About the Organiser

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, is a public law school and a National Law University located in Patiala, Punjab, India. It was established in 2006 by the Punjab Government as a university dedicated to the field of Legal Education.

About the Lecture

The Interactive Session on Concept of Egalitarian Equality under the Constitution on 1st October 2020 at 4.00 P.M, conducted by Professor (Dr.) Kamala Sankaran (Professor, Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Former Vice-Chancellor Tamil Nadu NLU.)

Platform: Cisco Webex

How to Register?

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER.

About the Organizer

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU) is first University established in 1998 by Govt. of NCT of Delhi under the provisions of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Act, 1998 read with its Amendment in 1999 The University is recognized by University Grants Commission (UGC), India under section 12B of UGC Act.

About the Quiz Competition

The Constitutional Club of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University under the aegis of Srijan, Directorate of Student Welfare, not only aims to spread legal awareness but also promote programs at the ground level regarding the same. In the same spirit, the club is organizing a quiz competition and webinar to commemorate the 151st Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. The Mahatma Gandhi Quiz competition will be held on 3rd October, Friday 2020.

Eligibility

Students enrolled in any UGC recognized college can participate in the Quiz. Participation will be on an individual basis.

Theme

The questions will revolve around the torchbearer of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi.

Format

There shall be 2 rounds. (1) Prelims (2) Finals.

Prizes

1st Position: Cash Prize of Rs. 1, 500 will be awarded along with a Certificate of Excellence.

2nd Position: Cash Prize of Rs. 1,200 will be awarded along with a Certificate of Excellence.

3rd Position: Cash Prize of Rs. 1, 000 will be awarded along with Certificate of Excellence.

How to Register?

There is no registration fee for the competition. The last day to register is 30th September 2020.

Contact Information

  • Samarth Luthra (9953998888): Student Coordinator
  • Anushka Gupta (9873988818): Student Coordinator
  • Devangini Rai (8373934003): Student Coordinator

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER.

About Tribal Rights Forum

Tribal Rights forum is a new initiative under Think India where we aim to work towards spreading awareness about tribal rights amongst people from all walks of life through various events. The forum is also working to improve the level of education in Tribal Communities.

Theme

The suggested topics are certainly not exhaustive in nature. We would be happy to entertain submissions pertaining to Tribal Rights in India.

  • Status of Tribal community in India and their Rights.
  • The future of Tribal education in the era of digitalization.
  • Displacement of Tribals in India – A case study.
  • Conflict between Maoist and Tribal people.
  • Tribal Women- A gender perspective.
  • A comparative analysis of the influence of globalization on tribal communities.
  • Indigenous and Janjatis in India: Self-determination.
  • A comparative study of social intelligence of tribal and non-tribal students in the North-East.

Eligibility

Submissions from the Students, Professionals, and Researchers are invited.

Submission Guidelines

  • Tribal Rights forum calls for unpublished and original work of authors’.
  • Submissions must be made in MS Word (.doc or .docx) format only. Submissions made in any other format shall not be considered.
  • Only one submission per author is allowed.
  • Co-authorship is permitted. However, the number of Co-authors shall not exceed more than 2.
  • The word limit should be between 4000-6000 words excluding footnotes. Author(s) are requested to adhere to the word limit.
  • Submissions must be accompanied by an abstract not exceeding 250-300 words.
  • 20th Bluebook edition for footnotes shall be followed.
  • Plagiarism should not be more than 20%.
  • The submission shall be made in English Language only.
  • The submission shall be deemed as transfer of right to Publish the Paper with due credits to the author.

Submission Fee

There is no submission fee.

Incentives/Perks

  • All the author(s) adhering to the above guidelines shall receive a certificate from us.
  • Best three papers shall receive a merit certificate and a cash prize of Rs. 1000/-
  • Internship opportunities shall also be provided.
  • Selected papers shall be published in our Think India website as well as Think India Tribal Rights Journal with due credits to the author(s).

Submission Procedure

CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT.

Submission Deadline

October 25, 2020

Contact Information

Rashi Joshi: 8449741778

Tejal Deora: 7887722705

Email: tribalrights.thinkindia[at]gmail.com

The High Court of Delhi, 30 Sept decided to extend its restricted functioning till October 8 in view of the prevailing situation of spread of coronavirus pandemic in the NCT of Delhi.

