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

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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 (January) 2000 (December) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008(January) 2008 (December) Delhi Poona Cochin Banaras Jodhpur Delhi Lucknow Hyderabad Shimla Ujjain Jodhpur Kurukshetra Cuttack Goa Pune Hyderabad Bangalore Chennai Kolkata Pune Lucknow Patna Bhopal Patiala Lucknow

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 Chairman 2. Shri Jai Ram Beniwal Vice Chairman 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Deb, Managing Trustee, BCIT 4. Dr. Gopal Narain Mishra Chairman, Executive Committee 5. Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma Associate Managing Trustee 6. Shri G. E. Vahanvati, Attorney General of India 7. Shri Gopal Subramanium Solicitor- General of India 8. Shri. Faisal Rizvi 9. Shri Rajendra B. Raghuwanshi 10. Shri Jagdev,

Bihar

Rajasthan

West Bengal

Uttar Pradesh

Uttarakhand

Ex-officio Member

Ex-officio Member

Chhattisgarh Maharashtra & Goa Delhi

11. Shri R. Dhanapal Raj 12. Shri S. Gopakumaran Nair 13. Shri Daulat Ram Sharma 14 Shri Milan Kumar Dey 15. Shri M. Rajender Reddy 16. Shri Hemantkumar J. Patel 17. Shri Ashok Parija 18. Shri Zafar Ahmed Khan 19. Shri C. M. Jagadeesh 20. Shri Brij Mohan Vinayak 21. Shri Apurba Kumar Sharma

Tamil Nadu Kerala Himachal Pradesh Jharkhand Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Orissa Madhya Pradesh Karnataka Punjab and Haryana Assam, Nagaland, Etc.,

Shri M. D. Joshi Acting Secretary

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

Shri M.D. Joshi Secretary Incharge

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 wont 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.

****

MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF 26 AllIndiaMootCourtCompetition,2010
TH

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

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

Sharma, Trustee,

4. Shri Hemantkumar J. Patel, Trustee, 3. Shri S. N. P. Sinha Chairman, Bar Council of India (ExBar Council of India Trust officio Trustee) 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

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)

Email : dmurthy@gnlu.ac.in mcc@gnlu.ac.in www.gnlu.ac.in

INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION Rules for the conduct of the competitions 1. 2. 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. 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 KnockOut basis. Depending upon the number of teams participating in the first round, there will be simultaneously as many Courts arguing the same problem. Each Court will assign marks to each individual participant and the team in the manner shown below:

3. 4.

Total Marks For written submissions For substance in arguments For skills of advocacy For general impression, court manners and behaviour
Total

100 20 Marks 40 Marks 20 Marks

20 Marks

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 knockout 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.

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 students 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.
2

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 Biodata 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.

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 Lals 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
4

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.

*******

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. Madans 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 Daulats 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. Daulats 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 jis 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.
6

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 Natures 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 licenses to companies.

In 2008, due to over exploitation of mining and other acts, the people living in these areas
7

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.

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 Zs 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.: Youve 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 its 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 cant 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)
9

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

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 persons favour. The point is, in these cases though very specific complaints were made to the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), he didnt 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 cant be given the lease because its 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 its 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 cant 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
10

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

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. b. Publication of statement distinguished from making a statement 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.

11

26TH ALL INDIA INTER UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION 8TH - 10TH JAUNUARY, 2010 PROGR AMME
Date and Day Time Event Venue

8thJanuary,2010 (Friday) 8thJanuary,2010 (Friday) 8thJanuary,2010 (Friday) 8thJanuary,2010 (Friday) 9thJanuary,2010 (Saturday) 9thJanuary,2010 (Saturday) 9thJanuary,2010 (Saturday) 10thJanuary,2010 (Sunday) 10thJanuary,2010 (Sunday) 10thJanuary,2010 (Sunday) 10thJanuary,2010 (Sunday) 10thJanuary,2010 (Sunday)

05.00p.m.to05.30p.m 05.30p.m.to6.00p.m 06.00p.m.to7.45p.m. 08.00p.m.onwards 09.30a.m.to11.00 1115to12.45noon 01.00p.m.to02.00p.m. 02.30p.m.to04.00p.m. 0415p.m.to05.45p.m. 10.00a.m.to12.00noon 01.30pmto02.00p.m. 03.30p.m.to05.30p.m

Tea DrawofLots Inaugural Dinner 1stRound Lunch 2ndRound SemiFinal Round Lunch FinalRound

TownHall, Gandhinagar TownHall, Gandhinagar TownHall, Gandhinagar TownHall, Gandhinagar UniversityCampus UniversityCampus UniversityCampus UniversityCampus UniversityCampus HotelCambay, Gandhinagar HotelCambay, Gandhinagar HotelCambay, Gandhinagar

06.00p.m.to07.30p.m

Valedictory Session Dinner

07.45p.monwards

12