The first Oxford India Moot was expected by participants to become a prestigious new competition in India’s mooting calendar.
Instead, it ended with participants relieved at the end of the “torture” that was the moot’s organisation, in the words of one.
The story first broke after moot participant and Amity Law School Delhi student Akanksha Sharma published a blog on Legally India and student website Lawctopus about the moot, held at the India International Centre (IIC) Delhi from 14 to 16 March, following a long Facebook post on Sunday about the incident by Medhavi Gandhi, who told Legally India that she had witnessed the events while accompanying a friend who was participating.
Hi-vis project
The OUSI is one of Oxford University’s “autonomous, independently-financed groups run by volunteers, who undertake to the University to conduct themselves to a high standard and to keep us informed of the events they organise”, according to the university.
The aim of OUSI, which was started by three alumni of Oxford’s Said business school according to a source with knowledge of its background, was to create a strong Oxford University alumni network in India.
The Oxford India Moot was intended to provide a cornerstone and high-visibility branding opportunity for the young organisation. More than 50 alumni and others are listed as being part of the moot’s organising committee, according to its website.
Abhishek V Chhabra, president of the Oxford University Society India (OUSI) alumni association, was heading the moot’s organising committee as confirmed by several participants of the moot. However, his name and picture were removed from the official website of the moot yesterday (though archived on Google cache).
On Saturday, 15 March, Chhabra had been taken to the Tughlaq Road police station in Delhi.
A series of unfortunate events
Chhabra and his driver allegedly assaulted three students from Punjab University’s law school at the mooting venue, according to the alleged victims and several students who participated at the moot.
The altercation reportedly followed a verbal scuffle over the team’s disqualification from the moot for arriving late at the venue, according to the female participant from Punjab University.
She said that the team had argued with Chhabra that the disqualification was unfair owing to confusion about timings created by the organisers, and they had attempted to video-recording Chhabra’s “rude” response on their phones.
“He snatched the phone from [M] and started dismantling it. So [R] goes to him and asks him to give back the phone. [R] takes out his phone. Abhishek snatches his phone from him and starts slapping him. Then [Chhabra] calls his driver and both start beating [R] up.
“At that time I entered that place with my husband. Meanwhile I started recording [on my phone]. The security guard held my husband and [R] and Abhishek groped me. He got my phone in his hand and deleted the video. My husband got my phone back. This was the time I called the police. Abhishek Chhabra was ready to make no apology,” she said.
Within a few hours after the arrest the female team member dropped her complaint against Chhabra. “I am from Chandigarh and it would have been very difficult for us to keep going back to Delhi [to follow up on criminal case]. [R]’s parents forced him to [fulfil] my conditions and he did. I wanted him to rub his nose on my feet and do sit ups and give a written apology,” she commented.
The team said that they would, however, forward a complaint against the organisers to OUSI, the British High Commission in India, and the British Council, whose director Rob Lynes is a member of OUSI’s board.
Chhabra did not respond to a message, email and several calls from Legally India seeking comment.
Awards
The 55-sponsor-strong moot did not hold a closing ceremony for the moot participants except the two finalists, and did not hand out participation certificates to winners of various awards and other participants, confirmed several independent sources who participated in the moot.
On Saturday the organisers had sent out an email informing the participants that the winning citations would be announced via email and on the official website of the moot, because there was not enough seating space available at the closing ceremony venue to accommodate the participants.
The team from Campus Law Centre (CLC) Delhi was finally announced winner of the moot, but the winning team members have to date not received a participation certificate, according to several participants.
So far the winners have not received the promised prize yet of “conditional” acceptance to the BCL course at Oxford University the promised prize of a scholarship from Oxford University Society India, conditional on admission to Oxford University in the ordinary admissions process, which was a major draw resulting in more than 45 teams participating in the moot, which was free to enter. [Correction: Oxford University has clarified that under the competition’s rules a seat in Oxford was never offered, but only a scholarship upon successful admission to the BCL].
CLC's speaker confirmed to Legally India that the closing ceremony had a line-up of “high profile” guests including former attorney general Soli Sorabjee, Times Now editor Arnab Goswami, Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan, MC Mehta and others, out of whom Mehta, Goswami and Bhushan were spotted at the ceremony.
A rude shock
“It didn’t look like the moot was sponsored by so many people because all they gave us was one pen,” commented a participant on the organiser’s arrangements.
Despite sponsors such as Tata, NDTV, Network 18, Wipro, Khaitan & Co, Luthra & Luthra, Trilegal and nearly 50 others, there was no accommodation provided to any participating team and no food, tea or sufficient drinking water were provided at the venue, alleged several participants.
Participants also complained of mismanaged timelines and badly coordinated announcements at the venue.
“[The memorial] evaluation results were supposed to come out on the 15th of February. They pushed it and they pushed it and they pushed it. Then eventually they released it on the 2nd or 3rd of March, so several deadlines were missed. The moot was on the 15th of March so that didn’t give a lot of teams the time to come here [since selection on the moot was based on memorial evaluation],” a participant said.
Another participant told Legally India that the organisers were “extremely rude” and “yelled” at participants in case any clarifications were sought. She said that the courtrooms lacked court masters and had an organiser sitting to “time the arguments on [his or her] phone”.