Hon’ble Chief Justice extended the suspended functioning of the work in the High Court of Delhi on the same terms as earlier orders dated 27.08.2020 and the Resolution of the Full Court dated 10.09.2020. The order also directed that the physical hearing of the cases will continue as per the September 11 roster already uploaded on the court’s website and the remaining benches shall continue to take up the cases through video conferencing.

PublicNotice_AG5XXUF1S02.pdf172 KB

The cases already listed before the Court from October 1 to October 8 shall be adjourned en bloc to corresponding dates from December 8 to December 14 and the Court of Registrars and Joint Registrars of the Court shall continue to take up the matters through video conferencing, as per the earlier directions in terms of Office Order dated 27.08.2020.

READ THE FULL NOTICE HERE….

INTRODUCTION

Special CBI judge Surendra Kumar Yadav has delivered his verdict in the Babri Masjid demolition case on Wednesday, 28 years after the 16th century structure was razed by a mob in Uttar Pradesh’s Ayodhya town. The court ruled that the CBI had not been able to produce evidence to back up its charge that there was a conspiracy to demolish Babri Masjid. The judge acquitted the 32 accused in the case including former deputy prime minister LK Advani, former Union ministers MM Joshi and Uma Bharti and former Uttar Pradesh chief ministers Kalyan Singh.

The Court ruled that the CBI had not been able to establish that there was a conspiracy to demolish the structure, holding that the demolition was not preplanned but a spontaneous act primarily carried out by mischievous elements. The 32 accused face charges under several sections of the IPC, including criminal conspiracy, rioting, promoting enmity between different groups and unlawful assembly. During the trial, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) produced 351 witnesses and 600 documents as evidence before the CBI court. The court had initially framed charges against 49 accused; 17 accused have died.

“The detailed 2000 page judgment has rejected the CBI case that the demolition was a conspiracy and pre planned. This has been the consistent stand of the BJP and its senior leaders, which stands validated, “BJP spokesperson Nalin Kohli said. He added that in criminal law, evidence has to stand the scrutiny in court beyond reasonable doubt. “It must be pointed out that the CBI had submitted all the evidence prior to the formation of the Modi government,” he said.

Former deputy prime minister LK Advani welcomed the verdict. In his first comment after the Lucknow court delivered its finding in the Babri demolition case, Advani said “wholeheartedly welcome the judgment”. “The judgment vindicates my personal and BJP’s belief and commitment toward the Ram Janmabhoomi movement,” Advani said, according to news agency ANI. A founding member of the BJP, Advani led a Rath Yatra in 1990 that criss-crossed north India, whipping up sentiment for a Ram temple. He had earlier denied all charges and said he was dragged into the case because of politics.

The investigation was started under sections-395,147,149,253,153A, 153B, 295,505,147,120B of the IPC for the demolition of babri structure.

Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath welcomed the CBI special court verdict. “Satyamev Jayate,” he tweeted before going on to accuse the then Congress government of acting with political bias, indulging in vote bank politics and defaming BJP leaders, saints, VHP leaders and various social organization by lodging false cases. “The people involved in the conspiracy (over Babri demolition) should apologies to people of the country,” he said.

Mahant Ram Vilas Vedanti emerged from the court flashing a victory sign. “It’s good. Justices has been done. The court agreed that we did no wrong, said he was ready to go jail”

Shiv Sena leader Satish Pradhan, one of the 32 accused in the Babri demolition case, expressed happiness over the verdict. “I had no connection with the demolition as I was not even present in the spot. My stance has been vindicated and I finally got justice,” said the former Rajya Sabha MP.

Iqbal Ansari, the petitioner in the Babri title case, welcomed the CBI court’s acquittal of 32 accused. “It’s good that this is now over. Let’s all live in peace. Let there be no fresh trouble of this nature. Hindu and Muslim have always lived in peace in Ayodhya,” he told reporters.

Special CBI judge Surendra Kumar Yadav did not admit the videos produced by the Central Bureau of Investigation, holding that the recording had been tampered with, defense lawyer Manish Tripathi said. The judge also did not admit the photographs submitted by the CBI since it could not produce the original negatives. The judge also agreed with the defence that the CBI did not follow provisions of the Evidence Act.

Defense lawyer Manish Tripathi told reporters that the court ordered acquittal on grounds that the evidence against them was insufficient, “The court said the Rashtriya swayamsewak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad did not have a role in the demolition. It was carried out by mischievous elements,” Tripathi said, giving details of the court verdict.

