•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 24-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in


Welcome to the live blog of the inaugural edition of the RMLNLU SCC online Media Law Moot Court Competition, 2013.

Over the course of next two days, we shall be bringing you a blow-by-blow account of all the brickbats, bouquets, perks and quirks from the RMLNLU’s sprawling campus.

Yesterday saw the inauguration ceremony of the competition which was followed by the draw of lots. The University takes pride in bringing out the first National Moot exclusively based on media law. This year’s problem is largely based on the constitutionality of Sting Operations and the issue of reporting sub-judice matters in the media. We thank Mr. Anand Shankar Jha ( Former Associate at Parekh & Co. ) for drafting the problem.

RMLNLU is proud to host the 27 top law schools from across the nation.

  1. Amity Law School, Delhi
  2. Amity Law School, Lucknow
  3. Amity Law School, Noida
  4. Campus Law Center, Delhi
  5. Chanakya National Law University, Patna
  6. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhi Nagar
  7. Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
  8. Indian Law Society,  Pune
  9. Institute of Technology and Management University, Gurgaon
  10. Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi
  11. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar
  12. Karnataka State Law University, Navanagar
  13. Law College, Dehradun
  14. Lloyd law college, Noida
  15. Mahaveer Academy of Technology and Science University, Raipur
  16. Nirma University, Ahemdabad
  17. National Law Institute University, Bhopal
  18. National Law University, Delhi
  19. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
  20. Pendekanti University, Hyderabad
  21. Rajeev Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
  22. Seedling Law School, Jaipur
  23. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  24. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  25. University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun
  26. University School of Law and Legal Studies, Delhi
  27. Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, Delhi

These law schools shall be competing for a total prize money of Rs 60,000/- , SCC Online subscriptions and lots of fame !

Also we hear that NLS has once again made India proud by making it to the finals of the Jessup World rounds! Way to go NLS!
You could perhaps give all the cricketing frenzy a miss this weekend, grab some popcorn and watch these two mooting events unfold.

Watch this space for more updates.


13:22 : We sincerely hope that the teams have been gorging on the amazing kebabs that the city of Lucknow has to offer. As the Preliminary rounds go underway, the heat in the city seems to be getting to the judges and its going to be a tough nut to crack for all the teams!

13:40 : In court no. 9, NLUD v. ITMU, judges are simply not satisfied with the teams. NLUD has been asked to clarify the parties that they are representing, the second speaker of the team tries to calm the judges with his answer. 

13:46: Symbiosis Pune v. NUALS Kochi, Court Number 12, the lady from Symbiosis Pune broke down in the middle of her arguments. Mr Subhiksh Vasudev is far too kind to give her the pep talk once the round was over in his crisp baritone. Chivalry, Touche!

13:50 : Court Room Number 3,  Pendekanti University, Hyderabad v. Jamia Milia, the counsel has been asked certain questions regarding the half-truth of his arguments. Its a wonderful site to see the RMLNLU Alumni sharing the bench with other people in the industry!

14:06 : Round 1 of the preliminary finishes off smoothly, except when UPES, Dehradun reached their court room late and made the entire committee run around campus to find the team.

We shall see you shortly after lunch for Round 2.


And we're back after a sumptuous lunch served by the Moot Court Committee at the University Guest house.

14:58 : CLC, Delhi v. Seedling law school, the speaker from CLC was asked to differentiate between a Privilege and a right. Smooth sailing so far for the team from CLC.

15:03 : Judges are warning the team to not answer from the top of their heads and make them lose their temper. The room fills with silence for two minutes when judges ask the CNLU team to proceed in Court Room No. 1, against Law College, Dehradun.

15:12 : In courtroom number 6, Amity Delhi v. Lloyd law college, the speaker from Amity gave elaborate case laws to substantiate her 'Presumption of Innocence' argument. Just when it looked like she was taking the argument home, the team had to refer to the written submissions for clarifying a certain event from the fact sheet. Mr Vasudev is really making the teams sweat it out here!

15:34 : The second speaker from petitioners, fails to cite a authoritative judicial announcement  for the meaning of 'reverse sting' in court room no. 3, where judges refuse to accept the case law cited. Finally some action in the courtroom! As RGNUL Patiala faces MATS, Raipur in the second round.

