Results | 4th Edition
Chief Evaluator:
Dr. Naveen Thayyil,
Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), New Delhi
Law Students Category
WINNER:
Snehil Kunwar Singh,
National Law School of India University, Bangalore
[Panoptic Jurisprudence of a Big Brother State: Surveillance and Privacy vis-à-vis Section 69 of the Information Technology Act]
RUNNER-UP:
Anubhav Banerjee,
School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore
[Post-Humanism and Citizenship: An Analysis of the Capacity and Consequences of Conferring National Citizenship to Artificial Intelligence in a Democratic Society]
Non-Law Students Category*
WINNER:
Nishtha Bharti,
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), New Delhi
[Algorithmic Applications in Healthcare: Implications for Citizenship]
* The Organizing Committee has decided to award only one prize in the Non-Law Category due to limited participation in this category.
Since the winner belongs to the same institution as that of the Chief Evaluator, the Chief Evaluator recused himself from evaluating the winning entry in the Non-Law category.
Dr. Naveen Thayyil,
Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), New Delhi
Law Students Category
WINNER:
Snehil Kunwar Singh,
National Law School of India University, Bangalore
[Panoptic Jurisprudence of a Big Brother State: Surveillance and Privacy vis-à-vis Section 69 of the Information Technology Act]
RUNNER-UP:
Anubhav Banerjee,
School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore
[Post-Humanism and Citizenship: An Analysis of the Capacity and Consequences of Conferring National Citizenship to Artificial Intelligence in a Democratic Society]
Non-Law Students Category*
WINNER:
Nishtha Bharti,
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), New Delhi
[Algorithmic Applications in Healthcare: Implications for Citizenship]
* The Organizing Committee has decided to award only one prize in the Non-Law Category due to limited participation in this category.
Since the winner belongs to the same institution as that of the Chief Evaluator, the Chief Evaluator recused himself from evaluating the winning entry in the Non-Law category.
