•  •  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 22-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

We at RMLNLU are proud to present the 3rd SCC Online International Media Law Moot Competition of 2015.


What you missed from yesterday: 

The Inauguration Ceremony: This year, in the spirit of academia we've paired the moot with a National Seminar on Social Media, Information Technology and IPR whose inauguration ceremony was graced with eminent personalities like our Chief Guest Mr. A.S. Panneerselvan, Reader’s Editor at The Hindu and Adjunct Faculty Member at Asian College of Journalism. Mr. Sumain Malik & Mr. Surendra Malik, Directors of the Eastern Book Company were among the other personalities present at the event. The Hon'ble Vice Chancellor, Gurdip Singh, highlighted the abuse of social media and its relevance in contemporary life along with the Chief Guest who projected his view on the vital role played by the print media. 

Keeping in tune with the theme of the moot this year's problem is on criminal defamation and its juxtaposition with the right to free speech, another issue, is the the constitutonality of Sections 66A and 69 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. This year's problem addresses contemporary legal issues surrounding censorship and media law regime. 

The winner shall receive Rs.25000 as prize money and SCC Online Wed Edition Platinum Plus Cards (access to the entire SCC Web Database). The Runners Up shall recivie Rs. 15,000 and One Year Subscription to the Supreme Court Cases - Print Edition. The Winners of the Best Memo will receive Rs.10,000 and the Best Speaker a prize money of Rs. 10,000.

The Oral Rounds: 28th Feb, Today - 

In this 3rd Edition we had 45 Memorials from which 32 Teams qualified to the Oral Rounds happening today and tomorrow.

We are proud to represent the following Universities


SVKM's Pravin Gandhi College of Law

National Law University, Jodhpur

Amity University, IP

MS Ramaiah College of Law

Law Centre-I, Faculty of Law, Delhi University




Army Institute of Law

Rajiv Gandhi School of IP Law


National Law University, Odisha

Law School, BHU

Institute of Law, Nirma University

School of Law, Sastra University

Amity Law School (Delhi)


Amity Law School-I, Noida


Government Law College

ILS Law College



Symbiosis Law School

SVKM's NMIMS School of Law

Faculty of Law, University of Allahabad

UILS, Punjab University

School of Legal Studies, CUSAT


12:55: NUJS v. SLS Pune , the First Speaker from UPES seems nervous, but manages to put forward his argument despite Madam Judge asking him whether he withdrew his first submission in lieu of his second. The Speaker throws landmark cases but the Judges still look hungry. 


1:00: Sastra v. NLUJ: The First Speaker takes advantage of the judges calmness and begins explaining arbitrariness in a sing song but not inaccurate speech.The Judges seem amicable but persistent in their line of questioning. Oops,he misquoted a Section of the IT Act, his teammate rescues him with a timely flag with the correct section.


1:05: UPES  v CUSAT: The First Speaker is as aggressive as she is loud, but she certainly has the judges' attention. The judges nod in silence to her flamboyant speech, only the results will tell whether they are buying what she's selling.

1:15: NUALS v SLS, Noida: There seems to be an air of discord in the courtroom and despite The First Speaker's best efforts, Sir Judge looks quite satisfied to say the least. to her credit, however, The First Speaker powers through all her assertions and she is also reading out sections.

1:25: RGNUL V NLUO: Silence is the most prevalent sound in the courtroom. with 2 min left, the Respondent First Speaker is struggling to get a nod from the Judges. She perseveres, but is met with more silence.

1:35: JGLS v Law Centre-I, Faculty of Law, Delhi University: The First Speaker of the Petitioners has done his job, leaving a great deal of stones to overturn for the First Speaker of the Respondent. Respondent First Speaker is certainly passionate about the defamation of his client. 

1:40: NLIU v NUSRL: The First Speaker boldly argues despite the skeptical Judges discussion on the basis of Criminal Law ensues. After navigating hesitantly, he seems to have driven the point home, managing to get a begrudging nod from the Judges.

1:45: GLC v MS Ramaiah: The Judges are polite and accomodating towards the Counsels' tacit responses. The Speaker seems harrowed and fumbles a bit, but her mooter instinct kicks in and she continues to battle with increased fervour. 

1:45: Amity IP v NMIMS: International Law reigns supreme as the corpus of the Counsels' arguments. It all boils down to signing and ratifying and the devil in the details in between. The Speaker is definitely engaging and eloquent, but the Judges are now jumping from International Law to Criminal Law, and the Speaker has a tough road ahead of her. 