“The CBI court has acquitted all 32 accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case. This ends the long pending dispute related with the December 6, 1992 incident,” said lawyer KK Mishra who is representing 25 out of 32 accused in the case. Former deputy prime minister LK Advani, former ministers Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti and former chief minister Kalyan Singh along with 28 other accused of conspiring to demolish the Babri Masjid in Uttar Prasad’s Ayodhya town 28 years ago have been acquitted by CBI special judge Surendra Kumar Yadav. In a hearing that lasted just about 10 minutes, the judge ruled the CBI had not been able to establish charges against the accused.

The UP police have issued a high alert across the state in view of the verdict, in the Babri mosque demolition case, to be delivered case, to be delivered by the special CBI court (Ayodhya case) in Lucknow on Wednesday, said senior police officials.

The court will pronounce verdict in the Babri mosque demolition case, nearly 3 decades after the 16th century structure was demolished in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. While top accused including LK Advani, MM Joshi, Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti are unlikely to attend as Klyan and Uma Bharti are recovering from Covid-19, various other accused are expected to be present.

Accused Jai Bhagwan goyal, 62, who was Shiv Sena’s north India chief at the time of demolition, arrives. On the issue of demolition Goyal while talking to HT said the CBI court had directed them to bring guarantor along and said he won’t comply with the order. “Yes, I admit to my role in demolition,” he said.

BJP leader Vinay Katiyar, who is among the accused in demolition case, denied hand in the criminal conspiracy. Katiyar and other leaders were on a stage that was away from the site where mosque was felled. Former BJP MP and accused in the case Ram Vilas Vedanti has said that he is “ready to face anything, including gallows, for Lord Ram.”

Among the accused, Vinay Katiyar, Jai Bhagwan Goyal, Sadhvi Rithambara. Acharya Dharmadas, Lallu Singh, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, Ram Vilas Vedanti, Champat Raiand Sakshi Maharaj are present in the court.

This article has been written by Shubham Khandelwal currently pursuing BBA.LLB from FIMT, IP University. In the below-given article, you’ll all get to know the necessary information about the recently passed “Agriculture Bills” of 2020. Picture credits to countercurrents.org

Introduction

The Indian Parliament had passed three agriculture bills—

  • Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020,  
  • Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance, Farm Services Bill, 2020, and the
  • Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020—during its monsoon session culminating on 23 September.

 The contentious bills that awaited the President’s log off are now passed amid an uproar by the opposition party leaders and farmer groups alike. Amid the stiff opposition, there have also been voices that have begun in support of the bills with some stating that they might “unshackle” the workforce engaged within the agriculture sector.

To cut through the noise, here are a couple of key points from each bill that specify the changes proposed by them to the prevailing agriculture laws within the country.

1.THE FARMER’S PRODUCE TRADE AND COMMERCE (PROMOTION AND FACILITATION) BILL, 2020

  • This bill permits ranchers to participate in the exchange of their agrarian produce outside the physical business sectors informed under different state Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee laws (APMC acts). Otherwise called the ‘APMC Bypass Bill’, it will abrogate all the state-level APMC acts.
  • Advances hindrance free intra-state and between state exchange of rancher’s produce.
  • Proposes an electronic exchanging stage for immediate and internet exchanging of produce. Substances that can set up such stages incorporate organizations, association firms, or social orders.
  • Permits ranchers the opportunity to exchange anyplace outside state-advised APMC markets, and this incorporates permitting exchange at ranch entryways, distribution centers, cold stockpiles, etc.
  • Precludes state governments or APMCs from exacting expenses, cess, or some other charge on farmers produce.

2.Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price  Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020

