BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

26th ALL INDIA

MOOT COURT COMPETITION FOR LAW STUDENTS

8th - 10th January, 2010

In association with

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, GANDINAGAR, GUJARAT

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Programmes, Rules & Moot Problems ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Sponsored by

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, New Delhi 110002 Phone : 011-23231647, 23231648, Fax : 011-23231767

E-mail : info@barcouncilofindia.org Website : www.barcouncilofindia.org

2

INTRODUCTION

In the practical training scheme prescribed for law students by the Bar Council of India, Moot Court practice including preparation of brief and actual argument in similar situations constitutes an important and essential learning experience. The lawyering skills, court craft, professional ethics and approaches to advocacy that the student-lawyer develops through the moot court exercises keep him/her in good stead when he/she enters the profession on his/her obtaining the law degree.

The Trust organises All India Inter-University Moot Court Competitions for law students to promote the

advocacy skills and love for the profession among the new entrants. It is held in collaboration with a University, Law Department or a Law College usually during November/December each year. The students prepare four problems sent by the Trust and argue in different rounds of competitions before they are selected for the final round. The teams which are adjudged as Winner and Runner Up are awarded with Merit Certificates and Prizes.

Scholarship of Rs.1,000/- per month for a period of one year will be provided to those students who are adjudged best in each round of the competition.

Competitions held between 1981 and 2008

1. 1981 Delhi 2. 1982 Poona 3. 1983 Cochin 4. 1984 Banaras 5. 1985 Jodhpur 6. 1986 Delhi 7. 1987 Lucknow 8. 1988 Hyderabad 9. 1989 Shimla 10. 1990 Ujjain 11. 1993 Jodhpur 12. 1995 Kurukshetra 13. 1996 Cuttack 14. 1997 Goa 15. 1998 Pune 16. 2000 (January) Hyderabad 17. 2000 (December) Bangalore 18. 2001 Chennai 19. 2002 Kolkata 20. 2003 Pune 21. 2004 Lucknow 22. 2005 Patna 23. 2006 Bhopal

24. 2008(January) Patiala 25. 2008 (December) Lucknow

3

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA (BCI) The Bar Council of India is an apex body for the entire legal profession constituted under the Advocates Act 1961. It

has 21 members including the Attorney General and Solicitor General who are ex-officio members. Each of the State Bar Council which is elected by the Advocates on the roll practising in that State, has one representative elected from amongst the members of the State Council in the Bar Council of India. Certain States which have common High Courts have jointly one member in the Bar Council of India.

Among the functions of the BCI are regulating enrolment of new members to the Bar, enforcing discipline and

standards of ethics for the members of the profession, promoting welfare of advocates and maintaining standards of legal education in consultation with Universities teaching law. For discharging these functions it has constituted several committees which meet in Delhi and outside as often as required. Rules have been formulated under powers conferred by the Advocates Act and are enforced through the State Bar Councils. The funds of the BCI come from its share of the enrolment fee collected from advocates by the State Bar Councils. The office of the BCI is located in Delhi in its own premises.

As an independent body representing the second largest legal profession in the world, the Bar Council of India

commands great respect and influence within the professional circles in India as well as outside.

MEMBERS OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 1. Shri Suraj Narain Prasad Sinha - Bihar

Chairman

2. Shri Jai Ram Beniwal – Rajasthan Vice Chairman

3. Shri Ashok Kumar Deb, – West Bengal

Managing Trustee, BCIT

4. Dr. Gopal Narain Mishra - Uttar Pradesh

Chairman, Executive Committee

5. Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma - Uttarakhand Associate Managing Trustee

6. Shri G. E. Vahanvati, – Ex-officio Member

Attorney General of India

7. Shri Gopal Subramanium – Ex-officio Member

Solicitor- General of India

8. Shri. Faisal Rizvi – Chhattisgarh

9. Shri Rajendra B. Raghuwanshi - Maharashtra & Goa

10. Shri Jagdev, – Delhi

4

11. Shri R. Dhanapal Raj - Tamil Nadu

12. Shri S. Gopakumaran Nair - Kerala

13. Shri Daulat Ram Sharma - Himachal Pradesh

14 Shri Milan Kumar Dey – Jharkhand

15. Shri M. Rajender Reddy - Andhra Pradesh

16. Shri Hemantkumar J. Patel - Gujarat

17. Shri Ashok Parija - Orissa

18. Shri Zafar Ahmed Khan - Madhya Pradesh

19. Shri C. M. Jagadeesh - Karnataka

20. Shri Brij Mohan Vinayak - Punjab and Haryana

21. Shri Apurba Kumar Sharma - Assam, Nagaland, Etc.,

Shri M. D. Joshi Acting Secretary

5

THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST (BCIT)

