PPT of Special Class on OBE

Dear Students

As requested, those who do not want to go through the entire video of today's special class on OBE, here is the link for the PPT that was used.

Happy Studying!

Video of Special Class on OBE

This video is 444 MB and is the unedited version of today's special class on queries etc.

I am sharing the link here

Hope it helps a few more.

Some General Talk and a Few Tips for Managing Open Book Exams

Dear Students of ADR, section G and B.

Please find the audio file for above here.

Stay safe and study well

IPR-I Some queries on design law resolved

Hello students

 

Here are a couple of queries that I felt were relevant and hence I am sharing the audio reply, so that all may benefit.

The queries were

 

1. If there is a new technology that facilitates the making of 3D designs in a way that every design is a novel design due to that particular technology, then would protection be given to each of the designs along with the technology?

2. As you mentioned every design is an artistic work and if it is novel, only then it would be registered as a design, so is getting the novel artistic work registered under design law has added advantages over copyright law?

 

Kindly find the reply here

Hope this helps all.

Stay safe and keep the faith!

Something about Generic and Descriptive Trademarks

I think that the post might be relevant for IP students. Do read.

Kathputli and Protection by IP Regime

Something that we take for granted--Kathputlis or puppets. What rights do we have in them?
Read on.

Meaning of GI for Kolahpuri Chappals-published on spicyip

Dear readers

This post is interesting and very close to my heart. Hope you like it as well. Comments invited.

Best

Saree Draping Styles and TCE-published on Spicyip

Hi readers

I am thrilled to share this post with you that has been published on spicyip-the premier IP blog.

Kindly access it from here.

Design Law Part II, Lecture Recording

Kindly access it from here.

Best

Design Law Part I Lecture Recording

Kindly access from here.

Happy studying!

GIGA Part II Lecture Recording

Dear students

Kindly access the recoding from here. Hope you all are optimally utilizing these recorded lectures. Would love to hear from you.

Best wishes

IPR-I and Lecture on GIGA 1999

Dear students

It is unfortunate that COVID 19 related lockdown has disrupted our lectures. Every dark cloud has a silver lining. This presents us with a unique opportunity to learn something new-a new application to hold the classes online-ZOOM cloud meetings.

As promised, I am uploading the recording of the lecture here.

Kindly note that the file is heavy and might take time to run.

Happy studying!

Something about Objections during Trial and Opening/ Closing Statements

Dear Students

What follows has been developed from Stae versus Monty Khanna--an exercise that we have done threadbare in the class.

It is an attempt to familiarise you with some tricks that might come in handy while submitting your written work on Mock for the assessment.

MOCK TRIAL-MODEL LESSON PLAN¹

1. For the purposes of MT Assessment, there are four aspects of a the mock trial that a student must know: opening statements, direct examination, cross-examination, closing arguments.
2. Interspersed between the entire process, is the aspect of raising ‘objections’, which has been popularized by movies as something fancy and hard-hitting. There is however a whole body of literature around raising objections properly during a mock. I am going to touch upon a few basics of this art.
   OBJECTING DURING TRIAL

What are OBJECTIONS? And why do they matter?

1. Objections² are allowed during the trial in order to KEEP OUT evidence that is hurtful to your client.
2. Objections and evidence rules were created to keep the process as fair as possible.
   1. Evidence Rule: Fair hearing and to keep out any evidence that
      1. doesn’t relate to the issue of the case, (@ whether Kashish had a boyfriend)
      2. isn’t reliable (@ most of the testimony of Poornima) or
      3. value of which, as evidence, is totally outweighed by how prejudicial it would be (@ if ask the MD Sanjiv Bhatia whether Monty Khanna could do anything of the sort Kashish is alleging)—such objections stop a witness from testifying to something that is probably not very trustworthy)

3. In the assessment, you as an advocate can object any time during the EIC/Cross if you are sure that the opposing counsel is violating the rules of evidence.
   1. When to object? You can object to 3 things broadly speaking…
      1. questions that the other side’s counsel is asking,
      2. answers that a witness is giving³, or
      3. to exhibits that the other side is attempting to admit into evidence
   2. How to Object⁴?:
      1. stand up; say OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, _____(evidence rule)
      2. Wait, standing, for the ruling.
      3. No need to explain yourself, judge may agree with you! If he agrees he will say: “sustained”
      4. Judge may turn to the other advocate who asked the question or offered the exhibit, and that advocate usually will have a chance to explain why the objection should not be accepted by the judge.