  • The bill tries to furnish ranchers with a structure to take part in contract cultivating, where ranchers can go into an immediate concurrence with a purchaser (before planting season) to offer the product to them at pre-decided costs.
  • Elements that may reach accords with ranchers to purchase agrarian produce are characterized as “supports” and can incorporate people, organizations, association firms, restricted obligation gatherings, and social orders.
  • The bill accommodates setting up cultivating arrangements among ranchers and supporters. Any outsiders engaged with the exchange (like aggregators) should be unequivocally referenced in the understanding. Enrollment specialists can be built up by state governments to accommodate the electronic library of cultivating arrangements.
  • Arrangements can cover commonly concurred terms among ranchers and supports, and the terms can cover gracefully, quality, guidelines, cost, just as homestead administrations. These incorporate gracefully of seeds, feed, grub, agro-synthetic substances, apparatus and innovation, non-compound agro-inputs, and other cultivating inputs.
  • Arrangements must have a base term of one editing season or one creation pattern of domesticated animals. The most extreme length can be five years. For creation cycles past five years, the time of understanding can be commonly chosen by the rancher and support.
  • The price tag of the cultivating produce—including the techniques for deciding cost—might be included the understanding. On the off chance that the cost is dependent upon varieties, the understanding must incorporate an ensured cost to be paid just as clear references for any extra sums the rancher may get, similar to reward or premium.
  • There is no notice of the least help value (MSP) that purchasers need to offer to ranchers.
  • Conveyance of ranchers’ produce might be embraced by either party inside the concurred period. Supporters are subject to review the nature of items according to the arrangement, else they will be considered to have examined the create and need to acknowledge the conveyance inside the concurred period.
  • If there should be an occurrence of seed creation, supports are needed to pay at any rate 66% of the concurred sum at the hour of conveyance, and the rest of the sum to be paid after due accreditation inside 30 days of the date of conveyance. Concerning different cases, the whole sum must be paid at the hour of conveyance and a receipt slip must be given with the subtleties of the deal.
  • Produce created under cultivating arrangements are absolved from any state demonstrations pointed toward directing the deal and acquisition of cultivating produce, along these lines ruling out states to force MSPs on such produce. Such arrangements additionally excluded the support from any stock-limit commitments pertinent under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Stock-limits are a technique for forestalling the accumulating of horticultural produce.
  • Accommodates a three-level debate settlement component: the mollification board—containing delegates of gatherings to the arrangement, the sub-divisional officer, and re-appraising power.

3. FUNDAMENTAL COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2020

  • An alteration to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, this bill looks to limit the forces of the administration as for creation, gracefully, and conveyance of certain key products.
  • The bill eliminates grains, beats, oilseeds, eatable oils, onion, and potatoes from the rundown of fundamental products.
  • The government can force stock holding limits and direct the costs for the above items—under the Essential Commodities, 1955—just under outstanding conditions. These incorporate war, starvation, remarkable value rise, and characteristic disaster of grave nature.
  • Stock cutoff points on cultivating produce to be founded on value ascend in the market. They might be forced just if there is: (I) a 100% expansion in retail cost of plant produce, and (ii) a 50 percent expansion in the retail cost of durable farming food things. The expansion is to be determined over the cost winning during the first a year, or the normal retail cost in the course of the most recent five years, whichever is lower.
  • The bill targets eliminating fears of private speculators of administrative impact in their business tasks.
  • Offers opportunity to deliver, hold, move, circulate, and flexibly produce, prompting tackling private area/unfamiliar direct interest in horticultural foundation.

Worries of Farmers

  • Ranchers dread they will no longer get paid at MSP, they need beneficial deals as least help costs (MSPs) to be a legitimate right.
  • The ranchers request a different statute to give an unmistakable arrangement that if any office purchases the yield of the rancher beneath the MSP, at that point legitimate move will be made against it
  • Commission specialists are worried that they will lose their bonuses in mandis and persuasive operators would prefer not to lose hold over the ranchers.
  • As per a Punjab Agricultural University study, there is more than 12 lakh cultivating families in Punjab and 28,000 enrolled commission specialists. A huge aspect of the state’s economy lays on reserves mixed by focal acquirement offices, for example, the Food Corporation of India (FCI).
  • Presently, nonconformists dread the FCI will not, at this point have the option to obtain from the state mandis, which will ransack the go-between/commission specialist/arhatiya of his 2.5 percent bonus. The state itself will lose the 6 percent commission that is used to charge on the acquisition office.
  • Ranchers accept that the bills are intended to help huge corporate houses at the expense of their salary.
  • Ranchers state that the enactment will prompt a replication of old structures outside mandis and make two market spaces with totally various arrangements of rules.

Who is Protesting?

The Farmers of Punjab have organized a three-day protest against the bills. Badal, too, tendered her resignation after the Bills were passed. Opposition parties, including TMC, Congress, DMK, and BSP, opposed the agriculture sector reform bills, saying they were against the interests of small and marginal farmers. Congress upped its ante against the Modi government, terming the move a conspiracy to defeat the revolution. Slamming the govt, Congress leader Gaurav Gogoi said: “This government has been eyeing, how they will take the farmers’ land to profit their capitalist friends, whether is that the Land Acquisition Act, whether within the industrial system through weakening the labor courts and now this three-pronged attack on the Indian agricultural system through the 2 bills on farming – one associated with APMC, the opposite one is said to contract to farm and therefore the third bill which is on essential commodities… a three-pronged attack on the Indian agricultural system through the 2 bills on farming – one associated with APMC, the opposite one is said to contract to farm and therefore the third bill which is on essential commodities… a three-pronged attack on the Indian farmers.”