The Bar Council of India Trust was created by the Bar Council of India in 1974 as an educational and research

foundation with the object of establishing one or more model law schools, organizing legal aid to the poor, publishing law books and law reports and promoting welfare of members of the profession. Since 1980 the Bar Council of India Trust has launched a number of programmes designed to promote higher standards in legal education and in the legal profession. The finances for these activities come from the interest accrued on the original sum transferred by the Bar Council of India to the Trust in 1974. The Bar Council of India Trust is managed by a five-member Board of Trustees elected for four years by the Bar Council of India from amongst the members.

The Bar Council of India Trust publishes a quarterly Journal, called the Indian Bar Review of which more than 1000 copies are circulated among regular subscribers in the profession and outside. This Journal caters to the academic and professional interest of the legal community. It has also published books on Constitutional Law, Legal Profession, Legal Education, Taxation Law, Criminal procedure and a number of titles under the pre-law programme of the new 5-year pattern of legal education.

The Trust jointly with the Bar Council of India has established a Law University at Bangalore called the National Law School of India University. The Trust organises a series of summer workshops for advocates under its continuing education scheme which help updating of knowledge and skills and promoting specialisation in professional services. A number of volumes of reading materials on Constitutional Litigation, Criminal Advocacy, Labour Adjudication, Tort Litigation, Human Rights Advocacy etc. have been produced to support the continuing legal education effort which is now being undertaken by the State Bar Councils as well.

Under a scheme of training and fellowship, a number of junior advocates are selected every year and provided placement with seniors for professional advancement. Annual inter university moot court competition is sponsored by the Trust to improve the quality of professional education and to promote skills of advocacy.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TRUST

Shri Ashok Kumar Deb Managing Trustee Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma Associate Managing Trustee Shri Suraj Narain Prasad Sinha Ex-officio Trustee Shri Hemantkumar J. Patel Trustee Shri C. M. Jagadeesh Trustee

Shri M.D. Joshi

Secretary Incharge

6

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY (GNLU), GANDHI NAGAR, GUJARAT

About the University

"The objectives of the University," the GNLU Act 2003 proclaims, " shall be to advance and disseminate learning and knowledge of law and legal processes and their role in national development: to develop in the students and the research scholars sense of responsibility to serve society in the field of law by developing skills in regard to advocacy, legal services, legislation, parliamentary practice, law reforms and such other matters; to make law and legal processes efficient instruments of social development; and to promote inter-disciplinary study of law in relation to management, technology, international cooperation and development."

The ethos of imparting education in Gujarat National Law University comprises of a mutual endeavor of the Faculty and the students who become part of our august family after clearing the hurdle of a rigorous and strenuous selection procedure. The cream of the country finds a place amidst us. The University has been in a process of striving for academic and professional excellence in the field of legal studies in the country. The University became functional from the year, 2004. Our teaching methodology and the student response to it can be safely summarized as being par excellence. Our student fraternity has won us laurels in the various spheres of national and international moot court competitions, paper presentations and the attendant Cultural activities. We strive for an all round and inter-disciplinary academic excellence in sync with the other National Law Schools of the country.

Since its inception the University has been holding regular in-house Moot Court competitions where-in meritorious students are sent abroad for participating in Moot Court jamborees. The hub of activity happens to be our Moot Court Committee and the Legal Aid Clinic, which have developed a workable and efficient interface with the industry and the Judiciary to the satisfaction of us all. As we persist in our academic endeavors, it won’t be an overstatement to make, that our University will become a leader in the sphere of legal education in the country. Our founding myth too objectifies the ideal of, “Let all good and noble thoughts come to us from all directions”, which is a hymn from the Rigveda. We, the fraternity of Gujarat National Law University aim at a homogenization of all trends and civilizational patterns by inculcating in our students, an appreciation of other cultures and regions of the country in all its homogeneity.