1:55: Amity Noida v Faculty of Law, Allahabad University: The Speaker from the side Respondents manages to let sparks fly in the Court room, where the Speaker seems to be labouring to put her best arguments forward despite being under the Judge's fire. Defamation is the crux of their disagreement and the Judges are quick to point out mistakes in their arguments. She'll have to put up a better fight if she has to win their favour.  

2:00: And now we break for lunch!!

3:30: The Preliminary Rounds are back on track. 

3:40: Rajiv Gandhi School of IP Law v WBNUJS: The First Speaker from the side of the Petitioners is trying to establish her point across to the Judges, who don't seem to be satisified with her arguments. This is making the Speaker nervous and the Judges seem to discard all the arguments put forward by her. We hope she finally convinces the Judges by the end. 

3:45: Sastra v ILS Pune: The First Speaker is being given a minute to wrap up the issue. She hesitantly completes her argument along with the conclusions. The Judges look unsatisfied and gives her an extra minute to wrap up her issue. She gathers speed and sails down a slippery slope of summation.  

3:50: HNLU v UPES: The Judges look really amused and asks the First Speaker to read out their Prayer. They are visibly confused by the relief sought. The seated Second Speaker looks weary and performs a last minute revision as his time draws near. An air of uncertainty is around the Court which is only interrupted by the frequent shutter as the photographer's camera clicks. 

3:55: BHU v NUALS: The First Speaker tries to guide the Judges through a web of halted spiral arguments. She is interrupted by the Judge as a compendium is sought. The Respondents whisper among themselves as the First Speaker tries her best to answer the Judges, but is clearly failing to do so, based on the bemused looks on the Judges' faces. 

4:00: GNLU v JGLS: The Second Speaker tries very demurely to disagree with an increasingly unhappy Judge. The Speaker is interrupted and his oral submissions are called to a halt. The First Speaker from the side Respondents fumbles as the Judges fires crafty questions at him. The Speaker's voice tries to cushion the blow as the Judge gathers apologies of ignorance from the Counsel. 

 4:05: AIL Mohali v RGNUL: The First Speaker from the Respondents attempts to weave an eloquent argument as the Judges continue to ask her measured questions to put her off her flow. She regains composure within seconds and moves on with her issues. 

4:10: ALS Lucknow v ALS, IP: The Second Speaker of the Respondents gathers herself on the podium as the Judges look unsatisfied with her arguments till now. We wish the Speaker luck and hope. May she succeed in engaging the Judges. 

4:10: SVKM Pravin Gandhi v NLIU: Establishing the constitutionality of her client's activities, the speaker from the side of the Respondents patiently listens to the Judges' lengthy questions. She draws their attention to a landmark judgment as her Researcher extends the judgment to the Court clerk. The Judges continue to pose lenghty questions at the Counsel as she utilizes this time to compose the perfect response. 

4:15: UILS v GLC: The First Speaker of the Respondent repeatedly reads out of her material rather than facing the Judges when giving her oral submissions. The Speaker fumbles with every question posed as the Judges are getting frustrated and their smiles fade away. 

4:20: CNLU v NLSIU: Madam Judge has succeeded in wavering the First Speaker from the Respondents, as she ends up directing the attention of the Judges into absentee legislative words and is unperturbed of the blatant blunders. Now she looks paler by the minute but it is gathered from the expressions of the Petitioners that they, evidently, had the worse. 

We now patiently await the results.

6:30: And the wait is over. Announcing here the breaks for the Quarter Finals. The following teams have qualified.


2. MS Ramaiah College of Law

3. Law Centre-I, Faculty of Law, Delhi University


5. Amity University, IP


7. Symbiosis Law School, Noida

8. School of Legal Studies, CUSAT

We congratulate the respective teams and wish them best of luck for the same! The Quarter Final rounds will start soon. 


6:45: The Quarter Final rounds have begun. 

6:45: GNLU v Law Centre-I, Faculty of Law, Delhi University: The First Speaker from the side of the Petitioners is very soft spoken and seems visibly shaken and confused while fumbling to answer the plethora of questions posed by the Judges. The Judges are visibly unsatisfied with the responses of the Speaker and he will have to do a lot better if he is to proceed to the next round to be held tomorrow. 

6:50: MS Ramaiah College of Law v Amity University, I: The First Speaker looks confident with her responses to the questions posed by the Judges. She has backed her answers with thorough research and also maintains her composure. As she scales down the legislative authority, the Judges seem convinced with her answers and have asked her to sum up her arguments and move on the next issue. The Speaker, with a sense of satisfaction, wilfully concludes. 

