PROPOSITION FOR MOOT COURT

Disclaimer regarding Moot Problem

The facts and circumstances as made out in the Moot Problem(s) of the SHS
LEADER’S CONCLAVE AND SHSMUN 2024 - Moot Court does not resemble
the facts of any living and/or adjudicated litigation.

Further, the characters created in the veil of the facts and circumstances of
the Moot Problem do not resemble any person dead or alive. If any
resemblance is so found the same is pure coincidence and not intentional.

However, if any person finds that a similar set of facts and circumstances
prevails in any institution of higher education, it is the moral and fundamental
responsibility/duty of the said person to take steps in accordance with the law
to eradicate illegality and under qualification from the said institution at once.

The instant Moot Problem is framed to ensure that the students get an
academic approach and takes advantage of the Clinical Method of learning of
implementation of laws. It is essential that a student get an opportunity to look
into a legal problem with a 360-degree view.
 Case Proposition for See You in Court
ROUND 1 (Sports Law and Contracts Law)

John Matthews vs. Premier League FC

(Contract Dispute and Doping Allegations)

Background:

Premier League HC, one of the world's leading hockey clubs, entered into a
robust and legally binding five-year contract with John Matthews, a
24-year-old rising star. The contract, worth £25 million, was carefully
structured with performance-related bonuses tied to Matthews' goal-scoring
achievements and the team's success at both the league and international
levels. The club publicly positioned Matthews as the "future of the team,"
anticipating that his talent would significantly contribute to their long-term
success. In his first season, Matthews delivered on these expectations,
scoring twenty-five goals and leading the team to several high-profile victories.
However, as his second season progressed, his form declined noticeably,
leading to widespread speculation in the media about possible personal
issues affecting his performance. Shortly thereafter, Matthews tested positive
for a banned substance during a routine anti-doping test, resulting in an
automatic suspension under the league’s stringent regulations.

Premier League HC, aware of their legal commitment to Matthews under the
terms of the five-year contract, found itself in a dilemma. On one hand, the
contract was ironclad, with clear terms binding both parties for the full five
years, except in cases of extraordinary circumstances such as breach of
league rules. The club was, therefore, obligated to continue fulfilling its
contractual duties, as there were no provisions allowing for unilateral
termination based solely on performance or media speculation.

On the other hand, the positive doping test provided the club with a legitimate
reason to consider suspending Matthews under league and international
hockey guidelines. The test not only constituted a violation of the league's
anti-doping regulations but also had direct implications for Matthews’ ability to
continue playing. As per the contract, Matthews was expected to maintain the
standards required of a professional athlete, and compliance with all league
regulations was implicit. From Premier League HC’s perspective, the doping
violation was a severe breach of these expectations. Given the significant
financial and reputational stakes, the club viewed the test result as justifiable
grounds for suspending the contract, especially since Matthews’ suspension
would prevent him from contributing to the team.

This provided the club with legal leverage to review the terms of the
agreement, potentially enabling them to suspend the contract without
breaching it outright. Conversely, Matthews’ legal team argued that the
contract was rock-solid and should not be breached before the five-year
period, regardless of the doping suspension. They emphasized that the
contract did not explicitly allow for termination in cases of temporary
suspensions or performance dips. Matthews’ team maintained that the
positive test, while serious, did not negate the club’s ongoing contractual
obligations. Matthews had committed himself to the team and should be given
the opportunity to appeal the suspension or resolve the matter before any
drastic measures such as contract termination were considered.

In this scenario, both sides present strong legal arguments: the club justifies
its actions based on the doping violation and the need to protect its investment
and uphold league integrity, while Matthews’ camp emphasizes the inviolability
of the contract and his right to retain his position under the agreement.

LEGAL QUESTIONS :
1. Whether the appropriate protocol was followed to ensure that the
supplements provided to players were in full compliance with anti-doping
regulations? (special emphasis on reliability, legality and credibility of testing
methods and protocol)
2. Whether Mr. Matthews was afforded an opportunity to appeal the doping
suspension through internal channels prior to the termination of his contract by
the club?
3. Whether the club issued formal notice or provided a specific rationale prior
to terminating Mr. Matthews' contract, and if so, what justification was officially
communicated? Is the termination of contract valid?
 Case Proposition for See You in Court
ROUND 2 (Criminal Law)

State vs. Rohan Singh

(Criminal Case of Cyberstalking by an Amazon Delivery Boy)

Background

Rohan Singh, a 24-year-old delivery boy for Amazon, was assigned to deliver
a package to Priya, a 22-year-old college student. During his delivery, Rohan
received Priya’s name and phone number as part of the delivery details, which
is standard procedure for contactless delivery purposes in case of any issues.
After the delivery, Rohan—new to his job and unsure of how to handle
professional boundaries on social media—decided to follow Priya on
Instagram. He reasoned that social media is a common space for people to
interact and was curious to know more about someone he found interesting.
He sent Priya a few friendly messages, hoping to initiate a conversation.

However, Priya, who didn’t know Rohan personally, found these messages
uncomfortable and chose to ignore them. Rohan, believing that persistence
was the key to making new friends, continued messaging her in a polite and
friendly manner at first. He didn’t intend any harm and was unaware that his
behavior was causing her distress. In his mind, he was merely trying to get to
know her better and had no malicious intent.

He would occasionally comment on her posts, which were publicly available,

assuming that it was an acceptable form of engagement. As time went on,
Rohan’s comments became more frequent. He mentioned details he had seen
on her social media profiles, such as her attendance at college events or
photos she had posted, which he believed to be public information. Priya,
however, felt increasingly uncomfortable as she perceived his attention as
invasive. She blocked him on social media, which Rohan misinterpreted as a
misunderstanding rather than a clear signal to stop. He tried to reconnect
using different accounts, thinking that Priya might not have noticed his earlier
messages due to her busy schedule.

When Priya filed a complaint, the police discovered that Rohan had indeed
saved her phone number from the delivery receipt. However, Rohan defended
himself by stating that he never intended to stalk her or harm her. He
genuinely thought that social media was a casual space where people could
interact, and he was unaware that his actions had crossed a line. From
Rohan's perspective, he believed he was acting within the boundaries of
normal social behavior and didn’t see how his actions could be classified as
stalking, which typically involves an intent to cause fear or harm. In this
scenario, while Priya felt harassed and unsafe, Rohan’s actions could be
interpreted as a misunderstanding of social boundaries rather than malicious
stalking. He did not directly spy on her in real life, nor did he physically follow
her. Instead, he relied on publicly available information from social media, not
realizing how his behavior could be perceived as intrusive.
LEGAL QUESTIONS
1. Whether there was a violation of Priya’s right to privacy under the applicable
provisions of Indian law?
2. Whether Rohan’s conduct constitutes cyberstalking as defined under
Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code?
3. Whether Rohan made references to personal details of Priya’s life or
activities that could only have been known through unlawful surveillance or
stalking?

Please note: For the purpose of Round 2 of this competition, the laws
applicable to argument before the trail court would be the Indian Penal Code,
Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act. The newly
introduced Criminal Laws would not be applicable for the purpose of this
competition.