Mooting is one of the prime activities at GNLU. The extent of enthusiasm can be understood from the fact that in the Academic year 2007-08, the total no of participants in two editions of the Intra-University moot court competitions was more than 400 students. GNLU teams have represented in various national & international moot court competitions and “the young mooters” have already started winning both at the national and the international level. In the last academic year, GNLU has participated in around 40 international and national moot court competitions.

The recent success of our teams in various moot court competition including International moot court competitions would be attributed to the hard work put in by the team members. What cannot be over looked is the fact that the selection rounds in the University are itself very tough which invariably results in the best people being chosen to represent the University.

****

7

 

MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF

26TH All India Moot Court Competition, 2010

1. Shri Ashok Kumar Deb, Managing Trustee, Bar Council of India Trust

2. Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma, Associate Managing Trustee, Bar Council of India Trust

3. Shri S. N. P. Sinha Chairman, Bar Council of India (Ex-

officio Trustee)

4. Shri Hemantkumar J. Patel, Trustee, Bar Council of India Trust

5. Shri C. M. Jagadeesh,

Trustee,

Bar Council of India

6. Prof. Bimal N. Patel

Director

Gujarat National Law University

Gandhinagar, Gujarat

7. Shri Chamarti Ramesh Kumar

Registrar

Gujarat National Law University

Gandhinagar, Gujarat

8 Prof. Dyananda Murthy

Co-Ordinator,

Moot Court Competition

Gujarat National Law University

Gandhinagar, Gujarat

Contact Address

Prof Dayananda Murthy, Co-Ordinator Moot Court Competition Gujarat National Law University, E-4, GIDC Electronics Estate, “Old NIFT Building”, Sector – 26 Gandhinagar – 382 028 Gujarat. Mobile – 09924989474

Phone : 079 – 23287157 23287158, 23243296 Fax : 079 - 23287156

Email : dmurthy@gnlu.ac.in

mcc@gnlu.ac.in

www.gnlu.ac.in

Mr.Hemantkumar J. Patel Convenor Moot Court Competition Member, Bar Council of India "Sejal" Shahibaug, Near Sarvoday Society, Amul Dairy Road, Anand, Dist. Kheda, Gujarat - 388 001 Mobile : 09428405000, 09824017411 Phone : 02692 – 244900, 244911(Res) 244500, 244511(Off) 266688(Fax)

1

INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Rules for the conduct of the competitions

1. Participants should reach the venue one day prior to the competitions, i.e., by the evening before the date for the first round of the competition.

2. There will be four rounds of competition with separate moot problem for each round. All teams registered with the Trust will participate in the first round. The teams will be arranged on the basis of lots drawn and grouped in pairs of two for determining who will contest against whom and for which side each team will argue. The Winner and Runner-up teams of the last 4 years shall be put in different groups for different rounds. The Moot Court competition will be held on ‘Knock–Out’ basis.

3. Depending upon the number of teams participating in the first round, there will be simultaneously as many Courts arguing the same problem.

4. Each Court will assign marks to each individual participant and the team in the manner shown below:

Total Marks 100 For written submissions …20 Marks For substance in arguments …40 Marks For skills of advocacy …20 Marks For general impression, court manners and behaviour …20 Marks ————————————————— Total …100 Marks ————————————————— Before each round, all the judges shall as far as possible meet and decide upon the level of marks on the

basis of performance being excellent, good, fair, average etc., in order to ensure uniformity in the matter of awarding marks for all the participants.

Soon after each round of competition the total marks of each participant and each University team shall be calculated. The results shall be declared on the ‘knock–out’ basis but in any case, the names of the Runners-Up team will not be forwarded to the next round. Such declaration should be made as far as possible within 30 minutes. The marks secured by each team in a given round of the competition shall be consolidated and arranged according to the relative merits based on the total scores.

5. The required number of teams for next round of competition shall be picked up from the top in the order of merit. All winners of first round shall participate in the 2nd round. Such number be increased by one in the event of being an odd number. The number of teams for the 3rd round which will be the semi-final, shall be 4 only, which shall be rated on marks but any Runner-Up of 2nd round shall not be allowed to go in the 3rd round.

