lloyd law college milat silfsaarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/pdf/3rdbroucher...2. gujarat...
TRANSCRIPT
Justitia
s
Liberta
nMe a onva Sh Ad Aa RM C . R M . oN o t.f ino gr P
THIRD
PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING
COMPETITION 2017-18th th27 to 29 October, 2017
INDIA ROUND
RULES, PROPOSITION & PROGRAMME SCHEDULE
Organized by :
LLOYD LAW COLLEGEGREATER NOIDA (U.P.)
with technical support from
MILATMENON INSTITUTE OF LEGAL ADVOCACY & TRAINING
&
SILFSOCIETY OF INDIAN LAW FIRMS
INTRODUCTION
1
The Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition and Law Students'
Conference, 2017-18 is being organized by Lloyd Law College under technical support from
MILAT- Menon Institute of Legal Advocacy Training, Trivandrum and SILF- Society of Indian
Law Firms at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
For the year 2017-18, there will be two stages of the competition- The India Round and the
SAARC Round for India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal and
th thMaldives. The India Round will be held from 27 to 29 October, 2017 at Lloyd Law College,
Greater Noida. The two SILF-MILAT Best Law Student Awardees (one female & one male) will
be chosen from the top five teams selected at the India Round, by an empowered jury. Each
awardee will receive a fellowship of $ 50,000 from Pennsylvania State University School of Law,
USA to pursue LL.M. The Fellowship will be awarded only to students graduating in 2018.
Colleges / Universities sponsoring teams are advised to note this provision while selecting their
teams for India Round.
th thThe SAARC Round will be held from 16 to 19 February, 2018 at Lloyd Law College, Greater
Noida. A conference of law students participating in the Moot Contest from SAARC countries
th thwill also be held from 16 - 19 February, 2018 at Lloyd Law College. The idea is to provide a
forum for interaction among the law students of South Asian Region for advancing excellence in
legal education and professional development. Understanding the legal system of each others'
country will be mutually beneficial in the context of professional development, trade in legal
services and law reform. The topic for the 2018 law student conference is “Disaster
Management: SAARC Cooperation”.
Naming the Competition and the Conference
The reform brought about in Indian legal education by the pioneering efforts of Prof. N. R.
Madhava Menon during the last three decades through the Five Year Integrated B.A.LL.B.
programme under the National Law School experiment is the inspiration for Lloyd Law College
sponsoring the Mooting Competition and Conference in his name. On retirement from active
service, he continues to contribute to legal education and professional development through
Menon Institute of Legal Advocacy Training (MILAT) and M.K. Nambyar Academy for
Continuing Legal Education. Lloyd Law College is proud to be associated with MILAT and SILF
in launching the Mooting event for the benefit of law students from South Asian countries.
About Lloyd Law College
2
Lloyd Law College was established under the genesis of Satilila Charitable Society (SCS) in the
year 2003. The college is affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and the
affiliation is approved by the Bar Council of India. It imparts two professional degree
programmes, namely, Five Year Integrated B.A.LL.B. and three year LL.B. course. Lloyd Law
College is located in Knowledge Park – II, Greater Noida, India. The campus is spread over five
acres of lush green area, with excellent infrastructure, moot court rooms, fully-air conditioned
classrooms with smart-boards and a state-of-the-art library. Highly qualified, dedicated and
experienced faculty is one of the strengths of Lloyd Law College. In the year 2014, Lloyd Law
College organized the National Round of 'The Louis M. Brown and Forrest S. Mosten
International Client Consultation Competition', as well as the 30th Bar Council of India Trust All
India Inter-University Moot Court Competition. The college also organized the 'International
Client Consultation Competition' (National Round) -2013 in association with Forum of South
Asian Clinical Law Teachers.
Message from President, Lloyd Law College
I am extremely happy to note that Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida has achieved a coveted
position in the legal education scenario since its inception. Lloyd Law College has become one of
the first preferences for Law study.
Our vision being to produce quality lawyers with great human values has been achieved to a
larger extent with our students joining the profession as practicing lawyers, by securing
placement in reputed law firms in India and abroad and also by their selection as judges by
clearing the Judicial Services Examination. We give great importance to professional skill
developments such as moot courts, debates, seminars etc. with full participation from the
students in hosting such competitions in our law college as well as encouraging them to
participate in competitions in India and abroad. I am happy to learn that our students have secured
prizes in prestigious competitions organized by reputed institutions and organizations. Our
college along with Menon Institute of Legal Advocacy and Training (MILAT) and Society of
Indian Law Firms (SILF) is organizing the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting
th thCompetition and Law Student's Conference, 2017-18 during 16 to 19 February, 2018. This
Mooting Competition shall consist of an 'India Round' and the 'SAARC Round', along with a
'Law Students' Conference'. The India Round shall be held during 27th to 29th October, 2017.
The SAARC Mooting Round and Law Students' Conference will witness participation from
SAARC Countries, i.e., India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and
3
Maldives. This competition would provide a common platform for the students of different law
institutions to exchange ideas and also to learn from experienced legal experts. Such interactions
would help them in advancing their career opportunities. I convey my best wishes to all the
participants for achieving success in their professional career. I am sure that with the sincere
efforts and hard work put in by the students, staff and faculty in organizing this competition, it is
going to be a grand success. I wish all the best for the success of the competition.
Report of the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition & Law Students' Conference, 2016-17
India Round- 2016
The India Round of the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition and
rd thLaw Students' Conference, 2016-17 was held from 3 to 4 December, 2016 to select five
qualifying teams from India to participate in the SAARC Round. It saw participation from 32
teams from almost all states in India representing National Law Universities, Central & State
Universities and other leading law colleges. The competition was inaugurated by the gracious
hands of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan Bhimarao Lokur, Judge, Supreme Court of India in presence
of Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon. The India Round tested participants on various aspects of
Nuclear Energy laws and policies in India, including nuclear damages and liability. The top five
colleges that qualified for SAARC Round are:-
1. Sastra University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
2. Gujarat National Law University, Gujarat
3. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
4. Nirma University, Ahmadabad
5. Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi
SAARC Round 2016-17
The SAARC Round of the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition
and Law Students' Conference, 2016-17 was held from 10th to 12th February, 2017. A National
Administrator representing each SAARC country was present to witness the conduct of the
competition. 16 teams from leading universities from SAARC nations participated in the
competition. The SAARC Round tested participants on various aspects of international law
including environmental damages, compensation and rights of indigenous tribal communities
under the international law. The final round was judged by five sitting judges of SAARC Nations.
