5th Justice N. Santosh Hegde Moot Court Competition 2026

Constitutional law sits at the foundation of every modern state, defining the relationship between citizens and government and allocating power among legislative, executive, and judicial branches. In India, the field has evolved dramatically since the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, shaped by landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati (1973), which established the basic structure doctrine, and Maneka Gandhi (1978), which broadened Article 21's right to life and personal liberty. Comparable evolutions have unfolded in jurisdictions like the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Africa, where courts have grappled with judicial review, separation of powers, and the protection of fundamental rights. The core disputes in contemporary constitutional law concern the balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review, the scope of fundamental rights in the face of state security claims, and the constitutional treatment of emerging issues such as privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017), federalism in quasi-federal states, and the use of emergency powers. Courts increasingly confront questions about socio-economic rights, the horizontal application of rights against private actors, and the role of constitutional morality versus majoritarian preference. Today, constitutional law faces pressure from democratic backsliding, executive aggrandizement, and the rapid pace of technological change that strains text drafted in an analog era. Mooters are expected to engage with doctrinal questions such as the basic structure doctrine, proportionality review, and the limits of judicial activism, while situating arguments within comparative constitutional jurisprudence.

Immigration governance has emerged as one of the most contested areas of public law, sitting at the intersection of state sovereignty, international refugee law, and human rights. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol established the principle of non-refoulement, while subsequent instruments such as the 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration sought to coordinate state responses. India, though not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, hosts substantial refugee populations and adjudicates immigration questions through a patchwork of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Citizenship Act, 1955, and recent amendments including the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which has generated significant constitutional litigation. The core disputes concern who qualifies for protection, how states can lawfully exclude or deport individuals, the constitutionality of citizenship classifications based on religion or national origin, and the procedural rights owed to non-citizens. Globally, debates have intensified over irregular migration across the Mediterranean and the US-Mexico border, the legality of pushbacks, offshore processing arrangements, and the use of biometric and surveillance technologies in border management. Statelessness, exemplified by the NRC process in Assam and the Rohingya crisis, has raised acute questions about the right to nationality. Current flashpoints include judicial review of citizenship determination processes, detention of asylum seekers, and the obligations of states to climate-displaced persons. Mooters should be prepared to argue questions of constitutional equality, due process for non-citizens, and the interplay between domestic immigration statutes and customary international law.

The migration of administrative decision-making from human officials to algorithmic and AI-driven systems has accelerated rapidly over the past decade. Governments now deploy automated systems to determine welfare eligibility, flag tax fraud, allocate housing, grade students, screen visa applications, and assess recidivism risk. India's Aadhaar-linked service delivery, the Netherlands' SyRI welfare fraud system (struck down in 2020), Australia's Robodebt scheme (found unlawful in 2023), and the UK's A-level algorithm controversy of 2020 illustrate both the scale of adoption and the legal risks involved. The central legal disputes concern whether automated decisions satisfy traditional administrative law requirements: the duty to give reasons, the right to a hearing, non-arbitrariness, and judicial reviewability. Algorithmic opacity, training-data bias, and the diffusion of accountability across vendors, agencies, and developers complicate doctrines built around identifiable human decision-makers. Constitutional concerns implicate equality, privacy (recognized as a fundamental right in India in Puttaswamy), and procedural fairness. The EU's AI Act (2024) and GDPR Article 22, alongside emerging soft-law instruments from the OECD and UNESCO, attempt to impose risk-based governance, but enforcement remains uneven. Where things stand today: courts in multiple jurisdictions have begun striking down opaque or disproportionate automated systems, while legislatures debate mandatory algorithmic impact assessments, audit rights, and human-in-the-loop requirements. Mooters should be ready to address whether existing administrative law doctrines—Wednesbury unreasonableness, proportionality, natural justice—adequately constrain algorithmic government, and what constitutional remedies are available to affected individuals.