About the Competition:
Vox Anatolis National Moot Court Competition (“The Voice of the East”) is one of the flagship moot court competitions organized by the National Law University and Judicial Academy Assam. The idea behind its inception is to engage law students from across the country in legal problems and issues related to the Northeastern part of the country, which makes it a one of a kind moot court competition as it provides a platform for students all over the country to engage in the nuances of legal issues in the region.
For this edition of the Vox Anatolis National Moot Court Competition, the Assam State Biodiversity Board has partnered up with the Moot Court Committee and so, the proposition illuminates the aspects related to the field of biodiversity.
It is already known that the north-eastern part of India is blessed with a wide spectrum of flora and fauna, therefore, to witness this biodiversity through the angle of law will provide participants with a deeper level of connection and understanding with this region of the country by discussing integral questions relating to access and benefit sharing and allied aspects of biodiversity.
The moot problem for this edition has been drafted by Irfan Hasieb, Advocate at Delhi High Court.
The following teams registered and will be competing for the position of the Winner:
- Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur
- Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
- Sastra Deemed University, Tamil Nadu
- Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
- University Law College, Gauhati University
- Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida
- Symbiosis Law School, Pune
- Nerim Group of Institutes, Guwahati
- The Assam Royal Global University
- NEF Law College, Guwahati
- North Eastern Hill University, Shillong
Day 1 (June 3) –
Inaugural Ceremony –
11:00: The dignitaries arrived and the inauguration ceremony began. The ceremony began with the lightning of the lamp, followed by the Vice Chancellor, Prof. (Dr.) V.K. Ahuja addressing the gathering. He spoke about the achievements of NLUJA in terms of moot court competitions, and other co-curricular activities. He further spoke about the importance of good communication skills to excel in the legal field. He further end his address by encouraging the participants to perform to the best of their capabilities, along with motivating them with some invaluable tips on how to argue before the honourable bench, wishing them luck for the next two days. The Faculty Adviser for the Moot Court Committee at NLUJA, Prof. Ankur Madhia, and the Moot Court Committee Convener, Mr. Neil Madhav Goswami were also present.
11:15: The Chief Guest for the Ceremony, Honourable Retd. Justice B.P. Katakey, also addressed the gathering, motivating the participants and the students of NLUJA highlighting why mooting is essential for ones involved in the legal career. He concluded his motivating speech giving an invaluable insight into the realms of the legal profession.
14:00: The Researcher’s test commenced, after lunch.
15:30:The draw of lots started and the exchange of memorials happened.
As we draw the curtains on the day one of the 3rd Vox Anatolis National Moot Court Competition, we look forward to unleash the capabilities of the participants in different rounds starting from the Prelims on 4th June, to compete for the position of winner.
DAY 2 (June 4) –
10:30: The Moot Court Committee Convener, Mr. Neil Madhav Goswami and Mr. Aviral Vats, 5th year representative of the Moot Court Committee, briefed the judges and explained the proposition to them in detail.
11:00: The 1st Preliminary Round started across 6 Courtrooms.
Preliminary Round 1 –
Court Room 1: In CR 1, the team from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow was facing North East Hill University, Shillong. The petitioners began advancing their arguments fighting for the stand that the National Green Tribunal does not have the power to take up suo moto cases as they are a statutory body and have only limited power. The Counsel for the petitioner argues on lines of Natural Justice and brings in the conception that the laws of our land embodies the cardinal principle of audi alteram partem or “let the other side be heard as well”. They content that since the petitioner was not given the opportunity to be heard fairly it violates their natural right and hence is illicit in nature. The counsel smartly makes use of Articles 14 and 21 to support his assertion. Further, the counsel for the respondents tactfully dealt with their arguments in front of the honourable bench. The counsel for the respondents also submit the contention that the petitioners were selfish and were exploiting the rights of the locals by denying them access and fair sharing of the benefits. To this, the honourable bench asked that since the petitioners were entitled to exclusive licensing and leasing, then on what grounds they can be violating something which they are entitled to? The honourable bench further points towards the abbreviation of ITR in the cited cases, but the counsel being unaware of it, is unable to respond. She looks at their researcher for rescue but eventually she fails to be her knight in shining armour. The rebuttals and the surrebuttals began. The round ends with the honourable bench scoring the teams and providing feedback to all the participants.
