Winner

INSTITUTIONAL
EXCELLENCE
AWARD - 2018

Remembering
PADMA BHUSHAN PROF. (DR.) N. R. MADHAVA MENON

Menon SA
va

AR
a
R. Madh

CLA Moo
W
N.
f.

ti
o ng
Pr

Justitia
Lib
ert
as

6th PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON

SAARCLAW MOOTING COMPETITION 2020-21
INDIA ROUND
th st
30 October to 1 November, 2020

RULES, PROPOSITION & PROGRAMME SCHEDULE

Organized by :

LLOYD LAW COLLEGE

Greater Noida (U.P.)
with technical support from

MILAT
MENON INSTITUTE OF LEGAL ADVOCACY TRAINING
&

SILF
SOCIETY OF INDIAN LAW FIRMS
29
REMEMBERING OUR MENTOR- PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON

Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon is remembered with utmost reverence

whenever there is any reference to legal education in India. An outstanding
jurist, reformist, educationalist, institution builder and an architect of
modern legal education system in India - Prof. Menon brought a revolution
in Indian legal education system through his perseverance. With a vision to
bring legal education in the country at par with the international
benchmark, he elevated its standard to remarkable heights. His missionary
zeal lead to radical transformation in the entire legal pedagogical
framework and rightly earned him the epithet of 'Father of Modern Legal
Education in India'. Prof. Menon metamorphosed the landscape of
professional legal education in India by introducing a path-breaking
modification in the classroom curriculum and introduced Five Year
Integrated curriculum in Law.
Prof. Menon remained a learner of 'law' throughout of his life like any other
student. His emphasis on teaching and learning of 'functional' aspect of
'law' rather 'theoretical' aspect led him to innovate various new tools of
class- room teaching and curriculum in legal education including moot
courts, students' legal aid services at law school level, field/court visits,
mock trials, debates, etc. As a Fulbright scholar from American Council of
Learned Societies, Prof. Menon learnt about the uses of clinical
methodology in legal skills and explored the interface between law and
social science research. The clinical legal education in SAARC region is his
contribution.
It was our good fortune to have worked and developed under the legendary
tutelage of Prof. Menon. He was our mentor, guru and guiding star. When
we proposed to embark on SAARC level moot court competition in his
name as a tribute to his contribution, with much reluctance he gave his
consent. However, each edition organised at Lloyd Law College, gave him
satisfaction as it helped in honing the professional skills of the students,
moulding them into socially committed lawyers. His steadfast faith in the
transparency and fairness of the competition was the sole reason why he
clubbed the selection process of Best Law Students Award with this Moot
th
Court Competition. Akin to a prophet he foresaw that the 5 Edition of the
Moot would only find his blessings and the founding members will have to
carry the legacy forward. He stressed on continuous training with
specialised contexts in various streams of law would be of great importance
in converting a professional into a gem.
I am happy that we - MILAT, LLOYD, SILF and SAARCLAW- are leaving
no stone unturned to transform Prof Menon's mission and vision into
reality. Let us continue our journey together to immortalize his unique
vision.
Prof (Dr.) S. Sivakumar
Honorary SAARCLAW Mooting Administrator

1
 From President's Desk

I am delighted to note that Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, has been
successful of our philosophy of creating quality lawyers with skills and
creative leadership to make them competitive in legal profession. The
College is one of the premier legal education institutions in the country and is
frequently ranked among the top tier law colleges in India and is one of the
first preferences for legal aspirants. Our vision, to produce excellent legal
professionals, rooted in principles of justice with great human values, has
been achieved with our students joining the profession as lawyers, both in bar
and bench by securing placement in reputed law firms in India and abroad and
also by their selection as judges by clearing various state judicial services
examination.
At Lloyd, great importance is given to professional skill development through
activities such as moot courts, debates, seminars etc. We support and enable
excellence for every single student in each and every aspect of their personal
and professional growth. Our students have won many prestigious
competitions both in India and abroad bringing laurels to the College. Lloyd
Law College, with Menon Institute of Legal Advocacy Training (MILAT) and
Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) has been organizing the Prof. N. R.
Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting Competition, Law Student's
Conference and South Asian Colloquium, since 2014 and the competition is
entering its Sixth edition in 2020-21. The Competition is organized at two
stages, 'India Round' and 'SAARC Round'- along with the 'Law Students
Conference' and South Asian Colloquium. The SAARC round and Law
Students Conference will witness participation from SAARC countries. This
year, the India round of the competition, will be held from 30th October, 2020
to 1st November, 2020.
This competition provides an excellent platform for the law students from
SAARC region to exchange ideas, learn from experts and acquire new skills.
These valuable interactions would be great assets to them in their professional
advancement and personal success. 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 faculty, students and staff
in organizing this competition, it is going to be a grand success. I wish all the
best for the success of the competition.

Manohar Thairani
President, Lloyd Law College /
Secretary, MILAT

2
 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 in sponsoring the
mooting competition and conference in his name. Even after his retirement
from active service, Prof. Menon continued 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

Lloyd Law College was established under the aegis of Satlila Charitable
Society (SCS) in the year 2003. The college is affiliated to Chaudhary
Charan Singh University, Meerut and is approved by the Bar Council of
India. It imparts two professional degree programmes, namely, five year
integrated B.A.LL.B and the three year LL.B. The 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. Lloyd Law College has been engaged in
many international and national collaborations and organizes various
curricular activities like international and national mooting competitions,
seminars, workshops etc. The recent educational institutions surveys have
placed the college in top league of institutional rankings. The college was
awarded the SILF-MILAT Institutional Excellence Award 2018.

