 a(1) and ask for the dominant position as click trap is unfair . PRAYER FOR PETITIONER’S SIDE IS DONE RSpeaker 1 has started arguing. Judges asked for the brief of the facts. Judges r making the clarifications regarding memo. What is proportionality is the question of judges? And a case for proportionality. Council fails to answer. Puttaswamy judgement’s rationale is being asked. Why is using unicorn constitutionally valid and why fundamental rights are not being violated? Council 1 is done Council 2 is being asked if NCLAT can become the responding party . DUE TO PROBLEM WITH THEIR MEMO AND ARGUMENTS TIME HAS BEEN STOPPED. Arguments start again with Rspeaker 2 after the clarifications Judges asked what is sensitive personal data. RSpeaker 2 is referring to annexure 2. 2 mins of extension is provided. Judges asked to prove if bluetick is in a dominant position. RSpeaker 2 says the relevant market is instant messaging and bluetick has a large user base, users won’t be willing to change the platform. |
|
| Court Hall 8 | Shraddha Pandey and
Shruthi Srinivasan |
18:09
18:20 6:21 6:23 6:25 6:27 6:32 6:35 6:36 6:39 6:41 6:43 6:45 6:47 6:53 6:59 7:03 7:05 7:06 7:07 7:08 7:11 7:12 |
Participants have entered the court hall and are waiting for the judge to come.
The judges have entered the court hall The Speaker 1 for the Petitioner approached the court and requests to proceed with the arguments. The counsel states that she would be dealing with Issue 1 and 2. The judge allows it. The counsel contends that Section 18(2)(a) of the Act has no safeguards and is thereby violative of fundamental rights. The judge asks if the counsel contends all the sections under the same to be unconstitutional through deemed consent or any particular section. The counsel puts the question into reserve for the time being with the permission of the judge. The counsel questions the unbridled power of the government. The judge questions if the counsel has any standard to compare “unreasonability”. Counsel 2 approaches the bench. The judge questions the opt-out policy. The counsel states that the privacy policy protects their personal details. The judge questions the right to consent under Article 21 wrt to this act of Bluetick. The counsel seeks permission to Issue 4. The judge allows. The counsel states the availability of choice to the customers allows the same to qualify as a fair practice. The judge questions market sharing of data and cartellisation that Bluetick is carrying on. The counsel proceeds to the prayer. Respondent Speaker 1 seeks permission to approach the bench. Since deemed consent is provided, Section 8 is not unconstitutional. The judge questions the ambit of instrumentality of the state. The counsel states that there is a grounds based exemption given. The judge allows the counsel to take one extra minute to summarise the argument. Counsel 2 proceeds with Issue 3 and 4. The counsel contends that the consent of the users has been compromised. The verdict of K S Puttaswamy vs. Union of India was cited to assist the same. The counsel cited Para 3 of the Moot Proposition which states the opt-out policy and states that consent is forced and vitiated. The counsel introduces a three fold argument to prove that Bluetick holds a dominant position in the market. The judge cites the growth of Signal and Telegram and questions how such a practice is arbitrary since it encourages the growth of others. The counsel proceeds to the prayer. Petitioner speaker 2 rebutts by stating that assumption is not deemed as acceptance. The counsel for the respondents chooses to not sur-rebut. |
| Court Hall 9 | Vidhyashree
Prateek |
6:21
6:24 6:25 6:28 6:30 6:33 6:37 6:41 6:43 6:48 6:52 6:56 7:04 7:06 7:09 7:13 7:20 7:24 7:25 7:27 7:29 7:41 |
The judges are seated and are waiting for the participants to arrive.