Court Room 2: In CR 2, the team from Symbiosis Law School, Pune was facing the team from Nerim Group of Institutes, Guwahati. The counsels for the petitioner sternly argued on the issue that whether the NGT has suo moto cognizance to initiate the proceedings, backing up their stance by citing the landmark case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, in support of their argument. The counsels from the respondent made their stand firmly by stating that the principal bench of NGT directed the Eastern Bench to initiate the proceedings. To which, the bench asks the Counsel to cite a Supreme Court case to support their argument. The counsel could only name the case, but was not well-versed with the facts of the case. The honourable bench was kind enough to provide the respondent side with an extra one minute to conclude their arguments. The rebuttals began, the petitioner provided prior intimation and then contradicted themselves. The surrebuttals began and the respondents dealt with it tactfully.
Court Room 3: In CR 3, the team from Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida was up against the team from NEF Law College, Guwahati. As soon as the rounds began, the counsel for the petitioner was inundated with questions, and was asked as to whether the company represented by the petitioners, Madni group, is committing Biopiracy or Bioprospecting. The counsel is further asked to justify her stand on whether the court has the authority to take suo moto cognizance of the issue. The arguments advanced by the petitioners involved a lot of questions being asked to them by the honourable bench. After the counsel for the petitioners advance their arguments and conclude their stand by asking for relief by the way of prayer, the counsel for the respondent side moved to the dais. As soon as the counsel arrives, there is a conundrum with regards to who is actually representing the Madni group. A first time instance for the Vox Anatolis Moot is the fact that neither of the side is representing the State Biodiversity Board, as both the parties are arguing for the Madni group. The judges were at a position where they ran out of questions, since both the parties were arguing for the same side. The rounds came to an end with an acceptable rebuttal as both the petitioner and the respondent argued for the same party.
Court Room 4: In CR 4, the team from University Law College, Gauhati University was up against the team from National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi. The rounds in CR 4 began with the team from University Law College, Gauhati University, who were heard ex parte. The counsel for the petitioner began to advance his argument with the prior permission from the honourable bench. The counsel dealt with the interjections raised by the honourable bench tactfully. After the counsel exhausted the allotted time, the honourable bench was kind enough to grant the counsel with extra time. Even after exhausting the extra time provided, the counsel continued with advancing the arguments. The counsel took extra 3.5 minutes to conclude with his issues, which was highlighted by the Court Clerk. The honourable bench then grants the permission to the co-counsel to begin with the arguments. The counsel is asked to satisfy the bench by providing relevant laws by the support of which the counsel was trying to build on his arguments.
Court Room 5: In CR 5, the team from Maharashtra National Law university, Nagpur was up against the team from Sastra Deemed University, Tamil Nadu. The counsel for the petitioner began advancing their arguments to which the judges seek further clarification, pausing them in the middle of their arguments. The honourable bench further asks the counsels to substantiate on the Biodiversity Act. The honourable bench seemed quite suave and dwelled deep into the petitioners’ nuances. The counsel for petitioners seemed to be clueless about their appeal. The counsel for the petitioners further question the NGTs act to take suo moto cognizance. The bench grinds the counsel for not knowing the facts of the case. Further after noting the paucity of time, the honourable bench let the co-counsel take the dais. The counsel for the respondents began advancing their arguments mentioning the Vizag gas leak case and the NGTs act of initiating a suo moto cognizance. The counsel vehemently argues by mentioning the authority of the NGT to control the discrepancies of the environment. The honourable bench interjects the counsel about their motives and their intentions to get half of the profit from the company, i.e., Madni group. The Counsel seemed to be well-versed with her research. The rebuttals and the surrebuttals began.
Court Room 6: In CR 6, the team from The Assam Royal Global University, Guwahati was up against the team from Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar. The counsel for the petitioners began advancing their arguments tactfully. The counsel commits a mistake by misstating the contract as void instead of valid, to which the honourable bench calls out the counsel. Further the bench also points out an inconsistency in the written submissions as well. The counsel for the petitioner even after being throwed at with a series of interjections, dealt with the questions tactfully, satisfactorily answering the questions. The counsel for the respondents challenge the jurisdiction of the bench and further move to the question of suo moto cognizance. The counsel moving further to subsequent issues, builds on his argument by citing various statutes and case laws in support. The rebuttals began and the counsel for the petitioner contended that the opposing counsel dismissed their own points and contradicted their own stand. They further point out the usage of the word ‘license’ by the counsel for the respondents instead of the word ‘lease’ as mentioned in the proposition. In the surrebuttals, the counsel for the respondents reiterated the value of fundamental rights and how they are placed above all laws in the country. Further, the honourable bench interjects about the jurisdiction issue, to which the counsel fumbles.