3
 Report of the Fifth Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW
Mooting Competition & Law Students Conference, 2019-20
India Round – 2019
The India round of the Fifth Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
Competition and Law Students Conference, 2019-20 was held from 18th to 20th October,
2019 to select qualifying teams from India to participate in the SAARC round. It saw an
overwhelming participation from 52 teams across India representing national law
universities, central & state universities and other leading law colleges. The competition
was inaugurated by the gracious hands of Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Bhanumathi, Judge,
Supreme Court of India. The top colleges that quali?ed for the SAARC round were:-
1. VIT School of Law, Vellore, Tamilnadu
2. ICFAI Law School, The ICFAI University, Jaipur
3. SOEL, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University
4. National Law University And Judicial Academyassam
5. Sastra Deemed University, Tamilnadu
6. Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
7. National University of Study & Research in Law, Ranchi

SAARC Round 2019-20

The SAARC round of the Fifth Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
Competition and Law Students Conference, 2019-20 was held from 21st to 24th February,
2020. A national administrator representing each SAARC country was present to witness
the conduct of the competition. 18 teams from leading universities from SAARC nations
participated in the competition. The final round was judged by five sitting judges of higher
courts from SAARC nations. The bench comprised of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Thurairaja,
Judge, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed, Judge, High Court
Division, Bangladesh Supreme Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hari Prasad Phuyal, Judge,
Supreme Court of Nepal, Hon'ble Ms. JusticeRekha Palli, Judge, Delhi High Court and
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Prathiba M Singh, Judge, Delhi High Court.
The winners of the SAARC round after stimulating and robust rounds were:
* National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam (Winner)
* University of Dhaka, Bangladesh (Runner-up)

SAARC Law Students Conference 2019-20

The SAARC Law Students Conference was held from 21st to 24th February, 2020 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 18 teams from India, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Research
papers were submitted by the presenters on the theme "Commonwealth Comparative
Constitutional and Public Law."
The Best Presenter and the Best Presenter (Runner-up) respectively were:
* Ms. Sachitri, Faculty of Law Colombo, SriLanka
* Ms. Disha Kumar, SASTRA Deemed Univeristy, TamilNadu

4
 RULES AND REGULATIONS OF SIXTH PROF. N. R.
MADHAVA MENON SAARCLAW MOOTING COMPETITION
2020-21, INDIA ROUND

ARTICLE 1: Objective of the competition

1. The Sixth Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
Competition, 2020-21 aims at honing legal advocacy skills among
law students of SAARC countries.
2. The Sixth Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
Competition, 2020-21 shall consist of two stages: - the India round
and the SAARC round; both to be held via Online video
Conferencing medium, ZOOM cloudmeetings.*
3. The India round will be held from 30th October 2020 to 1st
November2020.
4. Only seven teams from the India round shall qualify to represent
India in the SAARC round.

ARTICLE 2: The India Round

1. The India round will be held via Online video Conferencing
medium, ZOOM cloud meetings* from 30th October 2020 to 1st
November 2020 among student teams from the top law
schools/colleges/universities imparting legal education in India.
2. The India round will comprise of two stages, i.e., arguments from
both sides (petitioner and respondent).
3. For the purpose of the virtual rounds, there shall be a memorial
selection round taking place. Top 60 teams securing highest marks
in the memorials shall proceed to the oral rounds.*
4. The top seven scoring teams in the India round will qualify for the
SAARC round to represent India.
5. 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.
6. There shall be a committee of judges for each court selected from a
5
 panel of judges constituted for that purpose.

ARTICLE 3: Team Composition and Eligibility

1. Each team shall consist of two counsels and one researcher in the
India round. Each of whom:-
i) Must be born on or after 1st January, 1990;and
ii) As on 5th September 2020 is a bona-fide undergraduate law
student (for the year 2020-2021 till June 2021) of the Three
Year Program or Five Year Program from an institution duly
recognized by the Bar Council of India; and
iii) Has not been admitted to the practice of law in any
jurisdiction.
2. In no case any team shall consist of more than three participants, that
is, two(2) counsels and one (1) researcher. Their number cannot be
increased under any circumstances.
3. Each college or institution shall send only one team of such eligible
participants.

ARTICLE 4: Registration
1. Online registration for the Sixth Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon
SAARCLAW Mooting Competition & Law Students Conference
2020-21, India round shall be done at-
2. The initial registration fee for the India round is Rs. 1,500 (for 3
participants). Registration fee once paid shall benon-refundable.*
3. The teams qualifying to the oral rounds shall pay an extra amount of
Rs. 1,000 for confirming their participation in the oralrounds.*
4. All teams participating in the India round shall register themselves
through payment of the registration fee either by credit card or debit
card or e-transfer (NEFT) and subsequent e-mail of soft copy of
registration form and proof of payment, to be sent to -
profmenonmooting@lloydlawcollege.edu.in & cc to-
account@lloydlawcollege.edu.in, akhilesh@lloydlawcollege.edu.in
5. No subsequent change in the team composition shall be permitted.
6. E-transfer of the registration fee can be done using NEFT, in favor
6
 of-"LLOYD LAW COLLEGE", Account number-
3976002100005500, Bank- Punjab National Bank Branch-
SaritaVihar, New Delhi IFSC Code- PUNB0397600
7. After completion of the registration process, the team shall receive a
confirmation mail containing with User ID and password using
which they can login into their mooting accounts.*

ARTICLE 5: The Moot Proposition

1. The moot proposition for the India round can be downloaded from
https://saarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/saarcmoot/saarcmoot
_6.html.
2. All queries and clarifications for the moot problem shall be sent via
e-mail to profmenonmooting@lloydlawcollege.edu.in
3. No queries and clarifications for the moot problem shall be
entertained after 12th September 2020.
4. The clarifications on the moot problem will be declared at
https://saarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/saarcmoot/saarcmoot
_6.html by notification on the mooting account for everyone's
perusal without disclosure of the identity of the teams.*

