BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY LAW COLLEGE

JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS
BENGALURU- 560 056
www.ulcbangalore.com

XXVI All India National Moot Court

Competition
MOOT PROBLEM

1.Vikram, a promising student hailed from middle strata of Aryavartha Society

secured a scholarship to pursue Law at Sayadhri Law College. He excelled in his
studies and worked as a retainer with Rio Pharma & Co, a multi-national
pharmaceutical company, being a subsidiary of a Rio Country company duly
registered in Aryavartha for nearly 5 years until 2005 after passing out from the
Law College.

2. That as a part of his employment contract, Vikram was forced to sign a non-
disclosure agreement applicable for life with other stereotype clauses as in the
case of any standard NDA template including other agreements. That during his
association with the said company, medical trials were conducted in relation to a
new wonder drug by name RioGen.

3. The said wonder-drug could be used for a variety of ailments including

treatment of Covid 19, malaria, dengue and other viral infections.

4. That during the medical trial, it was noticed by the said pharmacy giant, that
despite combating the said viral infections, the wonder drug had various side
effects leading to impotency amongst men and frigidity in women. Further the
use of the said drug gave higher risk of women relating to various forms of
carcinoma.

5. The said wonder drug also contained various combinations of addictives which
were found in narcotics substances in order to give scope for a “happy state/bliss
feeling”. Out of thousands of persons who were subjected to medical trial, more
than half of them were privy to atleast one of the side effects. That the said drug
proposed to make the patients addictive due to the above reason, it also created
various ramifications to heart, kidney and liver of patients after consuming the
said drug

6. Nyaya, an NGO which was established for the purpose of protection of rights
of the needy and poor, having its preamble containing various Charters of United
Nations as well as Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, conducted a sting
operation with the help of one detective agent planted by the said NGO. He
procured various primary & secondary evidences including profiles of people
who took the RioGen on trial, medical history including subsequent medical
complications pre and post-trial and their current where abouts, etc.

7. The evidence was handed over to Nyaya the NGO, which tracked nearly 60%
of persons who had undertaken the said medical trial and from unconfirmed
sources it was learnt that the rest 40% of persons who had taken the medical trial
succumbed to death due to the side effects privy to the RioGen including kidney
failure, cirosis, cancer, depresssion, impotency, suicide tendencies, etc.

8. That the Nyaya espoused the cause of the said persons and filed a PIL before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavartha,
seeking for judicial intervention due to the failure of the State for not properly
evaluating RioGen, including competent authorities established under Drugs &
Cosmetics Act 1940 as well as under the provisions of Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

9. The said litigation was filed through Vikram, before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. That Vikram also gave interview to various media houses in relation to
issues privy to RioGen. The said interview was telecasted time and again in
various platforms including social media.

10. That the Chief Executive Officer of Rio Pharma & Co, one Stephen John had
pilferaged various statutory authorities prior to procuring permission under the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. With a retributive thought, Stephen John lodged
complaint against Vikram under corresponding law relating to advocates,
alleging misconduct since Vikram was estopped from going beyond the Non-
Disclosure Agreement between himself and Rio Pharma & Co

11. The said complaint was filed before State Bar Council of Sayadhri and notice
was issued to Vikram, before the disciplinary proceedings were held against him
under the provisions of the applicable law including the Advocates Act 1961 and
Vikram was found guilty of misconduct and accordingly Vikram was suspended
from practice for life solely relying on the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

12. That finding the said Disciplinary Proceedings being unfair, Vikram sought
to file an appeal before the Bar Council of Aryavartha, under the corresponding
provision of law. Stephen John, using his battery of lawyers having National and
International standing, was able to demolish the appeal of Vikram.

13. The Bar Council of Aryavartha confirmed the order passed by Bar Council of
Sayadhri. As against the said order, Vikram filed a Special Leave Petition before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavartha. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, pleased
to admit the said Special Leave Petition, granted stay on the impugned orders.
That the Supreme Court of Aryavartha clubbed the PIL filed by Nyaya and the
Special Leave Petition filed by Vikram together for the purpose of common
adjudication since both were privy to each other and had common larger
questions of law including:

a. Whether the Non-Disclosure Agreement is legally enforceable given the facts

of the case?

b. Whether, the instrumentality of State is bound to pay compensations for the

victims and take proactive actions?

c. Whether Vikram has a right to present a PIL against the State and others
despite being estopped by the non-disclosure agreement?

d. Whether the concerned Bar Councils are justified in holding Vikram for
committing acts amounting to misconduct and suspend him for life from practice

14. The Supreme court clubbed the Public Interest Litigation and Special Leave
Petition which are set out for the final hearing in the Supreme court of Aryavartha.

Participants are required to raise the aforesaid issues amongst others.

The laws of Aryavartha are Para Materia to Laws of India.

Constitution of Aryavartha, 1950 is Para Materia to Constitution of India, 1950.

Disclaimer/Notice: The Moot Problem is Drafted by Dr. M. Sunil Sastry,

Advocate, High Court of Karnataka. (If any teams or individuals attempts to
contact him in relation to the Moot proposition, it will result in the immediate
disqualification from the competition.)