The winning teams of each round will again be listed on the basis of lots drawn and will be grouped into pairs. In other words, the side for which a team will be arguing will be known to the teams only at the time of declaration of results and the lots of first round shall be drawn by the University concerned in the manner prescribed by the Trust. In the 2nd round also, attempts shall be made that the winners and the Runners-Up teams of the last 4 competitions shall be put in different groups if they succeed in the 1st round.

2

The semi-final round will also be on ‘Knock out’ basis. In the semi-final, the teams will be put in alphabetical order and Team A will argue against Team C and Team B against Team D. The winner of semi-final shall contest in the final and there shall be two teams for final. The first serial of semi-finalist and finalist will argue for the Petitioner and the second serial shall argue for the Respondent.

Upon the receipt of the entries, the Organising Committee will divide the teams into suitable number of sub-groups and each sub-group will have equal number of teams in it. The seeding of the teams shall be made by the Trust on the basis of the performance of the previous years to eliminate the chance of the well recognised teams clashing with each other in the 1st/2nd rounds. If any team has won twice or thrice, the selection of 8 teams shall be made from the semi-finalists of the last 4 years who will automatically qualify for being in 8 groups as the group leader and the rest of the teams shall be divided in equal number in 8 groups and the schedule should be arranged in such a way that the seeded teams do not clash with each other in 1st/2nd rounds. The ultimate discretion to place the teams in different groups and to decide the seeding will lie with the Trust and such decision of the Trust shall be final.

6. The written submissions for the first problem has to be sent by each participant directly 7 days in advance to the host university/ college which would arrange the Moot Court competition with copies to the Bar Council of India Trust. For the rest of the three problems written submissions are to be submitted before the commencement of the competition. The written submissions shall be evaluated under the supervision of the University and the Bar Council of India Trust before the commencement of the competition. Written submissions be submitted for both the sides. For each round of the competition, written submissions are required, for which 20 marks are assigned.

The written submissions will contain a precise, well-researched set of arguments on facts and law which the competitor feels are persuasive for the decision in the case (problem). It tests the student’s skill on legal research and writing. It has to be written in English neatly typed or handwritten on one side of the paper bearing sufficient margin. Ordinarily the length shall not exceed five pages. It shall carry the name of the participant and University and shall be signed by him/her. They are not returnable to the candidate. The Head of the Law Department of the host University shall arrange its evaluation by a nominated team of experts well before the commencement of the court and the marks awarded will be later entered into the evaluation sheet distributed to the judges.

7. The Bar Council of India Trust shall constitute an Appellate Tribunal consisting of the Managing Trustee, the Associate Managing Trustee, Chairman, Bar Council of India (Ex-officio Trustee) and all other Trustees of the Bar Council of India Trust, local BCI member, the Director or Principal of the host university/college, Head of the Law Department of the said university/college and one more representative from the host university/college. The decision of the aforesaid Tribunal shall be final.

8. The 1st and 2nd rounds will be for 90 minutes. The semi-final and final will be of 2 hours’ duration. Each participant will get about 30 minutes of which sometime will be used for questions from the Bench.

9. The two participants representing a University will argue for the same side dividing the arguments between themselves.

10. Each Court will have at least two Judges who will be drawn from the Bench and the Bar and from amongst retired Judicial personnel and noted academicians. In the semi-final and final rounds, there shall be three Judges in each Court out of which one shall be from Bar Council of India/Trust.

11. Student participants are advised to wear black coat and bands though it is not compulsory.

3

12. Necessary books and reports required by the teams will be provided by the host University/College subject to availability.

13. Participants who have been adjudged as Best Student Advocate in the earlier competitions held by the Trust are not eligible for prizes again.

14. All participants should bring their identity certificates with their signatures duly attested by the Principal/Dean for verification, if necessary.

15. The Trust reserves the right to modify the rules if found necessary and they shall be binding on all teams.

16. Arguments shall be in English.

17. The moot problems and rules are supplied in English only.

18. Separate accommodation for boys and girls is arranged by the host University. Free boarding and lodging during the competition will be provided for all participants.

19. One way second class train fare will be provided to each participant by the Trust if not paid by the sponsoring University.

20. The photograph of the students of the Winner and Runner-up teams of final round along with their Bio-data will be published in the Indian Bar Review, which shall be supplied by respective universities/colleges within a month from the declaration of the result.