ARTICLE 6: Memorials
1. Each team shall submit soft copies of the memorials (in PDF only) to
the organizing committee, Sixth Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon
SAARCLAW Mooting Competition & Law Students Conference
2020-21, Lloyd Law College, on or before by 11:59 P.M. IST via
uploading them into the specific columns created for this purpose on
their mooting accounts.*
2. The title of the mail must be "MEMORIAL - TEAM CODE". For
example, incase team code 01 submits its memorial; the subject of
the mail shall be "MEMORIAL -01".
3. The memorials shall be named as "TEAM CODE - SIDE". For
example, the name of the petitioner memorial of team code 01 must
be "01-P" and similarly the one from respondent must be named as
"01-R".*
7
4. 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.
5. The citation should be in compliance with the Bluebook 20th
edition. Speaking footnotes or endnotes are not allowed.
6. No indication shall be made for identifying the Institution/College/
University 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.
7. The petitioner and respondent memorials must be differentiated by
'blue cover' and 'red cover respectively.
8. Memorials for both sides should contain the following:
a) Title page
b) Table of contents
c) Index of authorities
d) Statement of jurisdiction
e) Statement of facts
f) Summary of arguments/pleadings
g) Arguments supported by authorities
h) Conclusion/Prayer
9. The Title Page shall include:
a) The name of the court
b) The year of the competition
c) The name of the case
d) The title of the document (i.e., "Memorial for the Respondent"
or "Memorial for the Petitioner")
e) Teamcode
10. The memorial shall not be more than thirty (30) pages. The
following contents are inclusive within the stipulated page limit:
8
 a) Pleadings
b) Conclusions
c) Annexure, if any
d) 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.
11. The following shall not be included in the limit of thirty (30) pages
set out for the memorial:
a) Title of page
b) Table of contents
c) Index of authorities
d) Statement of jurisdiction
e) Statement of facts
f) Issues presented
g) Summary of pleadings
12. Statement of Facts: The statement of the facts shall be limited to the
facts as stipulated as well as 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
'nondiscretionary memorial penalty', and such violation may be
taken into account by the judges while evaluating the written
submission.
13. 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.
14. The teams may submit authorities supporting their contentions
referred to in the memorials at the time of oral presentation at the
9
 discretion of Bench/judges. For the sake of clarity, it is further
explained that this is not a matter of right of the oralists but purely at
the discretion of Bench/judges. No dispute shall be entertained on
this clause.

ARTICLE 7: Assessment of the Memorials

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 have been listed below: shall be the
marking criteria and the marks allocated to each category:

Evaluation Criteria
1 Knowledge of facts and law Maximum: 20 marks

2 Proper and articulate analysis Maximum: 20 marks

3 Extent and use of research Maximum: 20 marks

4 Clarity and Organization Maximum: 20 marks

5 Citation of sources Maximum: 10 marks

6 Grammar and Style Maximum: 10 marks

ARTICLE 8: Oral Presentations

1. Each oral round shall consist of sixty (60) minutes of oral pleadings.
Each team petitioner/respondent shall be allotted thirty (30)
minutes.
2. 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 the team wishes to allocate its
30 minutes among:
a) Its first oralist,
b) Its second oralist, and
c) Rebuttal (for the petitioner) or sur-rebuttal (for the respondent).
3. No single oralist shall plead for more than twenty (20) minutes,
10
 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 twenty (20) minutes limit.
4. The order of the pleadings in each round at all levels of the
competition shall be:

Petitioner 1 Petitioner 2 Respondent 1 Respondent 2

Rebuttal (Petitioner 1 or 2) Surrebuttal (Respondent 1 or 2)

5. Each team may reserve up to five (5) minutes of rebuttal or sur-

rebuttal. As a gesture of courtesy to the Bench, 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.
6. 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
orsur-rebuttal.

ARTICLE 9: Marking Criteria for the Oral Presentations

1. 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:
11
 Oral Presentation Evaluation Criteria
Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Poor

1 Knowledge of Law (30) 27-30 marks 24-27 marks 21-24 marks 19-21 marks 15-19 marks

2 Application of Law to Facts(25) 23-25 marks 21-23 marks 19-21 marks 16-19 marks 15-16 marks

3 Ingenuity and Ability to Answer Questions(30) 27-30 marks 24-27 marks 21-24 marks 19-21 marks 15-19 marks

4 Style Poise, Courtesy and Demeanour (10) 09-10 marks 08-09 marks 07-08 marks 05-07 marks 04-05 marks

5 Time 05 marks 04 marks 03 marks 02 marks 01 marks

ARTICLE 10: Dispute

1. 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 11: Code of Conduct

1. The language for the moot court competition shall be English.
2. 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.
3. Scouting: Oralists and researchers, 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 thecompetition.

ARTICLE 12: Awards for India Round

1. The top seven teams in the India round shall qualify for participation
in the SAARC round of the Sixth Prof. N. R. MadhavaMenon
SAARCLAW Mooting Competition.
2. The top seven teams shall be awarded with Rs. 15000 cash prize along
with E- certificates of qualification to the SAARC round.*
3. There will be separate E-certificates for Best Memorial and a Second
Best Memorial.
4. The two best law student awardees (one female and one male) will be
chosen from the selected students in their final years who are
12
 participants in the India round of the Sixth Prof. N. R. Madhava
Menon SAARCLAW Mooting Competition by the jury (constituted
under an MOU between SILF-MILAT and Penn State University,
USA). 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 Law degree in 2021 and finding a place in the top
ten (10)teams in the India round of the Sixth Prof. N. R. Madhava
Menon SAARCLAW Mooting Competition will be shortlisted for
the consideration by the Jury to select the Best Law Student of the
Year Awardee to receive a fellowship of$50000 USD from Penn State
University, School of Law, USA to pursue LLM. (For the purpose of
clarification, it is to be noted that both the oralists and the researcher
will be considered for the selection of the Best Law students Award
and Fellowship. However, the qualifying teams' oralists should
remain as oralists; and the researcher should remain as participants in
the Students Conference, 2021 to present papers in the SAARC
round. No deviation from this rule shall be permitted).
*In case the minimum number of final year students is not met
through top ten teams, the selection committee reserves the right to
call upon final year students from other teams.