The bench comprised of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kankanithanthri T. Chithrasiri, Judge Supreme
4
Court of Sri Lanka, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee, Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Dinesh Mehta, Rajasthan High Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Bhansali, Rajasthan High Court
and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Punjab & Haryana High Court. The winners of the
SAARC Round after a stimulating session of mooting was
* Sastra University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu.
The Runner-up team was
* Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal.
SAARC Law Students' Conference 2016-17 th thThe SAARC Law Students' Conference was held from 11 to 12 February, 2017 at Lloyd Law
College. It was an exercise aimed at promoting research, writing and presentation skills of the law
students from SAARC countries. The conference witnessed participation from 16 teams from
India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Research papers were submitted by the
presenters on the theme 'Justice to Indigenous People'.
The winners of the Best Paper, Second Best Paper and Third Best Paper Awards were students
from
* Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi,
* University of Colombo
* Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi respectively.
5
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF INDIA ROUND OF THIRD PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON
SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION, 2017-18
The Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition, 2017-18 aims at
honing legal advocacy skills among law students of SAARC countries.
The Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition, 2017-18 shall consist
of two stages:- the India Round and the SAARC Round; both to be held at Lloyd Law
College, Greater Noida, India.
The India Round shall be held from 27th to 29th October, 2017.
The SAARC Round comprising of participants from SAARC Countries i.e., India, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Maldives shall be held from 16th to
19th February, 2018.
Only Top Five Teams from the India Round shall qualify to represent India in the SAARC
Round.
ARTICLE 1: Objective of the competition
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The India Round will be held at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida from 27th to 29th October,
2017 among student teams from the Top Law Schools/Colleges/ Universities imparting legal
education in India, provided that no Institution shall send more than one team to compete in
the India Round.
The India Round will comprise of Two Stages, i.e., arguments from both sides (Petitioner /
Respondent).
The Top Five Scoring Teams in the India Round will qualify for the SAARC Round to
represent India.
Each participating team in the India Round shall argue the case from both the petitioner and
the respondent sides in Two Stages respectively and in one round only. No derogation from
this rule is permissible.
There shall be a Committee of Judges for each court selected from a Panel of Judges
constituted for that purpose.
ARTICLE 2: The India Round
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
Each team shall consist of Two Counsels and Two Researchers in the India Round. Each of
whom:-
Must have been born on or after 1st January, 1988; and
On the 27th October, 2017 is a bona-fide undergraduate law student (for the year 2017-2018
till June 2018) of the Three Year Scheme or Five Year Scheme from an institution duly
recognized by the Bar Council of India; and
Has not been admitted to the practice of law in any jurisdiction.
Each college or institution shall send only one team of such eligible participants.
In no case any team shall consist of more than four participants, that is, Two (2) Mooters and
Two (2) Researchers. Their number cannot be increased under any circumstances.
The traveling expenses of the participants shall be met by their respective institution or
participants themselves.
ARTICLE 3: Team Composition and Eligibility
1.
i
ii
iii
2.
3.
4.
The registration fee for the India Round is Rs. 3,500/-.
All teams participating in the India Round shall register themselves through payment of
registration fee by either E-Transfer (NEFT) or by Demand Draft and subsequent e-mail of
soft copy of registration form and proof of payment, to
The hard copy of Demand Draft shall be submitted through post to the Organizing
Committee, Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition & Law
Students' Conference 2017-18, Lloyd Law College, Plot No. 11, Knowledge Park- II Greater
Noida- 201306, Delhi/NCR.
No subsequent change in the team composition shall be permitted.
E-transfer of the registration fee can be done using NEFT, in favor of-
"LLOYD LAW COLLEGE”,
Account number- 3976002100005500,
Bank- Punjab National Bank Branch- Sarita Vihar, New Delhi
ISFC Code- punb0397600
ARTICLE 4: Registration
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7
The demand draft of Rs. 3,500/- shall be drawn in favor of “LLOYD LAW COLLEGE”,
GREATER NOIDA, and shall be payable at GREATER NOIDA.
Formal registration of the teams shall be done on 27th October, 2017 at the venue of the
competition from 03:00 P.M.
Registration forms/demand draft/e-transfer received after deadlines shall in no case be
considered for registration.
6.
The moot proposition for the India Round can be downloaded from
http://saarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/
All queries and clarifications for the moot problem shall be sent via e-mail to
No queries and clarifications for the moot problem shall be entertained after 10th October,
2017.
C l a r i f i c a t i o n s o n t h e m o o t p r o b l e m w i l l b e d e c l a r e d o n
thhttp://saarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/ by 13 October 2017 for everyone's perusal
without disclosure of the identity of the teams.
ARTICLE 5: The Moot Proposition
1.
7.
8.
2.
3.
4.
Each team shall submit soft copies of the memorials (in PDF only) to the Organizing
Committee, Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition & Law
Students' Conference 2017-18, Lloyd Law College, on or before 18th October, 2017 via e-
mail to [email protected] by 11:59 P.M. IST .
Each team shall also submit five (5) hard copies of memorials to the Organizing Committee,
Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18 at Lloyd Law
College, Greater Noida on 27th October, 2017 at the time of formal registration.
Memorials must be submitted on the Standard International A/4 size page in Font Type: Times
New Roman, Font Size: 12, Double Spacing. The Font Style of the Footnote should also be
Times New Roman, Font Size: 10 and should be single spaced. Quotations from sources
outside of the memorial of Fifty (50) words or more in any part of the memorial shall be block
quoted (i.e., right and left indented) and must be single spaced.
thThe citation should be in compliance with the 20 edition of Bluebook. Speaking footnotes
ARTICLE 6: Memorials
1.
2.
3.
4.
8
or endnotes are not allowed.
No indication shall be made for identifying the Institution/College of the participant. Each
team will be awarded a TEAM CODE which shall be the identity of the team during the
competition. This TEAM CODE shall be marked on the title page of memorials.
The petitioner and respondent memorials must be differentiated by 'Blue Cover' and 'Red
Cover' respectively.
Memorials for both sides should contain the following:
Title Page
Table of Contents
Index of Authorities
Statement of Jurisdiction
Statement of Facts
Summary of Arguments/Pleadings
Arguments supported by Authorities
Conclusion/Prayer
The Title Page shall include:
The name of the Court
The year of the Competition
The Name of the Case
The Title of the Document (i.e., “Memorial for the Respondent” or “Memorial for the
Petitioner”)
TEAM CODE
The memorial shall not exceed more than Thirty (30) pages. The following contents are
inclusive within the stipulated page limit:
Pleadings
Conclusions
Annexure, if any
5.
6.
7.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
8.
(a)
(b)
(c)
9
Appendices and footnotes
Any issue or pleading, not discussed within the above mentioned contents of the memorial
shall not be included in any other section of the memorial.
