ILS Law College, Pune

Annual Raghavendra Phadnis Moot Court Competition, 2020

Moot Proposition 1- Contract Law

Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Mr. Jash …Appellant
versus
Stream 11 …Respondent

1. Stream 11 is an online gaming platform which allows individuals to play in fantasy league
formats. Users can choose from a variety of sports such as Cricket, Football, Poker & Basketball.
Stream 11 lets individuals to create a team of their own, subject to the rules laid down by it. And
the team earns points based on chosen players' performance in the real-life matches.

2. Public opinion on Stream 11 was divided, with a survey conducted by one leading news channel
revealing that 60% of respondents thought that the Stream 11 leagues were primarily luck driven
and that Stream 11 was a “gambling website”. The survey however also revealed that the website
was hugely popular with millennials who believed that the leagues hosted by Stream 11 were not
gambling but rather games of strategy and experience where skill played a substantial part in the
results thereof.

3. Mr. Jash has been a registered as a user of Stream 11 since 2015, and has participated in the
fantasy league football and cricket competitions offered by Stream 11. However, he has never
had much success, losing money on a frequent basis. Around March 2019, Stream 11 conducted
a market review which led to a discovery of a new avenue; Fantasy League for Indian elections.
Immediately it started advertising that for the upcoming general elections to be held in October
2019 users could create their fantasy teams and win huge pool prizes.

4. The introduction of an election fantasy league was even more polarising with many politicians,
activists and commentators taking to social media to criticise the same. Many further claimed
that competing in such leagues would appeal to economically weaker classes who would
otherwise not consider participating in a fantasy sports league. Some of them also decried that, it
was a criminal offence to gamble and called for the state to curb the same.
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

5. Supporters of the election fantasy league hailed it as a move that would help to curb illegal
betting, as individuals could engage in a legal outlet for such inclinations of the people.
Proponents of the move also highlighted the various decisions of High Courts stating that a
fantasy league tournament was not gambling or gaming under various public gambling acts.

6. Mr Jash realised that a fantasy league based on elections was his forte, being a political science
graduate and specialising in psephology, he believed his skills could be put to good use. He
created a fantasy team for the Lok Sabha elections which was held in October 2019, he created
his team consisting of candidates consisting of Mr. Rampal Gandhi as Prime Minister, Mr. D K
Ramkumar for Minister of Home affairs and Mrs. Sita Vadra as Minister of finance, which ran
contrary to popular opinion and predictions by pundits and exit polls. As a result, Mr. Jash won a
huge pool money of 1 crore Rs. Encouraged by this success he created a team for Rajasthan
elections to be held on January 2020, this time his choices went awry, due to which he lost 90
Lakh Rs. Similarly, other individuals tweeted losing large sums of money.

7. In the month of March, 2020, a worldwide pandemic caused by a virus named COVID-19
brought the whole world to standstill, as a result of which lockdowns were announced in many
countries, including India. The widespread disruption to the economy derailed business, Stream
11’s business was also hard hit.

8. The headquarters of Stream 11 located at Mumbai was closed as 2 positive cases were
discovered. Stream 11 could not continue running its physical offices and various investors in the
venture pulled out. Many of the upcoming fantasy league contests organised by Stream 11 had to
be cancelled as a result of cancellation of all sports and elections. As a result, Stream 11 had to
repay the tournament fees of a large number of its customers, depleting it’s cash reserves. Stream
11 announced its inability to make payments of all prize money remaining to be paid as on 15 th
March 2020.

9. On April 1, Mr Jash learning of Stream 11’s financial condition sent a request for payment of his
balance money. His request for withdrawal was denied. Upon enquiry he was informed that all
withdrawals from individual stream 11 accounts had been indefinitely suspended. Thereafter all
further attempts to contact stream 11’s customer service and management went un-responded.

10. Mr. Jash immediately filed a suit in Bangalore City Civil Court claiming breach of contract. The
suit was contested by Stream 11 on the grounds that the suit was barred as the contract with Mr.
Jash was a wagering contract, was against public policy and therefore void .They also argued that,
as a result of business disruption caused by the pandemic the contract was hit by the doctrine of
frustration and was void under Section 56 of the Contract Act.