ARTICLE 13: General Section

1. The duration of each court shall not exceed one hour.
2. 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.
3. The number of qualifying teams for the SAARC round may be
increased ordecreased (not less than five (5) in any case) subject to the
number of participatingteams.
4. 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 participatingteams.
5. The organizers reserve the right to make any necessary alterations in
13
 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 theproblem.
6. 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 befinal.

ARTICLE 14: Memorial Selection Round

1. In a situation where the number of participating teams exceeds 60,
there shall be a memorial selection round. And the top 60 teams
securing highest marks in memorials shall be eligible to participate in
the oral rounds. This number may be increased at the discretion of the
Organizing Committee.*

ARTICLE 15: Rules for Oral Participation

1. A buffer time of 10 minutes shall be granted to the each team in case of
any issues faced due to internetconnectivity.*
2. It would be the responsibility of every team to ensure stable internet
connection. The audio and video of every member of the team shall
be clear. In a situation where a team fails to secure stable connection
in the buffer time of 10 minutes allocated to them, they may be
disqualified.*
3. Every member of a team shall be provided with a separate code and
they must jointhe meeting only with that name. No member of the
team shall join the meeting from any other name except the one
allocated to them. Joining the meeting from any other name would be
considered as disclosure of identity and may lead todisqualification.*
4. The organizers shall not be responsible for any internet connectivity
issues faced.

14
 ANNEXURE ON DISQUALIFICATION AND PENALTY
ARTICLE A1: Aims
1. The present Annexure on Disqualifications and Penalties forms an
integral part of the Official Rules of the Sixth Prof. N. R. Madhava
Menon SAARCLAW Competition 2020-21, India round.
2. The aim of the Annexure on Disqualifications and Penalties is to
ensure a fair and objective contest in the Sixth Prof. N. R. Madhava
Menon SAARCLAW Competition 2020-21, India round by
providing guidelines for ensuring compliance with the relevant
provisions of the Official Rules.

ARTICLE A2: Unfair Means, Intimidation and Misconduct

1. Cheating or using of unfair means of any kind is strictly prohibited
and if indulged in, shall result in disqualification of the team.
2. Intimidation in any form is prohibited and if indulged in, shall result
in disqualification of the team.
3. Misconduct, whether behavioral or otherwise, is not allowed and if
indulged in, shall result in disqualification of the team.

ARTICLE A3: Court Manners (Oral Arguments)

1. 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.
2. Failure to deliver an oral argument shall be considered in entirety, a
disqualification.
3. 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.

15
ARTICLE A4: Submission and Formatting of the Memorials
1. 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 A5: Dress Code

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. In situation where a participant cannot make these available,
he/she shall wear a formal dress.*

ARTICLE A6: Non-compliance with the Rules of the Organizing

Committee
1. The participants are required to comply with the rules formulated by
the organizing committee at all times during the Sixth Prof. N. R.
Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Competition 2020-21, India round.
2. 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.
3. 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 10points.
4. 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 reserves the right to decide whether to debar

16
that particular team from further participation in the competition or
reduce the marks from the total score obtained by that team.
*This provision shall be operative only for virtual mode of
competition and shall stand dismissed instantaneously on the
completion of virtual mode competition.

17
 IMPORTANT DATES FOR INDIA ROUND

Release of Pre-invite to universities/institutions 5th September 2020

Release of Registration From 6th September 2020

Release of India Round Moot Proposition 6th September 2020

Last date entertain clarifications 12th September 2020

Release of clarification of Moot Problem 19th September 2020

Submission of Memorial 10th October 2020

Result of Memorial qualification Round 15th October 2020

Final Registration of Selected memorials 20th October 2020

Final Memorial Submission 25th October 2020

India Round-I 31st October 2020

India Round-II 1st November 2020

18
 Mentor
Padma Shri Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon

FOUNDING COMMITTEE
Hon. SAARCLAW Mooting Administrator Chairperson
Prof. (Dr.) S. Sivakumar Mr. Manohar Thairani
Professor, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi / President Lloyd Law College /
Former Member, Law Commission of India / Secretary, MILAT
Chairman, MILAT

ADVISORS

Dr. Lalit Bhasin Mr. R. Venkataramani

President Senior Advocate / Former Member
SILF & The Bar Association of India Law Commission of India

ADMINISTRATOR - INDIA GENERAL CO-ORDINATOR

Dr. Lisa P. Lukose Dr. Mohd. Salim
Associate Professor, USLLS, GGSIPU/ Director, Lloyd Law College
Treasurer, MILAT

SECRETARY GENERAL ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR

Dr. Manoj Kumar Mr. Ravi Prakash

Founder, Hammurabi & Solomon Advocate, Supreme Court of India

MEMBERS

Prof. Meera Furtado

Head of Law, Sussex University, UK
& Secretary General, CLEA

Ms. Anju Jain Dr. P. Puneeth

Advocate Associate Professor, JNU

Dr. Vandana Arora Dr. Purabi Chakraborty

Group Director, LIMT Principal, Department of Education, LIMT

19
 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 2020-21

Organizing Secretary
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Khan +91-8882069112
Deputy Director, Lloyd Law College akhilesh@lloydlawcollege.edu.in

Coordinators
Mr. Sunny Kumar +91-8860913645
Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College sunny.kumar@lloydlawcollege.edu.in

Mr. Navneet Kumar +91-8287540123

Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College navneet.kumar@lloydlawcollege.edu.in

Dr. Kavitha Chalakkal +91-9811095405

Asst. Director (Research) CIJER, kavithachalakkal@lloydlawcollege.edu.in
Lloyd Law College

Mr. Pankaj Singh +91-7838444125

Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College pankaj.singh@lloydlawcollege.edu.in

DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE

Mr. R. Venkataramani Chairperson

Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Prof. Kameshwari Goda Member