Oxford University responded in a statement today that it would “urgently investigate” the allegations and the organisation of the moot, with which it had no involvement after the organisers declined the university’s help.
The OUSI did not respond to requests for comment other than in respect of the blog post published by Sharma, stating: “Please note that the contents of the abovementioned post are false and / or misrepresentative and defamatory in nature etc. Please remove the aforesaid post immediately. This email is without prejudice to any of the legal rights of the organizers of the abovementioned competition.”
Legally India thanks Lawctopus for its contribution in reporting this story.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
What is truly sad is the shame the organizers have earned for Indian law schools & legal fraternity in the eyes of a foreign university, & the harm the organizers have done to the self-image of the Indian moot organizers. Here was a fantastic (and one could say 'EASY' considering the brand, the sponsors, the participants) opportunity to raise the bar for Indian moot competitions, but these organizers have squandered that away.
There's only a short commute between such organizers & those behind the cheap Patiala House Holi celebration with belly dancers we read about last week.
Mr Chabbra / OxUniv / OUSI / Sponsors / Moot Participants / Indian LegalFrat = Fail
Indian Legal News Reporting = Win
For all the lies, a case should also be registered against the organizers for cheating and, if they have stolen the money from the sponsors for themselves, a case for misappropriation / criminal breach of trust.
Saying sorry at the police station means nothing and these crimes against the society should be prosecuted.
On the other hand, I am very happy that Abhishek Chhabra had to rub his nose at the girl's feet and do sit-ups. For an Oxford and NYU Graduate, doing sit-ups and rubbing nose on the floor of the Police Station must have been a unique experience.
The best thing is that anyone who Googles Abhishek Chhabra will know all about him. That cannot be a good thing for an aspiring politician....oh wait...actually that works just fine in Delhi...in fact he has passed the first test of establishing himself [...]
He was initially in Law Center II, i.e. the evening law course in south campus of the Delhi University. However, [...], and enroll himself in another center.
[...]
Have you tried contacting the people on the committee for comments? They are listed here www.ousi.org/ois/team and it would be interesting to see how they react...do they share responsibility?? this is why you should not blindly agree to join any committee or panel without doing due diligence just to get a photo printed on the internet!!!!!!!!
if only Oxford university also imparted the wisdom of the British organisational skills...
The winners were bluffed into believing that they'd be given a conditional acceptance into the BCL course.
The real deal was: Get admitted into the BCL course on your own accord. And then you are eligible for a scholarship from OUSI!
Another gross misrepresentation!
Deleting the video on the phone does not really delete it. I hope I am not too late in getting this information to you.
Also data recovery is not really that expensive it cost me around 5000 rupees for a 20GB data recovery in Hyderabad.
Also based on where the video was stored internal memory or SD card, it might be even more cheaper.
All the people who have recorded and got their phones dismantled/deleted etc. Please do try data recovery once ! It will be really interesting to see the action and how Mr. Abhishek V Chhabra is going to defend his actions.
Hoodi
So please, think before you mud-sling.
Problems with the incident are that the complainant (ostensibly) discloses the offence of molestation (Section 354 - assault to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) which is a cognizable and non bailable offence punishable upto RI for 5 years.
The Police Officer (Officer in Charge of the Station) was mandated to register an FIR irrespective of a settlement (complainant being satisfied with the apology) being non compoundable.
Such complaints have most recently resulted in suo moto criminal action against the perpetrator - most recently in the Tehelka case.
I suppose it would be wise to bring this incident within the notice of the magistrate in whose jurisdiction the Tughlaq Road Police Station falls.
Neither was the moot officially organized by Oxford (misrepresentation), nor were the monies used towards the organization of the moot - participants have alleged that there was no water/ snacks/ other arrangements/ accommodation.
Of course, under Subramaniam Swamy, anyone can be the complainant and initiate criminal action (i.e. file a complaint for the initiation of criminal proceedings), as there is no concept of locus standi in criminal law.
Mr. Abhishek V Chhabra was there as a part of organizing team and not as a fellow participant. This comes with some responsibility and there is an expected level of maturity. He is also a law graduate meaning he should know the legal ways of handling things.
I have not heard of "Justified Assault" or "Justified Molestation" so far, but self defense, yes but then what was the impending harm some law school students who have come to participate in a competition, which made him take the way of "Justified Assault" ? Let us leave the molestation part giving him the benefit of doubt that in the process of assault he ended up molesting due to the fact that the other person was a woman.
There needs to be some rationale even to defend some one. Mr. Abhishek V Chhabra, must be held accountable for this hopeless debacle.
Quoting Justified:
It might come out with a conclusion in a month or so - we're still on top of it, but not much has happened on this story, hence no update...
The sheer arrogance of organizers was completely unacceptable. Nobody went satisfied after the competition. Oxford University if wants to seriously investigate the matter should contact the team members selected for the oral rounds. The MOC has the contact nos. of all the members selected for oral rounds.
www.ousi.org/files/documents/Memorial_Evaluation_Results-_03_01_2014_1.pdf
Such was the event organized that i can surely say that they will not even a single positive feedback from the participants of how the event was organized.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first