*Curtains up from 8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition, 2018*
DAY 1- INAUGURATION, REGISTRATION, DRAW OF LOTS, EXCHANGE OF MEMORIALS & RESEARCHERS’ TEST
Fasten your seat belts and brace yourselves, you can’t afford to miss a single update.
REGISTRATION- Here it begins!
12: 45 – The teams have arrived and the registration has begun. Even after traveling for hours, enthusiasm is flashing from all the happy faces. After getting themselves registered the teams are proceeding for lunch.
14:41 – The teams have gathered in the seminar hall. The inaugural ceremony is about to begin.
14:48 – On this auspicious occasion we also welcome our beverage partner – RED BULL
INAUGURAL CEREMONY
14 : 54 – The inaugural ceremony has commenced with full swing. The ceremony started with the welcome address by the competition convener – Mr. Biswa K. Dash. This was followed by the address of the Moot Court Organizing Secretary – Mr. Aayush Kothari who announced 8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition open.
15:17 – The gathering is now being addressed by Mr. Chetan Singh Shergill who is a representative from SCC, our media and knowledge partner.
16:47 – The teams have proceeded for the group photograph.
17:24 – It’s time for the draw of lots and the memorial exchange. The first chance to read what other team has written in their memos and scrutinize the opponents. The excitement of the competition is palpable in the air.
RESEARCHERS’ TEST
17:42 – The researchers’ test has begun. The researchers are busy brainstorming over the tricky test paper!
18: 40 – With the end of the researchers’ test, the teams proceed for the dinner. As the sun sets, Day 1 of 8th ILNU NMCC ends. Stay tuned for the updates sharp from 9AM tomorrow.
DAY 2
BRIEFING, PRELIMS AND QUARTERS
Good Morning !!
10:43 – The second day of the 8th ILNU, NMCC kick starts with an extensive briefing session for the judges.
10:58 – As the briefing session ends with an intense questioning of the moot points by the judges, the court rooms are now all set to witness the real action.
PRELIMS 01
COURT ROOM 6
IL 18 v. IL 06
PETITIONERS-
11:10 – The first speaker has approached the dias.
11: 13 – As the speaker starts the judges starts throwing a trail of queries. While the counsel makes the submission the judge appreciates the factual arguments but asks for the legal backing of the same.
11: 16 – The judges inquire about an old judgement and throws an contrary argument, but the speaker dodges and moves further swiftly.
11:19 – The judges then questions the second speaker. The counsels starts very confidently and lays down the structure of the arguments. Counsel relies on a recent judgement, however the judge further goes deep into the facts of that very case, states that the mentioned judgement is not binding.
11:28- The Counsel states an arguendo in order to satisfy the judges. The counsel then continues with further submissions.
11: 48- The judges asks the counsel to move to the prayer and conclude the arguments. The judges then asks queries regarding the prayer and if the petitioners want to continue the investigation or directly declare the pricing illegal.
RESPONDENTS-
11: 57 – Counsel 1 starts with confidence and starts arguing law points relating to his case. The judges question the applicability of the said law.
12 : 04 – The judges asks the counsel to differentiate between two principles, the counsel draws a witty analogy and makes the judges laugh. The judges looked impressed, however asks the counsel to pick the analogies carefully.
12 : 09 – The counsels argues the facts tactfully, however Judges rebut by stating the the Counsel’s arguments are based on assumptions, the counsel surrenders and moves to the next argument.
12 : 10 – The bench throws multiple questions at the Counsel, the counsel looks fluttered.
12: 14 – As Counsel 2 starts to argue judges asks the counsel to justify the previous arguments.
12: 17 – The Counsel dodges questions on law and tries to defend his case with facts. The counsel is polite and courteous.
12: 22- The judges do not tend to slow down, eventually counsel argues confidently in the end and concludes the case.