Director (Research) CIJER, Lloyd

Ms. Anju Jain Member

Advocate

Dr. Lisa P Lukose Member-Secretary

Administrator - India
SAARCLAW Mooting Competition

20
 Moot Proposition for India Round
This moot proposition has been authored by Mr. Ravi Prakash, Academic
Administrator-Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
Competition and Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India for the India
round of the Sixth Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
Competition 2020-21. This moot proposition has been formulated solely for
the purpose of this competition furthering the academic exercise. The
copyright in the moot problem vests exclusively with Prof. N.R. Madhava
Menon SAARCLAW Mooting Competition and the same shall not be used
by any Institution, Organization, University or College without the written
permission from Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
Competition.
MOOT PROPOSITION
[1] The Constitution of Indistan establishes the ‘Republic of Indistan’ as a
union of states of which federalism is one of the basic features. The
Constitution of Indistan establishes the Supreme Court of Indistan;
which is the final interpreter of the Constitution of Indistan and is
considered as the custodian of basic civil rights and liberties of its
citizens. The Supreme Court of Indistan has not only devised new
methods and secured justice to its citizens but also has a rich legacy of
contributing some of the over arching principles to do complete justice
under Articles 142 and 144 of its Constitution. The constitutional, legal
and policy framework of the Republic of Indistan are pari materia to the
Republic of India.
[2] The State of A&P in the Republic of Indistan has the highest literacy rate
in the country and is full of minerals and natural resources. The State of
A&P is considered to be the citadel of democratic process where media
and press are vigil enough to bring forth and report every incident, news
without fear and favour. It is one of the states in the Republic of Indistan
where the highest number of cases are reported to the police. Even
though a part of the youth in the state is driven by an extreme attitude
towards the political ideologies, it does not cause any fear, oppression
and subjugation in general. However, it has witnessed an increase in the

21
 crime of homicide based on political ideologies as a matter of revenge
and for settling the politicalscores.
[3] One of the leading political analysts and veteran journalists recently
carried out a series of write up about the prevailing state of affair in the
State of A&P. Some of the scathing and sordid story captured about
revengeful political incidents leading to loss of life and liberty is as
under:
“*** at every opportunity, there will be murders, and every murder
is an opportunity. This is the state of affair in the State of A&P where
(political) ideologies are worth killing for and rivalries are often
settled by spilling blood. The dominant political parties/ faction/
groups in the state of A&P have just mastered the art of ‘killing’ as a
political tool. The fact remains that no political party/ faction/
groups can claim higher moral grounds as the number of deaths in
the State of A&P reveals an upward trend of these killings.
***
Amidst all these, the ‘State Police’ of the State of A&P is the real
victim as the constitutional mechanism of Indistan entrusts it with
the pivotal function of maintaining ‘law and order’, ‘public order’
to have an orderly society based on the Rule of Law. More often,
after an initial accusation of partial and unfair investigation by the
State Police (which is often accused of being played in the hands of
ruling political party), the family members of the victim or political
PILs reach the High Court of A&P to transfer the investigation to
the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking a fair and
independent investigation for the higher cause i.e. ‘justice’.
***
Even transfer of investigation (either at early stage or belated stage)
to the CBI is celebrated as a real victory and political mileage is
scored. However, in this discourse, the federal principle (essentially
maintaining ‘public order’ & ‘police’) is sacrificed, morale of state
police officials investigating such crimes is bargained and justice to
the victim is lost somewhere mid-way. This chain of abuse of judicial
22
 process in the name of life, liberty and dignity must be broken to end
the politics of murder.”
[4] The CBI derives power to investigate from the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act). Section 2 of the DSPE Act vests
DSPE with jurisdiction to investigate offences in the Union Territories
only. However, the jurisdiction can be extended by the Central
Government to other areas including Railway areas and States under
Section 5(1) of the DSPE Act, provided the State Government accords
consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act.
[5] The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of Indistan through its
decision in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection
of Democratic Rights as reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 held as under:-
“In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a
direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, to CBI to investigate a cognizable
offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a
State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the
federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of
separation of power and shall be valid in law.”
[6] One of the leading lawyers of the Republic of Indistan (who was also the
leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha in the year 2010) i.e. Mr. X,
criticised the judgment and the dictum which laid down the basis for
power of constitutional courts to order investigation by the CBI in the
case of State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights as reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 as under:–
“Separation of power requires that every institution works in its own
spheres. And if every institution works in its own sphere, it has to lay
down the Lakshman Rekha of its own jurisdiction. An attempt to
encroach upon the Lakshman Rekha is neither coming from
governments (the executive) nor from the legislature. Some serious
side stepping is coming from the judicial institution itself. And
certainly, this is one of such instance, where courts have carved out
the power to order CBI investigation in exercise of jurisdiction
23
 under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution respectively, besides
monitoring some investigations themselves.”
[7] In the year 2014, after the general elections in the Republic of Indistan,
the political party to which Mr. X belonged, came into power and formed
the government. After completion of the first term, again in the year
2019, the same political party came into power and formed the
government.
[8] However, post- result of general elections in the year 2019, the State/s
which were ruled by other political parties started withdrawing their
consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. Some of the state leaders
criticised the Central Government of misusing the CBI for political
vendetta.
[9] In the beginning of the year 2020, an incident got reported widely in the
media which took place in State of A&P. The opposition party in the
State of A&P was holding cadre camp in every district of the State. On
11.01.2020, few youths in the age of 20s decided to return to their homes
from one such district camp i.e. district Ellis Bridge. Enroute, two of
them stopped in a village to meet their friend. In the evening, around 5:45
PM, two of them were done to death on the outskirts of the village by
unknown assailants. A first information statement was lodged by a
villager and on its basis FIR No. 47/ 2020 was lodged under Sections
143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 201, 212, 120B, 118 and 302 r/w Section 149 of
the IPC.
[10] On 12.01.2020, the District Police Chief, Ellis Bridge constituted a
Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising of five members for
investigation of the said crime (including one expert from the Cyber
Cell). On 15.01.2020 the case was transferred to the Crime Branch of
State Police and it was re-registered as Crime No.07/CB/ 2020 of Crime
Branch, Ellis Bridge.
[11] Within a week time, as many as 11 accused persons were arrested and
the weapon i.e. swords and iron pipes were recovered from a distant well
(around 5 kms. away from the scene of crime). The investigation was
progressing under the direct supervision of the Superintendent of Police,
24
 Ellis Bridge. The recovered weapons were sent for forensic analysis to
the State Forensic Science Lab as per procedure and in accordance with
law. One of the accused had a history of drug peddling and narcotics
substances were recovered from him and the preliminary investigation
did not rule out the drugs/ narcotics angle in the twin murders. Upon
coming into light, the Narcotics Control Bureau of Indistan as
constituted by the Central Government started its limited investigation
into the unfortunate incident of 11.01.2020.
[12] Media reports in the State of A&P continuously highlighted the
unfortunate incident of 11.01.2020 highlighting motive i.e. political
murder/ settling political scores, a tacit involvement of the ruling
political party in the killings, saving the real perpetrator of crime due to
their political affiliation and also accused police of perfunctory
investigation. The continuous reporting, debates, interviews and
systematic leak of chats over social media, posts over social media and
unchartered conspiracy theories behind murders as projected by local
media also attracted criticism of media trial. The Press Council of
Indistan condemned the disproportionate coverage and reporting of the
news for more than a month and reminded them of the journalistic values
and ethos.
[13] However, after the lapse of two months, the family members of the
victims approached the Hon’ble High Court of A&P when the
investigation by SIT was underway after the reregistration of the crime.
The apprehension of the writ petitioners was that since the accused got
allegiance to the main ruling political party in the State, there would be
no free and fair investigation. One of the specific prayers of the writ
petitioner was to transfer the investigation to the CBI to have an
independent and fair investigation as envisaged under the Constitution
of Indistan.
[14] On 16.03.2020, the State Government of A&P withdrew its consent
under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. By this time, five other states have
withdrawn their consent under the said provision and two different states
have given a conditional consent i.e. to review the consent on a case to