4

MOOT PROBLEM-I

Shri Ram Singh hails from State of Kerala, belongs to an orthodox Hindu family, and

settled in Delhi from 1950 doing the manufacturing business. He has one wife and three

daughters namely, Mrs. Gauri Singh aged 27, Ms.Ganga aged, 25 and Ms.Yamuna aged,

22. During the month of June 2007, Mr.Ram Singh, started looking for a good bridegroom

for his daughter, Ms.Ganga aged, 25 a gold medalist from IIT , Kanpur and also working in

TCS, New Delhi from June 2005. He has published his daughters profile on all the

matrimonial websites.

On July 2007, he came across a good profile of a boy namely Mr.Kiran Lal from same

religion and also working in software industry. His parents, Mr. Ratanlal and Mrs.

Deeksha belong to Hindu religion, have home in India and also in Texas in USA. His son

got a job in USA during the year 2000. From the year 2000 he is working in USA and

staying there alone. He holds Indian passport but is a resident of USA.

After the meeting of bridegroom and bride, the marriage was performed as per Hindu

religion and also Brahman community traditions. The marriage was conducted on

12.12.07. Later the marriage got registered at sub-registrar office, in New Delhi.

On 01.01.2008, the couple left to USA, and stayed there for a period of one year

and applied for permanent residence in USA. In the middle of November 2008, some

dispute arose between them, due to the Kiran Lal’s behaviour. Ms.Ganga, while she was in

USA came to know that Mr.Kiran Lal, had already married another woman in USA in the

year 2006, by the name of Ms. Stella and subsequently filed petition for divorce. During

the pendency of proceedings, he came to India and completed the marriage with Ms.Ganga.

Mr.Kiran Lal, started creating problems to her in USA and was not treating her

5

properly. He kept her in confinement at home and also harassed her.

With the help of some neighbours, she escaped from the custody of her husband

and reached Delhi and subsequently explained everything to their parents. In the month

of March, 2009, Ms. Ganga filed a case for divorce in the District Court. The District

Court rejected the case for want of jurisdiction, since they acquired permanent residence

in USA, and bridegroom was also residing in USA.

Upon the dismissal of the case, Ms.Ganga filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi against her husband, Mr.Kiran Lal for divorce and compensation.

Argue the case for the respective parties.

*******

6

MOOT PROBLEM- II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Nandlal Misra and Other

v.

Shyam Lal Misra

Mr. Madan is the karta of a Joint Hindu Family. The family has 14 members in total three sons, namely,

Shyam, Nandlal, Gomatilal , their wives, Leela, Shyma, Vyoma respectively and their children. They were

living happily in the house, called as Mohanto Mahal, in Bikaner district of Rajasthan. The house was an

ancestral house of Mr. Madan’s wife, Mrs. Daulat Devi, who died in 2008 December leaving all her assets in the

name of her husband only in her properly executed will, except the house. The house was owned by Mr.

Ladoodan ji, father of Mrs. Daulat Devi, who was the legal owner, having all evidence of ownership of that

house. He died in 1964, before that in 1963, he adopted Daulat’s elder son Shyam (who was 5 years old at that

time) by the means of rituals and before five panchas (headmen of the village) as his son and declared him his

legal heir. But till the death of Mrs. Daulat , Shyam and his family remained with Mr. Madan and Daulat. Since

Madan was the karta, he was managing all the property of the family including the house, whose lifetime

interest was given to Daulat by Ladoodan, in the capacity of a caretaker and manager. Shyam, though was

adopted by Ladoodan, but never accepted him as his father and called Madan and Daulat, who were declared as

his guardians (as he was minor at that time) as his father and mother. Interestingly, in 1968, when Shyam was

10 years old, in the capacity of the legal guardian Madan, sold the north part of the house to Mr. Kanjilal for Rs.

50,000/- only and deposited the money in a Fixed Account for Shyam and Nandlal both. In 1970, Madan got

signature of Shyam on a paper where it was written that he is transferring the south and central part of the house

to Madan, Shyam knowingly accepted this and signed the paper. The paper was just a simple piece of paper

bearing no legal importance. Later on after Mrs. Daulat’s death in 2008, Nandlal and Gomatilal demanded for

partition. But Shyam demanded that he is the owner of the house, as he is the legal owner of the house and

Ladoodan ji’s legal heir. Nandlal and Gomatilal went to District Court, where it was held that Shyam is the sole

owner of the house hence there can be no partition on their demand. The Appeal went to High Court of

Rajasthan.

