LIVE BLOG: Grand Finale of 3rd Law College Dehradun Moot Court on Constitutional Law [Oct 5-7]

The Law College Dehradun, Faculty of Uttaranchal University proudly brings to you the 3rd Edition of National Moot Court Competition on Constitutional Law which is scheduled to be held from Friday, 5th October 2018 to Sunday, 7th October 2018.

The competition aims to foster and cultivate the interest of the law students in Constitutional Law and philosophy by challenging and engaging them in research on cutting-edge questions plaguing the best scholars in the field. The Competition shall be adjudged by an eminent academicians, practicing lawyers, judicial officers, and judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court & Hon’ble High Court.

The flagship event of the college is taking place from the last two years. From its inception, the Law College Dehradun National Moot Court has come a long way to become one of the most prestigious moot court competition in the Devbhoomi – Uttarakhand.

It will be a 3-day event. It is a unique initiative aimed at providing a platform to students from law schools across the nation to learn and hone their advocacy skills.

The link to the brief of the events is here.

Further, we heartily thank all the sponsors who have contributed generously to turn our efforts of the 3rd National Moot Court Competition into reality. Our valuable partners are:

1. Bansal Brothers- Anurag Enterprise
2. Doon Cabs
3. Ipleaders
4. Jus Dicere
5. Lawctopus
6. Law Sikho.com
7. Manupatra
8. Price & Buckland
9. Tonic café
10. Elloras

We would be appraising you with all the live updates throughout the competition here and you can always switch on to Lawctopus- Our Official Media Partner to stay updated.

So, stay tuned !!!

The moot proposition can be found on this page.

 5th Oct. 2018 (DAY1)

REGISTRATION & INAUGURATION  

The most awaited, glorious and intellectual event officially began with the team registration of the 32 participating teams from across the Nation, which started at 3 PM followed by the felicitation of the chief guest and the other dignitaries of the institution.

The event was taken off with an auspicious ceremony of lighting the lamp by the Chief Guest Shri. Jai Raj, Indian Forest Service, Principal Chief Conservation Of Forest (HOFF), Uttarakhand, Shri Jitendra Joshi, Hon’ble Chancellor of Uttaranchal University, Shri N.K Joshi, Hon’ble Vice Chancellor and (Prof.) Dr. Rajesh Bahuguna, Principal and Dean, Law College Dehradun, followed by Saraswati Vandana and the University Kulgeet. The whole event was witnessed by Respected Mr. Karam Pratap Singh Thakur, the Founding President of the Moot Court Society, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University.

Lamp Lighting was followed by a warm welcome speech delivered by Ms.Somya Gaur, President of Moot Court Society, Law College Dehradun. Further, Ms. Ayushi Ranjan and Ms. Mehrul Arora, masters of ceremony addressed the gathering and the dignitaries with words of honour for the Chief Guest, assuring the best hospitality to the participants.

The Ceremony was then continued with a motivational speech from the Hon’ble Chief Guest who stated beautifully the relationship between passion and profession also emphasized that the gathering sitting at the ceremony is a resource for the betterment of the Nation. Sir, further expressed his concern about the inactiveness of the Executive and spoke about the ‘Judicial Activism’ and how it acts as a catalyst to awaken the Executive.

He also expressed his desire to study law after his retirement and cited certain examples like the declaration of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional and the fact how Jurisprudence has always shown the way to the Society. At the end, Sir encouraged all the law students with his golden words, “Rise, Shine and Glorify”.

Evntually, the vote of thanks was given by the Vice Chancellor Shri N.K Joshi.

RESEARCHES TEST

After getting over with the Inaugural Ceremony, the researchers gave the testimony of their preparation in an hour’s researcher’s test which started at 7:25 PM with Prof. (Dr.) Poonam Rawat, worthy Chairperson, Moot Court society and Head of Department, Law College Dehradun, opening the envelope of questions. The test involved loads of brainstorming which ended up with the exchange of the memorial between the participating teams.

The day ended up with the delicious dinner, all fueling up the teams and getting ready for the tomorrow’s preliminaries and the quarter-final round of the 3rd National Moot Court Competition, 2018. We wish them all the very best for the upcoming rounds and sharing glimpse of today’s event with all of our viewers.