15:40 : In Courtroom number 4, GNLU v. Symbi Noida, the teams were asked to elucidate the facts to few cases they'd cited in the memorial. The speakers from both the sides were stumped. Golden rule of mooting - don't cite a case which you haven't read or if you can't pull off a lie neatly!

16:04 : The Lady Speaker from KIIT is very assertive and confident but is not able to put forth her points clearly. Mr. Ravi Shankar Jha calmly tells the counsel to revisit her basics of 'State' and 'Writ petition' and asks her to stop reading out excerpts from cases. The speaker ignores the suggestion and moves on to summarizing her argument, as the round comes to an end in Court Room No. 7, VIPS v. KIIT!

We are now approaching the final session of the Preliminary rounds. The academic block of RMLNLU is donning the look of an upbeat corporate, what with the judges, committee members and the volunteers, all dressed up in black and white, networking over coffee and more!


17:10 : The team from NLIU Bhopal is able to convince the court to issue guidelines for media reporting, Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, asks the second speaker to come up with guidelines which can be issued. The Speaker fails to give a satisfactory reply, turns out the team had never anticipated to convince the judges and never thought of examples of guidelines. A good thing turning bad for the team, What a Disappoint! A closely fought round between NLIU Bhopal and NUALS Kochi in Court Room No. 12. 

17:34 : Symbiosis Pune v. Amity Noida - It seems that the speaker from Symbiosis Pune initiated a meditation session of sorts right in the middle of her arguments. She's been amusingly silent for an advocate and hasn't uttered a word in the past 10 minutes. Siesta time, may be!

17:47 : KSLU v. USLLS, IP"So we believe whatever you say ?" The judges really want the counsel to talk the talk it seems! They try and be a little benevolent to the counsel and suggest dropping a hint. The counsel however still wants to hang on to the higher moral ground. Hint not taken! 

17:52 : Court room No. 8 was turned into an election rally when the first speaker of the UPES started reading her memorial and turned her arguments into a speech. Judges asked her to stop being a politician and come to the point without reading the memorial. Its never a good sign when you are called a politician! The Round is currently going on between HNLU and UPES. 

18:07 : The Speaker from ITMU finally seems to be delivering the goods for her team. She countered the judgement of R.K Anand brilliantly as was provided by the opposite team. She was pretty confident throughout the argument and used the BMW hit and run case to her advantage. Pretty cleanly done! The judges are smiling from ear to ear!

We are now done with the Preliminary Rounds. Phew. The break for the quarters shall be announced in a jiffy!


19 : 58 

The results of the Preliminary Rounds are out, the tabs of Quarter Finals are:

NUALS, Kochi v. NLU, Delhi

GNLU, Gandhinagar v. Law College, Dehradun

Amity Law School, Delhi v. CLC, Delhi

Pendekanti University, Hyderabad v. HNLU, Raipur


We will be giving you live coverage of the quarters in a short while. 


Quarter Final 1 - NUALS Kochi, v. NLU, Delhi

20: 21 : The lady speaker from NUALS Kochi has been confidently answering the questions that have been bombarded at the team. The speaker is calm and the judges seem to be impressed with her answers. 

20: 44 : The Second Speaker from the team has managed to do equally well as she wraps up her arguments; the judges also seem quite content with the performance of NUALS Kochi. Now that is job well done!

 20: 48 : The team from NLUD is greeted with questions the moment they take place on the podium. The judges try to prove that the Law Minister will be the boss of the respondents. Where they ask the team to name the current Law Minister of India, the speaker dodges the question and requests the court to be on the relevant point. Apparently law students can forget the name of Law Minister these days.

 Or maybe he was just trying to save the court’s time, May be! 


21: 23 : The judges seem to be in a jolly mood as the round is coming to an end, the rebuttals of NUALS were greeted with a smile from all the judges. NLUD was questioned whether they would ask their Kids to read newspapers or not. The entire courtroom bursts into laughter as NLUD convincingly ends their round. 