3. There are TONS of evidence rules. Today let us learn at least 7 handy ones.
   1. Rule 1: Leading Questions
      1. A "leading" question is one which suggests the answer desired by the questioner, usually by stating some facts not previously discussed and asking the witness to give a "yes" or a "no" answer.
      2. Leading questions⁵ should not be asked when questioning one's own witness in direct examination.
      3. Leading questions should be used in cross examination.
      4. If it is used in Direct Examination and you want to object: Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, leading."

2. Rule 2: Argumentative Questions
   1. Advocates cannot argue with the witness. Questions cannot be argumentative in tone or manner. Badgering is harassing or asking again and again which is not allowed (later)
   2. Example: During the cross of Kashish--"So you were being harassed by Monty time and again and you decided not to tell the manager, not to anyone in the hotel, not even to your own mother!; How do you expect the court to believe that?/Perhaps there WAS nothing to tell"

This is being argumentative with the witness.

3. "Objection. That question is argumentative.”

3. Rule 3: Speculation
   1. You cannot ask questions that get witnesses to guess.

Ex: In the cross of Poornima--“Could it be that Kashish had developed feelings for Monty Khanna and that is what made her upset on learning about the latter’s marriage?

2. “Objection. Counsel is asking the witness to speculate.”

4. Rule 4: Narration (or non-responsive):
   1. Witnesses' answers must respond to the questions. A long story is objectionable. When the witness gives much more information than the question calls for.
   2. Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, narrative."

5. Rule 5: Relevance
   1. Questions or answers that add nothing to the understanding of the issue in dispute are objectionable.
   2. Questions and answers must relate to the subject matter of the case; this is called "relevance." Those that do not relate to the case are "irrelevant."
      1. Example: "Why does you mother not work Kashish?”

Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, relevance."

6. Rule 6: Badgering
   1. Similar to argumentative questioning, badgering the witness is when the opposing attorney asks the same question several times in order to harass the witness, usually done in a harsh manner.

Example—While cross of Monty—You have stated in your testimony that you had feelings for Kashish and found her to be an attractive woman...you even wanted to live together...what kind of strange and immoral ‘fatherly’ feelings are these? You have to accept that you encouraged and fanned the emotions of Kashish that made her delusional and totally besotted with you...YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ARE TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A HAPLESS GIRL!

2. When objecting, the attorney should stand and say “Objection. Counsel is badgering the witness.”

7. Rule 7: Beyond the Scope of the Packet
   1. Questions that ask about, or answers that supply, significant facts not contained in the packet are objectionable. However, minor obviously inferred details may be asked and added.
   2. Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, this is beyond the scope of the packet."

Now, something about the opening statement and the closing argument. Usually, the prosecution/plaintiff goes first.

4 tips to draft a good opening statement (to be taken in class by the teacher)

4. OPENING STATEMENT—State/Kashish’ side [might not be required for MT Assessment]

Your Honour, this case is about a 19 year old young and professionally inexperienced girl, who in such a tender age has been compelled by fate to fetch and fend for her family—family that has only dependent females in it. She has recently lost her father and trusted the accused to help her professionally. However, the accused being a seasoned womanizer used his charms to beguile the victim...used his influence to subdue her protests and tried to take advantage of her situation in the most heinous manner possible.

To prove this, I will call ---[these many] witnesses to stand…brief about each witness…

3 tips to draft a good closing (to be taken in class by the teacher)

5. CLOSING ARGUMENT-State/Kashish’ side

In my opening statement, I mentioned that I would call ---witnesses to testify as to the defendant’s guilt. Each witness testified as I explained and we have established the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt: 1); 2) AND 3).