11. City Civil Court dismissed the suit holding in favour of Stream 11 on both grounds. On appeal
the High Court of Karnataka reaffirmed the decision and the reasoning of the City Civil Court.,
while also granting Mr. Jash a certificate of appeal to Supreme Court. Mr Jash is appearing party-
in-person and Stream 11 is represented by it’s advocates in final hearing to be held on 15th
August 2020 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Page | 2
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

ANNEXURE- 1
Election Fantasy League: Rules of Contest, Participation and Prizes
1) Every player is awarded 400 points at the beginning of a game. The player must spend his
points in the fantasy tournament to select 11 persons who are standing for elections
(“Candidate”). Out of the 11 persons, he should also nominate 5 candidates to the post of
Prime Minister (or Chief Minister), Minister of Home affairs, Minister for finance, Defence
and Road Transport.

2) Heavy weight candidates (like Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi etc.) with high probability to
win are more expensive (going upto 200 points), whereas lesser known and less popular
candidates are cheaper (available from a minimum of 10 point).

3) A player can select a total of 11 candidates, and a maximum of 4 candidates from one state,
one women candidate, one OBC/SC/ST candidate. The player has to finalize the candidates
before 24 hours of the polling date. The player can make unlimited changes before the
deadline.

4) The player is awarded scores on the following basis:

Particulars Scores
Successful election of Candidate 100
Successful selection of Prime Minister 500
Successful selection of Minister of 400
Home affairs
Successful selection of Minister of 300
Finance
Successful selection of Minister of 300
Defence
Successful selection of Minister of 300
Road Transport

5) Players above the age of 18 and resident in India are allowed to participate. The website
offers free data from the last 10 Lok Sabha elections including analysis of seats breakup,
information on participants, exit poll results, seat demographics etc.

6) In order to participate the user has to register for a contest, by paying the entry fee, which is
predetermined and the money from all the users is pooled together and is termed as pot
money. Stream 11 charges 1.5% of the pot money as it’s platform fees. The remaining

Page | 3
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

amount will be distributed to the winner who has scored the highest. If there are multiple
winners (tie), the money is distributed equally between them.

7) It is clarified that Stream11 has no right or interest in this Prize Money Pool, and only acts
as an intermediary engaged in collecting and distributing the Prize Money Pool in
accordance with the above terms and conditions. Withdrawals from user accounts shall be
credited within 30 days from the date of request.

The moot proposition has been drafted by Mr.Xerxes Bharucha and Mr.Vivek Narayan (Batch of
2018), ILS Law College, Pune. Mr. Xerxes is currently working as an associate with Purnanand& Co. and
Mr. Vivek is an Assistant Professor at the KLE Law College, Bangalore.

Page | 4
 Moot Proposition 2- Constitutional Law

Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Astapor

Writ Petition No. ____ of ____

Arya Bhatt …Petitioner

versus

The State & Ors. …Respondents

Astapor has reached the pinnacle of ‘post-panopticism’

The growing polarisation among the religious groups has wrecked the nation and left the dissenting groups divided
like never before. The rage and interminable signs of violence among them has led the government to authoritatively
stifle speech and expression by monitoring them through increased mass surveillance techniques. This has
reinvigorated various debates concerning privacy, expression and dissensus in a post-panoptic era.
- An excerpt from an Op-ed piece by A. Smith from
‘The Astapor Times’, 1 July, 2050

BACKGROUND
1. Astapor is a secular, federal, democratic republic following a parliamentary system of
government. It is a sprawling cultural melange that boasts of multiple ethnicities, traditions,
languages and religions, old and new. It is hailed universally as a pluralistic society despite certain
instances of communal violence in the past. It has 7 states and its capital city is Wakanda which
is an active hotspot for political activity, discussions and protests in Astapor.

2. The year 2035 is of particular significance to Astapor. It saw the birth of a new religion called
Valaryan. Valaryans strictly adhere to futurology and scientific advancement. They believe that
the recital of the Valaryan codes and scriptures will ultimately lead them to transhumanism. Over
the years, Valaryan gained immense significance and spread widely. Thereafter, on account of
mounting pressure and protests carried out by the Valaryans, Astapor recognised the personal
laws of Valaryans and codified it into the ‘The Valaryan (Recognition and Codification of
Personal Laws) Act, 2040’. Within the next decade, the religion saw an unprecedented growth
to the shock and surprise of many. By 2050, Valaryan was practiced by 20% of the total
population in Astapor. The other religions in Astapor were Jedi, Kree, and Nidavellir that
constituted 70%, 3% and 2% of the total population respectively. The remaining 5% was
composed of several other religious minorities.
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