Stay tuned for more tomorrow!!

6th Oct. 2018 (DAY 2)

JUDGES BRIEFING                                               

          

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are back for the second day at Law College Dehradun faculty of Uttaranchal University of 3rd National Moot Court Competition on Constitutional Law – 2018 . We are live at the judges briefing as the research committee briefs the Honorable Judges about the moot problem. Meanwhile, the participants are seated in the courtroom, anxious to begin the day. We will be bringing to you all the live updates as the day goes on.

PRELIMINARY ROUND- 1

 

 

COURT ROOM NO. : 1
TC 09 (Petitioner) v. TC 04 (Respondent)

PETITIONER
Oralist 1- The counsel started confidently and brief the judges about the Statement of Facts. Then he mentioned about the vertical and horizontal reservations. The judges rebutted the counsel and asked about the difference between the two. The counsel argued on article 15(3) of the Constitution of India. The oralist was well versed with intricacies of the Law and was well mannered.

Oralist 2- The Counsel has approached the dias with the permission of the judges. The oralist started with issue no.3. The Judges started grilling the counsel and were inquiring about the basic facts. The counsel surrendered to the question of the judges and moveed to the nest issue. The judges are not satisfied with the counsel’s arguments after that the Judges asked the counsel to move towards the prayer.

RESPONDENT
Oralist 1- After hearing the arguments diligently the judges asked the counsel some fundamental questions based on Law, the counsel stands calmly in response. The judges seemed to be satisfied with arguments of the Oralist 1.

Oralist 2-  The oralist was nervous intentionally but later seemed to be confident while answering the questions given by judges. Also she ever got diverted from the main facts after the tricky questions. She overall was not able to satisfy the judges.

 

COURT ROOM NO. : 2
TC 11 (Petitioner) v. TC 71 (Respondent)

PETITIONER
Oralist 1- The counsel approached the dais and humbly greeted the judges. He dealt with the first and second issue. As he began, the judges started putting general questions revolving around the case. The counsel kept forward strong arguments and references to express his opinion. His speech was impressive. He stated a number of authority to strengthen his case but at last the counsel got confused by a tricky question from the bench.
Oralist 2- The Counsel was bombarded with questions as soon as she started. She was confident and firm but lacked a thorough knowledge of some case laws. The judges kept on raising queries but she played well, not losing her confidence. Deliberations continued but the Counsel seemed to be well prepared and was enthusiastic to answer the questions.
Lastly the counsel exercised their right of rebuttal with confidence.

RESPONDENT
Oralist 1- The Counsel dealt with the first two issues. He began by stating the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi regarding women participation in Parliament and possessed good knowledge of the facts. The judges soon started asking questions regarding the arguments presented by the counsel. Here the counsel got puzzled. He kept on pleading with the help of leading cases and articles of the constitution. The counsel appeared to be confident in presentation and referred to number of authorities to strengthen his case.

Oralist 2- The second Counsel approached the dais to deal with rest of the issues. He humbly started with the proceedings. He referred to leading cases to make the contentions more clear and  presented all his issues politely and managed time efficiently.

The counsel humbly did sub-rebuttals. 

 

Court Room No. 3
TC 74 (Petitioner) v. TC 15(Respondent)

PETITIONER
Oralist 1- The Counsel started very confidently and layed down the facts of the case in a precise manner and then moved to the issue. Court etiquettes were not followed completely. She sought permission for extension of 30 seconds to conclude the issue.

Oralist 2 – The Counsel started her pleading by stating the case laws with her issue and requested the judges to consult few paragraphs in the memorial for the clarification. She requested for the extension of 1 minute to conclude the issue.

RESPONDENT

Oralist 1-  The Counsel was nervous while  approaching the dias. However, was able to state the arguments confidently. Court etiquettes were followed.

Oralist 2 – The Counsel seemed confident but spoke in haste while lying down the structure of the arguments. Proper court manners were not been followed.
Rebuttals from both sides were  fierce and sub rebuttals very only granted to petitioners.

The respondents also exercised their right to sub-rebuttals but could not satisfy the bench.