6:55: Symbiosis Law School, Noida v NLIU: The First Speaker's time is up after quite a tiresome session of questioning by the Judges. The Second Speaker takes over the mantle from his teammate and moves on to deal with his issues. He starts his arguments lucidly and continues to respond politely to the active line of questioning put forth by the Judges.

7:00:  School of Legal Studies, CUSAT v JGLS: The First Speaker initially looks meek and vulnerable to the series of questions asked by the Judges. She manages to pull it back by craftily made arguments well supported by thorough research and manages to deflect all the questions well. But owing to the pressure, she loses her composure and hesitates before moving forward with her arguments.  

8:45: And the wait for the results are over. The Semi Final Breaks are:

1.  GNLU


3. Amity University, IP

4. Symbiosis Law School, Noida

We congratulate the teams for making it to the Semi Finals. Signing off for the big party. Meet you guys tomorrow. Ciao. 

1st March,2015 (Sunday) Today. 

11:00: Welcome back everybody! The Semi Final Rounds are about to begin. The teams are up and ready for the Semi Finals. 

11:15: JGLS v Symbiosis, Noida: The First Speaker is out of time, and requests for an extension. He seems to have convinced the Judges, who are listening intently, as he sketches out the role of a Censor Board and the guidelines that are to be abided by the same. As he is about to conclude his arguments the Judges interject for one final question. The constitutional validity of the legislative provisions laid down were established finally before the Speaker leaves the floor for the Second Speaker to initiate his submissions regarding the Information Technology Act. His sleepy eyes gives a false impression that he was sleep deprived, but his concise and clear arguments point to the contrary. The Researcher looks intently at her speaker and is alert and ready to provide any kind of help he requires. The Courtroom echoes with the deep and rich voice of Sir Judge and somehow resonates with the frequent thunder outside. The Respondents are alert and nodding in absolute agreement with every question thrown at the Petitioners. 

11:30: Amity, IP v GNLU: The First Speaker's eloquence makes his arguments crisp, precise and engaging. The Speaker cites a landmark judgment to establish that the movie was widely accepted by the public. His hand gestures seems to conduct the symphony of wind around the round. He moves on the second issue and asks for an time extension. He lays down the basis of the invalidity of the defamation claim. The Judges look satisfied, happy and listens with frequent sips of hot cup of tea. The Speaker confidently passes on an a copy of a judgment supporting his case and patiently waits for the Judges to peruse the same. The Speaker continues to argue on the "doctrine of strict scrutiny", as the Judges continue their line of questioning.

The Judges further continue to explain the concept of "privileged communication", and as the Speaker pleads ignorance regarding the nuances to this concept, he loses his composure, and is clearly put off track. 

The environment outside the Court rooms is much more cheerful as the other teams get ready to take a tour of Lucknow, the City of Nawabs. 

11:50: JGLS v Symbiosis, Noida: We are back in Court Room 1 as the Second Speaker is still putting forward his arguments despite being ridiculed at every point by the Judges. They seem really frustrated by the line of argument of the Second Speaker from the Petitioner's side, as the Judges dismiss the Speaker for lack of facts. The second Speaker retires, masking his disapointment as he walks off the podium. The First Speaker from the side of the Respondents has started her oral submissions and draws the attention of the Judges towards the Cinematograph Act, citing the issue of defamation. She begs her pardon, as she fails to understand the question posed by the Judges. That doesn't seem to deter her confidence though as she continues confidently to challenge the authenticity of the allegations of the Petitioners. 

She moves on to her arguments on how a movie can have wide repercussions in society. The Judges quiz her on the role of the Central Government and succeeds in confusing her and throws her off her flow. The Judges frequently go through their written submissions and question the authority of the Order passed. 

 12:00: Amity, IP v GNLU: Court Room 2 continues with the Second Speaker from the side of the Petitioner's. The air is tensed and stagnant, after the gallant presentation of arguments and hand gestures just a while ago. Now the Judges don't seem to accept her submissions and frequently dismiss every answer given. Madam Judge guides the Speaker to correlate the issues and give a logically connected submission regarding the issue. The Judges are repeatedly requesting the Speaker to validate the legal provisions first and then move on to the landmark judgments. The First Speaker passes on material to the Speaker to help her out of the tricky situation she has put herself in.   

The Speaker regains confidence and manages to differ with the opinion of the Judges without gathering their further ire. The Bench now, seemingly satisfied with the submissions of the Speaker, asks her to move on to the next issue. The Speaker seems to gather nothing but pitiful glances from the Madam Judge at the moment. The First Speaker sits perfectly erect and notes down the questions rather mechanically.

