4th MNLU Nagpur National Technology Law Moot (NTLM) 2025

Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur (MNLU Nagpur), is hosting the 4th National Technology Law Moot (NTLM) 2025 from March 28-30, 2025, Technology and law are increasingly intertwined, raising complex legal challenges that demand innovative solutions. To nurture the next generation of legal professionals adept at navigating these challenges.

About NTLM 2025

NTLM stands out as a premier moot court competition dedicated solely to Technology Law, providing a platform for law students to analyze and debate pressing issues related to digital governance, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and innovation policy.

Organized by the Moot Court Committee (MCC) of MNLU Nagpur, the competition is structured in two stages:

  • Memorial Qualification Round, where teams submit written arguments.
  • Oral Rounds, where the top 20 qualifying teams present their cases before a distinguished panel of legal experts, scholars, and industry professionals at the university campus.

Why Join NTLM 2025 ?

Exciting Rewards: Winners receive cash prizes, trophies, and certificates for their outstanding performances.

Enhance Advocacy Skills: Develop expertise in legal research, argumentation, and drafting.

Gain Expert Insights: Interact with leading legal minds and professionals in the field of technology law.

Compete at a National Level: Engage with law students from across India in a highly competitive environment.

Event Details:

Venue: Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur
Dates: March 28–30, 2025

Click here for Brochure & other relevant document

Eligibility:

The competition is open to students who are currently pursuing LL.B. degree programs (3-year or 5-year courses) at any institution accredited by the Bar Council of India. Each team must comprise 2 to 3 members, and each university is permitted to provisionally register up to two (2) teams.

Registration Fee:

Teams participating in the competition must complete the payment process in two stages:

  • Stage I: A registration fee of INR 3,500/- (excluding GST) must be paid for the Memorial Evaluation Round.
  • Stage II: Teams that qualify in Stage I are required to pay INR 4,500/- (excluding GST). This fee covers both accommodation and registration for the oral rounds of the competition.

click here for Registration

click here for payment link

Important Dates:

February 5, 2025 – Release of Brochure & Opening of Provisional Registration

February 12, 2025 – Release of Moot Proposition & Rulebook

February 20, 2025 – Deadline for Seeking Clarifications

February 24, 2025 – Deadline for Provisional Registration

February 26, 2025 – Release of Clarifications

February 28, 2025 – Deadline for Final Registration

March 11, 2025 – Deadline for Memorial Submission

March 16, 2025 – Release of Memorial Evaluation Rounds

March 28-30, 2025 – Researchers’ Test & Oral Rounds

Awards & Prizes:

  • Winner – Cash Prize of INR 40,000/-, along with a Trophy and Certificate of Merit
  • Runners-Up – Cash Prize of INR 25,000/-, along with a Trophy and Certificate of Merit
  • Best Memorial – Cash Prize of INR 12,000/-, along with a Trophy and Certificate of Merit
  • Best Speaker – Cash Prize of INR 12,000/-, along with a Trophy and Certificate of Merit
  • Best Researcher – Cash Prize of INR 12,000/-, along with a Trophy and Certificate of Merit

Contact Information

For Queries, Contact:

  • Soham Kale (Convenor): +91 95298 94476
  • Atharva Giratkar: +91 79720 67454
  • Tarang Arora: +91 63962 25651

Join Our WhatsApp Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Join our Telegram Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Next Article

SC upholds legality of Justice Yashwant Varma in-house procedure

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih on 7 August 2025 have upheld the constitutionality of the in-house procedure in the Justice Yashwant Varma as having legality under Article 141 of the Constitution and Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act. A fire breakout at the bungalow of the petitioner Allahabad HC judge resulted in the detection of burned currency notes, which entailed a confidential investigation under the Supreme Court’s “In-house Procedure.”

The petitioner had challenged the procedural fairness of the investigation after the committee, having found substance in the allegations, recommended further action by an inquiry report. Mr. Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioner called it a violation of Articles 14 and 21, considering the public release of the incriminating photograph/video footage. 

The Court referred to the precedent in the C. Ravichandran Iyer case and reaffirmed that the evolution of the law post the judgement has consistently upheld the in-house mechanism of discipline as self-regulation by this Court. The ruling in the Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability cannot be read as limitation on the powers and responsibilities of the Chief Justice of India, especially in matters concerning internal judicial discipline and preservation of institutional integrity. The bench recognized that there is a constitutional silence on internal mechanisms but that does not prohibit judicial innovation that has stood the test of time. 

Questioning why the petitioner delayed from objecting to the publication of the photographs of video footage, the Court also mentioned that the same is not a procedural requirement nor is it proper. Though it does not give rise to any benefits to the petitioner at this stage. The Petitioner should not have waited for completion of the fact- finding inquiry set in motion by the CJI before challenging the footage. 

Section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, while Section 3(1) grants judges immunity from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done in the discharge of judicial functions. This immunity is subject to proceedings initiated by the Central Government, State Government, the Supreme Court, any High Court, or any other legally empowered authority under “any law for the time being in force.” as per Section 3(2) of the Act. The procedure stems from the scope of power defined in Article 141 of the Constitution. The in-house inquiry is itself not a removal mechanism but a preliminary fact-finding process, and the Parliament continues to have the intact and unfettered constitutional power for removal of a judge.

Join Our WhatsApp Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Join our Telegram Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Next Article

Contact Us

For Submitting a Post

contact@lawdrishti.com

For Banner ads & admission campaigns

advertise@lawdrishti.com

Timing

Hours: 9 AM – 9 PM (Mon-Sat)

See the below animation to allow notifications.

Start getting Lawdrishti updates useful for you!

Contact Us

For Submitting a Post

For Banner ads & admission campaigns

Contact us
For Submitting a Post
For Banner ads & admission campaigns
Timing

Hours: 9 AM – 9 PM (Mon-Sat)