3. The steep boom in the Valaryan faith was met with staunch scepticism by the fundamentalists in
the majority religious group of Jedis. The Jedis termed Valaryans as heterodox in ideology and as
a sect with a propaganda to wash away the age-old traditions and customs of one of the most
ancient civilisations in the world. They considered the growing popularity of Valaryan a danger
to the growth of Astapor.
RISE OF THE ASTAPOR NATIONAL PARTY
4. In January 2049, the Astapor National Party came back to power with a sweeping majority after
a span of 15 years by defeating the Astapor Liberal Party. The National Party believes that
Astapor can become a powerful nation by reinforcing the country’s ancient roots and traditions.
Opposition parties perceived National Party’s ideology to be against the liberal bedrock of the
country. They feared that the ideology may lead to the creation of a hegemonic set up wherein
the rights of the religious minorities would be supressed. In the very first year of their tenure,
Astapor saw the rise of an anti- free speech regime, primarily with respect to criticism of the Jedi
faith by the Valaryans.
TALKBOOK
5. Talkbook, a private entity, is Astapor’s most famous social media platform for news and
discourse. Talkbook allows its users to post ‘comments’ beneath others’ posts and open up
parallel threads for discussion. After its incorporation in 2010, it quickly escalated into a social
media giant due to its easy user-friendly tools. While there are several print and electronic media
channels, a survey concluded that among 18-45 year-olds, Talkbook ranks as the most popular
source of news and political discussion in Astapor. Over 75% of the population has Talkbook
accounts (with 100% of the people in Astapor having access to internet). Several prominent
journalists and news agencies blog extensively on it. Further, all the government officials solely
use Talkbook as a medium to express their political opinions, and to invite public debate and
comments on policy changes introduced in the Parliament.

6. Since its inception, Talkbook has been promoted as a space to further the idea of free speech.
Censorship and ‘take-down’ notices were rare and limited to exceptional cases such as sexual
offences and child pornography related content. Occasionally, sensitive content was deleted
pursuant to court directions in extremely rare cases. Soon after the National Party came to
power, several investigations for money laundering and tax evasion were launched against
Talkbook. A drastic change in the company’s policy came to be seen since January 2050 where
several posts ‘severely’ criticising the National Party were censored. Talkbook justified its actions
by relying on its ‘Hateful Conduct Policy’ which is as follows:
“Posts/ Comments/ Videos will be deleted from the service where required by law or if necessary for
preventing a riot or some danger to human life, or for preserving public tranquillity.”
Many believed that Talkbook was curbing the voices of dissent to appease the government so as
to stop the ongoing investigations against it.

Page | 6
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

ANTI-CONVERISON BILL, CALL FOR PROTEST AND ENSUING VIOLENCE

7. On 1 July, 2050 the National Party introduced a nationwide Anti-Conversion Bill in the lower
house of the Parliament. The Valaryans saw the Bill as a direct and personal attack on their
integrity and the right to profess their religion freely. The following days witnessed a tense
atmosphere with scattered protests, slogan shouting, dissenting art in public places and other
forms of resistance on social media. When things became violent in a Jedi populated area, over
30 Valaryans were arrested and detained in prison. Not a single person of the Jedi faith was
arrested despite there being complaints that they initiated the violence.

8. Following this incident, on 3 July, 2050, Ms. Arya Bhatt, a prominent journalist and Valaryan by
faith who is widely regarded as a bold and perceptive writer on the political developments in
Astapor, announced a call for protest on Talkbook as follows:
“The growing intolerance of the government is unacceptable and is against what Astapor truly stands for. It’s
high time we gather in large numbers and make the government listen to us. Let us all peacefully assemble in
front of the Parliament in Wakanda on 10 July, 2050. Let us show them we are not afraid to fight.”
The post was read by many users of Talkbook and was rapidly shared among the netizens. Some
Valaryans commented on the post saying that they would carry knives and stones to resist any
illegal persecution by law enforcement or government authorities on the day of protest.
9. On the day of the gathering, people assembled in large numbers to attend the peaceful protest,
and chanted the Preamble of the Constitution of Astapor, 1950 (Constitution) in front of the
Parliament. However, a few protesters turned violent, set fire to a famous Jedi religious building,
burnt buses, and attacked law enforcement authorities who tried to prevent the arson attack. As
the government did not expect such a mass gathering, only around 50 police officials were
deployed to overlook the protest. By the time additional reinforcements came in, the gathering
had turned even more violent and both the sides suffered severe casualties. Over 200 people lost
their lives and this included Valaryans, police officials and about 40 people of the Jedi sect. This
inevitably spiralled nationwide hatred between the Jedis and Valaryans. The situation turned
violent in no time with some members anonymously posting on Talkbook that they will attack
the members of National Party who were instrumental in tabling the Anti-Conversion Bill.