 Quarter Final 2 - GNLU, Gandhinagar v. Law College, Dehradun

20:44 : The bench comprising of Mayank Mishra, Subhiksh Vasudev and Padma Priya is making life difficult for the speaker from the respondent. It looks like the judges and the speaker are on two different planes here. The bench is consistently asking the definition of defamation while the counsel is still sticking to her argument of Fundamental rights.

Alleging that the respondents had maliciously targeted a specific group of industries vide their sting operation, the bench proclaims “Pull the king down, the pawns come down on their own!”. The speaker is definitely stuck between a rock and a hard place here!

21:17 : The round completes with the judges rejecting the rebuttals and seemed in a hurry rather to leave the court room.


Quarter Final 3 - Amity Law School, Delhi v. CLC, Delhi

20:20 : In this all Delhi showdown, the speaker for the Petitioner has begun on a rather confident note. She is treading carefully and is guiding the bench meticulously through her written submissions. She has been bombarded with questions, and she’s doing a rather good job at that. Against such an intimidating bench, that’s almost an achievement. Feminine eloquence at its best, I say!

21:23 : Practical tip here for would be litigators - "Don't beat around the bush in front of a judge. Just say 'No' in case you're ignorant about the query made!". Adding insult to injury for the respondents!

21:26 : The judges in the courtroom are now just following suit with their counterparts and are in no mood to listen to the sur-rebuttals as they assume there were hardly any rebuttals made from the Petitioners. We understand, judges, its been a rather long and gruelling day for all of us here!

Quarter Final 4 - Pendekanti University, Hyderabad v. HNLU, Raipur

20: 33 : The judges are listening carefully as the second speaker from Pendakanti is trying to prove that the confidentiality of the agreement bars the publication of the agreement, however the judges are not convinced with the arguments given forth and are sensing malafide in the argument of the petitioners.

21: 00 : The first speaker from HNLU has taken podium as the Lady Speaker is arguing that nothing wrong was done by publishing the document as it was true and it speaks of itself. The Court reminds the speaker, that no such document can be taken as truth without the explanation of the author. The counsel tries to focus on the fact sheet where in the Sting Operation has also been considered true by everyone. The Judges tells her that they do not even consider that to be true without justifications! Ouch! There goes the entire argument. 


21: 11: The second speaker seems nervous to argue infront of the immensely knowledge bench of Mr. Debesh Panda, Mr. Sudeep Malik and Vaibhav Sharma. He is speaking fast and not able to answer the questions put forth. The judges are trying to help him by guiding him towards the answer; the speaker is just nodding to whatever the judges have to say. Seems like a classroom, where did the intense mooting go? 



21: 31: The speaker from Pendakanti beautifully summarizes his rebuttals in time, however the lady speaker from HNLU tries to cite case laws to reply which the judges do not take as a befitting reply to the rebuttals. She is asked to take her seat as the last quarterfinal comes to an end. 


The results for Semi Finals are out, the fixture of the semi finals are:

Amity Law School, Delhi v. HNLU, Raipur

GNLU, Gandhinagar v. NUALS, Kochi

The judges are tired.The committee members are tired. And so are we!
We don't remember when was the last time we punched in so much text. Definitely not for our submissions!

Its an exciting day ahead for all the teams who've made it. We shall live blog the Semi-finals and finals tomorrow.

See you on the other side, folks!

Vipul Kumar and Mohit Negi 

And we’re back!!

We shall be giving you the live updates from the semi-finals in a short while. On our way to the court rooms this morning, we saw a glimpse of the plush RMLNLU Moot Court hall being prepared for the finals later this evening. There is just so much exhilaration in the air! Whee!

First Semi Final – Amity Law School Delhi v. HNLU, Raipur

The judges in the panel for the round –
Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayan – Advocate, Supreme Court of India (Known for appearing in the case of Sahara v. SEBI)
Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan - Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Mr. Subhiksh Vasudev – Advocate, Delhi High Court


Amity Law School, Delhi - Petitioners 

11:09 : Chitrangda Sharma from Amity Law School begins the Semi-Final with much practiced ease. The bench however is not in the mood to take anything on the face value. They try and corner her by asking if she’s approached the right forum and has exhausted other remedies before. Ignorance pleaded for the first time by the counsel when the inquiries about a certain case law got skin deep. 