The Judges look as uninterested as the audience. They frequently yawns and now shift to the next courtroom. 

12:30: JGLS v Symbiosis, Noida: The Second Speaker of the Respondents fumbles to establish the liability of the Petitioner and the role of the intermediary as highlighted under the issue. The Judge is not ready to accept any legal provision and dismisses them for want of reasonableness. The Bench smiles now. This smile lowered the temperature of the room and envelopes the audience with a mist of anticipation. The right of privacy is discussed and the Judges grab the moment to jump to an attack. The Speaker is unnerved again. The Bench accuses the Speaker to entangle them in a circle of baseless allegations. The Speaker seems to agree and disagree with the Bench at the same time. The Speaker is clearly put off track and he fumbles at every submission he makes. His teammates look on nervously as their hopes are hinged upon his desperate search of substantial matters as he plunges into the Indian Penal Code.

The Judges smirk as they are clearly happy that they have managed to put the Speaker off his flow. The Speaker makes a desperate attempt to grasp the last breath, as he drowns in the constant questioning of the Bench.   

The rebuttals are being put forward by the Speaker from the side of the Petitioners. He is high on confidence considering the difficult session endured by the Respondent's Speaker. The proceedings in Court Room 1 comes to a close.

1:00: Amity, IP v GNLU:  We are back in Court Room 2 where the Bench seems to have taken a brief break from questioning, but resumes as soon as they sniff out a blunder. The Bench in this Court Room seems to be less forgiving as the Second Speaker from the side Respondents has just begun his submissions, whereas the other Court Room has completed proceedings. The Speaker doesn't seem to convince the Bench well enough, as the Bench seems to feel sorry for the Speaker. The Bench is in constant discussion among themselves and frequently checks their watches in utmost anticipation of lunch. 

The Speaker's monotonous voice seems to put the audience to sleep as well as the camera clicks away and slowly drowns in the multifarious noise of the Court Room. As the stomachs grumble on the arguments grow more and more tiresome. The Speaker has done himself a favour being the last Speaker in the room as the Bench doesn't want any more delay. 

*Phew* And finally, the rebuttals begin from the side of the Petitioners. 

1:20: The proceedings in Court Room 2 are done. And we're done with the Semi Final Rounds. We patiently await the results as we'll soon get to know who will be locking horns in the Final Rounds of the 3rd RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition, 2015!

2:00: And the results of the Semi Finals are out!! 

The matchup for the Finals is *drumroll*


We congratulate both the teams for reaching the Finals. May the best team win! 

We'll be back to cover the finals in an hour. We now break for lunch. Cheerio. 

3:30: And we're back guys. This is it. What we've all been waiting for. The Final Rounds of the 3rd RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition, 2015 has begun. 

3:45: JGLS v GNLU: The First Speaker of JGLS battles on and mantains to conduct a singular dialogue of multifarious arguments with Hon'ble Justice. Sikhri and manages to make the entire Bench laugh with his witty comebacks. The Judges remind him that they do have complete independence in choosing questions which might extend to a foolish one when the Speaker had craftily reminded the Bench that their questions were hindering his speed of his oral submissions. 

The arguments move on to reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech, and the fact that the spirit of audi alteram partem was not followed in his client's case and thus, was denied natural justice. This fact is established by the Speaker by citing the fact that the Government has not watched the film in question. This ends up being a big fallacy in his argument as the aforementioned fact was not at all present in the Fact Sheet. It does not escape the Judges' notice and they pounce on  with innumerable questions  and reprimands him for misleading the Bench. The Speaker nonchalantly apologises and smoothly moves on. It ends up that he tackles this question well and reaches the core of the problem, which deals with the movie being penalised and not the article which it was based on.

3:55: JGLS v GNLU: Art. 32 is brought under the scannner by the Judges. Lady Judge points out to the Speaker that using the word prima facie shall not definitely be the criteria to entertain a writ. The Speaker points out that, indeed, an approximate link has to be established and will be done so in the following argument presented by him. At this point the Judges remind him of the paucity of time, but allows him an extension of time, seemingly convinced by the arguments of the Speaker. The Judges tell him that they realise that their constant interruption has rendered his arguments lenghty, but the skillful Speaker thanks the Bench for the same and calmly moves on, engaging not only the Judges but the entire audience.

Finally, the Speaker tries to sum up his arguments by highlighting the fundamental issues, which is the "search for truth", in order to uphold democracy.  