We would ask you to reject the defense theories of the case. [Address each argument THAT YOU WANT TO DEMOLISH and explain why you disagree.

Argue why your witnesses (Poornima and Manager, Happy Hotel ) are credible, how they have nothing to gain by lying, and were consistent with each other.

Argue how the defense witnesses lack credibility—The driver for instance has been inconsistent in his statement; similarly, the MD does not want bad reputation for his company etc.

Explain that it is an important principle that people in our society be held accountable for their actions.

In conclusion, we would ask that you find the defendant guilty of breaching the trust of the victim and guilty of attempting an assault on the latter.

6. OPENING STATEMENT—Monty Khanna’s side⁶[might not be required for MT Assessment]

Your Honour, the case is about a thorough gentleman and a professional with a clean record of 15 years. 15 years of blemish-free service has been most horrendously tainted by his colleague—the most unsuspecting colleague who had designs on my client the moment she set her eyes on him.

It is also a case about how greed and uninhibited ambitions can make the life of a helping and ever motivating professional like the defendant, miserable. The Defendant has been artfully deceived into this situation just because he was steely enough to resist the immoral advances of the woman in question. The latter, scorned in love is wanting to settle a score against my client.

To prove this, I will call ---[these many] witnesses to stand…brief about each witness…

CONTRADICT THE OPPOSITE PARTY’S THEORIES:

The Plaintiffs hope that their witnesses will say…. However, in fact, the testimony will show…(that the plaintiff’s testimony is nothing but a bag full of lies. She is deceit personified and has clearly taken advantage of my client in all possible ways/that Poornima has nothing of her own to state and has been parroting whatever has been fed to her by her friend )

7. CLOSING STATEMENT-Defendant Monty Khanna’s side

In the case that the plaintiff has presented to you today there is insufficient proof to conclude that Monty Khanna is guilty of any assault. The plaintiff on the other hand is clearly guilty of misjudging my client's behaviour and imposing herself in the most immoral way on him. We would ask for a favourable verdict—the defendant is not guilty. [Echo or refer to the theme that you referenced in your opening statement—that he has been taken advantage of.]

Point out any inconsistencies in the statements of the opposite sides witnesses, and explain why witnesses might have a motive to lie…(may be used)

1 By Dr Sunanda Bharti.

2 Objections are for protection of the client against following strategies of the opposite party:

1) To bring such facts which may mislead the material on record;

2) Manipulative tactics to influence witness;

3) Create altogether new fact to confuse and divert attention from the subject matter;

4) Delaying tactics to prolong trial so that convict with death penalty could get the grace of more life;

5) Used as pressure tactics to demoralize the opposite party so that he/she can withdraw from the case or become hopeless for the justice, so that entire material on record could be interpreted differently without much protest or objections from the opposite party.

3 The counsel of In-Chief is not permitted to speak to his witness during Cross, but he can only raise an objection over the questions of opposing counsel on their Cross-Examination.

4 Examination-In-chief Counsel is also standing during Cross-examination and he will carefully listen to the counsel on Cross Exam, points objections immediately, even before the witness can answer.

5 Leading questions are permitted only during Cross examination, i.e. by Opposite Counsel only. During Examination in chief, if the witness counsel is asking a Leading question, then the opposite counsel can raise an objection.

HOW TO MOOT AND COURT-ROOM ETIQUETTE

What follows in these pages comes from my personal experience as a teacher of Moot Court, Mock Trials and Internship. I am sharing the same in the hope that students would benefit.

ADDRESSING THE COURT

• Be professional, polite, respectful, appropriately dressed.
• Know-it-all and overbearing attitude does not take you places; humility, on the other hand, strikes a chord with the judges.
• It is a fallacy that good debaters or orators are good at mooting. NO. They are good at arguing and one-upmanship-which are fatal to mooting. Over the years, I have seen debaters turn aggressive in their language and attitude to prove their side of the argument. This is not the right court-room attitude.