Latest Posts


This case analysis has been written by Prithiv Raj Sahu, a student of KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneswar (4th year). Picture Credits to The Financial Express

Appeal Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 99 of 2018

Case opinions: R.F. Nariman & Navin Sinha, JJ

Date of Judgement/Order: 25th January 2019

Sections:  53, 5(7), 5(20), 12A, 60 & 29A, Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14

Introduction

Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd. vs. Union of India deals with the constitutional validity of the various existing provisions in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter IBC Code). The case has been finally decided by the Supreme Court on 25 January 2019. Since the enactment of the IBC Code, it is continuously changing and amendments were made many times to add key changes to ease the resolution process. The latest Amendment has been made in 2020. This is the fourth Amendment being made to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Supreme Court, in this case, held the IBC Code to be constitutionally valid in its entirety. The Court takes into consideration various economic factors of the country in order to determine its validity in the present case. The present case comprises many cases transferred from various High Courts like Calcutta and Gujarat. The Court relied on the reports of the Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee (2016), Joint Parliamentary Committee (2016), and Insolvency Law Committee (2018) and the Statement of Objects and Reasons on multiple occasions to decide the present case. The Court also relied on the introductory speech of the Finance Minister while moving the IBC (Amendment) Ordinance, 2017 and recommendations of the Siddiqui Working Group, 1999 on Credit Information Companies and the statistics of the effectiveness of the IBC code since its enactment before giving the final judgment in this case.

Judgment

The major issues and observations in the case of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Distribution of assets – It was held that most financial creditors, particularly banks and financial instruction’s, are secured creditors, whereas most operational creditors are unsecured, financial creditors generally lend finance on a term loan or for working capital that enables the corporate debtor to either set up or operate its business. On the other hand, contracts with operational creditors are relatable to supply of goods and services in the operation of business. A financial creditor has to prove default as opposed to an operational creditor who merely claims a right to payment of a liability or obligation in respect of debt, which may be due. Financial creditors involved in the business of money lending, banks and financial institutions are best equipped to assess viability and feasibility of the business of the corporate debtor whereas operational creditors, who provide goods and services, are involved only in recovering amounts that are paid for such goods and services, and are typically unable to assess viability and feasibility of business. There was an intelligible differentia between the two, which had a direct relation to objects sought to be achieved by the code. Further, a resolution plan could not pass under section 30(2) (b) read with section 31 unless a minimum payment was made to operational creditors. In view of aforesaid reasons, it could not be said that operational creditors were discriminated against or that article 14 of constitution was infracted either on ground of equals being treated UN equally or no ground of manifest arbitrariness. Favour was against the petitioners.

Withdrawal of application filed under Section-7, 9 or 10: Section 12A – It was held that the primary issue against the provision of Section 12A is the fact that ninety per cent of the committee of creditors has to allow withdrawal. This high threshold has been explained in the Insolvency Law Committee Reports as all financial creditors have to put their heads together to allow such withdrawal as, ordinarily, an omnibus settlement involving all creditors ought, ideally, to be entered into. This explains why ninety per cent, which is substantially all the financial creditors, have to grant their approval to an individual withdrawal or settlement. It is also a clear proposition that under Section 60 of the Code, the committee of creditors do not have the last say on the same. If the committee of creditors arbitrarily rejects a just settlement and/or withdrawal claim, the NCLT, and thereafter, the NCLAT can always set aside such decision under Section 60 of the Code. Hence, this provision also passes the constitutional muster. Favour was against the petitioners.

