Live | 6th National Moot Court Competition, Law College Dehradun

ABOUT THE EVENT 

The Constitution of our country is the suprema lex, it is the law to which all laws surrender and must adhere. Law College Dehradun, Faculty of Uttaranchal University has organized its 6th EDITION of The National Moot Court Competition is an annually hosted national-level moot court competition based on Constitutional Law along with The Narcotics, Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
This Competition is considered to be of great repute by the mooting circuits of the country. It is administered by the Moot Court Society of the college.
Other than contributing to the field of Constitutional Law, this Competition serves as a channel through which young law students can showcase their advocacy skills.
This year, once again, we welcome participation from all the law schools/colleges/universities of the country, in expectation of the amazing performances of our proficient lawyers and judges in the future!

DAY1: (7 MAY,2022)

11:00 AM INAUGURAL CEREMONY

The inauguration ceremony for the National Moot Court Competition 6.0, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University started at 11 am. The inauguration was addressed by our respected Pro Vice-Chancellor & Dean Law College Dehradun Prof. Dr. Rajesh Bahuguna sir.
And further, the gathering along with the participants was enlightened and motivated by our honorable chief guest
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESHWARA RAO JUDGE, THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
He spoke about the Indian Constitution and how fraternity is one of its important elements. He even enlightened the young lawyers by telling them about the relationship of law with social changes and development.  At last, he gave a few tips to the participants on how to argue before a court and wished them luck for the next two days. (MEANWHILE, THE RESEARCHER’S TEST HAS BEEN GOING ON)
Furthermore, the President of the Moot Court Society, Law College Dehradun Mr. Rajat Gaur, declared the competition open along with a vote of thanks!

12:00 PM  ALL THE PARTICIPANTS WERE OCCUPIED WITH MEMORIAL EXCHANGE AT THE SWAMI VIVEKANANDA AUDITORIUM MEANWHILE THE FACULTY MEMBERS UNDER-WENT THE JUDGE’S BRIEFING
With this, we moved further toward our preliminary rounds

2:OO PM PRELIMINARY ROUND 1:

COURTROOM 3:

TC 15 – TC 02:

This courtroom was tranced by enigmatic energy, where each participant argued their hearts out with full dedication and respect towards the guidelines laid down by law and substantive questions when it came down to important factors, the judges raised questions about the amalgam of section 313 of the CrPC along with the whole evidence act in general, the counsel 1 from TC 15 was able to perfectly satisfy the honorable judge in this context and then the petitioner proceedings moved forward with the second counsel in charge of the pleadings now where the judges demanded to know the implications caused by the disparities between the NDPS and the criminal procedure code in terms of the bail establishments and proceedings.

COURT ROOM 7:

TC 09 – TC 06:

In the most literal sense, this particular courtroom was a political cloud 9, where the petitioner side sternly argued that the inclusion of certain religious practices is the backbone for any smooth operating religious group, while the respondent side was bent toward the fact that most of the so-called essential religious practices were merely customs and traditions that could very well be calculated outside the ambit of most religions. In this particular case in front of the judiciary, the inclusion of bhaang and other psychotropic materials stood the test of maintainability as an essential part of the religion. the petitioner side used arguments that included article 25 of the constitution which talks about the freedom of practice one’…s religion while the respondent side used precedents that tried to link the instant case with the likes of triple talaak and the abolition of child marriage in the country. Overall, this courtroom saw its fair share of constructive debate which was powerful enough to make every citizen ponder our current laws.

WITH THIS WE HEAD TOWARDS OUR HIGH TEA BY 03:30 PM WHICH GAVE OUR PARTICIPANTS THE RIGHT DOSE OF ENERGY THAT HELPED THEM TO FACE THE UPCOMING SESSIONS MUCH MORE POWERFULLY! MEANWHILE, OUR AMAZING ORGANISING COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE BUSY MAKING ALL THE NECESSITIES UP TO THE MARK BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRELIMINARY ROUND 2!!

 
04:30 PM PRELIMINARY ROUND 2:

COURTROOM 1:

TC 10 – TC 07:
This courtroom was all about the debate based on the basic principles of our preamble, it was a constant fight between the scope of religious freedom in context to reasonable restrictions and so forth, while the petitioner side argued upon the basic principle of secularism and religious freedom for minorities to profess and practice their religion, the respondent side tried its best to supply reasonable restrictions which would curb this freedom to an extent, arguing about article 14 and the golden triangle it forms alongside article 21 and article 19, the stateside counsel tried its best to relate the reasonable restrictions mentioned under the scope of article 19 with the standard of the instant case. One could also witness a very intriguing debate about the bail specifications in the Indian laws and how the NDPS act was not under the scope of anticipatory bail mentioned in the criminal procedure code.