4:05: JGLS v GNLU: The Speaker brings up the issue of the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Information Technology Act and Sec. 499 of the Penal Code. The Judges continue their strenuous session of questioning and the Speaker manages to complete his issue and leaves the floor for the Second Speaker. 

The Second Speaker takes charge of the proceedings and he keeps his court etiquettes up to the mark. The issue he's dealing with is regarding Sec. 69A of the Information Technology Act. The Speaker presents a reality check on the digital scenario at hand and the Judges keep him on his feet by bringing in a wave of questions. 

4:15: JGLS v GNLU: The Speaker goes on to discuss the role of the intermediary and questions the validity of the laws which accuses him of an offence within the Information Technology Act. This offence is subjected to the consideration that the acts committed should be that of "gross obscenity". It is pointed out by the Speaker that this parameter is absolutely subjective, what might seem obscene to one might not seem so to another. This is accepted by the Bench as discerned by the little smile that infects the whole Bench. The Judges question the utility of the writ since remedy could've been given under the Information Technology Act. The Speaker doesn't lose his footing and argues that the writ of habeas corpus is only grantted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since no obscenity was mentioned, no disrespect meted out to the honour of the Father of the Nation and no public disorder was caused as a result of the release of this movie, the order prosecuting the release is baseless, illegal and thoroughly uproots the spirit of natural justice. Lady Judge nods in absolute agreement as the Speaker, thus, ends his argument, the Bench having reassured that he doesn't have to repeat the Prayer.  

4:30: JGLS v GNLU: The First Speaker from the side Respondents begins her oral submissions. The Judges point out that there was no infringement of the freedom of speech, no question of imminent danger since a national father figure being a racist would naturally be a matter of national concern. The Speaker from the side Respondents smiles and doesnt seem unnerved by the question and points out that the article written was a figment of the writer's imagination since there was a great margin for modification. At this juncture, the Judges pounce on the Speaker with fact that the article on which the movie was based was not persecuted. This was cleverly tackled by the Speaker by pointing out that a visual medium is much more effective than a printed one. A volley of questions and counter questions ensues but the Speaker does not answer any question effectively and slides on to the second issue. 

4:45: JGLS v GNLU: The judicial interpretation and also if the party in question being defamed by the Petitioner. An air of legal regalia hangs around the room as the silence in the humongous Court Room is frequently interrupted by dialogues occurring between the Speakers and the Hon'ble Judges. In the meantime, the Speakers from the side of the Petitioners look satisfied and does not bother to mask the slight snigger which swims up on his face, as the Respondent Speaker continues to showcase her fondness for reading out materials, as observed in the preliminary rounds. 

5:00: JGLS v GNLU: The Second Speaker from the side of the Respondents no takes the podium, with his monotonous demeanor, yet there is a new-found winner's spark in his voice. Faced with numerous questions the Speaker is unperturbed and he maintains his composure. There are instances of inside jokes within the Bench which lightens the mood in the Court Room and envigoured by this a silent Judge suddenly speaks up. It comes to the notice that the argument presented is actually thin and devoid of law and the Lady Judge requests the Speaker to take a minute to think and come up with a better response. The Speaker's time ends, at which instance, he, under pressure, commits one blunder after the other, as he interrupts ths Judge and ends up losing his new found confidence and wrongfully quotes a judgment. The Judges finally asks him to rest his case, after which the Speaker summarises his arguments. The Speaker finishes his arguments and takes his seat. 

The rebuttals are initiated by the Speaker from the Petitioners, and followed by the surrebuttals of the Respondents. 

5:15: The proceedings of the Final Rounds have come to a close. 

5:30: The Valedictory Ceremony has begun. The atmosphere is electric as everybody is in eager anticipation as to who will be adjudged the winner of the 3rd RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition, 2015.   

6:30: And the results are here folks!! 

Best Memorial - ALS, Mohali

Best Speakers - Atharva, GNLU and Neerjana - Amity, IP

Runners Up - GNLU

Winners - JGLS 

Congratulations to all the winners!!

A big thank you to our sponsors SCC Online, our Publishing Partner, Eastern Book Company, our Magazine Partern, The Practical Lawyer and last but not the least, our Hospitality Partner, Levana. 

And signing off for this year's edition of the RMLNLU SCC Online International Media Law Moot Court Competition is the blog team comprising of Malobika Sen, Kaushik Kumar K and Aj Agrawal. 

Cheers. We'll be back again next year!   



Click to show 9 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.