10. In apprehension of further unrest and loss of life, pursuant to powers under Section 144 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the state government issued an order on 11 July,
2050 to operate across the city of Wakanda. An important excerpt of the order is extracted
below–
“2.1. Political demonstrations of more than four people are not permitted at any public place in Wakanda
for the next 30 days where participants in such a demonstration seek to discuss any issue that might trigger
religious divide.”
11. On 12 July, 2050 Ms. Arya Bhatt was arrested and was marked as an organizer of the protest in
reference to her post on Talkbook. She was charged with sedition and incitement of violence for
her ‘call for protest’. She is currently out on bail. During the same time, a Talkbook post by a

Page | 7
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

prominent member of the National Party began to be predominantly shared on the platform by
the Jedis. It read as follows –
“Arya is solely responsible for stirring the Valaryan sentiments and for mobilising people to plan an attack
on the National Party. She is a criminal columnist! Arya has a past criminal record of defaming a Jedi
fundamentalist in the year 2032. She was convicted for the same and served her sentence. She was also
arrested for incitement of violence in 2035 for sharing slogans like “Let us take to the streets and cause
havoc till the government codifies Valaryan personal laws”. Her intolerance towards other communities
disgusts me. Clearly some people can never be reformed!!!”
This post also attached a link to several news articles from 2032 and 2035 relating to Arya’s
investigation and conviction. The news articles reveal that she was acquitted by the Court in the
incitement to violence case in 2035. In a press release to The Astapor Times, Arya expressed her
disappointment over the dystopian state of affairs and stated that her personal data from the past
which is completely irrelevant is unnecessarily being brought up.
12. On the same day, Talkbook on its own accord, blocked Arya’s Talkbook account completely for
a period of one month. She could neither comment nor share on the platform anymore. All her
previous posts on the issue of Anti-Conversion Bill were also taken down. Arya lodged a
complaint through the internal redressal mechanism of Talkbook. Talkbook justified the censure
on the ground of public safety and public order during a politically sensitive and fragile
atmosphere. There was no further mechanism to appeal against Talkbook’s decision.
THE WRIT PETITION AND PRELIMINARY HEARING
13. On 15 July, 2050 Arya filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Astapor under
Article 32 of the Constitution claiming violation of her fundamental rights by both, the State and
Talkbook. In her petition, she sought to challenge the order dated 11 July, 2050 imposed by the
state government u/s 144 of the CrPC and Talkbook’s action of blocking her account and
stifling free speech. She contended that in this era, private social media companies are the
foremost facilitators of the modern ‘market place of ideas’. Therefore, in the absence of other
remedies against the private social media giant - Talkbook, it is high time that the fundamental
right to free speech is made enforceable even against it. In the alternative, she requested the
Court to direct the government to give suitable directions to Talkbook. She also raised a plea to
erase her personal information regarding court cases and conviction from over 15 years ago from
internet search results by recognising the ‘right to be forgotten’ as a fundamental right. In the
absence of any data protection legislation in the country, she contended that availability of such
information is irrelevant and a violation of her right to privacy. Consequently, she requested the
Court to direct the government to give suitable directions to the search engines to erase the data.

14. During the initial hearing, a preliminary objection was raised by Talkbook that the writ petition
was not maintainable against it. The State on the other hand conceded to the maintainability of
the writ petition. The Court remarked that as the case involves important questions of
constitutional law on the ‘horizontal application of fundamental rights’ and the ‘right to be
forgotten’, it will post the matter for a detailed hearing. The Court also indicated that the parties
may substantiate their arguments with foreign jurisprudence/case law.