COURT ROOM 11
IL 15 v. IL 02
COURT ROOM 01
IL 04 v. IL 05
PETITIONER-
11: 05- The first speaker on the behalf of the petitioner, approaches the dais with the permission of the bench, and started the arguments the bench asked the counsel to state the facts and counsel obliges the request. As soon as the speech started the counsel was questioned by the bench over the basic laws.
11: 18 – the bench directed the counsel to proceed with the second issue. In her next argument the counsel relied to a famous doctrine. In consequence of the same the judges asked the relevant questions regarding the jurisdiction, facts of the case and the statutory provision delineated in the case. The counsel successfully explained the questions, but attracted another question with regard to applicability of such doctrine to the current jurisdiction.
11: 22- The second counsel proceeded with the arguments and asked the permission of the bench to address 3 issues. But in a fury of moment the bench asked the counsel to describe a basic principle of the statute, which she tried to answer in best of her capability. Due to a lot of passing of materials the bench chided the counsels presenting the applicants.
11: 25- The counsel was asked to proceed with the next issue. The counsel substantiated the argument by referring to a precedent. In a while counsel was questioned by the bench as to which law is being violated.
11 : 28- Then the counsel proceeds with the sub-issue under the different legislation. With a constant questioning over the source of arguments and the nature of provision the bench asked to substantiate the arguments first and then referring to the precedents. The counsel further referred to the fact sheet in order to draw the attention of the bench as in regard to their question.
RESPONDENTS –
11 : 36- With the shuffle in the order of the counsels, the co-counsel had to address the subsequent issues in their submission. The bench inquired about the purpose of the said statute. And in order to address the issues raised by the petitioners, the counsel was asked to refer to a provision which relates to the various power of the authorities. While drawing the parallel analogy to the previous acts in force the bench asked a few questions. Then bench referred to old question regarding the purpose of the statute.
11 : 47- The speaker failed to answer a series of questions after which the bench had to call upon the dais the co-counsel.
11: 52- With the vague and casual style of arguing the first counsel started her arguments. The bench had to assert the facts before the counsel and therefore, the counsel agreed to the contentions as and when stated by the bench. There came a stage where the respondents agreed to the contentions of petitioners.
11: 58 -Then after further course of arguments the judges asked the respondents to conclude with the arguments.
12: 05- The counsel had no more contentions to argue and therefore judges asked both the parties if they have any rebuttals or is there any further submission to make.
Responding to the same neither of parties wanted to make any submission. And the court proceedings were concluded.
11:10 – The first speaker has approached the dais. As the speaker starts the judges starts throwing a trail of queries. While the counsel makes the submission the judge appreciates the factual arguments but asks for the legal backing of the same.
11: 16 – The speaker looks confident and courteous and moves swiftly
11: 07- Speaker 1 starts confidently and courteously. Counsel tactfully answers all the queries and move forward rather swiftly. Arguments are well structured and impressive.
COURT 12
IL-03v. IL-04
PETITIONER
13:45- The 1st Speaker came to address the 1st two issues, and started her pleadings with a mannerism packed speech and gave a brief of the facts. The statement of jurisdiction was accepted by the judges without much questions. Judges were impressed by the answers of the speaker and various analogies presented for justifying the arguments.
14:00 – The 2nd speaker came to address the 3rd issue. The arguments reflected good research work however due to but due to some ambiguity in the language of speaker they weren’t effective. A 2-minute extension granted to the speaker to complete its last issue, however the last-minute straight questions bombarded by the judges astounded the speaker.
Judges were impressed by the research reflected in the heavy compendium presented by the team and also the confidence and clarity in arguments by 1st Speaker.
RESPONDENTS
14:12 – Avoiding the default mannerism furnished structure of pleading, Judges asked the speaker to directly to come the issues. Judges were at times trying to suppress their smirk on the direct statements by the speaker which were totally contrary to his case.
14: 22- The judges interrupted the second speaker at several instances on different points of law. However, the speaker was confident and handled the situation tactfully.
“The judges were very considerate in giving their feedback to the teams, they praised the plus points of both the teams and made them understand their flaws in such a manner that none of them gets demotivated.”