The participants have arrived and are seated. The speaker 1 from the petitioner’s side has started her submissions and has proceeded with the arguments without stating the facts. The judge asked a question regarding the fact that no fundamental right is absolute and it has certain restriction so in the present case how is there a violation of fundamental rights. The speaker 1 was able to answer the above question and convinced the judges of the same. The speaker 1 moves to the 2nd issue and has exceeded the time limit, but has been granted an extra minute by the judges for the same. The speaker 2 from the petitioner’s side has approached the bench and has proceeded with the arguments. The judge has asked a question if the Data Protection act violates any right and the speaker was unable to answer that particular question. The judge posed another question whether the Data protection act is favourable to ‘Bluetick’ which the speaker answered by stating that he is not in a position to comment on that. The speaker 2 from the petitioner’s side has exceeded the time limit and has been granted two extra minutes by the judges. The speaker 1 from the respondent’s side has started her submission on the issues. The speaker 1 cites the case ‘ Ashok Pandey V. The state of Bengal and the judge has asked for the citation of the same which the speaker is not able to provide. The judge has posed a question regarding the definition of public interest and the ambit of it and the speaker 2 from the respondent’s side was able to answer the judges question. The judge asked another question on reasonable grounds which was answered by the speaker after citing “Shaira Bano” case. The speaker 2 from the respondent’s side has approached the bench and has proceeded with her arguments on the 3rd issue. The speaker 2 further talks about self-censorship and Article 19 and proceeds to cite a case on the same. The speaker 2 from the respondent’s side further contends on the importance of relevant product market ( Sec19). The speaker 2 has requested for an extension of 1 minute pertaining to the fact that she has exceeded time which was granted by the judges. The speaker 1 from the petitioner’s side has approached the bench and started with the rebuttal. The speaker 1 from the respondent’s side has approached the bench and has started with the surebuttal The oral rounds are over and the judges have started the scoring. The judges have finished the scoring and have proceeded to give a feedback to the participants. |
| Court Hall 10 | Joseph and Divyang | 6:07
6:10 6:12 6:15 6:20 6:23 6:25 6:27 6:30 6:33 6:37 6:40 6:43 6:48 6:50 6:53 6:57 7:01 7:06 7:11 7:14 7:16 7:19 7:23 7:25 7:32 7:35 |
Participants and judges have entered the courthall.
Speaker 1 for the petitioners has begun arguing issue 1 with the permission of the bench. Speaker argues the right to privacy is inherent in Art. 21 as enumerated in the case of KS Puttaswamy v. UoI, leading the judges to question whether such a right is absolute. Judges question the speaker regarding the definition of “public interest”. Speaker 1 has exhausted the allotted time and the bench has granted additional 3 mins. Speaker enumerates on further sub-issues of the issue, pointing out various inconsistencies with the PDP Act and is questioned by the bench. Speaker proceeds to argue issue 2 regarding the Unicorn spyware after requesting an additional minute. Speaker cites the cases EP Royappa and Anwar Ali Sarkar for highlighting the violation of Art. 14 vis-a-vis the employment of the Unicorn software. Speaker 2 approaches the bench to argue issues 3 and 4, and proceeds to argue issue 4 at the outset. Speaker presents 4-fold arguments to prove the abuse of dominant position by Acanti. Judges pose questions on the nature of data sharing and speaker answers by explaining the timeline of Dementor and Bluetick. Speaker concludes issue 4 and moves on to issue 3 after requesting an additional 2 mins from the bench. Judges question the speaker regarding the opt-out feature, and permit the extension of time for 1 min. Judges continue to question the speaker and point out that the issue raised by the petitioners is slightly deviating from the issue at hand. Following this, speaker 2 proceeds to the prayer. Respondent speaker 1 approaches the bench and proceeds to argue issue 1. The bench questions the speaker regarding “deemed consent”. Speaker cites the case of Modern Dental College regarding the reasonability of a restriction on fundamental rights. Speaker proceeds to argue issue 2 and strongly supports the employment of Unicorn by citing relevant sections of the Telegraph Act and IT Act. Speaker gets additional time from the bench to answer the questions regarding privacy violations that were posed. Speaker 1 concludes and speaker 2 for the respondents approaches the bench to argue issues 3 and 4. Judges make reference to the petitioner’s memorial to clarify the representation of the respondents. Speaker proceeds to argue in favor of Bluetick’s privacy policy. While mentioning the utility of Bluetick, the speaker argues in favour of the opt-out option as choice-based to its users. Speaker proceeds to issue 4 and cites various provisions of the Competition Act to enumerate upon “dominant position”. The bench grants additional time to the speaker to answer the questions posed. Speaker concludes arguments and proceeds to the prayer. Bench poses questions to the petitioners before proceeding to the rebuttal. Petitioners proceed with their rebuttal. Respondents commence their rebuttal. |
| Court Hall 11 | 6:13pm
6:23 pm 6:34 pm 6:37 pm 6:39 pm 6:43 pm 6:54 pm 6:56 pm 7;02 pm 7:03 pm 7:11 pm 7:13 pm 7:17 pm |
The petitioner speaker has started her argument with a briefing of facts.