14:00: The 2nd Preliminary Round started across 6 courtrooms.
Preliminary Round 2 –
Court Room 1: In CR 1, the team from Nerim Group of Institutes, Guwahati, was up against the team from The Assam Royal Global University, Guwahati. The counsel for the petitioners began advancing their arguments, and seeked permission to state the statement of jurisdiction. The honourable bench interjects and asks about their intention of going with statement of jurisdiction when they are contesting the court’s jurisdiction in this case but gives permission to move forward with it. The honourable bench grilled the counsel over the issue of NGTs jurisdiction. The counsel failed to answer several interjections raised by the honourable bench. The counsel then further moved and mentioned about none of the tribunal bench having the power to give orders to suo moto proceedings to another bench. The honourable bench then interjected about is legal backing and that whether the counsel can provide the exact provision behind it. The counsel failed to answer the questions and moved forward to substantiate the arguments on the basis of the submissions of additional solicitor general in a case. The honourable bench questioned its validity on the grounds of it acting as a precedent. The counsel for the respondent began advancing the arguments by stating the statement of jurisdiction. The honourable bench questioned if Adongo is a biological natural resource. The counsel methodically answered the question. The counsel also cited the Ankita Sinha case that gave NGT suo moto power. The honourable bench interjected about the facts of the cases to which the counsel answers the question satisfactorily. The honourable bench also asked about whether the principal bench has superiority over other benches in the country to which the counsel responded that all 5 benches have equal power and have a PAN India effect.
Court Room 2: In CR 2, the team from NEF Law College, Guwahati, was up against the team from Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur. The counsel for the petitioner began advancing the arguments, and the honourable bench talked about Section 23 of the Biodiversity Act and whether approval can be granted under the said provision. The counsel for the petitioner further shed light on the suo moto power of the NGT. The honourable bench grilled the counsel about the exclusive power of suo moto cognizance of NGT in environmental matters granted by the Supreme Court. The counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy the honourable bench about the facts that the principal bench cannot give directions to other NGT bench for taking up suo moto or there is no hierarchical structure in the NGT benches. The counsel for petitioner in their prayer seeked for similar relief by the way of advancing three different relief points, which the bench highlights. The counsel apologizes to the honourable bench and accepts that the counsel misplaced some documents, providing the honourable bench with a new prayer. The counsel for the respondent approaches the bench to advance the arguments. The counsel argues that NGT has sui generis power and an take up suo moto cognizance of a case. The counsel also further argues that the CPC is not applied to NGT. The counsel also argues that under Section 24 of Biodiversity Act, the State Biodiversity Board can issue such discretion. The counsel also argues that the State Biodiversity Rules also gives power to NGT to secure FEBS. The honourable bench questions whether such rules can override the Act. The counsel failed to answer. The rebuttals and the surrebuttals began. The petitioner in the rebuttals said that the State Biodiversity Board has issued license to Madni Group but whereas it is the State Forest Department who issued the license. The respondent in the surrebuttals, said that license was granted for lease that was given by State Biodiversity Board. The honourable judge mockingly laughed at the fact that how license can be given for lease. The honourable bench seeked for Moot Proposition Clarifications, and the clarifications wrote license for lease.