25
 case basis.
[15] The SIT meanwhile filed the report under Section 173 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the trial court on 12.03.2020
alongwith a list of 201 witnesses to be examined in the case.
[16] Before the Hon’ble High Court of A&P in the writ petition, the state
produced the final report as prepared under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.
and also contended that the Cr.P.C. prescribes a procedure for scrutiny by
trained judicial minds at every stage of a criminal trial. The writ
jurisdiction cannot be invoked for appreciation of evidence and based on
news report about political biasness. It further informed the Hon’ble
High Court about the Government Order dated 16.03.2020.
[17] The single judge bench of the High Court of A&P, considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, allowed the writ petition and transferred
the investigation to the CBI with immediate effect vide its order dated
11.05.2020. The operative para of the decision of the Hon’ble single
judge in the writ petition reads as under:
“In this case, the deceased persons were the members of the
opposition political party and the accused persons were the
members of the ruling political party in the State of A&P. The
circumstances already pointed out by this court would impel this
court to hold that the investigation in this case was sham. This court
is satisfied that the chargesheet filed on the strength of the said
investigation cannot lead to a fair trial. All the accused persons
were leaders of the ruling party in the state. Therefore, the
credibility and confidence of the petitioners in the investigation had
been lost, particularly when the deceased persons belong to the
other political party. The state as represented by the prosecution
also makes no allegation that the petitioners have any design behind
the prayer for transfer of investigation to the CBI. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, this court has strong
reservations about the impartiality and fairness in the investigation
by the State Police because of the political fallout. The final report
which is filed by the State Police is set aside. The superintendent of

26
 the CBI shall take over and continue the investigation forthwith, in
accordance with law. The State Police Chief for A&P is directed to
provide all support and facility to the CBI, for facilitating proper
and effective investigation.”
[18] The State of A&P preferred LPA before the Division Bench of the
Hon’ble High Court challenging the direction issued by the single judge,
which was listed for hearing. The division bench of the High Court
passed the following order dated 17.05.2020
“Heard.
Notice issued to the parties.
Status quo.
Ld. Counsel accepts notice for Writ Petitioners as they stand before
the Court on
caveat.
Parties to complete pleadings by 27.05.2020.”
List for final hearing from 01.06.2020.”
[19] The division bench of the High Court vide its judgment and order dated
01.07.2020, accepted the final report which has been submitted by the
State Police, however, passed a direction to the CBI to overtake the
further investigation, if required, to instill confidence in investigations
and to provide credibility. The operative paragraph of the division bench
decision reads as under:-
“Thus, it remains a fact that the Special Investigation Team has
submitted a final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. which
cannot be interfered with in a proceeding by the writ court.
However, to secure a fair trial, a fair and impartial investigation is
pre requisite. Hence, it would be open for this court to order further
investigation in the facts and circumstances.
The moot question to be considered hereafter is whether the ‘further
investigation’ can be entrusted to the same agency or it should be
handed down to the CBI. The learned counsel of the CBI states that
the CBI is prepared to do its duty, if directed by this court. The case
diary in the crime in question is yet to be transferred to the CBI due
27
 to the status quo direction.
We are also aware of the fact that the State Government has
withdrawn its consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Actwith effect
from 16.03.2020. But this does not bar us to pass a direction in terms
of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West
Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights as
reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571.
We hold that the case be transferred to the CBI for further
investigation and the CBI may file a supplementary report in terms
of the provisions under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. This shall be done as
expeditiously as possible. The trial court shall proceed as per law
upon receipt of the supplementary report. The impugned judgment
passed in the writ petition stands modified to the above extent.”
[20] Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, the State of A&P filed
a petition for special leave to appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Indistan making Union of India as the first respondent. The Supreme
Court granted leave on 08.08.2020 and took note of the contentions
urged by the learned counsels for the parties. The State of A&P also
contended to revisit the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Kazi
Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 1994
Supp (2) SCC 116. The division bench of the Supreme Court directed
that the papers of the case be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
India for passing appropriate orders for placing the matter before a larger
bench. When the matter came up for consideration before a 5judge
constitution bench, headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Indistan on
the judicial side, it heard the learned advocates at length and passed the
following reference order on 17.08.2020 as annexed in APPENDIX A.
[21] Pursuant to the reference order dated 17.08.2020, the petition has been
listed for hearing on 30.10.2020 and 01.11.2020.
***