Page | 8
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

ISSUES
In the facts and circumstances narrated above, the following issues have been enlisted:
A. Whether the petition is maintainable against Talkbook (a private entity) and whether it
has violated Article 19 of the Constitution?
B. Whether the State violated Article 19 of the Constitution by issuing the order dated 11
July, 2050 u/s 144 CrPC?
C. Whether the Petitioner has the ‘right to be forgotten’ under Article 21 as a result of
which her personal data can be directed to be removed from the search engines results?
Argue for either the Petitioner or the Respondents. For the purpose of this moot problem, the
Respondent will have to represent both State and Talkbook. The laws of the Republic of
Astapor are in pari materia with the laws of the Republic of India. The participants have the
flexibility to add or modify the issues.

The moot proposition has been drafted by Ms. Akhila Palem and Ms. Hamsini Marada (Batch of
2017, ILS Law College, Pune). Ms. Akhila is an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court and Ms. Hamsini
is a Lecturer at Jindal Global Law School

Page | 9
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Moot Proposition 3- Arbitration Law

Before the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal consisting of the Sole Arbitator

In the matter of arbitration between

Almec AI Technologies Ltd. …Claimant

versus

Echo Solutions Ltd. …Respondent

1. Claimant, Almec AI Technologies Ltd.(“Almec”), is a company incorporated in England and is

engaged in the business of developing innovative legal research tools for lawyers using advanced
artificial intelligence. Almec currently owns the patent for “Tars A.I.” Tars A.I. is an AI-powered
legal search engine that enables its users to upload documents relating to an ongoing dispute. It
then searches its database and instantly recommends the most relevant statutes and judicial
precedents pertaining to the dispute. Tars A.I. also offers various other unique search features.

2. Respondent, Echo Solutions Ltd. (“Echo”), is a public unlisted company incorporated in India
and is engaged in the business of providing software solutions primarily to the legal industry.

3. In early 2018, Echo reached out to Almec to discuss the possibility of (a) a joint venture between
Almec and Echo for development of software solutions for the Indian legal industry and (b)
obtaining a license to use Tars A.I. Echo offered 49% equity stake in a proposed special
purpose vehicle (“SPV”) to Almec at a reasonable price. Additionally, Echo also offered a license
fees of USD 5000 per annum for an exclusive license, for the SPV to use and market Tars A.I. in
India for a period of 5 years. Almec agreed to Echo’s proposal on the condition that it will
acquire a controlling stake viz. 51% equity in the SPV for the offered price.

4. Almec’s representatives explained that a controlling stake was important to them since they were
offering their patented technology and other services to the SPV and wanted to ensure that their
intellectual property remains protected. For Echo, the technology offered by Almec was truly
unique. It enabled Echo to expand its profile and to obtain a competitive advantage in the Indian
market at a reasonable price. Therefore, Echo accepted (albeit slightly reluctantly) Almec’s condition
for a controlling stake. Parties commenced negotiations for a joint venture agreement and agreed
on the commercial terms with alacrity. The dispute resolution clause, however, took quite some
time to finalize.

5. There were extensive negotiations on the dispute resolution clause. While Echo wanted a
balanced arbitration clause with India as the seat of arbitration, Almec had confidentiality
concerns and wanted a one-way dispute resolution clause whereby only Almec would have the
option to refer the disputes to arbitration with London courts having supervisory jurisdiction.

Page | 10
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Echo did not want the disagreement over dispute resolution clause to disrupt the entire
negotiations and discussed alternatives with Almec. Ultimately, a compromise was reached. Echo
agreed to an asymmetric dispute resolution clause in exchange for Almec agreeing to an India
seated arbitration.

6. The Joint Venture Agreement was finally executed on 25 August 2018 (“JVA”) and a SPV
named ALecho India Pvt. Ltd. (“ALecho”) was set up in Mumbai, India. In accordance with
JVA, Almec was allotted 51% equity stake in ALecho while Echo held the balance 49% equity
shares. The Dispute Resolution clause provided:

“Clause 27 Dispute Resolution

1. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract, including any question regarding its existence,
validity or termination shall, at the option of Almec, be referred to arbitration.
2. The courts in India have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute arising out of or in connection with this
contract, subject to Almec’s right to go to arbitration pursuant to paragraph 1.
3. The seat, or legal place, of arbitration shall be Mumbai, India.
4. The Tribunal shall consist of one arbitrator to be jointly nominated by both Parties.
5. The language to be used in the arbitral proceedings shall be English.
6. The governing law of the contract as well as the arbitration agreement shall be the laws of India.