Court Room 3: In CR 3, the team from Sastra Deemed University, Tamil Nadu was up against the team from Symbiosis Law School, Pune. The counsel for petitioner contended that the Madni Group has exclusively license to extract Adong and hence the suo moto cognizance by the NGT is invalid as the NGT has no authority to exercise such powers. The honourable bench states that NGT has a wide range of powers including the power to take suo moto cognizance. However, the counsel asserts that the NGT in the instant case has no authority as there is no question of substantial environmental damage. The counsel for the respondent contends that the NGT holds the power to take suo moto cognizance of the issue as there is a substantial question of environmental damage and cites M.C. Mehta v. University Grants Commission. The honourable bench further interjects the counsel on whether there was environmental damage. The counsel asserts that the State action of granting the license was an exception owing to the covid-19 situation. The honourable bench asked the counsel from where the state’s power to grant. License emanated to which the counsel provided a satisfactory answer. The honourable bench further interjects that whether Adong is a value added product or a biological resource. And, if it is the latter, it’s out of the definition of biological resource as per the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The counsel seeks for a purposive interpretation of the Act, so that the Tribal people can avail the benefits which was the main objective of the said act. The rebuttals and the surrebuttals began and the rounds end.
Court Room 4: In CR 4, the team from North Eastern Hill University, Shillong was up against the team from University Law College, Gauhati University. The counsel for the petitioner began advancing the arguments, to which the honourable bench interjects and asks clarification as to who is she representing as the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner continues to present and advance her arguments, and cite the case of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterile Industries. The counsel for the petitioner pleaded ignorance on the question “under which article of the Indian Constitution can the Supreme Court and High Court take suo moto action?” raised by the honourable bench. The counsel was given extra time by the judges. The counsel concludes the arguments by citing Section 19 of the Biological Diversity Act, contending that they are ready to pay a reasonable amount, to take any action which would assist in the goal of sustainable development. The counsel for the respondent began advancing the arguments by listing the issues being raised. The counsel alleges that the petitioners did not come to the court with clean hands, and was further asked by the honourable bench, as to how the counsel is pleading that the company should be banned from extracting. The counsel further pleads that the honourable bench has the power to direct the lower benches to take suo moto action. With the support of citing the NGT Act, the counsel pleads that the principal bench has the power to transfer the case from one bench to another. With advancing the rest of the arguments, the counsel moves to the prayer and says that the company is obliged to share the benefits with the people under the Biodiversity Act. The rebuttals and the surrebuttals began and the round concluded.
Court Room 5: In CR 5, the team from National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi were up against the team from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. The team from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University were heard ex parte. The counsel for the respondent side contended that the golden triangle of the Indian Constitution does not give NGT the right to suo moto cognizance. They argue that not giving the tribal people the right to use their resources is violative of Article 19 of the constitution. However, the judge notices a serious blunder in his argument as he decides to put forward arguments that are not mentioned in their written submission. The judges notice that there is a disconnection between the written submission and the oral arguments of the respondents. After the prayer, the judges question the counsel if the state government has the authority to contract in providing exclusive licensing to companies. The respondents fail to answer this question raised by this honourable bench, adequately to satisfy the bench.
Court Room 6: In CR 6, the team from Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar was up against the team from Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida. The counsel from the petitioner proceeded by submitting the argument that the National Green Tribunal has the power to take suo moto cognizance of the matter at end as it involves a substantive question pertaining to preservation of the environment at hand. The counsel tactfully used the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to substantiate his assertions. He further cited that the Apex Court of the land identified the tribunal to be unique in its functioning as it was set under Article 21 to legally enforce the issues involving the environment. The Counsel further draws a parallel between Fundamental Rights which involves the Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 and Right to a Healthy and Clean Environment. The counsel contends that in numerous judgements, the courts have held that Right to a Green Environment forms an essential part of Right to Life. The counsel further submitted that the tribunal accentuates the jurisdiction to as the Constitution mandates environment protection with a wide ambit. The counsel from the respondent began submitting their arguments, humbly pleading that the petitioner side “welcomed and accepted” their arguments through their oral pleadings which was noted duly by the honourable bench. Further proceeding with the contentions, the counsel asserted that the principles of natural justice were violated and the tribunal is vested with the powers to take suo moto cognizance. The counsel further asserts that the rights of the locals were violated and there is an international obligation as well on the part of the petitioner to take note of their actions under the Nogoya Protocol. After the counsels from the respondent concluded with the prayer to end their submission, the rebuttals and the surrebuttals began.
16:30: The results for the second round of prelims was declared, draws of lots happened, and the memorials were exchanged for the Quarter-Finals.
The Quarter Finalists for the 3rd Vox Anatolis National Moot Court Competition are:
- Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur
- Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
- Sastra Deemed University, Tamil Nadu
- University Law College, Gauhati University
- Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida
- Symbiosis Law College, Pune
- The Assam Royal Global University, Guwahati
- NEF Law College, Guwahati
Quarter Finals –
17:30: The Quarter Final Round started across 4 Courtrooms.