The following shall not be included in the limit of Thirty (30) pages set out for the Memorial:
Title of Page
Table of Contents
Index of Authorities
Statement of Jurisdiction
Statement of Facts
Issues Presented
Summary of Pleadings
Statement of Facts: The Statement of the Facts shall be limited to the facts as stipulated as well
as to the necessary inferences drawn from the proposition. The statement of facts must not
include unsupported facts, distortions of stated facts, argumentative statements, or legal
conclusions. An excessive statement of facts shall be a 'Non- Discretionary Memorial
Penalty', but such violation may be taken into account by the judges while evaluating the
written submission.
Summary of Pleadings: The Summary of the Pleadings shall consist of a substantive summary
of the “Pleadings”, rather than a simple reproduction of the headings contained in the
Pleadings Section. An excessive Summary of Pleadings shall be a Non-Discretionary
Memorial Penalty, while a Summary of Pleadings which is otherwise improper shall not be
subjected to a Memorial Penalty, but such violation may be taken into account by the judges
while evaluating the written submission.
The teams are to submit authorities supporting their contentions referred to in the memorials
at the time of oral presentation but at no stage are they allowed to supplement the memorial in
the form of annexure, compilation etc. which may otherwise amount to exceeding page limit
of the memorial.
(c)
(d)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(b)
(a)
9.
10.
11.
10
The memorials shall be assessed by a Committee of Judges and every memorial will be
marked out of total Hundred (100) marks and the Team Memorial will have the average total
of both the sides (Petitioner/Respondent). The Marking Criteria and the Marks Allocated to
each Category are listed below:
ARTICLE 7: Assessment of the Memorials
1.
Each Oral Round shall consist of Ninety (90) minutes of oral pleadings. Each team
Petitioner/Respondent shall be allotted Forty Five (45) minutes.
Two (2) members from each team shall make oral presentations during the round. Prior to the
beginning of the Oral Round, each team shall indicate to the bailiff as to how it wishes to
allocate its 45 minutes among:
Its First Oralist,
Its Second Oralist, and
Rebuttal (for the Petitioner) or Sur-Rebuttal (for the Respondent).
No single oralist shall plead for more than Thirty (30) minutes, including Rebuttal or Sur-
Rebuttal.
Any team member may act as an oralist during any round of the competition. In exceptional
circumstances, the Bench shall have the discretion to permit a single oralist to argue beyond
Thirty (30) minutes limit.
The order of the pleadings in each Round at all levels of the Competition shall be:
ARTICLE 8: Oral Presentations
1.
2.
(a)
Evaluation Criteria
Knowledge of facts and law
Proper and articulate analysis
Extent and use of research
Clarity & Organization
Citation of sources
Grammar and Style
1
2
3
4
5
6
(Minimum: 10 pts; Maximum: 20 pts)
(Minimum: 10 pts; Maximum: 20 pts)
(Minimum: 10 pts; Maximum: 20 pts)
(Minimum: 10 pts; Maximum: 20 pts)
(Minimum: 5 pts; Maximum: 10 pts)
(Minimum: 5 pts; Maximum: 10 pts)
(b)
(c)
3.
4.
Petitioner 1 Petitioner 2 Respondent 1 Respondent 2
Rebuttal (Petitioner 1 or 2) Surrebuttal (Respondent 1 or 2)
11
Each team may reserve up to Fifteen (15) minutes of Rebuttal or Sur-rebuttal. As a gesture of
courtesy to the judges, the participating teams should announce whether they intend to reserve
any time for Rebuttal or Sur-rebuttal at the beginning of their oral arguments and how much
time they intend to reserve. Failure to announce it will not waive the right to Rebuttal or Sur-
rebuttal. Only one Team member may deliver the Rebuttal or Sur-rebuttal.
Although the team member delivering Rebuttal or Sur-rebuttal must be one of the two team
members who argued during the team's main argument, the team need not indicate prior to
Rebuttal or Sur-rebuttal which of its two eligible members will offer Rebuttal or Sur-rebuttal.
A team's oral pleadings shall not in any way be limited to the scope of the team's memorial.
The scope of the Petitioner's rebuttal shall be limited to responding to the Respondent's
primary oral pleadings, and the scope of the Respondent's Sur-rebuttal shall be limited to
responding to the Petitioner's rebuttal. If the Petitioner waives the rebuttal, there shall be no
Sur-rebuttal. No legal issues which were not addressed in the primary pleadings may be raised
in the rebuttal or Sur-rebuttal.
5.
6.
The judges would assign marks to each individual speaker out of Hundred (100) marks. The
team score would be the aggregate of the total marks for oral presentations of the 2 speakers.
The following shall be the Marking Criteria and the Marks allocated to each category:
ARTICLE 9: Marking Criteria for the Oral Presentations
1.
Oral Presentation Evaluation Criteria
Excellent
27-30 pts.
23-25 pts.
27-30 pts.
09-10 pts.
05 pts.
Very Good
24-27 pts.
21-23 pts.
24-27 pts.
08-09 pts.
04 pts.
Good
21-24 pts.
19-21 pts.
21-24 pts.
07-08 pts.
03 pts.
Adequate
19-21 pts.
16-19 pts.
19-21 pts.
05-07 pts.
03 pts.
Poor
15-19 pts.
15-16 pts.
15-19pts.
04-05 pts.
01 pt.
1. Knowledge of law (30)
2. Application of Law to facts (25)
3. Ingenuity and Ability to Answer Questions (30)
4. Style, Poise, Courtesy and Demeanour (10)
5. Time Management and Organisation (5)
Any dispute about the Moot Court Competition shall be referred to the Dispute Resolution
Committee, comprising of the Chairperson, Member Secretary, and the two Members before
the end of the competition. In all matters of complaints or disputes, the decision of the Dispute
Resolution Committee shall be final.
ARTICLE 10: Dispute
1.
The language for the Moot Court Competition shall be English.
ARTICLE 11: Code of Conduct
1.
12
All participants are expected to maintain the decorum in the Court during the competition and
are expected to conduct themselves in a manner befitting the legal profession.
Scouting: Speakers, a reserve or persons affiliated with the team, will not be permitted to hear
the arguments in any court room in which the team is not one of the contesting teams whilst the
team is still in the competition.
2.
The Top Five Scoring teams in the India Round shall qualify for participation in the SAARC
Round of the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition and Law
Students' Conference 2017-18, to be held among SAARC countries from 16th to 19th
February, 2018 at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, India.
The Top Five Scoring Teams shall be awarded certificates of qualification to the SAARC
Round.