A person not eligible to be resolution applicant – The challenge against Section 29A of the Code, which deals with eligibility of persons to be a resolution applicant, has been dealt with elaborately in this judgment. The bench referred to cases, in which it had held that resolution applicants have no vested right to be considered as such in the resolution process. The contention raised by the petitioners was that the Section 29A(c) treats un-equals as equals and that a good erstwhile manager cannot be lumped with a bad erstwhile manager. According to them, keeping out good erstwhile managers from the resolution process would go contrary to this objective. Rejecting this argument, the bench said that this ineligibility is not restricted to malfeasance. It said even the categories of persons who are ineligible under Section 29A, which includes persons who are malfeasant, or persons who have fallen foul of the law in some way, and persons who are unable to pay their debts in the grace period allowed, are further, by this proviso, interdicted from purchasing assets of the corporate debtor whose debts they have either willfully not paid or have been unable to pay. The legislative purpose which permeates Section 29A continues to permeate the Section when it applies not merely to resolution applicants, but to liquidation also. Consequently, this plea is also rejected.

Conclusion

The Court must defer to legislative judgment in matters relating to social and economic policies and must not interfere, unless the exercise of legislative judgment appears to be palpably arbitrary. The system of checks and balances has to be utilized in a balanced manner with the primary objective of accelerating economic growth rather than suspending its growth by doubting its constitutional efficacy at the threshold itself. The Supreme Court has strongly validated the Code right from its inception. By upholding the constitutionality of the statute, the judgment in Swiss Ribbons has laid the corner-stone for the successful implementation of the Code. It focuses on the intention of the legislature behind promulgation of the Code to resolve and revive a corporate debtor and thereby significantly reinforces the efforts of the creditors and other stakeholders to achieve such end. The impact of the judgment will be measured by the number of settlements and resolutions that will commence pre-insolvency as well as a swift resolution of the corporate debt in insolvency. This masterpiece will facilitate to boost the confidence and morale of investors and bidders overall through the Code, as well as generally improve ease of doing business in India.

Latest Posts


About the University

Amity University Lucknow Campus (AULC) is a constituent unit of Amity University, Uttar Pradesh & it was established in the year 2004 with the sole objective to impart research & innovation-driven education in the region.

About the Competition

Amity Law School, Amity University Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Campus is organizing the 2nd National Amity Quiz on Constitutional Law (AQCL) on 23rd October 2020.

Eligibility

Students pursuing 5-year law courses and 3-year law courses can participate in the competition as an individual.

(Please note that this competition is not a team-based competition and thus each student shall participate individually.)

Registration Procedure

  • Interested students have to register themselves through google form till 15th October 2020.
  • The registration fee for the competition is Rs. 500 (per participant) which shall be electronically submitted through the given details.
  • Each participant must confirm their registration by sending a mail, with Subject as “Registration” and Body “Name of the participant, Contact No., and a statement of successful submission of google form.” only at the official email address.

Payment Method

  • Google Pay/ Phone pay:7905600970
  • Bank Name: Axis Bank Limited
  • Account Name: AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH
  • Account Number:053010100284066
  • IFSC Code: UTIB0000053
  • Bank Address: Main Branch, Hazaratganj, Lucknow
  • Pin: 226001
  • Phone Number: 0522-4152000

Important Dates

  • Registration starts (Google form):  25th September 2020 (00:00 hrs.).
  • Last date for Complete Registration, Submission of the Registration e-form and confirming the same (via Email): 15th October 2020 (23:59hrs.)
  • Date of Competition: 23rd October 2020.

General Rules

  • Only single participant entry is eligible.
  • Any law student having interest in Constitutional Law of India may participate from any place with the help of computer/laptop etc at the given time and date.
  • All the participants are advised to have good internet connection to avoid any connection problem.
  • Any hindrance/obstacle due to connection error will not be entertained.
  • The decision of the jury will be final and will not be subject to any change.
  • The questions shall be in the form of multiple-choice, True / False statement, Specific- answer question, audio-visual etc.
  • Replacement of any participant is not allowed after registration.
  • Registration fess is not Refundable.
  • Participants will be allowed to give themselves an appropriate name which shall be their unique identity related to the competition, subject to the final decision of the core committee.

Prizes

  • Winner: E-Certificate and Cash Prize of Rs. 10,000/-
  • 1st Runner Up: E-Certificate and Cash Prize of Rs. 5,000/-
  • 2nd Runner Up: E-Certificate and Cash Prize of Rs. 2,500/-
  • 2 Consolation Prizes: E-Certificate and Cash Prize of Rs.1,100/- (each)
  • E-Certificate of participation will be issued to those students who will participate in the competition and attend the valedictory session.
  • Winner, 1st Runner-up, 2nd Runner up and 2 consolation prize awardees shall be presented with a e-certificate of merit.
  • No Certificate in case of absentia.