Court Room 1: In CR 1, the team from Symbiosis Law School, Pune was up against the team from University Law College, Gauhati University, Guwahati. The counsel for the petitioner approached the dais and began to advance her arguments. She submits while pleading that the National Green Tribunal does not have the power to take suo moto cognizance as there is absence of any explicit provision which provides for the same. The counsel clearly established that the jurisdiction of the tribunal as outlined under Section 14 of the Act involves only civil cases and the ones involving the substantial question of Law. The counsel moves further to prove to the bench’s satisfaction that only when there is a breach of statutory obligation or when significant amount of harm has been done to larger number of people and the environment can raise a substantial question about the law in hand. The counsel for the petitioners proceed to further assert that their acts fall under exemptions as the pandemic entails them to the benefit of special consideration. She further highlights the gravity of the situation that epidemic had on all of us. On being questioned by the Bench, the counsel submits that the petitioner has acted in good faith by producing the drug, as an act for social service. She highlights that the company has given non-monetary benefits in terms of sharing research, providing with global recognition to the locals in times of pandemic, investing heavily and the like, Hence, establishing that the company is not liable to share the benefits. The counsel for the respondents move to the dais to contend their arguments. At this juncture, the honourable bench request all the counsels to address them as “sir” and not as “lordships”. The counsel for the respondents proceeds to submit that the appeal made by the petitioner is not maintainable as they have approached the honourable bench with “dirty hands” and thus fails to follow the doctrine of “clean hands”. The counsel for the respondents further proceeds to establish the fact that the tribunal is entitled to take suo moto cognizance for securing the ends of justice. The honourable bench highlighted that there must be some restrictions upon the suo moto power of the tribunal while taking the example of PILs which was once popularly known as “paisa interest litigation”. The co-counsel from the respondents approach the honourable bench and seeks permission to start advancing her arguments. The honourable bench light-heartedly claimed that the counsel “is permitted to do as, as we live in a democracy”. The counsel goes on to establish that the exclusive license was given only on a provisional basis subject to the agreement. Since the petitioner failed to observe the obligations, they have been protected under exemptions and hence are liable to access and benefit sharing. The rebuttals and the surrebuttals began and the round concluded.
Court Room 2: In CR 2, the team from Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida was up against the team from NEF Law College, Guwahati. There was a slight delay in the commencement of the proceedings owing to some issue in the memorials of the petitioners which was resolved with the prior permission from the honourable bench. The proceedings began but are stopped midway because of a confirmation which arose in the memorial which was duly clarified by the members of the Organizing Committee. During the course of the proceedings the honourable bench raises the interjection about the details of the agreement stated in the memorial to which the counsel affirms in negative. The honourable bench further enquires if NGT has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case. The counsel replies affirmatively and quotes section 14 to which the honourable bench asks where the memorial mentions about it. The counsel for the petitioner proceeds further to contend his arguments, but seems to contradict his own point. The counsel did not seek to satisfactorily answer the interjections raised by the honourable bench. The counsel for the respondent seeks permission to approach the dais. The counsel highlights and brings to the notice of the honourable bench the conduct of the petitioner. The honourable bench interjects about the facts of case, enquiring about sharing percentage of profits. To this, the counsel for the respondents refer them to the Section 21 of Biodiversity Act. The honourable bench further questions the counsel about a case which deals with the interpretation of fair and equitable sharing. The counsel referring to the compendium, mentions the case of Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India. The rounds conclude with an intensified rebuttals and surrebuttals, both of which were dealt tactfully by the respective counsels.