 

Court Room No. 4
TC 28 (Petitioner) v. TC 12 (Respondent)

The oralist started with submitting his contentions. Right after her first argument the judges fire two questions. She couldn’t give satisfactory answers. She proceeded to give some case laws but judges doubt their relevance. 

Court Room No. 5
TC 40 (Petitioner) v. TC 39 (Respondent)

PETITIONER

The Counsel started with confidence and  argued her points by citing leading cases. The hon’ble bench vigilantly asked the fundamental questions and the counsel tactfully answered them. Yet, the counsel was unable to wrap her arguments and was  granted time extension by the bench.  The counsel had an effective rebuttal at the end.  

RESPONDENT

The Counsel was courteous. The bench grilled  the counsel with tricky questions. The counsel seemed nervous initially but argued the facts and answered them confidently. The  bench repeated the question of contempt of court  to both the oralists and seemed unsatisfied at the end.

Court Room No. 6
TC 13 (Petitioner) v. TC 47 (Respondent)

PETITIONER

Oralist 1- The Counsel addressed major facts, issues and relevant arguments confidently & effectively . The Bench seemed to be satisfied as the oralist cited relevant cases and statutes.
Oralist 2-  The Counsel was confident and well versed with the facts of the case.  Overall, the petitioners efficiently exercised their right to rebuttals.

RESPONDENT

Oralist 1- The Counsel addressed the issues from the respondent’s side confidently but was unable to justify the case completely. He conveyed the facts that were aforementioned in the moot problem. In short, the Counsel was not able to convince the court with his arguments as they were not well expressed.
Oralist 2- Though the Counsel pleaded the concerned facts but could not justify them efficiently. Although she had a fair knowledge of the case facts,she was not confident in her arguments and was unable to satisfy the court with her answers.

COURT ROOM NO. :7
TC 10 (Petitioner) v. TC 52 (Respondent)

PETITIONER

Oralist 1- The Counsel looked confident with his preparation and was courteous. The Counsel was grilled before the completion of his first issue and was unable to satisfy the judges.
Oralist 2- The Counsel had good court etiquette but was not well versed with the facts of the case. She was unable to refer to the authorities and the judges were not satisfied with the arguments.

RESPONDENT
Oralist 1-  The Counsel seemed to be confident and was also in hurry while speaking. He satisfied the judges with his tactful arguments. However, he was unable to state the authorities concerned with the case.
Oralist 2- The Counsel started stating her facts with confidence. There were series of questions asked by the  judges. At last the oralist hastily completed her arguments.

COURT ROOM NO. :08
TC 65 (Petitioner) v. TC 67 (Respondent)

PETITIONER
The Counsel seemed confident and was well aware of the facts of moot problem.He presented  the case and the facts in a very short period of time. The bench seemed satisfied with arguments given by the first Counsel of petitioner but the Co-Counsel could not satisfy the bench by his answers as was not able to answer the questions of the  bench effectively. The petitioners exercised their right to rebuttals effectively.

RESPONDENT
The Counsel was confident and was presented the case very humbly, had knowledge of law and was very well versed with the facts and the articles related to the moot proposition. The counsel presented the case laws very effectively. The bench was satisfied by the argument .Time was very well managed and the team exercised their sub rebuttals’ opportunity effectively.

COURT ROOM NO. :09
TC 21 (Petitioner) v. TC 24 (Respondent)

PETITIONER
Oralist 1 – The counsel  approached  the dais but did not seem confident enough.The judges listened vigilantly to the arguments and the Counsel was subjected to some fundamental questions on law by the judge which  made her little nervous.The judge asked her to justify the answers and apply the knowledge of law, rather than reading it out. The counsel was bit stuck and was not able to handle the queries with ease later.

Oralist 2 – The Co-Counsel  approached the dais with confidence but gradually her moral got down.She cited few case laws and articles.She lacked in knowledge of law and was not able to answer.
RESPONDENT
Oralist 1 – The Counsel  approached the dais with confidence.The judges heard the arguments attentively. The Counsel got stucked in the question related to article 14 -“why it is equal protection of laws and not law?”
Oralist 2 – The Co-Counsel  approached the dais  with due permission of the judge. Her confident voice made the court more lively. She got more confident with the flow of her arguments.. She was able to answer all the questions smartly. Judges were impressed by her arguments.

