Exciting 2nd Justice Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition

Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur, is proud to announce the 2nd edition of the Justice Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition (HIMCC), set to take place in March 2025. Building upon the success of its inaugural edition, this year’s competition aims to further solidify HNLU’s legacy as a premier institution fostering advocacy, legal research, and mooting excellence on a global scale.

Elevating Mooting to an International Platform by participating in Justice Hidayatullah International Moot Court Competition

HIMCC 2025 promises to bring together some of the brightest legal minds from across the world. With an intriguing moot proposition centered around the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention, the competition will challenge participants to engage with complex, real-world legal issues. The event is designed to encourage critical thinking, persuasive advocacy, and in-depth legal analysis.

Prestigious Judging Panel and Networking Opportunities

The competition will be judged by an esteemed panel comprising sitting judges of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, legal scholars, and top practitioners from leading law firms. This provides participants with a rare opportunity to present arguments before legal luminaries and gain insights into the evolving landscape of international arbitration and dispute resolution.

A Unique Mooting Experience

HIMCC 2025 will be conducted in a physical format at the HNLU campus, which boasts state-of-the-art moot court halls and a 350-seater auditorium for the grand finale. With rigorous preliminary, quarter-final, semi-final, and final rounds, participants will engage in intense legal battles, sharpening their advocacy skills while competing for prestigious awards and cash prizes.

Why Participate in HIMCC 2025?

  • Global Exposure: Compete against top law schools from India and abroad.
  • Engaging Legal Issues: Debate contemporary arbitration and international law topics.
  • Mentorship and Learning: Gain feedback from experienced judges and practitioners.
  • Prestige and Recognition: Winners will receive cash prizes, trophies, and certificates that add significant value to their legal careers.

Registration and Key Dates

  • Last date for registration Registration Opens: 20 February
  • Competition Dates: 21-23 March 2025
  • Venue: HNLU, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

Click here for Brochure

Click here for registration link

Click here for payment link

Join us at HIMCC 2025 and take the next step toward becoming a skilled legal professional with global competence! Stay tuned for registration details and updates

contact here for any query: https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&to=2ndhimcc25@hnlu.ac.in

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

Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India

Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018): A Landmark Judgment on Decriminalization of Same-Sex Relations

Case Title: Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 2018 SC 4321
Date of Decision: September 6, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra

Background of Section 377 and Historical Context

The Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India case involved Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This law, enacted during British rule in 1860, criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” For many years, it was used to target consensual same-sex relationships.

In 2009, the Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts in Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in 2013 in the case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, reactivating Section 377.

The petitioners in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, including dancer Navtej Singh Johar, challenged the law. They argued that it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Key Issues in the Case

The case raised several important constitutional questions:

  1. Constitutionality of Section 377: Did Section 377 violate fundamental rights, including equality, privacy, and freedom of expression?
  2. Vagueness of Section 377: Was the law’s definition of “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” vague and arbitrary?
  3. Social Morality vs. Constitutional Morality: How much weight should social morality carry in interpreting constitutional rights?

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners, in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, presented several strong arguments:

Violation of Equality and Non-Discrimination (Article 14)

The petitioners argued that Section 377 was discriminatory. It criminalized consensual same-sex acts but did not punish similar acts between heterosexuals. This, they claimed, violated the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Violation of Right to Dignity and Privacy (Article 21)

The petitioners further argued that Section 377 violated their right to privacy. In the case, they referred to the landmark Puttaswamy judgment, which recognized sexual orientation as a fundamental aspect of privacy.

Violation of Freedom of Expression (Article 19)

The petitioners also emphasized that sexual orientation is part of personal expression. Criminalizing same-sex relations, they argued, infringed upon their right to freedom of expression under Article 19.

Constitutional Morality over Social Morality

The petitioners asserted that laws should be based on constitutional morality. In their view, Section 377 was rooted in outdated Victorian values and not in line with modern constitutional principles.

Human Dignity and Protection from Harassment

Finally, the petitioners argued that Section 377 led to the harassment and marginalization of LGBTQ+ individuals. The law, they contended, promoted discrimination, alienation, and social exclusion.

Union of India’s Position

The Union of India did not defend Section 377 in the case. The government took a neutral stance, leaving the matter to the Court’s discretion. Some intervenors, however, argued that decriminalizing same-sex relations could harm public morality.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India. The Court read down Section 377 to exclude consensual homosexual acts between adults. The law remained applicable for acts involving minors, bestiality, and non-consensual relations.

Unconstitutionality of Section 377 for Consensual Same-Sex Relations

The Court ruled that Section 377 violated the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. It found that criminalizing consensual same-sex acts violated the fundamental rights to equality, dignity, privacy, and freedom of expression.

Right to Equality (Article 14)

The Court ruled that Section 377 violated Article 14 by creating an arbitrary and irrational distinction based on sexual orientation. The law had no legitimate connection to any state interest.

Right to Privacy and Dignity (Article 21)

The Court emphasized that sexual orientation is an integral part of one’s identity. Justice Chandrachud, in his opinion, noted that criminalizing same-sex relations violated the right to personal autonomy and freedom.

Constitutional Morality vs. Social Morality

The Court highlighted that laws must align with constitutional values, such as equality and dignity. It affirmed that constitutional morality should prevail over social morality, which can be discriminatory or regressive.

Freedom of Expression (Article 19)

Justice Malhotra emphasized that sexual orientation is a form of self-expression. In the Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India case, the Court ruled that criminalizing it violated the right to freedom of expression, as it stifled individual identity.

Protection of LGBTQ+ Rights

The judgment acknowledged the long-standing discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ individuals. The Court ruled that they were entitled to equal treatment and protection of their rights as citizens.

Conclusion

The ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India marked a historic victory for LGBTQ+ rights in India. The Supreme Court’s judgment decriminalized same-sex relations, affirming the constitutional principles of equality, dignity, privacy, and freedom of expression. This decision reflects a shift in India’s legal framework, where constitutional values now take precedence over outdated societal norms.

While Section 377 remains in place for non-consensual acts and bestiality, the Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India case represents a significant step toward securing equal rights for LGBTQ+ individuals in India.


Read MoreClick Here

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)