Argue the cases from both sides.

7

MOOT PROBLEM :III

State of Madhya Pradesh is one of the biggest State of Union of India. It has rich

national resources including wild forest, mines and ores which contributes to the Indian

economic growth and development. The population of the State is not highly advanced in

technology and also living in their natural surroundings. The State is dominated by tribal

people who are living in hilly areas.

On June 1998, Patala Ganga Limited (PGLTD) was incorporated at Bhopal, MP. The

objects of the company is to invest and do business in mining and ores. It had acquired a

license/permission from State of MP to commence its activities near the boundary of State

of MP . The border is shared with state of Chhattisgarh a new State, carved out of State of MP.

The PGLTD entered into a joint venture agreement with another company incorporated

in UK namely Gold Fields Ltd (GFLTD). The both companies started their activities and

doing export business in mining from 1998. From the commencement of the work, the

people, particularly the tribal people, who are living nearby areas, started their protest for

deprivation of their basic rights like right to livelihood.

In 2005 a movement against the mining activities started. An NGO named Nature’s

Protection Association of MP (NPA) demanded closure and prevented mining in the

designated areas permitted by the State. The movement against mining is still continuing

Meanwhile, in the Vidhan Shaba of State of MP, the opposition party raised an issue

regarding the license to the company to proceed with mining activities by breaching existing

laws and also guidelines issued by Supreme Court. The government conveyed that all rules

have been followed and requested not to politicise the issue. The government also appointed

a committee to look into the matter of any irregularities regarding the grant of license’s to

companies.

In 2008, due to over exploitation of mining and other acts, the people living in these areas

8

have left their places and started migrating to other States for their livelihood. The State is

unable to protect their basic rights.

In the given circumstances, Mrs. Rajshree, a Delhi based lawyer, filed a

public interest litigation in the Hon'ble Suprme Court of India against the

State and other private parties and raised the following issues:

i. Mines are the property of the State and shall not be delegated to

private parties. ,

ii. Displacement of tribal's population due to activities of mining companies

amount to violation of basic rights.

Argue the case for the respective parties.

9

MOOT PROBLEM NO.- IV

1. On 05.09.2008, an Indian weekly magazine, published an interview of Mr. X, an Advocate practicing

in the Supreme Court of India, given to its Editor- under the headline “HALF OF THE LAST 16 CHIEF

JUSTICES WERE CORRUPT”, in which there are very serious allegations affecting the credibility of the

highest Court.

Excerpts from the interview are reproduced below:

“Qn.: The debate around judicial accountability has got really hot. Are there watershed events

that triggered this?

Ans.: Not in my own perception, but I think for the public there were two watershed events – the

Chief Justice ‘Z’ (name withheld) case (where there was an allegation that Chief Justice ‘Z’s orders to

demolish commercial outlets in Delhi directly benefited his sons, who were partners with some mall

developers) and the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam. Both these cases got wide media attention. A

2006 Transparency International report said the judiciary in India is the second most corrupt

institution after the police.”

“Qn.: You’ve been at the forefront of the judicial accountability campaign. Why?

Ans.: I have been witness to judicial corruption in the courts for a very long time. I know decisions

are passed for extraneous considerations, but it’s difficult to get hard evidence of this. There have been high

profile impeachment attempts, for instance, A, B, C (He mentioned the names of three former Judges, which are

omitted). Yet, they all went on to become chief justices. In my view, out of the last 16 to 17 chief justices, half

have been corrupt. I can’t prove this, though we had evidence against P, A and Z (names withheld) on the basis

of which we sought their impeachment.”

“Qn.: What is the root cause of judicial corruption then, and what are your key demands?

Ans.: …….For example, the complaint against Justice ‘L’ (name of the High court Judge omitted)

was that he had purchased land worth Rs 4 crore at Rs 4 lakh — approximately — from land mafia in

10

Noida. This was based on a report from the DM and SSP of Noida. This land mafia had several cases

pending in courts subordinate to Justice ‘L’. Another complaint was that in the Reliance Power

matter, though his son was the lawyer for Reliance Power, Justice ‘L’ constituted a special bench

while he was the presiding judge in Lucknow. He sat in the house of one of the judges at 11 p.m at

night to hear their case and pass an injunction in their favour. We asked Chief Justice ‘Z’ (Chief

Justice of India) to initiate proceedings against ‘L’, but he refused.