Court Room 3: In CR 3, the team from The Assam Royal Global University, Guwahati was up against the team from Sastra Deemed University, Tamil Nadu. The counsel for the petitioner addresses the honourable bench, reading the statement of jurisdiction, and moves further to state the issues. The counsel for the petitioner substantiates upon the State Biodiversity Act. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the principle bench has no authority to direct a regional bench to initiate suo moto cognizance. The counsel details now to the contract between the State and the Madni group. The Counsel vehemently supports the steps taken by the Madni Group. The counsel mentions the Ankita Sinha judgement. The Counsel further questions the jurisdiction of the principle NGT Bench. After an intensified round of interjections and the vehement contentions by the counsel, the petitioners rest their case. The counsel for the respondents approach the dais and seek permission from the honourable bench to address the Bench which has been granted, post which the counsel begins with their contentions. The honourable bench immediately interjects the respondents about its unfair demand of 40% of the profit. The counsel states section 20 of the NGT Act about its authority to initiate suo moto proceedings. The counsel seems to be obsessed with Ankita Sinha judgement. The honourable bench then raises a question on the prayer of relief being seeked by the respondents, with respect to the order being upheld by the Bench. The honourable judges precisely mentions that the state has no business in interpreting a contract after its formation in order to take it in their favour. The counsel from the respondents firmly assert that it wasn’t an interpretation but a reminder from the State’s side to the Madni Group about their obligations. The honourable bench poses an intensified round of interjections, and the counsel despite being clueless about the questions being put forward, successfully tackles the questions with grit. “Bang on the point. Look into our eyes and answer. Come on, you can do it!”, said the enthusiastic bench. The honourable bench is frustrated with the fact that there still exists a disconnection between the oral arguments and the memorial in the quarter finals. The Counsel while further asserting her contentions goes on to mention the Rio de Janeiro International Convention. The counsel mentions that the International Convention that India is a party to, states about the Benefit Sharing concept. The counsel moves to the prayer of relief. The intensified round which involved a lot of interjections and motivation ended after a similarly intensified rebuttals and surrebuttals.
Court Room 4: In CR 4, the team from Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar was up against the team from Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur. The counsel for the petitioner moves to the dais and contends that the NGT has the authority to take suo moto cognizance of the matter in the instant case citing the Municipal Corporation of greater Mumbai v. Sinha Case. The honourable bench asks whether the ratio decidendi of Ankita Sinha case would be applicable to the instant case. The counsel for the petitioner admitted to the fact that the bench of NGT has the authority to decide the current case. The honourable bench enquires the counsel on why the NGT has authority to take the suo moto cognizance of the matter in question. The counsel for the petitioner pleads once again that the principal bench of NGT is in a position to direct the East Zonal Bench of NGT to take suo moto cognizance of the matter citing Rule 3 of the NGT (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011. The Counsel for the petitioners further assert that the prior approval is not essential in the instant case as the State Government has already granted permission and the same would be binding on the State Biodiversity Board. The counsel brings up facts which are contrary to the case. The counsel for the respondents move to the dais, and with the prior permission of the honourable bench move forwards to their contentions. The counsel for the respondents assert that the NGT is not bound by the CPC and can take decisions according to its own volition. The honourable judges question the counsel about where the NGT’s power to take suo moto cognizance emanates from. The counsel misreads one of the issues. The counsel brings up the arguments which are contrary to arguments mentioned in the memorial regarding the authority of the State Government to provide exclusive license. The counsel for the respondents also mentions that India is a part of the Convention of Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro Convention 1992 and Nagoya Protocol and these have provisions for equitable profit sharing. The counsel further pleads for a purposive interpretation of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The honourable judges state that nowhere in the notice serves by the State, the ‘provisional’ license is mentioned and hence the counsel is bringing up a new stand in the case. The Counsel gets tangled in the mesh of questions the honourable bench poses, and is unable to bring up a valid argument. The counsel is running short of both, time and facts. The counsel rests the case and moves to the prayer. The round ends with a fitting rebuttal and surrebuttal.
19:00: The Quarter Final Rounds concluded across all Courtrooms.
19:30: Results declared. The draw of lots started and the exchange of memorials took place.