Contact Information

For any queries, you may drop an email at amitynationalquiz@gmail.com.

About the Organisation

Intelligent Communication Systems India Limited (ICSIL) is a joint venture of Telecommunications Consultants India Limited (TCIL), a Government of India Enterprise under Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC), a Government of Delhi undertaking.

Job Description

Intelligent Communication Systems India Limited (ICSIL) is opening job posts of Project Associate (Legal).

Preparation of affidavits, monitoring and liasoning with Govt. Counsels, Management of E-litigation portals, facilitating the issue of BTFs.

Number of Vacancies

01 (one)

Eligibility

Educational Qualification: A degree in Law from a recognized university.

Experience

  • Relevant experience of handling legal issues related to Environment/Forest/Wildlife/Biodiversity would be given preference.
  • Freshers can also apply.

Salary

Rs. 30,500/- (per month)

How to Apply?

CLICK HERE TO APPLY.

Deadline: 2nd October 2020.

CLICK HERE FOR THE WEBSITE.

Details about the event

1st D.P. Gupta Virtual Trial Advocacy Competition jointly organized by J. P. Sharma & Associates & Lex Legisia Law Firm in association with Institute of Professional Studies, Roorkee Uttarakhand. The founder’s of the event recognized the need of a virtual platform at this time of Pandemic, where law students can be a part of a platform where they can draft, plead and showcase their advocacy skill.

The aim of the event is to enable law students from all across India to participate and showcase their majesty over law and legal principles over a virtual platform.

Eligibility

  • Students pursuing 3-Year LL.B. Degree Course or 5-Year Integrated LL.B. Degree Course and LL.M. Degree Course from the colleges recognised by Bar Council of India are eligible to participate in the competition.
  • The maximum number of participants per team shall be restricted to 4 wherein 2 member will be Speakers and other 2 members shall be represented as witnesses.
  • Only the Participant who is a Speaker in all the three Preliminary, Semi Final and Final Rounds shall be eligible for the award of the Best Speaker.
  • The identity of the team [name of the Law College/School/University] must not be disclosed to the Judges as well as to the other Participating Teams. Any such disclosure shall lead to disqualification.
  • The substitution of any member is not allowed except with the prior approval of the DPVATC Administrators.
  • Each team will be provided with a unique team code by draw of lots during the orientation. The identity of the teams shall not be disclosed at any stage, such disclosure shall invite penalties including disqualification. The decision for the same shall be at the discretion of the DPVATC Administrators.

Location

1st D.P. Gupta Virtual Trial Advocacy Competition, 2020 is scheduled to be held online via “Google Meet” platform from October 30, 2020-November 1, 2020.

Registration procedure

Registration fee (per team) for the said competition is Rs. 750/- (Seven Hundred and Fifty Only).

Registration fee is to be submitted through NET Banking/GooglePay/Paytm:

  • Name: Sahil Singla
  • Account Number: 105751100001331
  • Bank: Yes Bank
  • Branch: Sector 20, Chandigarh
  • IFSC: YESB0001057
  • Google pay/Phone pe/Paytm at 9876828208

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER.

Forms received after the deadline shall not be considered.

The registration fees is non-refundable.

The registration of a team will be considered as complete, once the registration fees is paid and the registration form i.e. through google form, with all necessary details is received. The details required to be filled in the google form for registration is:

Name of the participants:

  • College Name
  • Course/Batch of students
  • Specifications as to Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 and Witnesses.
  • Screenshot of the payment made for registration.
  • Mobile Number
  • Email ID
  • No change in the names of the participants shall be permitted after the receipt of the Registration Form, except at the sole discretion of the Administrators.
  • The registration for the said competition begins from 17th September 2020 from 10:00 A.M. onwards
  • The last date to register for the said competition is 10th October 2020.
  • A participant appearing as Advocates before Trial Court shall wear a black coat, white shirt, black pant, white/black Salwar Suit and, which shall be sober and dignified.
  • Provided that the participants are prohibited from disclosing the College Logo OR ID card in the dress.

Contact information

  • Mr. Sahil Singla: 9876828208 (Convenor)
  • Mr. Anubhav Bajpai: 7752955714 (Co-Convenor)
  • Shivangi Rohilla: 8394840605
  • Email ID: dpguptatrialadvocacy@gmail.com

Official Links

CLICK HERE FOR THE PROPOSITION OF MOOT.

CLICK HERE FOR RULEBOOK OF THE MOOT.