The two Best Law Student Awardees will be chosen from the top five teams selected at the
India Round of the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition. From
the top five teams so selected, an empowered jury (constituted under an MOU between SILF-
MILAT and Penn State University Law School) will select two (one female and one male)
students provided they are the final year law students. The law schools participating are to
note that though they are free to choose their teams from any of the LL.B. classes, only those
who are completing LL.B. Degree in 2018 and finding a place in the top five teams in the India
Round of the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition will be
shortlisted for the consideration by Jury to select the Best Law Student of the Year Award to
receive the fellowship of $50000 from Penn State School of Law to pursue LLM from
Pennsylvania State University, School of Law, USA (For the purpose of clarification, it is to
be noted that oralists and researchers will be considered for the selection of the Best Law
students Award and Fellowship. However, the top five teams' oralists should remain as
oralists and the researchers should remain as participants in the students' conference, 2018 to
present papers in the SAARC Round. No deviation from this rule shall be permitted).
There will be Best Memorial Award and Second Best Memorial Award.
ARTICLE 12: Awards for India Round
1.
3.
2.
3.
4.
The team of Four (4) participants shall be provided accommodation by Lloyd Law College for
the duration of the competition only.
ARTICLE 13: Accommodation
13
However, the interested students are required to inform the Organizing Committee, through
their Registration Form, so as to enable the Committee to make necessary arrangements.
The duration of each court shall not exceed one hour and thirty minutes.
Depending upon the number of participating teams, the competition may be held in two or
more stages - however it shall comprise only one round i.e. Elimination Round.
The number of qualifying teams for the SAARC Round may be increased or decreased (not
less than five in any case) subject to the number of participating teams.
Team numbers and the side to be represented (petitioner/respondent) shall be decided by draw
of lots at different Stages during the competition. The scheme of competition thus drawn out
shall be notified to the participating teams.
The Organizers reserve the right to make any necessary alterations in respect to the side to be
taken by the competing teams, in case it becomes absolutely necessary due to withdrawal of
any team/teams at the last minute, or if the competing teams had no opportunity to argue the
other side of the problem.
Each team is expected to be ready with written briefs and oral arguments to argue from either
side of the case. The court will follow its own procedure within the accepted norms and
judicial practice, and in case of doubt or dispute in the matter of procedure or facts, the
decision of the Presiding Member of the Committee of Judges of each Court shall be final.
ARTICLE 14: General Section
1.
4.
5.
The present Annexure on Disqualifications and Penalties forms an integral part of the Official
Rules of the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Competition, 2017-18 (India
Round).
The aim of the Annexure on Disqualifications and Penalties is to ensure a fair and objective
contest in the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Competition, 2017-18 (India
Round) by providing guidelines for ensuring compliance with the relevant provisions of the
Official Rules.
ARTICLE A1: Aims
2.
3.
6.
ANNEXURE ON DISQUALIFICATION AND PENALTY
1.
2.
1.Cheating or using of unfair means of any kind is strictly prohibited and if indulged in, shall
result in disqualification of the team.
ARTICLE A2: Unfair Means, Intimidation and Misconduct
1.
14
Intimidation in any form is prohibited and if indulged in, shall result in disqualification of the
team.
Misconduct, whether behavioral or otherwise, is not allowed and if indulged in, shall result in
disqualification of the team.
Any form of communication between the Bar Table and any person other than those on the
Bench is prohibited, and if indulged in, will result in a penalty point.
Submission of any written material other than the memorials and any other documents related
to the proposition in hand to the Bench prior to, during or after oral arguments is not allowed
and if indulged in, will result in a penalty point.
Failure to deliver an oral argument shall be considered in entirety, a disqualification.
It shall be the discretion of the Organizing Committee to decide on any violation of the
provisions of Articles 6, 7 or 8 of the Rules and Regulations during the Round and whether
that violation entails a penalty point. If a participating team, member of the Bench or the time
keeper wishes to claim a violation of Articles 6, 7 or 8, the Bench shall inform the Organizing
Committee of the claim made and shall not consider it as a part of their deliberations unless
directed to do so by the Organizing Committee.
ARTICLE A3: Court Manners (Oral Arguments)
1.
2.
3.
2.
3.
4.
Delay in the submission of the memorials, use of incorrect font or font size, use of font of
inconsistent size, or improper line spacing, failure to include all parts of the memorial, or
inclusion of an unremunerated part, substantive legal argument outside of approved sections
of memorial, improperly formatted index of authorities, excessive length, failure to include
necessary information on the memorial cover, inclusion of any identifying mark, character or
text in the memorial shall result in imposition of penalties.
ARTICLE A4: Submission and Formatting of the Memorials
1.
Strict adherence to the Dress Code is required. The teams are required to be properly attired
for the Round. The participants are required to wear 'Black Trousers / Skirts' and 'White Shirt',
''Black Blazers' and 'Black Neck Tie'.
ARTICLE A5: Dress Code
1.
The participants are required to comply with the rules formulated by the Organizing
Committee at all times during the Third Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Competition,
2017-18 (India Round).
ARTICLE A6: Non-compliance with the Rules of the Organizing Committee
1.
15
Total points collected by a team shall be reduced by the penalty points imposed for the
violation of rules specified by the Organizing Committee for each round in which the
violation took place.
Each penalty point shall be imposed for each violation. One penalty point imposed shall
reduce one mark from the score of the team. However, the total number of penalty points
awarded against one team shall not surpass 10 points.
If the number of penalties increases from Ten (10) in numbers, the team can be debarred from
the competition. An opportunity of being heard by the Organizing Committee can be offered
to the team on request. The Committee shall decide whether to debar that particular team from
further participation in the competition or reduce the marks from the total score obtained by
that team.
2.
3.
4.
16
th thIMPORTANT DATES FOR INDIA ROUND (27 - 29 OCTOBER, 2017)
DATES FOR REGISTRATION
Date of announcement of competition
Last date for registration and payment (soft copy)
Last date for submission of registration form (hard copy)
:
:
:
th09 September, 2017 th15 September, 2017th20 September, 2017
DATES FOR MOOT PROPOSITION & MEMORIAL
Release of Moot Problem for India Round
Release of Clarifications on Moot Problem
Submission of Memorials (SOFT COPY) for India Round
Submission of Memorials (5 HARD COPIES each)
:
:
:
:
September 10, 2017
October 13, 2017
October 18, 2017
October 27, 2017
DATE OF COMPETITION
India Round I
India Round II
:
:
October 28, 2017
October 29, 2017
SCHEDULE FOR INDIA ROUND
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2017
Registration of participants at Lloyd Law College
Briefing of teams
Departure of Teams from Lloyd Law College
:
:
:
03:00 P.M. to 05:00 P.M.