Court Room-01
IL 04 v IL 05
PETITIONER
Speaker 1:
The council starts by defining the jurisdiction in the present matter. After the preliminary questions on the jurisdiction, the council proceeds with his first issue. The council seems to be having some difficulty in establishing the next issue.
Speaker 2:
The second speaker displays a good temperament and seems to be addressing the queries of the judges, confidently.
RESPONDENTS –
Speaker 1 :
The first speaker has approached the dais. As the speaker starts the judges starts throwing a trail of queries. While the counsel makes the submission the judge appreciates the factual arguments but asks for the legal backing of the same.
Speaker 2 :
The second speaker approaches the dais, to face an unexpected request from the bench. The bench confirms that they are not satisfied with previous arguments to which the speaker continues with a sarcastic smile. The judges seem a little satisfied with initial answers, helping the speaker to keep his composure. With this the round comes to an end.
Court Room 7
IL-06 v. IL-14
PETITIONERS
Speaker 1
The speaker seems nervous and is grilled by the judges on the Cause title as soon as he approaches the dais but adheres to the court mannerisms. The speaker is grilled before the completion of his first argument and is unable to satisfy the judges. The judges ask the speaker to summarize all his arguments shortly and decided to not intervene any further. The speaker ends his arguments on a confusing note and is unable to satisfy the judges.
Speaker 2
The judges ask the speaker to submit the prayer immediately after asking the jurisdiction and grilling the speaker on the same.
RESPONDENTS
Speaker 1
The speaker seems confident and has good court mannerisms. The judges ask the speaker about the Attorney General. The speaker promises the judges that the Attorney General will be present in the second round.
The speaker is in a haste to proceed with the issues. The judges grill the speaker before the speaker starts with the issues on a point to which the speaker is unable to answer to the satisfaction of the judges.
Speaker 2
The speaker looks confident and is grilled before starting with the issues. The speaker is able to answer confidently and the judges seem satisfied with the answers. However, the speaker is unable to sum up the arguments and is not given any extension of time.
The speakers don’t have any rebuttals in this round.
COURT ROOM: 04
TEAMS: IL13 v. IL09
Speaker 01 (petitioners)
The first speaker on the behalf of the petitioner, approaches the dais and the bench enquired the counsel about the dress code provide in the Rules.
Further the counsel was asked to address the facts, and why should they hear the matter in hand. In order to define cause of action which arise before the court, the bench asked the intention of the respondents so as to what is the violating interest on behalf of the petitioners. The counsel further referred to the precedents.
Further bench asked why counsel has not used other remedies available instead of filing a writ. In order to answer the query counsel diversified the arguments.
Speaker 02 (petitioners)
As soon as counsel approached the dais she faced a question regarding the provisions of law.
The further grilling regarding the procedural questions in the preposition, the counsel tried to answer. The counsel, in an attempt to answer referred the precedent which was well known to judge. The judge asked very direct and perilous questions to the counsel.
Speaker 01 (respondents)
With all the permissions granted, the counsel proceeded with the arguments by citing 3-4 precedents in order to convince the bench. The bench accepted the contentions regarding the first issue.
The counsel then moved to the next issue and argued her case. In order to substantiate the arguments counsel was asked to define further terms.
Bench further asked certain principles from other jurisdictions. In response to the same counsel relied on certain precedents.
In a trap of questions, the counsel somehow tried to survive the situation. The counsel further failed to define a term under which she was asking for the immunity.
Speaker 02 (Respondents)
As soon as counsel started to argue the bench threw a number of questions pertinent to the case. The counsel took recourse of precedents.
The questions posed by bench were very subtle. In a failed attempt to answer the question counsel pleaded ignorance as a consequence of which she has proceed with the next issue.
Then further the counsel moved to the prayer and made further requests which were not asked in their written submissions. The counsels were given 4 chances to revise their prayer instead of directing and merely requesting.
Court Room 05
IL 17 v. IL 23
PETITIONERS
Speaker 1 –
The counsel for petitioner has started with the submissions. The counsel is moving on smoothly with her arguments and the bench seems convinced. Few questions being posted to the counsel to which the counsel is responds humbly and calmly.