Similarly, Justice ‘J’ (name omitted) decided the case of a person whose grand daughter had been married

out of his own house. He was a close friend but he still heard and decided the case in this person’s favour. The

point is, in these cases though very specific complaints were made to the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), he

didn’t do anything to activate the in-house procedure. All these judges have gone on to become chief justices.

‘L’ is still Chief Justice of … (a High Court). ‘J’ became Chief Justice of …….(another High Court).”

“Qn.: Are there other ways in which judicial corruption manifests itself?

Ans.: There are so many. There is Justice ‘K’(Judge, Supreme Court) who decided on the Niyamgiri

mining lease case in Orissa. He said Vedanta can’t be given the lease because it’s been blacklisted by the

Norwegian government; but its subsidiary company Sterlite can get the lease because it is a publicly listed

company. Justice ‘K’ said it’s publicly listed because he had shares in it and yet he passed an order in favour of

Sterlite! There is a law against judges hearing cases where there is a conflict of interest, but they just bypass it

and you can’t complain because that would be contempt.”

2. However, the Advocate Mr. `X’ did not mention in his interview the fact that Mr. Justice ‘K’ had

announced in open court at the very outset that he had shares in the said company and if there was any

objection, he would not hear the case.

3. Mr. X , is an advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of State ‘U’. He was enrolled by the said Bar

Council under Section 22 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

4. The Bar Council of India took suo motu notice of the interview given by Mr. X and issued a notice to

show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under the Advocates Act, 1961 read

11

with the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975. Similar notices were served upon the Editor, Printer and Publisher of

the magazine.

5. In the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council, constituted under Section 6

(c) read with Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the main issues will be :

(i) Jurisdiction,

(ii) Maintainability of the disciplinary proceedings,

(iii) Truth as defence, and

(iv) Apportionment of liability and culpability in the light of

a. Publication of statement distinguished from making a statement

b. Text and context in which the statement was made and published; and

(v) Nature of punishment, if any.

Instructions:

As advocates for the respective parties, one team shall present the case of the Bar Council for the State of

`U’ before the Disciplinary Committee. The other team shall have one member to present the case of Mr. X

while another member shall represent the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the magazine.

12

26TH ALL INDIA INTER UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION

8TH - 10TH JAUNUARY, 2010

P R O G R A M M E

Date and Day Time Event Venue

8th  January, 2010  (Friday)  

05.00 p.m. to 05.30 p.m  Tea  Town Hall, Gandhinagar 

8th  January, 2010  (Friday) 

05.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m  Draw of Lots  Town Hall, Gandhinagar 

8th  January, 2010  (Friday) 

06.00 p.m. to 7.45 p.m.  Inaugural  Town Hall, Gandhinagar 

8th  January, 2010  (Friday) 

08.00 p.m. onwards  Dinner  Town Hall, Gandhinagar 

9th  January, 2010  (Saturday) 

09.30 a.m. to 11.00  11‐15 to 12.45 noon 

1st Round  University Campus 

9th  January, 2010  (Saturday) 

01.00 p.m. to 02.00 p. m. Lunch  University Campus 

9th  January, 2010  (Saturday) 

02.30 p.m. to 04.00 p. m.04‐15 p.m. to 05.45 p.m. 

2nd Round  University Campus 

10th  January, 2010  (Sunday) 

10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon Semi‐Final Round 

University Campus 

10th  January, 2010  (Sunday) 

01.30 pm to 02.00 p.m.  Lunch  University Campus 

10th  January, 2010  (Sunday) 

03.30 p.m. to 05.30 p.m  Final Round  Hotel Cambay,  Gandhinagar 

  

10th  January, 2010  (Sunday) 

06.00 p.m. to 07.30 p.m  Valedictory Session 

Hotel Cambay, Gandhinagar 

  

10th  January, 2010  (Sunday) 

07.45 p.m onwards   Dinner  Hotel Cambay, Gandhinagar