28
 APPENDIX - A
The judgement of the court was delivered by –
The Hon’ble Justice ABC, J. – The present petition has been placed before us
by a reference order of this Hon’ble Court dated 08.08.2020.
[2] Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The Attorney General
submitted that the issues raised in the petition have already been settled
by a constitution bench decision of this court and the direction passed by
the High Court in appeal is within the four walls of the law laid down by
this Hon’ble Court. He fairly submits that in the year 2010 he was
standing in the shoes of the petitioner before this court. However, having
said so, he has full respect and regard for the decision of this Hon’ble
Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights as reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571.
[3] The learned counsel appearing for the State of A&P drew attention of
this Hon’ble Court to numerous principles like federalism under the
Constitution of India, separation of power, power of writ courts in
criminal trials and investigations. She mainly relies on the dictum laid
down by a 9 judge bench decision in the case of S.R. Bommai vs. Union
of India reported in (1994) 3 SCC 1 (as per Justice P. B. Sawant) which is
as under:-
“98. In this connection, we may also refer to what Dr Ambedkar ***.
He has emphasised there that notwithstanding the fact that there are
many provisions in the Constitution whereunder the Centre has been
given powers to override the States, our Constitution is a federal
Constitution. It means that the States are sovereign in the field which
is left to them. They have a plenary authority to make any law for the
peace, order and good Government of the State.”
[4] She further submits that federalism as a constitutional principle has been
declared as one of the basic features of the Constitution of India. She
submits that this Hon’ble Court in State of West Bengal vs. Committee
for Protection of Democratic Rights as reported in (2010) 3 SCC
571makes a reference of to the cases such as State of Rajasthan vs.
Union of India reported in (1977) 3 SCC 592, S. R. Bommai vs. Union of

29
 India reported in (1994) 3 SCC 1 and Kuldip Nayar vs. Union of India
reported in (2006) 7 SCC 1 but does not deal with them in proper
perspectives.
[5] This Court, in S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (as per Justice P. B.
Sawant) reported in (1994) 3 SCC 1 observes as under:-
“106. Thus, the federal principle, social pluralism and pluralist
democracy which form the basic structure of our Constitution
demand that the judicial review of the Proclamation issued under
Article 356(1) is not only an imperative necessity but is a stringent
duty and the exercise of power under the said provision is confined
strictly for the purpose and to the circumstances mentioned therein
and for none else.”
[6] Further, Justice K. Ramaswami in his concurring opinion, in S.R.
Bommai (supra) has observed as under:-
“247. Federalism envisaged in the Constitution of India is a basic
feature in which the Union of India is permanent within the
territorial limits set in Article 1 of the Constitution and is
indestructible. The State is the creature of the Constitution and the
law made by Articles 2 to 4 with no territorial integrity, but a
permanent entity with its boundaries alterable by a law made by
Parliament. Neither the relative importance of the legislative
entries in Schedule VII, Lists I and II of the Constitution, nor the
fiscal control by the Union per se are decisive to conclude that the
Constitution is unitary. The respective legislative powers are
traceable to Articles 245 to 254 of the Constitution. The State qua
the Constitution is federal in structure and independent in its
exercise of legislative and executive power. However, being the
creature of the Constitution the State has no right to secede or claim
sovereignty. Qua the Union, State is quasi-federal. Both are
coordinating institutions and ought to exercise their respective
powers with adjustment, understanding and accommodation to
render socio-economic and political justice to the people, to
preserve and elongate the constitutional goals including

30
 secularism.”
[7] In another decision in the case of ITC Ltd. vs. Agricultural Produce
Market Committee & Ors. reported in (2002) 9 SCC 232, this Court
ruled thus: -
“The Constitution of India deserves to be interpreted, language
permitting, in a manner that it does not whittle down the powers of
the State Legislature and preserves the federalism while also
upholding the Central supremacy as contemplated by some of its
articles.”
[8] The present petition which has been referred by a division bench of this
court vide order dated 08.08.2020, which reads as under:
“The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referred to ‘Rules
of Court’ under Article 145(3) of the Constitution and has submitted
that as the case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution, besides it requires the re
consideration of the dictum laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the
case of State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights as reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571. He further
submits that the direction issued in the present judgment
undermines the principle of ‘federalism’, disturbs the delicate
balance of Centre- State with respect to ‘police’, ‘law & order’ and
‘public order’ which the scheme of the Constitution seeks to
establish. He further stressed that limited sovereignty (legislative)
of the states vis-à-vis List II of the Seventh Schedule is further
disturbed as it offends the constitutional scheme as reflected under
Entry 80 of the List I of the Seventh Schedule.”
[9] In Sambhu Nath Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in
(1973) 1 SCC 856, it was held that the Court would review its earlier
decisions if it is satisfied with its error or of the baneful effect such a
decision would have on the general interest of the public or if it is
inconsistent with the legal philosophy of the Constitution, as such
perpetuation would be harmful to public interests.
[10] Another learned member of the Bar submitted that no provision, words,