11:25 : The bench seeks specific case law from the counsel saying that the sub-judice matters should not be reported in the media. Clearly, the counsel does not have a specific case in point. But she’s doing a good job with taking the issue in question to a different plane. Red Herring, much ?

11:36 : Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan is seen laughing up her sleeve when she enlightens the counsel that a random media report is not what the Apex Court relies on! Counsel asked to ‘wind up in two minutes’.

11:40 : Speaker 2, Ravin Kapur means business. He jumps onto the podium even before his co-counsel has taken seat. The judges takes two minutes before they can hear his inquisitive self!

11:43 : Ravin’s hand gestures have an uncanny resemblance to a traffic policeman who is flummoxed with the volume of traffic at a busy intersection. Though, he's doing a decent job so far as managing the traffic in the courtroom is concerned! 

12:08 : The bench has been toying with the speaker a little here, asking him to elucidate the complete facts of ANY case that he’s cited in his written submissions. He’s arguing well, but needs to start picking his words carefully. He’s trying to spin a yarn here, but is getting caught in his own web.


HNLU, Raipur - Respondents

12: 30 : Shruti Seth from HNLU begins on a rather nervous note. She had trouble figuring out the proper party name she was representing, opening floodgates of ridicule from the judges. Not cool!

12:37 : Judges asked questions. She did not know. Her team mates pass two huge books. She keeps playing with the book, looks at her team mate for an answer. This isn’t getting any better for them.

12: 40: The counsel seems to be ‘in agreement’ with the question put forth. The bench is convinced that questions have to be answered, and are not agreed or disagreed with.

12:57 : The plot thickens. The speaker is confused whether she has challenged the maintainability of the Writ petition. She wants to, but the written submissions make no such mention and the judges had to bring this. HNLU, living dangerously!

13:00 : Mahip Singh from HNLU has now taken charge.

13:05 : Mahip's arguments are sounding like greek to the judges,to the audience and to us.

13:08 : The nervousness is encompassing the entire courtroom as the counsel from the Amity has to go and attend the nature’s call in the middle of the round. The judges most definitely have to oblige him here!

13: 13 : Mahip is being referred to as Mr Additional Solicitor General by the bench as he is representing the Union Of Sarbia. The bench however has real trouble keeping a straight face as they say this!

13:17 : The counsel argues that a Sting Operation is constitutional so far as it serves a public interest. The bench wants to test this, evoking much awe and interest from the audience sitting in the courtroom.

13:30 : The counsel is confused whether he's the ASG, the senior advocate or 'a friend of the party he's representing'. On a rather unfriendly note, one of the judges asks him whether he thinks the other party has no friends! And the entire courtroom burst into laughter.

13:45 : Onto the rebuttals and sur-rebuttals now. 


Second Semi Final – GNLU, Gandhinagar v. NUALS, Kochi

The esteemed judges of the round are –
Mr. Sudeep Malik - Member of the Editorial Panel at Eastern Book Company
Mr. Arvind Kamath - Partner, ALMT Legal
Mr. Sudeep Seth – Advocate, a very experienced law practicing in Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court


GNLU, Gandhinagar - Petitioners 

11: 05 : Judges have arrived in courtroom number two and the round will begin shortly, the nervousness on the participants could be seen on their faces, we hope they are calm when they are speaking! Expect a cracker of a round from this courtroom. 

11: 23: The first speaker from GNLU, Aakansha Meena has taken the podium and the judges have given her to speaker for ten minutes and told her she will not be asked any questions for that. Lets see, how well she does without the interaction from the judges! 

11: 31: Ten minutes come to a quick end for the speaker as the judges begin to question the speaker, she is asked whether every incident of defamation would violate fundamental rights, the speakers nods vigorously with a yes! The judges are silent yet again! 

11: 35 : The judges remind the speaker that the Shareholder and the company are two different legal entities and wonders how defamation of the Company gives a right to the shareholder to file a writ in his personal capacity. The judges think the speaker is repeating herself by explaining that the shareholder was also defamed. Do we see her escaping this hole she dug for herself? 