05:00 P.M.
06:00 P.M.
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2017
Reporting of Teams & Distribution of badges
Group Photograph
Inaugural Ceremony
Lunch
Draw of lots & exchange of memorials for India Round- I, Stage- I
India Round- I, Stage- I
Draw of lots & exchange of memorials for India Round- I, Stage- II
Tea
India Round- I, Stage- II
Departure of Teams from Lloyd Law College
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
10:00 A.M.
10:45 A.M.
11:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M.
12:30 P.M. to 2:00 P.M.
12:30 P.M.
02:00 P.M. to 03:30 P.M.
02:00 P.M.
03:30 to 04:00 P.M.
04: 00 P.M. to 05:30 P.M.
06:00 P.M.
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2017
Arrival of teams at Lloyd Law College
Draw of lots & exchange of memorials for India Round- II, Stage- I
India Round- II, Stage- I
Draw of lots & exchange of memorials for India Round- II, Stage- II
India Round- II, Stage- II
Lunch
Valediction Ceremony
Tea
Departure of Teams from Lloyd Law College
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
08:00 A.M.
08:30 A.M. to 09:00 A.M.
09: 30 A.M. to 11:00 A.M.
11:00 A.M. to 11:30 A.M.
12: 00 noon to 01:30 P.M.
01:30 to 02:30 P.M.
02: 30 P.M. to 04: 00 P.M.
04:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M.
04:30 P.M.
17
FOUNDING COMMITTEE
Chief Patron
Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon
Hony. SAARC Mooting Administrator
Prof. (Dr.) S. Sivakumar
Member, Law Commission of India /
Honorary Secretary, MILAT
Co - Chairperson
Mr. Manohar Thairani
President
Lloyd Law College
ADVISORS
Dr. Lalit Bhasin
President
SILF / The Bar Association of India
Mr. R. Venkataramani
Senior Advocate /
Former Member, Law Commission of India
ADMINISTRATOR - INDIA
Dr. Lisa P. Lukose
Associate Professor
GGSIP University, New Delhi
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Chief Coordinator
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Khan
Head of Department, Lloyd Law College
Coordinators
Dr. Kavitha Chalakkal
Asst. Director (Research) CIJER, Lloyd Law College
Ms. Chhaya Bhardwaj
Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College
+91-8800621117
+91-9811095405
+91-9024088900
DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE
Mr. R. Venkataramani
Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Chairperson
Prof. (Dr.) Manjula Batra
Professor, Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
Member
Prof. (Dr.) Kameswari Goda
Director (Research) CIJER, Lloyd Law College
Member
Ms. Anju Jain
Advocate
Member
Dr. Lisa P Lukose
Administrator - India, SAARC Mooting Competition
Secretary
18
STEERING COMMITTEE
Dr. Md. Salim
Mr. Anil Thakur
Mr. Piyush Sharma
Ms. Manju Khilery
Mr. Amit Srivastav
Mr. Ankit Rai
Major V. G. Menon
Mr. Ratish Mallick
General Coordinator
Coordinator (Accommodation)
Coordinator (Media)
Coordinator (Hospitality)
Coordinator (Travel)
Coordinator (Protocol)
Coordinator(Administration)
Coordinator(Finance)
STUDENT COORDINATORS
Mr. Kumar Deepraj
Mr. Deepak Khandelwal
Ms. Pooja Kumari
Ms. Priyanshi Gupta
Mr. Shivansh Shukla
Mr. Aman Kumar
+91-8447248119
+91-8651718126
+91- 9718695682
+91- 9871825212
+91- 9015406240
+91- 8083191100
19
Moot Proposition for India Round
This moot proposition has been authored by Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
and settled by Mr. R. Venkataramani, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India for the INDIA
Round of 3rd Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition, 2017-18. This moot
proposition has been formulated solely for the purpose of this competition furthering the
academic exercise.
MOOT PROPOSITION
2.
3.
4.
The Constitution of Eden - formerly a 'British Colony' became independent in the year 1947.
The dreams and aspiration of independent Eden are aptly captured in its basic governing
document - which the leaders of independent Eden formulated and adopted by the constituent
assembly - the 'Constitution of Eden'. It establishes Eden as a 'Union of States' of which
'Federalism' is one of the basic feature. The Constitution of Eden is considered and described
as one of the most progressive Constitutions based on the principles of 'liberal democratic'
governance. It guarantees several fundamental rights, broadly corresponding to those
recognized in International Human Rights instruments. The Constitution further guarantees
direct access to its Supreme Court for enforcement of those rights. The Constitutional, legal
and policy framework of Republic of Eden are parimateria to the Republic of India.
With its vast human resource, natural resources, flora and fauna, geographic location, science
and technology foundations, pattern of sustainable development – the rise of Eden stood as a
predicted major global power on the world map. Its economy has grown significantly and
sustains a growth rate of nearly 7.5% per annum.
The present government of Eden which came to power in Jan. 2016, aims to take the
economic reform to the next level with expedition, vision and determination. It gave the new
mantra of 'minimum government with maximum governance' and promised its citizenry a set
of new policy measures towards realization of basic social- economic rights. In particular, it
affirmed its resolution to work and improve on critical domains of 'Health Care Security
measures', 'Education' and 'Employment'.
Mrs. 'K' is the chief executive of a voluntary organisation - Social Health Care Group
(SHCG) – a registered society engaged in the provision of social welfare/ healthcare facilities
including reproductive assistance to infertile couples/ individuals – who face difficulties in
becoming a parent or in conceiving a child.
1.
PART - I
20
SHCG was one of the nodal agencies in five major states in the Republic of Eden which was
partnering with the Government in major health care reforms. The Government of Eden
wanted to reach out to its last citizen and cater to the health-care needs with the help of new
age information technologies. The SHCG used to receive the government grant as well as
funds from international agencies (both public and private) for its pioneering work in the
field of Health Care in Eden.
Mrs. 'K' is the wife of a sitting member of Parliament i.e. Mr. 'X' – who happens to be also the
leader of opposition in the lower house of the Parliament i.e. the House of People of Eden. It is
an established constitutional convention in the Republic of Eden that the chairman of the
Public Accounts Committee i.e. PAC is the leader of opposition in the House of People. Mr.
'X' was a minister in the previous government and was perceived to be of great influence in
policy making matters.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is a committee of selected members of Parliament,
for the auditing of the revenue and the expenditure of Government of Eden. Based on their
findings, PACs often make recommendations to government ministries requiring that they
change certain policies and procedures to improve their operations. The functions of the
Public Accounts Committee (PAC) extend beyond the formality of scrutiny of expenditure to
its 'wisdom, faithfulness and economy' in matters involving financial irregularities.