Speaker 2 –
A fluent and uninterrupted start for counsel no. 2 for the petitioners. Few queries been put up referring the legal provisions. The judges are unsatisfied and further put questions to the counsel. The counsel tries to dodge the bench and moves to the next limb but fails to do so. The counsel moves to the relief and rest the case from the side of petitioner
Respondents
Speaker 1 –
Case laws being cited from the very start. The judge denies the validity of the case and now the counsel seems shaky and cites another case for his defence. A prolonged discussion on a case cited by the counsel in line with the present matter and the judges have been satisfied by the counsel successfully.
Speaker 2 –
The counsel starts off with convincing legal interpretations and the judges are satisfied for the submission as early as anything. Surprises the counsel as well! Questions come up to respondent’s counsel. The counsel is stuck to judge’s tricky query. The counsel tries to dodge the query and successfully does so. The counsel provides the bench with a case law and convinces the bench with that. The counsel for Respondents rest their case.
Speaker 2 –
Speaker 1 –
Speaker 2 –
Speaker 1 –
With all the permissions granted, the counsel proceeded with the arguments by citing 3-4 precedents in order to convince the bench. The bench accepted the contentions regarding the first issue. The counsel then moved to the next issue and argued her case. In order to substantiate the arguments counsel was asked to define further terms.Bench further asked certain principles from other jurisdictions. In response to the same counsel relied on certain precedents. In a trap of questions, the counsel somehow tried to survive the situation. The counsel further failed to define a term under which she was asking for the immunity.
Speaker 2-
As soon as counsel started to argue the bench threw a number of questions pertinent to the case. The counsel took recourse of precedents. The questions posed by bench were very subtle. In a failed attempt to answer the question counsel pleaded ignorance as a consequence of which she has proceed with the next issue.Then further the counsel moved to the prayer and made further requests which were not asked in their written submissions. The counsels were given 4 chances to revise their prayer instead of directing and merely requesting.
Speaker 1 –
The first speaker on the behalf of the petitioner, approaches the dais with the permission of the bench, and started the arguments the bench asked the counsel to state the facts and counsel obliges the request. Next argument the counsel relied to a famous doctrine. In consequence of the same the judges asked the relevant questions regarding the jurisdiction, facts of the case and the statutory provision delineated in the case. The counsel successfully explained the questions, but attracted another question with regard to applicability of such doctrine to the current jurisdiction.
Speaker 2-
A fluent and uninterrupted start for counsel no. 2 for the petitioners. Few queries been put up referring the legal provisions. The judges are unsatisfied and further put questions to the counsel. The counsel tries to dodge the bench and moves to the next limb but fails to do so. The counsel moves to the relief and rest the case from the side of petitioner
RESPONDENTS-
Speaker 1 –
The bench inquired about the law points. And in order to address the issues raised by the petitioners, the counsel was asked to refer to a provision which relates to the various power of the authorities. While drawing the parallel analogy to the previous acts in force the bench asked a few questions. Then bench referred to old question regarding the purpose of the statute.
Speaker 2 – The speaker looks confident and is grilled before starting with the issues. The speaker is able to answer confidently and the judges seem satisfied with the answers. However, the speaker is unable, to sum up the arguments and is not given an extension of time.
Speaker 1 -The council starts by defining the jurisdiction in the present matter. After the preliminary questions on the jurisdiction, the council proceeds with his first issue. The council seems to be having some difficulty in establishing the next issue.
Speaker 2:
The second speaker displays a good temperament and seems to be addressing the queries of the judges, confidently.
RESPONDENTS –
Speaker 1-
The council starts by defining the jurisdiction in the present matter. After the preliminary questions on the jurisdiction, the council proceeds with his first issue. The council seems to be having some difficulty in establishing the next issue.
Speaker 2:
The second speaker displays a good temperament and seems to be addressing the queries of the judges, confidently.
