Bhagalpur law students have launched a trial, placing in the dock the Union Government, Delhi Government, Delhi Police and the Media.
All are named accused in a case now under its trial at a Moot Court Proceeding which the Ll.B Part II students have tastefully picked up.
The broad premise of the Moot Court trial postulates Arvind Kejriwal's recent Dharna episode to be a constitutional battle which the accused parties fought on the streets of Delhi, which gives rise to a serious constitutional issue which none, save and except the Apex Court of India, would resolve, rather adjudicate.
The warring parties at the trial are represented by as may as four broad groups of participants, one representing the Union of India, other the State of Delhi, the third the Delhi Police and last but not the least, the Media through the Union Information and Broacasting Ministry.
Each four groups, constitute prosecutor in its own right, while the test hold the briefs in defence of their tespective sides.
The pivotal question giving rise to the trial is common, inasmuch as rival parties are in agreement on the point that all the accused in the dock are State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the constitution which simultaneously entitle and forbid each about certain legal dos and donts.
The dos enable the state to exercise its legal powers whereas the donts likewise forbid the display of (il)legal prowess which, according to each contesting side, the rival party-in-dock wrongly and illegally did, which led to the precipitation of ordeals for the common man whom each side professes to represent.
The concise points advocated by each prosecution side decry one another for denigrating the authority which the Indian Constitution invests in the respective offices each adorn, Union Government for undermining the authority of the Delhi Government; Delhi Police for pooh poohing the tip off which the Delhi Government functionary provided seeking prompt action; Delhi Government for its negligence and failure to invoke the intervention of the Apex Court for legal redressal before overstepping into the streets of Delhi; and Media for its deplorable "cut and paste" role by which an already misconceived issue was presented in a grossly messed up fashion.
The rival sides have begun arguments after initializing written submissions which would further fetch filing of rejoinders by the respective defending sides.
All are named accused in a case now under its trial at a Moot Court Proceeding which the Ll.B Part II students have tastefully picked up.
The broad premise of the Moot Court trial postulates Arvind Kejriwal's recent Dharna episode to be a constitutional battle which the accused parties fought on the streets of Delhi, which gives rise to a serious constitutional issue which none, save and except the Apex Court of India, would resolve, rather adjudicate.
The warring parties at the trial are represented by as may as four broad groups of participants, one representing the Union of India, other the State of Delhi, the third the Delhi Police and last but not the least, the Media through the Union Information and Broacasting Ministry.
Each four groups, constitute prosecutor in its own right, while the test hold the briefs in defence of their tespective sides.
The pivotal question giving rise to the trial is common, inasmuch as rival parties are in agreement on the point that all the accused in the dock are State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the constitution which simultaneously entitle and forbid each about certain legal dos and donts.
The dos enable the state to exercise its legal powers whereas the donts likewise forbid the display of (il)legal prowess which, according to each contesting side, the rival party-in-dock wrongly and illegally did, which led to the precipitation of ordeals for the common man whom each side professes to represent.
The concise points advocated by each prosecution side decry one another for denigrating the authority which the Indian Constitution invests in the respective offices each adorn, Union Government for undermining the authority of the Delhi Government; Delhi Police for pooh poohing the tip off which the Delhi Government functionary provided seeking prompt action; Delhi Government for its negligence and failure to invoke the intervention of the Apex Court for legal redressal before overstepping into the streets of Delhi; and Media for its deplorable "cut and paste" role by which an already misconceived issue was presented in a grossly messed up fashion.
The rival sides have begun arguments after initializing written submissions which would further fetch filing of rejoinders by the respective defending sides.