Presenting Your Submission

A. COMMUNICATION: Bear in mind that mooting is an exercise in personality development and communication.

Speak slowly and carefully. YOU SHOULD BE AUDIBLE, WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE. Do not speak to yourself. Try to engage the court by modulating the tone of your voice; court would reciprocate --it would be interested in hearing you out fully. At the same time, do pause to observe if the judges are interested and listening to you in the first place. Do not just rant away.

It is a legal issue that has been given as a moot problem to you. Remember your IRAC and kindly present a logical submission on facts and law. Emotional appeals, feelings, opinions etc usually have no place in mooting.

B. LANGUAGE TO BE USED: You may begin your submission with the following statement: 'May it please the Court, my name is ________ and I appear on behalf of ______. My submission will address…'

Conclude with one of the following statements: 'That concludes my submission. May I be of any further assistance to the Court?' OR

'Unless the Court has any further questions, that concludes my submission'.

Some OTHER useful phrases that may come in handy are-

1. ‘In my submission, I will show that____________’ AND NOT ‘...I will argue that… (CONTRARY TO POPULAR NOTION, YOU ARE NOT THERE TO ARGUE THE MATTER, YOU ARE THERE JUST TO PRESENT YOUR SUBMISSIONS). Having said that, NEVER ARGUE WITH THE JUDGE. NEVER.

At the same time, it is equally important to say that if you are confident, stick to your stand and be assertive about it, without being aggressive. Just because the judge has decided to ask a question on a certain matter, should not make you buckle down and shift your stand.

2. ‘In my respectful submission ‘the court should consider____________’ AND NOT ‘the court must consider________.’

3. When asked a question, answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and then explain your answer. LEARN TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED. Beating about the bush does not work. It is a good idea to pause (briefly) before answering a question posed by the judge, instead of blurting out whatever comes to your mind.

4. If you are unclear or uncertain about a question put by the court, some of the following phrases may be useful: 'I would be obliged if the Court would clarify the question.'(HOWEVER, NEVER USE THIS AS A TRICK TO BUY TIME—IT BACKFIRES)

OR YOU MAY SAY--

'I’m afraid I don’t understand the court’s point.

OR

'I accept the court’s point, however, it is my submission that…' [or] 'I would submit that…'

5. If you do not know the answer, kindly do not try to play bluff-master with the court. They will call your bluff and you lose credibility as a mooter. Instead, admit that you do not know and proceed.

6. Avoid phrases like 'I think'. 'I believe', 'I feel'. A simple ‘I submit’ would suffice.

7. In case you want to pinpoint something to the court, you may state it thus: 'May I bring the courts attention to paragraph ___.

8. Always ask the court whether it is aware of the facts of the case. Two simple ways of doing it are:

# 'Is the court familiar with the case of... ?'
# 'Would the court like me to state the facts of the case?'

Usually this is allowed to be skipped by the judge. Nonetheless, be prepared to give a rough outline if the court is unfamiliar with it.

9. Present your case – do not simply read your speech. An occasional reference here and there to the written memorial is not a problem. Presenting it as a news-reader is.

10. Keep a control over your hand gestures and movements. Limbs flailing here and there has to be avoided. Likewise, hands in pockets is a NO.

11. Expressions such as ‘Of course your honour’, ‘Yeah, that is what I meant’ have to be avoided at all costs.

C. SIMPLE MANNERS WORK WONDERS: The judge is not your pal. Try not to treat him/her like one!

Follow these:

1. Listen to the judge. Do not pretend that you are listening. ACTUALLY listen and try and make sense of what s/he is pointing at. Never interrupt a judge. If a judge interrupts you, what should you do?

• Roll your eyes in exasperation
• Show sass and attitude in your body language
• Go blank
• Mutter under your breath

The above may seem like computer-ji options of KBC but believe it or not, they are often the responses of some students. All are wrong and no-one can win a crore by using them.