The speakers drew attention to the case of Maneka Gandhi and Puttaswamy to support her arguments – violative of fundamental rights enshrined in COI. The speaker states Anuragha V UOI Case, to prove her point on violation of fundamental right of privacy. further , she ends her argument on issue 1 & 2. Speaker proceeds to advance his arguments on Issue 3 & 4 of the case. Articulating about the “opt out” option of Blue tick. The petitioner speaker 2 goes on to answer several questions on opting out option and how it has been abusing the public. The speaker moves on issue 4 of the case, the speaker contends that the present competition law is capable enough to regulate the data collection industry such as the Bluetick. The speaker proceeds to Prayer. The Respondents commences with her arguments by advancing additional facts to the case. The speaker advances how various parts of the Data protection Act are not violative of the right to privacy. She further focuses on how the act protects, when there is breach in data security or when there is speculation that there is possibility. The speaker articulates how a news article can be considered as credible proof which will help with the case. The respondent speaker 2 continues further with the issue 3 & 4 of the case. The speaker said that the “opt out” option is in violation of IT act. The speaker makes reference to Inland Corporation Case to articulate on how the laws are regulative on the breach of the act. The speaker has further moved on to the last issue. The speaker proves that Bluetick is dominant in the market. And the abuse of dominance is absolutely present. The speaker proceeds to the prayer Both the parties have proceeded to rebuttal and surrebuttal respectively. |
|
| Court Hall 12 | 6:00
6:04 6:10 6:13 6:16 6:18 6:20 6:21 6:23 6:25 6:27 6:32 6:35 6:37 6:38 6:39 6:40 6:42 6:44 6:46 6:48 6:50 6:52 6:52 6:54 6:56 6:57 6:58 |
Both the teams have entered the court hall and have been seated
The judges have entered the court hall and are going through the memorials of the participants The petitioners have addressed the judges and speaker 1 dealing with issue 1 and 2 gives the brief facts of the case. Speaker 1 begins with the arguments and has been asked to state one judgment relating to violation of the constitution and has also stated in support of the K.S Puttaswamy judgment. Speaker 1 has been asked to differentiate between section 7 and 8 of the act and also asked what is section 12
The speaker 1 has 5 mins left and states that the exceptions in the act are vague and void Speaker 1 questioned if the right to privacy is an absolute right and what articles did the act violate The speaker has been asked which court does an appeal go to ? and moved to issue 2 The speaker 1 has exceeded time limit and has been given extra time Speaker 2 has started with their arguments and has taken support of the Google Corporation case, European Competition Commission The judges question the speaker 2 as to how the users are not given the choice to opt out and also questioned the dominance of bluetick in the market The judges question as to where the users have been given the right to choose The speaker 2 moves on to the prayer and the judges question as to if the petitioners are stating that Bluetick has not violated the competition commission as they had stated the same in the arguments The speaker 1 of the respondents addresses the bench and has been questioned since all the petitions are clubbed what are the special leave petitions The speaker 1 has been questioned as What is the reasonable expectation here ? The speaker 1 is questioned as What are the CDPA principles that have been complied ? The speaker 1 states arguments in Support of Maneka Gandhi case The Judges question What is the legitimate goal here and the Compelling state interest involved here as in public interest The speaker 1 has moved to issue 2 Speaker 1 has 2 mins left and has also stated the Bharati v. Union of India case The Judges question as to it is not violative of the constitution the speaker 1 states in support of the Clause 1 of the IT Act. Speaker 2 starts with their submissions The judges ask the the speaker 2 as to how it is violative of the data protection principle Violation of consent principle and violative of art 21 Moves to issue 4. Bluetick is in a dominant position and have a knowledge of the behavioral psychology of the people Is dominance an anti competitive spirit and a judgment to state that actions that are anti competitive spirit and not dominance Speaker 2 moves to the prayer of the respondents The judges questioned the respondents as to What order do you want to be passed Prayer 3 and 4 are in support of the petitioners in line with the memorial |