11: 47: Whether a sports writer is defaming a cricketer when he calls the batsman a useless member, asks the bench to the speaker! The speaker tells the court that this would be decided by the bench itself. Why are we discussing Sir Ravindra Jadeja here?

11: 51: Mr. Arvind Kamath bursts into laughter when the speaker differs from the question put worth forth by the bench. Are you allowed to differ when a question is asked, he seems to wonder! 

11: 57: The second speaker is speaking very softly, we had to shift places to hear what she was speaking. She is trying to prove that no fair trial could have taken place if the newspaper publishes about a sub judice matter. The judges ask her to stop wasting time of the court and stick to the issue in hand. 

12: 07 : The speaker is seeking apologies for every question it seems, Mr. Sudeep Malik is not willing to  let that pass and explains her the situation in hand. The speaker is still calm and is trying to put forth her points in front of an unconvinced bench. GNLU has to come up with something great to sway this round in their favour!  

12: 17 : The bench allows the speaker to finish her argument and take her seat! Whether NUALS would be able to persuade the judges or would they go down fighting? We just hope they are loud enough so that we can listen properly. 


NUALS, Kochi - Respondents 

12: 38 : The speaker from NUALS Kochi has taken the podium and has started with countering the petitioners. She claims that Sahara v. SEBI proves that broad guidelines cannot be formed and helps their cause. The judges are keenly listening to the argument, how did this happen!

12: 44 : The judges argue that India is a Multi Polar nation when it comes to media houses and political parties and Sarvia is a mere bi-polar nation in these aspects. The speaker refuses to accept the contention and asks the judges to refer the moot problem. There is a lot whispering amongst the judges, did she just prove a new point?

12: 55 : The second speaker from NUALS successfully proved that Janmani News had just given a platform for the Retired CAG to put forth his opinion and had not targeted ANB industries. The speaker would have been more convincing if she was not moving her head so often!

13: 02 : The head keeps moving and so does her argument, the judges call the respondents a paid media house who drops names of corrupt people for advertisement money from their articles ! She claims it was in public interest. She swiftly clarifies that she meant the publication of the article and not corruption. Thank God!

13: 20 : If we do not punish you, the people of Sarvia will think that people who expose corruption are just more corrupted, bench tells the respondents! The speaker tries to explain that there has been no corrupt practice and mere public interest from the word go! The judges follow suit and asks her to wrap up her argument.

We are done with both the semi-finals and shall be announcing the line-up for finals in a short while.


14:00 : The finalists for the inaugural RMLNLU-SCC Moot court Competition 2013 are...

Amity Law School, Delhi v. NUALS Kochi

Amazingly done teams!

We shall now be blogging the finals live from the plush Moot court hall of RMLNLU!

 Anyone who's had the pleasure of arguing in this wonderful courtroom would remember the fresh smell of wood and teak in the hall. We have a packed courtroom and the audience has been kind enough to do away with their afternoon siesta and turn up for the grand event. Thank you all!

The Esteemed Judges of the Final Rounds comprise of : 

Honourable Mr. Justice D.K. Arora – Sitting Judge, Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court

Honourable Mr. Justice D.P. Singh – Sitting Judge, Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court

Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee – Sitting Judge, Calcutta High Court

Honourable Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi – Retired Judge, Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court

Sri Surendra Malik – Chief Editor, Supreme Court Cases 


Amity Law School, Delhi - Petitioners 

15 : 03 : The speaker from Amity had been at her wittiest best throughout the rounds. But the heat seems to be getting to her now. The Hon’ble justice has specifically asked her to make the submissions in first person. Achillies Heels!

15 : 05 : The speaker is in a fix as one of the Justice has asked her to continue while the other two were still interpreting her previous arguments. There are volunteers who are occupying the witness box to put to film this amazing showdown of wits. Too much fancy, we say!

15: 10 : The speaker has been asked to justify how a fundamental right has been violated, she tries to respond by claiming that the false report has taken away the presumption of innocence which will only affect the fair trial of the party!