What to do then—The right response is not that difficult, only if you practice it. The answer is, you should stop speaking (even if it is a middle of a sentence), and listen carefully to the judge’s question or comment. Then answer the same politely.

2. JUDGE WOULD QUESTION: Do not show signs of exasperation if the judge questions you. That is his job. He is not there to nod in agreement to whatever you state.

3. YES, it is a simulation exercise and you know that it is your teacher and not some actual judge in front of you. This should not, however, prevent you from displaying all your impeccable manners to that fake court. Mooting is a performing art which can be perfected through practice.

Practice away then.

Good Luck.

Spicy-IP Thrilled to get to you the first guest post

Wanted to share my perspective on moral rights and copyright in architechture and buildings... happy reading!

https://spicyip.com/2018/09/heritage-hall-of-nations-and-assertion-of-moral-rights.html

Spicy IP-Glad to bring you the 2nd guest post

Hey readers

Here is a link to my post on SpicyIP, a premium IP Law Blog. I am happy to share. Would be happier to receive comments on the same.


https://spicyip.com/2019/01/is-braille-a-language-under-copyright-law-capable-of-translation-reproduction-and-adaptation.html

Memorial Writing Basics (may be consulted by all years of LL.B)

Hello students

Welcome to my student interaction blog.
As promised, you are welcome to download the pdf version of the presentation made by me in Moot Court Society Orientation Programme on 22nd Sept, 2018.

You may access it here.

In case of any problem, kindly leave a comment, and I will try and sort it out for you in time. Feedback is welcome.

Happy studying!

Dr. Sunanda Bharti

Debate on rape and consent...

Hello Juris Students

I do not know how many of you have found time to go through the debate/discussions that were going on on the blog "Law and Other Things". The relevant link is on the right hand side of this blog, under the links column.

Having recently posted a comment on the issue, I thought it better to invite comments on my comment : ).

Alternatively, you may read my comment at http://sunanda.bharti.googlepages.com/rapeandconsent

It would be wonderful to share thoughts on this...

Happy reading!

Romanticizing the workshop

The Upendra Baxi workshop has been far above my expectations…the simplicity of that apparently eccentric academician is striking. For two days I sat there, mute and mesmerized, completely beguiled by his impeccable charms, charisma and ofcourse the inimitable style. I should stop here, lest I be branded as a sycophant! : )

Insofar as the content is concerned, ofcourse, I did not understand all of it. It is sometimes difficult to get his drift; to board his train of thought.

I am here documenting some of the points that my mind cataloged (all of which I enumerate may not be his thoughts as such…many indeed are the ones he just recounted; but nonetheless I heard them at the workshop), and those which do not cease to amuse me every now and then. : )

1) How to make jurisprudence interesting? Well, raise questions; let the spirit of renaissance not die. Reinforce the fact that while it might be prudent to rely on the intellectual wealth of the preceding generations, the capacity to think was definitely not exhausted by them! How simple and yet so difficult to achieve!

2) Take examples from daily life…without the fear of being charged for ‘vulgarizing high traditional knowledge’. The example of the movie Shahenshah wherein the protagonist epitomized the Austinian concept of power and authority and enacted the directive principles of state policy by the night was hilarious and yet so apt. : )

3) Speaking of humor, the capacity to laugh and make light of the situation is a must. It invigorates the audience…a skill perfectly displayed by the maestro.

4) Habit, Custom, Tradition, Rule and Practice are all different concepts and can/should not be used interchangeably. Words should not be taken lightly as they are powerful. They create an impact.

5) The entire world comprises of two types of people…those who are book worms and the rest who are ordinary worms! : ). It is up to us which category we choose to be in.

6) Why should we study human law and not divine law? Because renaissance saw it is a sign of progress to study human will than the divine commandment; after all it was supposed to regulate human behavior.

7) There are five types of judges…and this was brilliant…1) Activists, 2) Restraint prone, 3) Moody and temperamental, 4) Dullards and 5) lazy bones! The last ones just hijack someone else’s efforts by writing ‘I agree' at the end of someone else's opinion!