6.
5.
In the month of February 2016, one of the leading newspapers of Eden highlighted certain
financial irregularities committed by voluntary organizations (VOs) / NGOs in India which
are receiving grants from various agencies of the government and other foreign fundings. The
absence of proper accounting, fixing accountability for misuse of the funds at the hand of
officials / office bearers of these NGOs / VOs was seriously criticized. It also critically
examined the nexus between the political patronage of these NGOs/ VOs and the manner in
which they receive funds or acts as nodal agencies with the successive change of
governments.
In view of the nature and spread of misuse and analyzing their impact on bonafide reach of
welfare programmes, Public Interest Petition was filed by a well known organisation called
“People's Cause” in the Supreme Court of Eden with regard to the substantial funding to
voluntary organization/Non- Governmental organization – which sought to have a uniform
system of accounting and accountability (whether receiving grants from the Govt. or not) so
as to usher in transparency and good governance.
7.
PART - II
8.
21
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Eden passed an order in this petition on 10.04.2016 as under: -
“*** there can be no doubt about the fact, that the amount disbursed by the Govt. Agencies
and other similar nodal agencies, is public money. The same must be accounted for. It seems
from the counter- affidavits and affidavits of various stakeholders including the Government
that the only action taken for non-submission of balance- sheet/ returns by the VO's / NGO's,
is that the concerned VO/ NGO is blacklisted. In case of non- compliance, it is essential to
initiate civil as well as criminal action, whereby, the concerned public fund is returned to the
Government and criminal action is initiated for defalcation/ misappropriation. It is, therefore,
essential to direct, that the aforesaid action be taken immediately on the completion of the
exercise referred to hereinabove. Ordered accordingly.”
The above order was passed after hearing several interveners and interested parties,
including confederation of voluntary organisations of which SHCG is a member.
That the aforementioned direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Eden received wide
publicity by the electronic as well as print media. The new age of Social Media was also full
of the above news highlighting the misuse of public funds by the NGOs/ VOs across various
sectors.
9.
As the issue got highlighted in the media, News Channels as well as Social Media – public
disquiet emerged about the role of such Non-Governmental Organisations/ Voluntary
Organisations – their funding, absence of an accounting mechanism, norms for fixing
accountability for their role in various capacities as agents of socio- economic development
in a vast country like Eden. General demand for strict law in respect of voluntary agencies
was also widely circulated. The Government of Eden also expressed its inclination towards
enactment of such a law and it also issued a tentative list of voluntary organisations liable to
be banned or restricted in their activities has also prohibitions on receiving funds from
foreign resources.
That the political nexus of Mrs. 'K' along with the financing of and role of SHCG also got
highlighted including the extra-ordinary, exorbitant pay/ salary of Mrs. 'K' and her travel
expenses (including the family vacations) and also of her kin working in SHCG flouting all
norms and ethical principles.
In the backdrop of the aforementioned direction of the Supreme Court, a Sub- Committee
under the PAC committee was appointed to look into the irregularities surrounding the
10.
PART - III
11.
12.
22
funding and finance given by Eden Government and other State Governments to certain
NGOs including the 'SHCG'. The Sub- Committee was headed by one (Dr. A.), a Member of
Parliament, who belonged to the ruling party. One of the references to the sub-committee
was concerning the desirability of discontinuing work through such organisations and the
need for strengthening Governments institutions.
Amidst, all these media glare and highlights and in the backdrop of above factual situation –
Mrs. 'K' was invited by the Sub- Committee to depose before it in July 2016.
The sub-committee decided to follow the procedure provided for under the Commissions of
Enquiry Act, 2013 viz. public participation and principles of natural justice.
Thus she was not under any obligation to attend, nor the Sub-Committee had compelled her
to do so in any manner. Mrs. 'K' decided to attend and appear before the Sub- Committee,
presumably in part, because she felt that her refusal would not play well with the public,
media and her relationship with the 'Leader of Opposition' in the House of People who was
also touted as the 'Next Generation Leader'.
At the sub- Committee proceedings, as per the version of Mrs. 'K', she was subjected to unfair
treatment: members of the committee asked her searching questions about her salary
arrangements, the mode of receipt of foreign funds, appointment of employees and staffs, use
and disbursement of funds and role of her husband in connection with funding despite not
having been given advance notice on the nature of enquiry; it was suggested to her by various
members of the committee that she was 'Grossly overpaid', that she ran the SHCG 'like a
personal fiefdom' and she had done more damage than good to the 'health sector' and to the
needy sections of the community.
Aggrieved and affected by the approach of members of Sub-Committee, she wrote a letter
dated 01.08.2016 to the Speaker of the House of People seeking a declaration from her office
that the functioning of Sub-Committee is contrary to law and tainted by bias as well, and also
sought an order removing from the records of the Sub- Committee, all references to her
entered in violation of principles of fairness set out in the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 2013.
In the beginning of year 2015, leading drugs manufacturing companies which sought to
provide vaccine/ drug to cure infertility among women had approached 'SHCG' to
collaborate with them in carrying out the much needed experimentation of a vaccine/drug
that will reverse all current medical procedures relating to infertility.
17.
PART - IV
13.
13A.
14.
15.
16.
23
The then Government of Eden had in principle permitted two drugs manufacturers who have
patents for the wonder drugs in distinct forms, to carry out experimentations subject to
supervision by the Eden Council of Medical Research. It also cleared the association of
voluntary organisations with the drugs manufacturers. The drugs manufacturing companies
approached the SHCG headed by Mrs. 'K' and got administered the drugs on female(s)
ranging from the age of '15 to 32'. This involvement of SHCG with the experimentation
process was not publically known.
As the trial/ experimentation of new drug/ vaccine was sponsored through the NGO 'SHCG'
any claims for any wrongs or injuries and for the compensation in cases of any mishap
(including death) was to be routed through the NGO 'SHCG'. However, there does not exist
any evidence to suggest that the 'females' to whom the experimental drug/ vaccine was
administered were coerced in any manner or undue influence was exerted on them to describe
the case akin to 'human guinea pig' on any socio-economic account. This is further reinforced
by the fact that the female(s) whom drug/ vaccine was administered were from mix-
economic / income level (including BPL, middle income). It remains another fact that most
of these females were literate.
If successful, the cure of infertility by way of proposed drug/ vaccine among female would be
path-breaking and obviously a threat to the other existing industry involved in the current
Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) including surrogacy, IVF etc. The Corporates who
were pioneers of existing ART Technology (i.e. surrogacy, IVF etc.) had began to lobby
aggressively against this burning issue of 'Drug Trial' on women with respect to 'cure of
infertility'. Comparisons were drawn and the debate entered on reckless governmental
clearance to unchartered areas of experimentation.