 

 

COURT ROOM NO. :10
TC 07 (Petitioner) v. TC 35 (Respondent)

 

PETITIONER
Oralist 1-
The Counsel started with great flow but lacked clarity.The Counsel replied to the queries raised by the Bench. This showed good research work done by the team . He took  occasional pauses but was able to manage the flow. The judges seemed satisfied with his answers. But, towards the end his answers seemed more opinionated and generalized.


Oralist 2- The Counsel started with clarity and confidence but paused in between. He had a good understanding of the case but seemed flustered and was unable to explain few queries raised by the bench. The rebuttal lacked depth and seemed like a rhetoric.

RESPONDENT
Oralist 1- The first Counsel had a very good accent, good skills of sentence structuring and clarity. He referred to his memorial and the compendium several times. His speech was well grounded with facts. He replied to the judges very convincingly with due respect.

Oralist 2- The Counsel did a great job of representing the respondents . She regularly made references to the facts. The counsel had perfect clarity of thoughts. Her flow of speech remained impeccable till the very end. She considered the value of time and summarized herself successfully.

 

COURT ROOM NO. :11
TC 02 (Petitioner) v. TC 27 (Respondent)

PETITIONER
Oralist 1- The counsel approached the dais and humbly greeted the judges. He dealt with the first and second issue. As he began, the judges started putting general questions revolving around the case. 
The counsel kept forward strong arguments and references to express his opinion. His speech was impressive. He stated a number of authority to strengthen his case but at last the counsel got confused by a tricky question from the bench.
Oralist 2- The Counsel was bombarded with questions as soon as she started. She was confident and firm but lacked thorough knowledge of some case laws.  Deliberations continued but the Counsel seemed to be well prepared and was enthusiastic to answer the questions.
Lastly the counsel exercised their right of rebuttal with confidence.

COURT ROOM NO. :12
TC 72 (Petitioner) v. TC 22 (Respondent)

PETITIONER
The Counsel started presenting her issues very confidently but while speaking fumbled a lot.The judges threw trail of questions ,while the counsel lacked knowledge of case laws .The Co-Counsel started with citing authorities and was well versed with issues.
The oralist give a satisfactory answer to the judges’ questions and proceeded to rip the respondents’ defense of necessity.

RESPONDENT
The Counsel started presenting her issues confidently. The judges grilled her a lot though tricky questions but she handled the questions in a calm manner .Co-Counsel was lacking knowledge of facts , but use of authorities were upto the mark .

COURT ROOM NO. :13
TC 56 (Petitioner) v. TC 42 (Respondent)

PETITIONER
Oralist 1- The Counsel addressed facts, issues and relevant arguments confidently & effectively . The Bench seemed to be satisfied as the oralist cited relevant cases and statutes.
Oralist 2-  The Counsel was confident and well versed with the facts of the case.  Overall, the petitioners efficiently exercised their right to rebuttal.

RESPONDENT
Oralist 1- The Counsel addressed the issues from the respondent’s side confidently but was unable to justify the case relevance to his arguments. He conveyed the facts that were aforementioned in the moot problem. In short, the Counsel was not able to convince the court with his arguments as they were poorly expressed.
Oralist 2- Though the Counsel pleaded the concerned facts but could not justify them efficiently  . Although she had a fair knowledge of the case facts,she was not confident in her arguments and was unable to satisfy the court with her answers.The respondents also exercised their right to sub-rebuttals but could not satisfy the Bench.

COURT ROOM NO. :14
TC 33 (Petitioner) v. TC 58 (Respondent)

PETITIONER
The Counsel approached the dais. He seemed very confident and explained the facts of the case calmly. He was well mannered. Though,the Counsel was interrupted by the judge ‘s queries continuously yet he answered them confidently. 
The Counsel started with confidence and loud and clear voice. She efficiently presented the arguments. The judges seemed satisfy. She concluded with the prayer.

RESPONDENTS
The Counsel approached the dais with good temperament. The judges asked the speaker to stop using the abbreviations such as DPSP. PSP. to which he acted accordingly. The judges grilled him completely. The Co-Counsel started with courtesy. His arguments were well framed. The judges listened to him vigilantly. He answered all the queries with full confidence but exceeded the time limit.