8) Jurisprudence is just a method of reading law. On ‘reading’, he had so many pearls to share…

· It is a misconception that writing should precede reading. How can one possibly read an unwritten constitution?!

· Reading is a political activity…it is impossible to be completely neutral while reading. So, nothing like objective reading exists. Your own ideas, beliefs and internal convictions would make you read even what is not written.

· Reading like a man is different from reading like a woman! Oh yes, I love this one! A woman would inevitably be more sensitive and emotional towards things…especially women related aspects. So true…often I quote in my lectures on feminist jurisprudence that while a man might read section 376 of the IPC as just another crime against the human body, only a woman would understand and perhaps live through the ordeal that it explains. All, I believe, stems from the fact that a woman experience is essentially different from that of a man…and infact sometimes, there is no parallel male experience available to enable them understand the whole issue. Hence their understandings remain incomplete mostly, for no fault of theirs! Okay…so I am digressing here a bit! :)

· Reading is either Complacency or Resistance…so says one of my many scribblings...no clue what this means…I forgot!

· Birth of a reader entails the death of the author…fantastic, I must say! Sovereignty of interpretation is the denial of the authority of the author…whatever might have been the intention of the author in writing a piece, the reader has a right to interpret and read it in his/her own way…attribute his/her own connotations to it. Yes, indeed! By way of example, he gave the instance where the Supreme Court judges interpret a point of law by attributing everything to the ‘intention of the founding fathers of the Constitution!’

· Limits of my language are the limits of my words…again, so true! Some time ago I read a quote in the Readers’ Digest which said something to the effect that one cannot write what one cannot imagine…it’s the same difficulty I guess.

· Reading involves dissection, demolition, reassembling and redoing…I forget what exactly it was that he said…

· Word is the world…someone help me on this. There was more to this...the capacity of human mind to forget is remarkable isn’t it!

9) An activist would consider speaking for others morally wrong, so he/she speaks with others…another option is to speak after (in regard to) others when it becomes impossible to speak with others…say when one is protesting for animal rights…cool distinction I must say!

10)Why the Constitution is called the ‘constitution’ and not anything else? Any novel thoughts on this one? ; )

11) Some people say that ‘we the people of India’ constitute the sovereign…but how can the quintessential common man…illiterate, impoverished…with no roof over his head, no bread to eat, minimal shred of clothing over his body, and not even the prospect of a decent burial be a part of the sovereign? Well said…Laxman’s common man just lost another case! : )

12) Then somewhere he mentioned something…bits and pieces of a story which included the following quote “I am a regular bullshitter myself, but I do not mind an expert doing it for me occasionally!” Sorry, I do not remember the context…loved the saying though ; )

13) When someone felt offended at one of his remarks, he quipped that if he ever intends to insult, there would not be any ambiguity to it!!

14) Upenisms…his experiments with language…one of the best ones stated that Constitution is of three types…C1, C2 and C3. C1 comprises the pure form…the words on paper; C2, the interpretation given by the State and citizens wherein the politicians act out of self interest and the citizens out of ‘enlightened’ self interest!; C3 is that ideal form that does not exist but influences C1. Original! Nothing more to say…

15) Perhaps the most disturbing of all for me was his idea of demolishing the manner of teaching through schools of law…as it promotes parochial thinking, stifles creativity. Now, when I see it…it appears to be so true. Why schools…why not topic wise…or say scholar wise…to keep things less rigid/more fluid. As he said, in some context which I again forget…we should change…by teaching the same things, we systematically foster and prescribe ignorance and then make rhetoric about lack of intellectual progress (or gripe about stagnation, if I may take the liberty to modify: ))

I am sure there were more …and it is the capacity of my mind that has failed me…would definitely add as I remember.

Meanwhile enjoy these!!

: )

We exist on the Internet now!

Hello all

There is some good news! The official website of Law Centre-I is finally ready, up-and-functioning!.
You may spread the news that we EXIST! : ))

The link is http://law.du.ac.in/

Do go through it once. Comments and suggestions are invited.