7. Soon thereafter, Tars A.I. was launched in India and started generating a lot of interest.
However, all was not well within the Board room. On 30 January 2019, Almec addressed a
detailed letter to Echo alleging material breach of the JVA as Echo had refused to cede control
of ALecho contrary to the terms of JVA. This was followed by an exchange of several
communications whereby allegations and counter-allegations were made by both sides.
Meanwhile, the promotional campaigns for Tars A.I. continued. Almec was concerned about
loss of reputation and goodwill in the Indian market and attempted to persuade Echo to arrive at
an amicable settlement of the disputes. Parties agreed to discuss the possibility of settlement at a
meeting scheduled on 20 July 2019. However, no consensus could be reached on that day.

8. On 30 July 2019, Echo filed a suit against Almec before the commercial division of the Bombay
High Court alleging breach of JVA by Almec. Almec filed an application under Section 8 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) and objected to Court’s jurisdiction
on the basis of the Dispute Resolution clause in the JVA. By an order dated 30 September 2019
(“Order”), the Bombay High Court summarily dismissed the matter and referred parties to
arbitration subject to any jurisdictional objections that Echo may have. By the Order, the High
Court also appointed Senior Counsel Mr. Salve as the sole arbitrator based on prior consultation
with parties.

9. The preliminary hearing before the Arbitral Tribunal was scheduled on 30 November 2019.
Echo promptly filed an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act (“Section 16
Application”) stating that the Arbitral Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide the case. Echo
contended that arbitration was under an asymmetric arbitration clause which is invalid under
Indian law and contrary to the public policy of India. Assuming whilst denying the arbitration

Page | 11
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

clause was valid, Echo contended that Almec had waived its right to arbitrate disputes by failing
to initiate arbitration. In its response, Almec refuted Echo’s contentions of waiver stating parties
were attempting amicable settlement. Further, Almec stated that asymmetric arbitration clauses
are internationally recognized and are not invalid even under Indian law. Almec also contended
that the clause was agreed after proper contractual negotiations.

10. Pleadings pertaining to Section 16 Application were completed on 15 January 2020. Due to
COVID-19 and the intervening lockdown, an oral hearing could not be scheduled until now.
Echo and Almec are now required to address the Tribunal on their respective case.

The moot proposition has been drafted by Ms.Pooja Gera (Batch of 2015, ILS Law College, Pune). Ms.
Pooja is currently an independent counsel at the Bombay High Court.

Page | 12
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Moot Proposition 4 - Public International Law

Before the Hon’ble International Court of Justice

Republic of Alishia .…Applicant

versus

Republic of Reverenta .…Respondent

1. The Republic of Reverenta is a secular country, which fought independence from its colonial
powers in 1970. It is bordered by the Republic of Alishia. Both Alishia and Reverenta were part
of a single country and were separated in 1980 as two independent countries. People from three
religions are prominent in the region: Jaqovia, Snowdea and Zorain. The religious communities
of Jaqovia and Snowdea have a tense history, which resulted in a religious riot in 1978 leading to
deaths of thousands of people from both communities. Reverenta has a majority population of
Jaqovians and Alishia has a majority population of Snowdeans. However, both countries have
adopted a secular constitution which protects minority rights.

2. In 2018, a right-wing conservative party called the Traditional Party of Reverenta (TPR)was
elected into power, for the first time in its political history. The party believed in reviving the
ancient traditions of Reverenta. It advocated that it has to reclaim the country by ousting the
minority of Snowdeans and making it a purely Jaqovian nation. The coming into power of TPR
saw severe curtailment of civil and political rights. The activities of NGOs were severely
restricted. Several human rights activists were jailed under terrorist laws and kept in preventive
detention indefinitely. Violence against Snowdeans increased, at times with cooperation of police
forces or inaction by police forces.

3. The TPR also began widespread discrimination against the Snowdeans. The Snowdeans were
blamed for the lack of economic progress for the country. They were labeled lazy and inefficient
being unduly enriched because of other’s efforts. They were alleged to have committed anti-
national activities. In the prisons across the country, Snowdeans began to be transported into
separate prison chambers. In the border region of Alishia and Reverenta, there were media
reports of enforced disappearances of Snowdeans, including women and children. According to
the reports, the disappearances were large in numbers and around one sixth of the total
Snowdean population was already missing. The government claimed that these arrests were made
under anti-terror legislations. Lawyers and family members of the arrested have not been able to
contact or locate the prisoners.

