The University School of Law and Legal Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, is hosting the 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024.
The 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024 is scheduled to be held in offline mode at the campus of the University School of Law and Legal Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi-NCR, from 28th and 29th September, 2024.
DAY- 1
PRELIMINARY ROUNDS FOR BATCH- I
COMMENCED AT 10:45 A.M.
COURT ROOM NO.1
(room no. 110)
At 11:03 a.m.– the court room was presided by Sheetal Gehlot and Sarita Ranga as being the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 8B(the petitioners) and 5M(the respondents). the Counsel for petitioners strongly argued over Article 226 and cited various judicial precedents like the Minerva Mills V. Union of India, Valko Employees Union Vs. Union of India; and argued that policy decision making is exclusively within the executive’s domain. Counsels for petitioners presented there prayers to the judges.
COURT ROOM NO. 2
(room number 211)
At 10:48 a.m., the court room was presided by Sonal Mehta and Tanya Bansal as the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 10B(the petitioners) and 9A(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners presented maintainability of the petition. The Counsel went over Issue No. 1. The counsel further argued over the matters of Article 136, Judicial overview/overreach, separation of powers, use of judicial precedents pertaining to environmental law. There was proactive participation of judges.
COURT ROOM NO. 3
(room no. 213)
At 10:57 a.m., the court room was presided by Renu & Shikha Sharma as the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 7A(the petitioners) and 11A(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners argued strongly on the Disaster Management Act and other relevant constitutional articles like Article 19 (1)(g) and Article 14 with the use of landmark cases like A. K. Gopalan V. State of Madras.
COURT ROOM NO. 4
(room no. 313)
At 11:09 a.m., the court room was presided by Ankit Yadav and Shireen Singh as the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 3B (the petitioners) and 5E(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners address issue no. 3 with the help of landmark Judicial precedents like MC Mehta V. Union of India, Mohini Jain V. State of Karnataka etc.
COURT ROOM NUMBER. 5
(room no. 315)
At 11:16 a.m., the court room was presided by Jessica Marry Mathew and Deepanjali Kashyap, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 3D(the petitioners) and 5K(the respondents). The counsel for respondents put forward their arguments. The Judge asks the Council to define the term National Disaster while the other Judge asked the counsel why should heatwave not be included under the Disaster Management Act.
COURT ROOM NO. 6
(room no. 316)
At 11:19 a.m., the court room was presided by Kanika Garg and Pooja Arora, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between the teams 5J(the petitioners) and 3C(the respondents). The Counsel for respondent submits that state has failed to implement necessary actions to handle the problem of heatwaves, violating Article 21. The counsel further argued that big population requires better policies and implementation.
COURT ROOM NO. 11
(room no. 317)
At 11:23 a.m., the court room was presided by Ritu Paul and Shubhangi Baranwal, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between the teams 5D(the petitioners) and 5G (the respondents). The counsel for petitioners pleaded their prayers to the judges. The counsel for respondents approached the dias and the Rebuttals commenced.
COURT ROOM NO. 8
(room no. 410)
At 11:28 a.m., the court wad presided by Mayank Singhal and Jyoti Singh Meena, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between 9B(the petitioners) and 5I(the respondents). The counsel for respondents argued strongly and comprehensively on various fundamental rights and other legislations. The Counsel also mentioned the ratio dicendi of the Subhash Kumar Case. Right to equality and equal protection of laws was also argued over. The counsel took the consideration of the judges through various important paragraphs of their memorandum. Adequately used the facts from moot preposition.
COURT ROOM NO. 7
(room no. 408)
At 11:34 a.m., the court was preside by Divya Darshan and Garima Kumar, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between 5H(the petitioners) and 13B(the respondents). The court master reminded the counsel that they only had 2 more minutes to conclude their arguments. The Respondents pleaded their prayers.
COURT ROOM NO. 10
(room no. 507)
At 11:39 a.m., the court was presided by Bhavna Sachdeva and Rachita Agarwal, the preliminary rounds took place between 1A(the petitioners) and 3A(the respondents). The judge asked the respondents relevancy of Article 19 (A) and (D). the judge further asked the counsel about the golden triangle of the Indian Constitution (Art. 14, 19, and 21). The Rebuttals shortly began, done by the petitioners.
COURT ROOM NO. 9
(room no. 503)
At 11:44 a.m., the court was presided by Yash Gupta and S. Katiyar, the preliminary round took place between 6A(the petitioners) and 3E(the respondents). The judges provided their valuable feedback to all the participants present
At 11:45 am, the Preliminary rounds for Batch-1 conclude.
PRELIMINARY ROUNDS FOR BATCH- II
COMMENCED AT 12:00 P.M.
COURT ROOM NO.1
(room no. 110)
at 12:04 p.m., the court room was presided by Sheetal Gehlot and Sarita Ranga as being the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 15B(the petitioners) and 12C(the respondents). the Counsel for petitioners presented the facts of the case and cited relevant judicial precedents to back their arguments. The Judges questioned the counsel regarding Jurisdiction.