The Semi-Finalists for the 3rd Vox Anatolis National Moot Court Competition are:
- Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
- Sastra Deemed University, Tamil Nadu
- Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida
- Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Day 3 (June 5) –
Semi-Finals and the Finals –
11:00: The Semi – Finals commenced across 2 courtrooms
The fixtures for Semi-Finals of the 3rd Vox Anatolis National Moot Court Competition are (P v R) :
Court Room 1: Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Court Room 2: Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar v. Sastra Deemed University, Tamil Nadu
11:30:
Court Room 1: The team from Lloyd Law College was representing the petitioners and the team from Symbiosis Law School was representing the respondents. The counsel for the petitioners approached the dais and with the prior permission of the honourable bench began advancing her arguments. The counsel contended that NGT has no authority to take suo moto cognizance of the case at hand according to the provisions of the NGT Act itself. She further went ahead to assert that it is not a civil suit and does not involve the substantial question which relates to environment. The counsel cites the case of M.C. Mehta v. University Grants Commission to substantiate her argument. The counsel further goes ahead to assert that the principal bench of NGT has no power to direct the Eastern Zonal Bench to take suo moto cognizance of the suit, and cite the case of Meenaava Thantai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, is support of her argument. The counsel for the petitioners further went ahead to assert that the Madni group can seek exemption from access and benefit sharing citing Article 8 (b) of Nagoya Protocol as they can claim for special considerations owing to the Covid19 pandemic. There was a desperate need for Adong Capsules which helped in the fight against Covid19 and the Madni group stepped up in the crisis. The honourable judges question the counsels as to whether the approval by any regulatory authority. The counsel to this responds that the facts are silent on this however it an be inferred from the remaining facts. The counsel for the petitioners further contend that the agreement on access and benefit sharing is vague. The quantum of benefits is not specified. The benefit sharing needs to be decided on a case to case basis. The honourable bench brings up the case of Divya Pharmacy v, Union of India, and ask for a few more interjections before the counsels were permitted to move ahead with the prayer for relief. The counsel for the respondent seeks for permission from the honourable bench to approach the dais and substantiate their arguments. As soon as the counsel approaches the dais and begins to advance his contentions the honourable bench asks the counsel to justify the basis of their claim that the Madni group is misusing the land and the biological resource during extraction. The counsel further contends that the NGT has authority to take suo moto cognizance of the case while citing Amit Maru v. Ministry of Environment and Forest Case. The counsel adds that the dispute is of a civil nature as it is a commercial dispute involving money and profits. The Counsel also states that the case involves a substantial question of environment mentioned in the National green Tribunal Act, 2010. The counsel also claims that the Madni group has accrued profits of around 100 crores and now the honourable judge interjects the counsel as to how the counsel estimated that the Madni group was making such enormous amounts of profits and the counsel provides a satisfactory answer to that. The honourable judge also questions the counsels motive to bring up the profit when the issue is about environment. The counsel for the respondents, further in his contentions highlights that India is a part of the Nagoya Protocol and Convention of Biological Diversity. He further makes a bold and unsubstantiated claim that the Madni group only wanted profits and was trying to evade the law. The counsel for the respondents after a series of asserting their contentions by supporting their claims with appropriate precedents move to their prayer of relief, and rest their case the rebuttals and the surrebuttals begin, and the round ends.
Court Room 2: The second semi-final kicked off in Court Room 2. In this semi-final Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar (Petitioners) was up against Sastra Deemed University, Tamil Nadu (Respondents). The judges for this round were . Counsel for the Petitioners began advancing their arguments tactfully. However, the judges interject the counsel and go into the details of the facts of the case. Nevertheless, the counsel was able to answer majority of the questions that were posed by the bench. The counsel relied heavily on the Ankita Sinha judgment to establish the suo-moto power of the Hon’ble NGT Tribunal. Counsel 2 for the petitioners had a tough time in front of the judges as the bench grilled the contestant as they were not happy with the arguments that were advanced. The Respondents began presenting their arguments. They tactfully argued and established the jurisdiction of the tribunal, and gradually moved on to their other arguments. Counsel 2 for the Respondents was met with some difficult questions from the bench; however, she was able to handle the questions tactfully. The bench looked impressed with the submissions of the Respondents.
14:00: The results for the Semi-Finals were declared and the memorials were exchanged.
The Finalists for the 3rd Vox Anatolis National Moot Court Competition are:
- Symbiosis Law School, Pune
- Sastra Deemed University, Tamil Nadu
The finals were judged by the distinguished justices of the Guwahati High Court: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devashish Baruah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nani Tagia, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Michael Zothankhuma.
The finals were between Sastra Deemed University (TC 06), who were arguing on behalf of the petitioners and Symbiosis Law School, Pune (TC 07), who were arguing on behalf of the respondents.