4. In 2019, the TPR, majority party in the parliament passed a legislation called the “Compulsory
Documentation for Citizenship Act, 2019 (CDCA). The Act required people from the minority
Snowdean community alone to show documents on citizenship. Most of the documents required
were difficult or almost impossible to procure such as birth/ marriage certificates of
grandparents. If one could not prove citizenship to the authorities by showing such demands,
one could be deported.

Page | 13
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

5. Protests began to erupt in the country against the Act and international bodies and other
countries criticized the national government of Reverenta for passing a legislation violating its
own constitution and norms of universal human rights. The TPR responded by saying that
targeting Snowdeans is merely the initial phase and after the initial phase completes, the Act will
be amended to include other communities within its ambit.

6. In the meanwhile, a peace march was organized on 10 December 2019 in the capital of
Reverenta by human rights activists and anti- CDCA protesters, consisting of majority of
Snowdeans. Members and leaders of the TPR opposed the march and made defamatory
statements against the leaders of the movement. They demanded that the permission granted by
the police for the event must be withdrawn. “Either you are with us, or against us” became a
major political slogan of the TPR. Mr. Wesley Roger, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
supported the TPR and criticized the protest as “misguided and unnecessary.” He also called the
protestors “mostly criminals, who have no legal documents to show for themselves.” The
objection by the TPR gained momentum with the support of the Minister. The Minister of
Home Affairs or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, however, offered no statement.

7. The peace march was attacked by members of the TPR, many with deadly weapons, which led to
clashes. The TPR members went into university campuses targeting Snowdeans. A major
support group of the Snowdeans was students. Help was sought by Snowdeans from the police
but was repeatedly refused. Some TPR members hung posters in university walls, police stations,
hospitals and shops: “For Jaqovians only.” The clashes lasted for around 4 days and around 279
Snowdeans were dead, with another 346 injured. 37 Snowdean women alleged that they have
been sexually assaulted, at different times during these days at the hands of the police and said
they wanted to file criminal complaints. Ten media outlets (out of the 34 major ones) reported
the involvement of Mr. Roger in expressly directing the TPR members to physically assault
members of the Snowdean community and directing the police and hospitals not to offer
assistance to the Snowdeans. Mr. Roger has also been accused by various witnesses of
obstructing and preventing police investigations after the attacks. He was also accused of
directing the members to sexually assault the Snowdean women and torture protestors (including
minors) since they were ‘cursed for belonging to the Snowdean community.’ The press reported
witness testimonies of conspiracy and collection of weapons by the TPR members before the
attack. Mr. Roger was also accused of planning the persecution against the Snowdeans, including
the enforced disappearances as part of the ‘Final resolution’ plan. The ‘Final resolution’ plan
according to three witness testimonies, was devised by many high officials including Mr. Roger
conceived to put an end to all the political, economic problems by systematically subjugating
Snowdeans.

8. In January 2020, Mr. Roger travelled to Alishia to attend a global conference of various ministers
from different countries of the region. In 2015, Alishia had passed the Crimes against Humanity
Act, 2015. The Act invokes universal jurisdiction in crimes against humanity. The legislation has
adopted the understanding of the Crimes Against Humanity under customary international law.
The authorities in Alishia apprehended Mr. Roger and placed him on immediate arrest on arrival
for his alleged involvement in atrocities against the Snowdeans including the incidents between

Page | 14
 ANNUAL RAGHAVENDRA PHADNIS MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

10 and 14 December 2019. The Court of Alishia sought to try Mr. Roger for charges of crimes
against humanity.

9. Diplomatic negotiations began between the two countries and after deliberation, both countries
agreed to submit the dispute before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and “declared that
they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement” under Article 36(2) of
the statute, the jurisdiction of the court. Alishia, shall be referred to as the Applicant and
Reverenta shall be referred to as the Respondent.

10. Accordingly, the issues for consideration before the ICJ were framed as follows:

A. Whether Mr. Wesley Roger, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs enjoys immunity
from prosecution of international crimes under the laws of immunity? (Preliminary
objection)
B. Whether or not Mr. Wesley Roger has committed crime(s) against humanity in the facts
and circumstances of the present case?

The moot proposition has been drafted by Ms.Thulasi K. Raj (Batch of 2015, ILS Law College, Pune).
Ms. Thulasi is a lawyer at the Supreme Court of India & Kerala High Court.

Page | 15