31
 expression of the Constitution exists in isolation or stand alone. It is an
exercise in continuum, a living and organic Constitution, which is
signified by transformation and in turn being transformed by other
provisions, words and phrases in the Constitution as held in the case of
GVK. Industries Limited & Anr. vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr. reported
in, (2011) 4 SCC 36. The observations made are extracted hereunder:
“37. In interpreting any law, including the Constitution, the text of
the provision under consideration would be the primary source for
discerning the meanings that inhere in the enactment. However, in
light of the serious issues it would always be prudent, as a matter of
constitutional necessity, to widen the search for the true meaning,
purport and ambit of the provision under consideration. No
provision, and indeed no word or expression, of the Constitution
exists in isolation—they are necessarily related to, transforming
and in turn being transformed by, other provisions, words and
phrases in the Constitution.”
[11] The dictum as laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Kazi Lhendup Dorji
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116
also requires re-consideration as it limits the power of the State
Government to revoke its consent with a retrospective date. It is
submitted that when a legislature has power to make law with
retrospective effect, the executive must possess the power to withdraw
the consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act from a retrospective date, if
the same executive resolution is approved by the state legislature. There
is a force in the contention that the other branches of the ‘State’ also have
a duty to expound the Constitution as they also carry out functions in
furtherance of the constitutional objectives.
[12] We have already indicated the broad issue of reference to be considered
by the larger bench to be constituted in due course.
[13] The interpretation and contours of the core principles of
constitutionalism often christened as ‘basic feature of the Constitution’
must co-exist and must not be subverted in any manner. The present
petition raises a matter of immense public importance, and correct

32
 interpretation of binding precedents. Though we have full respect for the
principle of stare decisis, at the same time, the Court cannot be a silent
spectator and shut eyes to dwindling federal autonomy and apparent
encroachment subverting the scheme of the Constitution. We cannot
revisit the dictum given in the case of State of West Bengal vs.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights as reported in (2010) 3
SCC 571 being a bench of coordinate strength. We request the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of Indistan to place the matter before a bench comprising
of 7 judges or more as considered appropriate.
[14] Ordered accordingly.
(…….. CJI.).
(……….J.).
(……….J.).
(……….J.).
(……….J.).

***

© Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting Competition

33
 Report of Previous Editions of
Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon Saarclaw Mooting Competition

THE FOURTH PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON SAARCLAW MOOTING

COMPETITION, LAW STUDENTS CONFERENCE AND COLLOQUIUM
2018-19
The India round of the Fourth Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
Competition and South Asian Colloquium 2018-19, was inaugurated by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Rajendra Menon, Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi, in the presence of Prof.
(Dr) N. R. Madhava Menon on 27th October, 2018. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal,
President, National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission was the Chief Guest in
the Valedictory ceremony. Fifty-two law schools across the country, competed to
qualify as seven best teams and to represent India in the SAARC round. In the SAARC
round, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Judge, Supreme Court of India, graced the
inaugural session as the Chief Guest and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee, Judge,
Supreme Court of India graced the Valedictory session as the Chief Guest. Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Priyantha Jayawardena, Judge, Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Hon'ble Ms.
Justice Sapana Pradhan Malla, Judge, Supreme Court of Nepal and Hon'ble (Dr.)
Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, Judge, High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
judged the final round along with Indian High Court Judges. The event also witnessed
the active participation from various SAARCLAW officials and dignitaries from the
SAARC countries and was personally guided and monitored by Prof. (Dr.) N.R.
Madhava Menon.

THIRD PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON SAARCLAW MOOTING

COMPETITION,LAW STUDENTS CONFERENCE AND SOUTH-ASIAN
COLLOQUIUM 2017-18
The India round of the Third Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting
Competition and Law Students Conference, was inaugurated at the gracious hands of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge, Supreme Court of India , in the presence of
Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon on 28th October, 2017. Thereafter, Fourty law schools
from India competed to find a place in the five qualifying teams and to represent India in
SAARC Rounds, which was held from 16th to 18th February, 2018. Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Kurian Joseph, Judge Supreme Court of India, inaugurated the SAARC round of the
competition and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha, Judge, Supreme Court of Nepal
was the Guest of Honour at the event on February 17th at Lloyd Law College, Greater
Noida. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, Judge Supreme Court of Sri Lanka,
also graced the occasion. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Judge, Supreme

34
Court of India was the Chief Guest at the valedictory ceremony. School of Excellence in
Law, Chennai, India won the competition, while University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
emerged as the runner-up.

THE SECOND PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON SAARCLAW MOOTING

COMPETITION & LAW STUDENTS CONFERENCE, 2016-17
The India Round of the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting
Competition and Law Students Conference, 2016-17 was held from 3rd to 4th
December, 2016 to select five qualifying teams from India to participate in the SAARC
Round. It saw participation from twenty eight 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. Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting
Competition & Law Students Conference 2016-17 was held from 10th to 12th February
2017, we received an overwhelming response from law schools in SAARC countries
with 16 teams' registrations. SASTRA University from India won the competition,
while Kathmandu Law School, Nepal emerged as the runner-up.

THE FIRST PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON SAARCLAW MOOTING

COMPETITION & LAW STUDENTS CONFERENCE, 2015-16
The India round of the first Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARCLAW Mooting
Competition and Law Students Conference, 2015-16 was inaugurated by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Anil R. Dave, Judge, Supreme Court of India, in the presence of Prof. (Dr) N. R.
Madhava Menon on 9th January, 2016. Twenty-eight law schools across the country
competed to qualify as five best teams and to represent India in the SAARC round. The
SAARC round of the competition was judged by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Najmi Waziri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice I. S. Mehta and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal. The winner &
runner-up team of the SAARC Round were Gujarat National Law University and
Kerala Law Academy, Trivandrum respectively.

35
29
SILF MILAT Institutional Excellence Award 2018

LLOYD LAW COLLEGE

Add. : Plot No. 11, Knowledge Park - II, Greater Noida, (U.P.)
Tel : +91-8882069112, +91-8800621117
E-mail : profmenonmooting@lloydlawcollege.edu.in
Website : saarcmooting.lloydlawcollege.edu.in ; www.lloydlawcollege.edu.in