COURT ROOM 5:

TC 13 – TC 03:
The proceedings taking place in this certain setting were nothing less than an educational rollercoaster, where much of the debate and line of questioning revolved around simple definitions and facts of the instant case. Much of the counsel’s headspace was taken up by the true meaning of freedom mentioned under the ambit of articles 14 and 21 and how the honorable supreme court chose to interpret it to comfortably fit the requirements of most cases. Wondering if religious rights enjoyed the same scope of freedom as that of most fundamental rights, the petitioner side in this instant case and courtroom, wildly agreed that their hypothetical clients must be given the benefit of the doubt and should now be pronounced free of the charges against them as the state had tried to strongly curtail their aforementioned rights. The respondent side, however, believed that the right to trade and profess religion is not absolute, an opinion which struck a bolt of deep thinking inside everyone who was there to witness this amazing proceeding. Overall, this session was very fruitful and gave rise to many different ideologies.

6:00 PM ANNOUNCEMENT OF RESULTS:

With this, we come towards the wrapping up Day 1 of THE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ORGANISED UNDER THE AEGIS OF MOOT COURT SOCIETY, LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN WHILE MAINTAINING THE CURIOSITY OF DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE DAY, WHERE ALL THE PARTICIPANTS WERE INTENSELY EAGER TO PERFORM IN A MUCH BETTER WAY.
BELOW ARE THE TEAMS THAT SUCCESSFULLY MARKED THEIR POSITION FOR THE QUARTER-FINALS!

TC 01 
TC 05
TC 07
TC 09
TC 13
TC 15
TC 16
TC 22

WE WISH ALL THE QUALIFYING TEAMS ALL THE LUCK FOR THE UPCOMING ROUNDS,
“MAY THE BEST MAN WIN!”

DAY2: (8 MAY,2022)

08:00 AM QUARTER-FINAL ROUNDS:

And a fresh new morning adds essence to beginning the day with much zeal to getting one step closer to the trophy!

The quarterfinal round begins with 8 teams in total!  This involves Exchange of memorials and Drawing of lots along with the re-announcement of the results!!

COURTROOM 1:

TC 13 – TC 22:

With completely brushed up-skill and preparation, the teams began the proceeding and in no time everyone got so involved that it made an intense environment in the courtroom as the major issues were focused on PUNISHMENTS & ITS REASONABILITY.

Where our judges tested the knowledge of the participants by questioning them about the prevailing law between General law and Specific law, not only this but at times the judges suggested the respondents review the prayer and the contentions made by the petitioners. Both the teams were well versed with the content i.e the landmark judgments, exceptions to the case law, etc. Not only this but the bench even asked about the various provisions as well.

During the rebuttal round, the petitioners claimed the baselessness of the statements and the presumptions made, to which the respondents even told about the Bail Application under CrPC 438.

The session observed in this courtroom proved to be a kick-start for an amazing day!

COURT ROOM 2:

TC 05 – TC 16:

After the analysis of the memorial and compendium done by the bench the jury questions, “The difference between a person invoking Article 136 and Article 32 of Constitution Act”  Though the bench did not get a satisfactory answer. But moving forwards the highlighted element in the courtroom was the explanation of Strict Liability with a brief discussion on Doctrine of Proportionality and Reasonableness by TC – 05.

Not only this but the clash of opinions led to the act of challenging the NDPS. Not only this but the judges questioned TC – 16, “How NDPS Act and Maharashtra Prohibition Act are inconsistent?” This courtroom was completely an active discussion platform where the teams along with the judges had fruitful conversations on the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi, leaving no stone unturned.

COURTROOM 3:

TC 01 – TC 07:

With slight hindrance, the quarterfinal round revitalized the feeling of educational roller-costers in the atmosphere, to reach closer to the semi-final round. The counsel had the headspace to define the true and exact meaning of the term “DRUG PEDDLER” under the NDPS ACT.

One could easily witness the enthusiastic argumentation between the respondents and the petitioners. The counsel from each side was given a state of a hard time by the learned and through bench to answer, “COULD ONE ASSUME REASONABILITY”

COURTROOM 4:

TC 08 – TC 15:

This courtroom was yet another example of a melting point of ideologies. Both the sides were fierce in their ways and used amazing precedents to convince the judge of their respective arguments. While the petitioner side used example from great ideologies by the likes of Mahatma gandhi to streamline their case, the opposing counsel used cracks in the idea of secularism to further strengthen their core points. Moreover, the courtroom debate also revolved around the factors and problems which define the scope of minorities and scheduled caste communities, a grave question in the our moot problem this year. In the end, both the parties stood tall as both of them made sure to never lose confidence and kept handling questions like pros. Much like other proceedings in the past, this certain courtroom served as a catalyst for the formation of many different ideologies and thought processes.