However as the experimentation process became operative the role of 'SHCG' came to be
known. While it was suggested that there was no coercion of any sort in the enlisting of
females, issues of serious adverse effects began to be communicated and even
representations were made to the Government of Eden by some of the participants in the trial.
With the involvement of 'SHCG' in the clinical drug trial on the females, the issue further got
more attention due to Mrs. 'K' and the pending sub-committee proceedings under the PAC
which was looking into the irregularities surrounding the funding and finance given to the
'SHCG'. In the wake of the above, the terms of enquiry (ToE) of the Sub- Committee was
enlarged as it appeared from the name itself i.e. Sub- Committee on 'Clinical trial related
issue vis-a-vis voluntary organisations – particularly 'SHCG' involvement and funding'.
18.
19.
20.
21.
24
Mrs. 'K' was at receiving end not only because of embezzlement / mis-management of the
funding to her NGO i.e. 'SHCG' but also for the obvious reason as the SHCG became the sole
sponsoring agency for this 'Drug Trial'. It was obvious that SHCG was not scientifically or
technically qualified, nor its staff drawn from scientific experience. It was also found that the
two Drugs companies had not looked for any other technically and scientifically well
equipped organisations who may be better fitted to the task. She was aggrieved because of
pre-mature mud-slinging by the media and she threatened to sue for damaging her reputation
which is integral to Right to Life as read under Article 21 of the Constitution of Eden.
All this happened prior to Dec. 2015 and following the General Elections in the country, the
'Eden Heritage Party' came to power and formed the federal government. It promised to deal
with corruption in public life with strong hands.
22.
23.
Following adverse information coming out regarding the clinical trials, Mrs. 'K' was re-
invited by the Sub- Committee for further investigation, but this time she declined to testify
through a communication dated 01.10.2016 to the Chairman of Sub- Committee she
reminded of her letter dated 01.08.2016 to the Speaker of Lok Sabha and her reasons for not
attending such proceedings of the Sub- Committee.
The Sub-committee sent a questionnaire to Mrs. 'K' regarding the information that she may
be required to supply. The committee also issued a notice to the two drug companies who
were conducting the clinical trials. The Committee also received information that clinical
trial has led to cases of serious disabilities and possibly cases of death. The information with
the committee in the above regard was as yet to be confirmed. The Committee had also asked
the Government to enquire into the veracity of the information received by it and to make its
report available with the committee.
Even though Mrs. 'K' did not attend the proceedings of the committee, representatives of the
two drugs companies attended the proceedings of the committee and it said to have supplied
confidential information, particularly in regard to be alleged adverse effects of the clinical
trial. The Committee thereafter sent yet another notice to Mrs. 'K', giving her an opportunity
to deal with the information supplied by the drugs companies. Mrs. 'K' however again
declined to appear before the committee, stating that the committee is biased, having regard
to its composition and the hostile position taken by the Chairman of the sub-committee. She
maintained that only through a due process of law can any matters relating to SHCG can be
reached, or dealt with.
24.
PART - V
25.
26.
25
As the Chairman of Sub-Committee Dr. 'A' through the chairman of PAC submitted the report
before the lower House of the People in the Budget Session i.e. February 2017 for its
consideration.
That during the budget session, the chairman of the PAC did not table the report submitted by
the Sub- Committee headed by Dr. 'A'. Consequently, no discussion took place on the report
during the Budget Session. Before the start of Monsoon Session of Parliament, called for a
Press Conference in which he selectively highlighted the contents of the report, Dr. 'A'
alleged the role of individuals and also selectively leaking its findings as well.
This Press Conference attracted much public attention in the national as well as international
media as it involved human rights issues connected to the working of SHCG and the style of
functioning of Mrs. 'K' as well. However, certain pin-pointed questions which were put
forward by the media persons during the Press Conference about the role and involvement of
Mr. 'X' in the 'Clinical trial related issue vis- a -vis SHCG financing', Dr. 'A' did not answer
any such question and asked the media to wait as the Parliament is seized with the matter and
is yet to debate on the issue/ report.
The advance list of business of House of People listed for discussion on the report titled as
'Clinical trial related issues vis- a- vis SHCG financing'.
Meanwhile, before the start of Monsoon Session, the “Peoples Cause” along with leading
persons in public life with impeccable integrity filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the
Supreme Court of Eden questioning the inaction of the appropriate authority as regards the
role of SHCG as sponsoring agency for the conduct of clinical trials and embarking on such
trials without providing for a proper legal framework. The report of the Standing Committee
which has now come into public domain was the foundation for the petition. The Petitioners
asked for directions to the federal Government as well as State Governments to seriously
consider the need for enactment of a legislation pertaining to the issued raised in the report.
As the PIL was listed before the Supreme Court for urgent hearing, the Court chose to issue
limited notice to the Union of Eden alone on the subject matter of 'human rights violations
relating to adverse effects of clinical trial and possible deaths'. It issued limited notice as the
Parliament was about to debate/discuss the issues in the forthcoming Monsoon Session and
asked that the pleadings be completed expeditiously.
On the last date of Monsoon Session of House of People, as fixed and scheduled in the List of
Business, the Sub-Committee report was tabled and with the permission of Chair of Speaker
27.
29.
28.
30.
31.
32.
33.
26
of the House, Dr. 'A' as chairman of Sub-Committee started highlighting the salient facts,
material evidences and important findings of the Committee (which also had reference to Mr.
'X' and his influence in obtaining finance from Government and international agencies, the
influence exerted on Government for clearances of SHCG collaboration in the drug
experimentation etc.). The statements made by Dr. 'A' in the course of proceedings were
prima facie damaging. There was an uproar and ruckus caused by the members of oppositions
in the House. The members seriously question the disclosure of contents of the report by the
chairman of the sub-committee even before the report was tabled in the House of People. The
members raised the issue of Breach of Privilege of the House. Very curiously, the leader of
opposition in Lok Sabha, Mr. 'X' was not present in the House on the last day of Monsoon
Session. The Speaker of the House could not continue with the proceedings and was thus
forced to adjourn the proceedings of the House sine die. Consequently no debate took place
either on the report or in respect of the breach of privilege issue.
That after the end of Monsoon Session, as the members of the House were walking out of the
building, several media persons sought a response and put various questions to Dr. 'A'. Those
questions were pin-pointed towards the role of Mr. 'X' and Mrs. 'K' to which he affirmed the
statements made by him on the floor of the House (but without repeating them).