|
| Court Hall 13 | 6:02
6:05 6:11 6:13 6:18 6:21 6:25 6:28 6:29 6:31 6:32 6:34 6:38 6:39 6:42 6:44 6:45 6:51 6:54 6:56 6:57 6:59 7:01 7:10 7:15 |
The participants have entered the court hall and are seated
The judges have entered the court hall and are seated With the permission of both the judges, speaker 1 for the petitioner has started with the facts of the case. Speaker 1 has started with the arguments for issue 1 Speaker 1 has been asked the definition of a State and the relevant article. Speaker 1 has been given an extension of 2 minutes and is talking about Article 19. Speaker 1’s time is up but has been given an extension of 5 minutes and moved on to the arguments for issue 2. The judge questioned the speaker about law as preventive measure and challenged the strength of his argument Speaker 1 has been given an extension of 15 seconds. With the permission of both the judges, speaker 2 for the petitioner is explaining the facts relevant to issue 3. Speaker 2 has started with the arguments for issue 3. Speaker 2 mentioned the Bharti Airtel v. Reliance case The speaker stated the aim of the Act and mentioned the Preamble The speaker was questioned regarding a clause in the privacy policy and the sharing of data with the parent company. Speaker 2 has proceeded with the arguments for issue 4 Prayer Judges question the prayer With the permission of both the judges, Speaker 1 for the respondents has stated the facts of the case. Speaker 1 has started with the arguments for issue 1 The speaker is being questioned about a case law in the memorial Judge’s question – Are fundamental rights about free consent? Speaker is being questioned on the arbitrary nature of the privacy policy and the legality of his arguments. Speaker 1 has been asked to go back to his respective place due to an attitude issue The round stands dismissed due to the disqualification of the respondents team Scoring for the petitioners is done and the respondents have not been marked due to disqualification. |
|
| Court Hall 14 | 5:55
5:58 5:59 6:01 6:04 6:08 6:10 6:11 6:15 6:18 6:20 6:22 6:24 6;26 6:29 6:31 6:35 6:37 6:40 6:42 6:43 6:47 6:50 6:53 |
Judges and Participants have joined the court hall.
Speaker 1 of the petitioner with the permission of the bench has started with the facts of the case. Judge asks Speaker 1 to expound on facts Speaker 1 has started with the arguments. Judges question speaker 1 regarding arguments. Judges question the speaker 1 on the Puttaswamy judgment.
Speaker 2 has with the permission of the bench started with arguments. Speaker 2 starts with the structure of arguments. TIME PAUSED DUE TO ISSUE Judges question the participants on their prayer. Speaker moves onto Issue 4 of the proposition. The Speaker 1 and the rest of the petitioners stand up for the prayer. Speaker 1 of the respondents seeks permission and starts stating the facts of the case. Judges are questioning the speaker on the facts of the case. Speaker 1 mentions case law under Issue 1. Judges question the validity of the case law mentioned as it is not a recent one. Speaker mentions the situation of Indira Gandhi and the emergency. Speaker 2 of the respondents seeks permission to approach the bench and begins with arguments. Judges question Speaker 2 on the arguments made. Speaker 2 starts with the prayer and the respondents stand up for the same. Petitioners start with the rebuttals. Judges are questioning the petitioners. Speaker 1 of the respondents has started with the surrebuttals. Scoring has started.
|
Dinner: 8:00 PM Onwards
Announcement of Results: 8:30 PM Onwards
Reported By Allen Benny Mathews, Student Ambassador, SCC Online – EBC Reader, 2022-23