15:15 : We are now amidst a heated debate over the scope of Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution Of India. Chitrangda is making a strong case in front of such an intimidating bench!

15:15 : However, her flight of fantasy has been cut short rather abruptly by Hon’bl Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee as he accuses her of “shooting the bullet from the courts’ shoulder”. The speaker disagrees and is sent off!

15:20 : Ravin has now taken the centre-stage as the second speaker from Amity. His hand gestures are now even more prominent than before, his stance more animated with his hands and head moving vigorously in opposite directions at all times!

15:25 : It’s difficult to stare at the bench for too long. There is just too much intellectual concentration. Absolutely resplendent here at the RMLNLU moot court hall!


NUALS Kochi – Respondents

15: 38 : The First speaker from NUALS has been claiming that the petitioner’s case is not maintainable as other remedies were also available. However, when questioned about the remedies, the speaker fails to substantiate it on any relevant statute. 

15 : 40 : The first speaker from NUALS, Miriam, was caught off-guard when Hon’ble Justice Mr Sanjib Banerjee came down strongly on the counsel constant usage of “Your Lordship” for referring the bench. He clarifies that the new Bar Council guidelines now prescribe that such practice is feudal and should be done away with. She slyly replies “Indeed Sirs” and her voice is lost amongst all the hush, much like her arguments.

15:45 : She is coming across as a very calm and composed speaker, which is not working to her advantage as of now really. She is presently clarifying as to why they want specific guidelines for the reporting of sub-judice matters in the media.

15: 48: The second speaker is clever enough to clarify what the first speaker had argued! She addresses ‘sirs’ and clears out that Article 142  can only be used when there is a void in the law. However, in the present case, there is an existing law on the same and thus no further guidelines must be issued by the court.

15:53 : She is now citing some Latin terms to support your argument. We are as clueless as you, dear readers!

16:00 : The bloggers have a hunch that the balance of favour has tilted in NUALS’ favour ever since the second speaker has taken floor. She has beautifully interpreted the facts to her advantage in the last 5 minutes, with absolutely no reference to law. The wannabe mooters could really pick up a trick or two from her!

16:11: The court clerks show us and the judges a beautifully coordinated “3 minutes remaining” sign, clearly reflective how well organised the event has been so far.

16:16: Even though Lakshmi from NUALS was ignorant about a certain ‘gag order’ that the justices asked her about, she answered the query beautifully with an alternative argument. We saw the judges from the preliminary rounds nodding their heads in unison as she made the argument. Clearly, the last 15 minutes of her speech was her golden time at the podium and easily one of the best arguments we heard during the entire moot. Justice Banerjee proclaims – “Don’t sell yourself to a corporate!”.  Awesomely done, Lakshmi.


We are now done with the finals and we’re waiting for the Valedictory ceremony to begin.


The Chief Guest at the ceremony is SALMAN KHURSHID, Hon’ble Minister for External Affairs.

Please stand by for the valedictory to begin and the results.

19:00 - The valedictory ceremony was graced with the presence of the following dignitaries-

Shri Salman Khurshid (Hon'ble Minister for External Affairs),

Hon'ble Justice Mr. K.D Shahi, Retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court,

Mr. Surendra Malik, Managing Director and chairman of Eastern Book Company

Dr. AP Singh, Chairman, Moot court committe, Dr. RMLNLU, Lucknow

Anita Mishra, Acting Vice-Chancellor, Dr. RMLNLU, Lucknow

The valedictory saw the entire seminar hall enthralled by Mr. Salman Khurshid's rhetoric. While appreciating the efforts of everyone who made the first edition of the RMLNLU media law moot a success, he also emphasized how every good lawyer should have a good sense of humour.

And finally, we have the winners with us!

Winning team - NUALS, Kochi

Runners Up team - Amity Law School, Delhi

Best Memorial - Amity Law School, Delhi

Best Speaker - Lakshmi Menon, NUALS Kochi.

With this, we've come to the end of the moot court competition.

We hope you've enjoyed following the coverage as much we liked bringing it across to all you wonderful readers.

Vipul Kumar & Mohit Negi


Click to show 15 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.