That the Parliamentary Sub- Committee Report raised several red-flags with respect to
'concept of consent' as obtained for drug trials for the different category of women and also
deprecated the practice/ decision of administering drugs to minor girls (aged between 15 to
18). It also concluded that the proximate cause of adverse effects on the participants in the
trial and the alleged deaths of two women, (which was being independently investigated by
the concerned agency) who were administered drugs as a process of 'Drug Trial' was the
casual and callous approach by the drug manufacturing companies, sponsoring agencies as
well as local administration. The report questioned the process of involvement of voluntary
agencies without credible scientific and technical expertise, in clinical trials and also the
consequences of the lack of relevant legal framework in this regard. Underlying the
suggestions was the concern that the federal government should forthwith enact the law not
only regarding the issue of drug trials but also the regulation and monitoring of the working
and funding of voluntary agencies.
Since no debate took place on the floor of the house, several members of the opposition
parties began to issue statements and to write on the report.
34.
35.
36.
27
The question of selective targeting of voluntary agencies was vigorously raised and the
federal government was questioned as being involved in Witch hunting. Freedom of Speech
and Expression was said to be in peril.
Mrs. 'K' preferred a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court of Eden challenging the of Sub-
Committee report, seeking a declaration that the report of the Sub-Committee was unlawful
and tainted by bias and also sought an order removing from the records of the Sub-Committee
all references to her. In addition, she also sought that the report to be quashed on the ground
that the said report was prepared under the aegis of Public Accounts Committee – which was
headed by her husband. She also made The Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha as one of the essential
party besides Union of India for her inaction on her representation against the sub-
Committee. She claimed that her fundamental right to reputation has been infringed by the
proceedings of the sub-committee and that no action can therefore be taken on the basis of the
report.
Being aggrieved by the conduct of Dr. 'A' outside the house, Mr. 'X' also filed another petition
in the Supreme Court for a declaration to quash the report along with activities of Sub-
Committee in entirety. He also sought an appropriate relief regarding injury caused to his
reputation and the defamatory statements outside the House including the Press Conference
organized by Dr. 'A' before the start of monsoon session. Mr. X invoked the provisions of
Article 102 of the Constitution of Eden and sought Writ of Mandamus restraining any debate
on the report before the House of People takes us the report for consideration.
Meanwhile the Government of Eden issued a statement that in view of the substantial nature
of issues raised it is desirous of legislating on some of the issues and had solicited the views of
the Law Reforms Commission. In terms of a recent protocol issued by the Government,
reports of the Law Reforms Commission have to be tabled in the House along with an action
taken report within three months of the submission of the report. The government is said to
have referred to certain contents of the report of the sub-committee while forwarding the
request to the Law Reforms Commission.
That the petition preferred by Mrs. 'K' and Mr. 'X' were listed for the first time before the
Supreme Court of Eden on 06.09.2017. When the matter was heard, the petitioners in the writ
petition titled 'Peoples Cause and Others' intervened in the matter and sought that notices be
issued in their petition to all the concerned drugs manufacturing companies and private
parties including SHCG and Mrs. 'K'. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Eden issued
37.
PART - VI
38.
39.
40.
28
notice to all the parties and directed completion of pleading within 4 weeks and posted all the
petitions for consolidated hearing on 10.10.2017.
The respective governmental authorities filed their respective affidavits about the safety
measures being undertaken with regard to the consent, method / procedure of clinical trial on
human being and preventive steps taken to avoid hazards to human health. The Union of
Eden as well as Government agencies maintained that the Sub- committee report has a
solemn sanctity in parliamentary democracy and there are no limitations or restrictions in
regard to their disclosure. They maintained that the issue of the report being subjected to
Judicial Scrutiny prior to being debated in parliament is an open question, even though
Article 102 leans in favour of prohibition of any discussions pertaining to the report prior to
parliamentary debate. Whereas the Drug Manufacturing Companies contest the report
submitted by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the issue and submits that any such
reliance on the sub- committee report (i.e. a Parliamentary Standing Committee report) is
likely to disturb the delicate constitutional balance if the contours of 'rights' are to be
adjudicated on the basis of sub- committee report which is impermissible.
The following provisions of the Constitution of Eden, the Federal Penal Code, and Tort
Claims Act, 2016, are likely to be invoked in the above proceedings:-
41.
42.
That every citizen of Eden is guaranteed access to health care as may be provided by law.
The State shall by its own efforts, or through any form of citizen endeavours or through any
partnership, ensure that all aspects of health care are provided for and health care will be a
concurrent obligation of the federal and state governments.
That companies, corporations, or partnerships engaged in making of medicines, drugs or any
related health care devices, and instruments shall act in the promotion of healthcare and not in
pursuit of capitalizing on them.
I: Constitution of Eden:Article 21.H
(a)
(b)
(c)
The State or its institutions shall not act in any manner in the discharge of its functions as may
lead to infringement of any fundamental rights particularly the right to liberty.
Article 21.D
....................................
....................................
Article 32.C
1.
2.
29
(1)No claim involving monetary reliefs or remedies shall be entertained by the Supreme
Court and such reliefs can be sought only in civil courts constituted in this regard by law.
3.
No report of any committee or commission set up by the Federal Government or the House of
People required to be laid before the House, shall be debated, discussed or called into question
in any court for any purpose whatsoever.
The Primary authority to deal with such reports vest with the House of People and no judicial
review of such reports can be exercised prior to determination of outcomes and measures by
the House of People (Thus sub-clause was inserted into the Constitution just prior to the
Constitution of the sub-Committee in question).
Section 299A, Federal Penal Code; Corruption in Public Office
Persons holding Public Offices including members of all legislative bodies, if found guilty of
abuse of their office in any manner, for doing favour to any party whatsoever in matters
relating to grant of licenses, permissions, contracts or lease of resources and properties vested
with the government, shall be punished for imprisonment for a period of 6 years and shall also
be disqualified from contesting any elections or holding any public office.
The Petitions have been slated for hearing by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court. In
terms of Article 136 of the Constitution, only substantial questions involving the
interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution will be dealt by a Constitution Bench. The
Court has directed all the parties to frame such substantial questions for its considerations
including preliminary issues relating to jurisdiction.
Considering the substantial questions of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution
involved, the three petitions have been referred to the Constitution Bench, which is scheduled
for hearing on 28th - 29th October 2017.
Article 102
(i)
(ii)
43.
44.
LLOYD LAW COLLEGEAdd. : Plot No. 11, Knowledge Park - II, Greater Noida, (U.P.)
Tel : 0120-6406203, +91-8800621117
Website : http://saarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in ; www.lloydlawcollege.edu.in
E-mail : [email protected]