Petitioners:
Speaker 1 –
The first speaker for the petitioner’s side was tasked with the responsibility to explain the issues that were raised by the petitioners, and how the issues were bifurcated between the two speakers. The judges sought clarification regarding the facts of the ongoing case to which the speaker was able to respond tactfully. The speaker then went on to the issue of maintainability and relied heavily on the case—Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha. Further, the Bench sought clarification on the object of the Biodiversity Act; the speaker was able to provide a satisfactory answer to the question. The speaker then established the NGT Bench’s quasi-judicial nature, which helped her deal with the rest of the issues she argued on. The speaker seemed confident and was able to answer almost all the questions that were posed to her by the Bench.
Speaker 2 –
The second speaker for the petitioners started her submission and argued regarding the prior intimation which was provided in order to extract biological resources. The speaker, based majority of her arguments on the memorial which impressed the Bench as the arguments were made on the basis of application of mind. The speaker, further, reiterated Section 7 of the Biodiversity Act, to support her contention that Indian companies do require prior intimation. Moreover, she quoted Section 19 of the Act to argue about Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing. The Bench seemed satisfied with the submissions, and the speaker moved on to the prayer.
Respondents:
Speaker 1 –
The speaker for the respondent vehemently denied the submissions made by the petitioners, and established the NGT’s power to take suo motu cognizance of a proceeding which involves a substantial question related to the environment. To make this argument stronger, the counsel relied on the Ankita Sinha case which was previously quoted by the petitioners. The speaker, further, relied on Section 13 of the NGT Act and Section 24 of NGT (Procedure and Rules) Act to argue that the NGT can direct one of its other benches to take up a matter. Moreover, she was able to answer all the questions tactfully. Furthermore, she argued on the basis of good faith and how the government’s actions were carried in good faith. The Bench seemed very satisfied with the arguments that were presented by the speaker.
Speaker 2 –
The second speaker for the respondent also denied the arguments that were made by the petitioners. The speaker argued that the company required compulsory permission to extract biological resources. It was further argued that the companygot into an agreement with the State Forest Board and did not intimate the State Biodiversity Board. Moreover, it was established that the company could not claim any exception to the obligations under FEBS and Nagoya Protocol. The speaker argued about the lives and livelihood of the indigenous people, she also relied on the case Divya Pharmaceuticals v. Union of India which was decided by the Uttarakhand High Court. The Bench was again quite impressed by how confident all four speakers were.
16:45: The final round concludes.
Valedictory Ceremony –
17:00:The valedictory ceremony commenced in the auspicious presence of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devashis Baruah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nani Tagia, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Michael Zothankhuma, Prof. (Dr.) V.K. Ahuja, the MCC Convener Mr. Neil Madhav Goswami, and the student fraternity of NLUJA along with the participants.
17:05: Hon’ble Vice Chancellor commenced the ceremony by felicitating the dignitaries present on the occasion.
17:08: Vice Chancellor’s address begins. Prof. (Dr.) V.K. Ahuja speaks about how the Justices spared time from their busy schedule and graced the occasion with their esteemed presence. He also highlights that the chance for the participants to argue in front of the Justices is going to add to their life-long experience and help them excel. He further also points out, that anyone who takes part in the competition, is already a winner, irrespective of whether they win or not.
17:20: The Hon’ble Guests for the occasion take the dais one by one and enlighten the audience with their words, and extend a warm congratulations to everyone who participated in the competition.
17:50: Prof. (Dr.) Chiradeep Basak, Associate Professor of Law and the Co-ordinator of Centre for Environmental Law, Advocacy and Research (CELAR), NLUJAA addressed the audience and talked about the brain-child of the Centre, Lex Terra. ‘Lex Terra‘ is an initiative undertaken by CELAR. Through Lex Terra, we strive to provide a voice to various aspects of the environment, published every month, to create a community of environmentally conscious individuals from the legal and non-legal fraternity. Each issue of Lex Terra features important environmental news from across the world and from within the nation. This bulletin is meticulously compiled by CELAR members and dedicated enviro-legal enthusiasts. He brings forward the special edition of Lex Terra on the occasion of Environmental Day.
18:00: Declaration of results begin.
The Winners:
Best Memorial: Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Best Researcher: Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
Best Speaker: Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Best Team: Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Runners Up: Sastra Deemed University, Tamil Nadu
18:15: Vote of thanks by the Moot Court Committee Convenor, NLUJA.