This marks the end of the quarterfinals, and the teams proceed to the Socials night. The teams are pumping with excitement for the results. Stay tuned for further updates of the Grand finale and the semi-finals tomorrow.
SEMIFINALS
After a thrilling socials and gala dinner, full of dancing, food, and fun, the qualifying teams are back to business. The semi-finalists are IL 03, IL 05, IL17 and IL12.
10:15 – The much-awaited semi-finals have started! The judges are briefed and the teams are pumped up to put their best foot forward.
FINALS
MOOT COURT HALL
IL 03 v. IL 05
PETITIONERS –
S1 –
14:14 – Counsel 1 takes the dais, and briefs the Hon’ble bench regarding the facts of the case.
14:16 – Counsel starts to argue the first issue confidently and faces some initial queries relating to jurisdiction.
14:20 – The counsel faces an array of questions by the bench, and is asked by the bench to proceed to 2nd submission.
14:23 – The counsel still tries to establish the 1st submission and the bench enlighten the counsel of laws overlooked by the counsel.
14:28- The counsel moves to the 2nd submission and explains the structure of the submission. The counsel glides swiftly throughout the submission. Judges look impressed and patiently listen to the counsel.
14: 35- The counsel faces some poignant questions from the bench. Counsel answers every question assertively.
14:41 – The counsel get an extension for wrapping up her arguments.
S2 –
14:44 – The 2nd counsel takes permission to approach the dais, and starts arguing assertively.
14:48 –The judges challenge the reasoning of the argument presented by the counsel, but the counsel makes a good effort to provide them with a satisfactory response.
14:52 – The judges point out the irregularities in the written submission and asks the Counsel to clarify the same.
14:58 – Judges again point out logical fallacies in the counsel arguments, the counsel tries to simply the argument for the judges.
15: 04 : – The judges grill the counsel on a certain law point for a long time. The counsel concedes and says that she stands corrected, eventually changes her line of argument.
15 : 07 – The counsel looks a bit confused, the bench tries to help the counsel by hinting towards the correct line of argument.
15 : 10 – Counsel fails to answer some of the question however is granted an gracious extension of 4 minutes. Counsel wraps up her argument and rests her case.
RESPONDENTS –
S1 –
15: 17- Counsel 1 for the respondents begins her argument confidently and assertively. She is loud and clear, gaining undeterred attention of the judges and the audience.
15: 21 – Judges ask the counsel to primarily rebut the arguments pf the petitioners, however she looks confused.
15: 24 – The kind bench drops numerous hints to guide the Counsel to the accurate crux of her argument. The counsel tries to satisfy the judges and give the answer the bench is really looking for. The judges yet again try to guide the counsel.
15: 31 – There is continuous questioning by the bench, Counsel struggles to establish the 1st issue and thereby moves to the 2nd issue.
15: 38 – The counsel apologizes for an incorrect submission and tries to compensate the same by an alternative argument.
15: 44 – The counsel is asked to argue legally and not emotionally. She wraps up her arguments and concludes.
S2 –
15:53 – The 2nd counsel for the respondents starts confidently, further is asked multiple questions by the bench.
15 : 59- The counsel seems confused, however the kind bench helps the counsel by drawing analogies.
16:00 – The counsel struggles to establish her initial issue, the judges still try to hint her towards the correct argument.
16:07 – Counsel is not able to establish her initial issue and thereby moves to next issue. Counsel tries her best to establish the second issue.
16: 20 – The Counsel rests her case before time and recites her prayer.
16: 52 – The teams have moved to the seminar hall for the valedictory ceremony. Everybody awaits the results.
17:00 – And the results are here !
The winner of the 8th ILNU National Moot Court Competition is IL 03 (Symbiosis Law School Noida)! Hearty congratulations to the winners.
The runner-up is IL 05 (Sastra University).
Best speaker is Deshna Golecha (NMIMS), Best researcher is Arshita Bansal (Faculty of Law, Delhi University) and the Best Memorial is awarded to NUSRL Ranchi.