COURT ROOM NO. 2
(room number 211)
at 12:09 p.m., the court room was presided by Sonal Mehta and Tanya Bansal as the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 11B(the petitioners) and 5A(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners presented maintainability of the petition referring to constitutional articles like Article 226. The Judges asked the counsel to explain article 226
COURT ROOM NUMBER.3
(room no. 213)
at 12:16 p.m., the court room was presided by Renu & Shikha Sharma as the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 5F(the petitioners) and 2A(the respondents). The counsel of petitioners were asked about the facts of the judicial precedents cited by them.
COURT ROOM NO. 4
(room no. 313)
At 12:20 p.m., the court room was presided by Ankit Yadav and Shireen Singh as the judges, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 2B (the petitioners) and 5O(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners argued how the effects of heatwaves are violating the fundamental rights of the citizens. The judges asked the counsel to prove the applicability of Fundamental Rights with respect to his ongoing argument or submission.
COURT ROOM NO. 5
(room no. 315)
At 12:27 p.m., the court room was presided by Jessica Marry Mathew and Deepanjali Kashyap, the preliminary round in this room took place between the teams 5N(the petitioners) and 8A(the respondents). The counsel for petitioners argued strongly on the Disaster Management Act and other relevant constitutional articles like Article 19 and Article 14 with the use of landmark cases like Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan. The judges asked the counsel to explain how the forementioned case is relevant to the presented petition.
COURT ROOM NO. 6
(room no. 316)
At 12:32 p.m., the court room was presided by Kanika Garg and Pooja Arora, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between the teams 5L(the petitioners) and 15A(the respondents). The Counsel for respondent submits that state has displayed failure in responding to the problem of heatwaves, violating Article 21. The counsel further argued that big population requires better policies and implementation. The judges asked the counsel if High court decision is applicable on central government or not.
COURT ROOM NO. 8
(room no. 410)
At 12:42 p.m., the court wad presided by Mayank Singhal and Jyoti Singh Meena, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between 13A(the petitioners) and 5C(the respondents). The counsel for respondents argued strongly and comprehensively on various fundamental rights, Disaster Management Act, and various other legislations.
COURT ROOM NO. 7
(room no. 408)
At 12:47 p.m., the court was preside by Divya Darshan and Garima Kumar, the preliminary rounds in this room took place between 14A(the petitioners) and 10A(the respondents). The arguments concluded and the judges provided their valuable feedback to all the participants present
COURT ROOM NO. 9
(room no. 503)
At 12:58 p.m., the court was presided by Yash Gupta and S. Katiyar, the preliminary round took place between 5B(the petitioners) and 12A(the respondents). The court master reminded the counsel that they only had 2 more minutes to conclude their arguments. The Respondents pleaded their prayers, commencing rebuttals
COURT ROOM NO. 10
(room no. 507)
At 12:53 p.m., the court was presided by Bhavna Sachdeva and Rachita Agarwal, the preliminary rounds took place between 4A(the petitioners) and 6B(the respondents). The judge asked the respondents relevancy of the various constitutional articles mentioned. The rebuttals began shortly after which were followed by sir-rebuttals.
At 01:00 p.m., the Preliminary rounds for Batch-II concluded
At 01:15 p.m., all the judges for the said preliminary rounds of batch I and II were facilitated by Prof. (Dr.) Queeny Pradhan, Dean USLLS, GGSIPU; and Prof. (Dr.) Upma Gautam, Project Director, 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024.
RESULTS FOR PRELIMINARY ROUNDS
At 02:54 p.m., the results of the preliminary rounds were announced by Prof. (Dr.) Upma Gautam, Project Director, 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024; and the concerned results are as follows:-
PETITIONERS
- TC-10B
- TC-3D
- TC-7A
- TC-5B
RESPONDENTS
- TC-11A
- TC-15A
- TC-3C
- TC-13B
The above mentioned 8 teams have qualified for the further round that is the Quarter Finals.
Additionally, all the participating teams, inclusive of there assigned mentors have been praised by Prof. (Dr.) Upma Gautam, Project Director, 2nd Prof. Christof Heyns India School Moot Court Competition, 2024 for their extraordinary efforts as well as hardwork.
The Quarter Final rounds are scheduled to take place at 03:30 p.m. in the following rooms and pairs:-
Room No.- 313- 10B vs 13B
Room No.- 315 – 3D vs 11A
Room No.- 317 – 5B vs 3C
Room No.- 316 – 7A vs 15A
The following Quarter Finals will consist of 3 judge benches in the respective court rooms as mentioned below:-
1. QR-1 (Room No. 313)
- Judge 1- Dr. Sonali Sharma
- Judge 2- Dr. Anandita Yadav
- Judge 3- Dr. Vinayak Jhamb
2. QR-2 (Room No.)
- Judge 1- Dr. Priya Das
- Judge 2- Dr. Ghazala
- Judge 3- Dr. Arushi Malik Mehta
3. QR-3 (Room No. )
- Judge 1- Dr. Misha Bahamani
- Judge 2-Dr. Kavita Singh
- Judge 3- Dr. Sonika Ahlawat
4. QR-4 (Room No. )
- Judge 1- Dr. Anjali Thakur
- Judge 2- Dr. Suhasini Kashyap
- Judge 3- Dr. Tavleen Kaur Khur
The post appeared first on .