COURT ROOM NO. :15
TC 37 (Petitioner) v. TC 55 (Respondent)

PETITIONER
Oralist 1- The Counsel started very confidently and layed down the facts of the case in a precise manner and then moved to the issue. Court etiquette were not abides by completely. She sought permission for an extension of 30 seconds to conclude the issue.
Oralist 2 – The Counsel started her pleading by stating the case laws with her issue and requested the judges to consult few paragraphs in the memorial for the clarification. She requested for the extension of 1 minute to conclude the issue. Proper time management was done by both the teams.

RESPONDENT
Oralist 1-  The Counsel nervous while  approaching the dias. However, was able to state the arguments confidently. Court etiquette were followed.
Oralist 2 – The Counsel seemed confident but spoke in haste while lying down the structure of the arguments. Proper court manners were not being followed.
Rebuttals from both sides were  fierce and sub rebuttals very only granted to petitioners.

COURT ROOM NO. :16
TC 45 (Petitioner) v. TC 51 (Respondent)

PETITIONER
The Counsel started confidently by briefly submitting the issues dealt with and the jurisdiction under which they have approached the court. The Counsel spoke courteously and was well versed with the facts. The questions put forth by the judges were answered satisfactorily. 
The Co-Counsel was fluent and direct in presenting the arguments in support of his issues along with the authorities to back them. He tried to dodge the questions but then was able to explain them successfully. He summarized the arguments within time.

RESPONDENT
The Counsel was courteous but stammered a lot. She seemed a bit clumsy while dealing with the issues and portrayed casual style of pleading. She fumbled and lacked confidence while dealing with her issues.
The Co-Counsel was confident and calm while presenting the arguments and was able to answer the questions put forth by the judges. The team did not manage time properly. Instead of presenting her counter-rebuttals, the Counsel put forth her own rebuttals points.

PRELIMINARY ROUND-  2

COURTROOM NO: 1
TC 24 (Petitioner) v. TC 09 (Respondent)

PETITIONER
Oralist 1- The Counsel on behalf of the applicant, approached the dais with the permission of the bench and humbly sought the time of the honourable court to present his arguments. The judges asked the counsel to skip the briefing of the facts and move on with the arguments. The counsel mentioned the vertical and horizontal reservation, the judges rebut the counsel and asked about the difference between the two. The Counsel was courteous and well versed with the facts and case laws.

Oralist 2- The Co-Counsel started with the reference of issue no.3 of the moot proposition. The judges raised their queries. The counsel surrendered to the questions of the judges and moves on the next issue. The judges were not satisfied by the counsel’s arguments and asked the Counsel to end the proceeding with the prayer.
The counsels have exercised their right of rebuttals.

RESPONDENTS
Oralist 1- After hearing the arguments vigilantly, the judges asked the Counsel some fundamental questions based on law, the Counsel stands calmly. The judges seemed to be satisfied with the arguments of the Counsel. The counsel was well mannered.

Oralist 2- The Co-Counsel started his arguments confidently. The judges grilled the counsel repeatedly even after the lapse of time, later Counsel got nervous but tried to remain calm and answered effectively. He was not deviated by the continuous questions asked by the judges but lacked in time management.
The Counsel approached the Dias for sub rebuttals and used the opportunity effectively and efficiently.

COURTROOM NO. :2
TC 35 (Petitioner) v. TC 11(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

Counsel 1: The Counsel humbly approached the dais and presented the synopsis of the case. He dealt with issue no. 1,2,5 and 7 confidently and with clarity. He started with emphasising on the statements in the moot proposition. He possessed good knowledge of facts and took the support of various articles under the Indian Constitution and cited leading cases. The Counsel humbly answered the queries raised by the judges.
Counsel 2: The Co-Counsel dealt with the issue no. 3,4 and 6. She was confident and firm in her speech. She politely answered the queries of the judges and possessed good knowledge of the facts of the case. She cited the number of leading cases to strengthen her argument and promptly answered questions of the judges. At last, the Counsel gracefully settled all the queries and rested the case on the just of the court.

RESPONDENT

Counsel 1: The Counsel approached the dais and emphasised on the definition of Hinduism. Soon the judges started throwing questions on the counsel. He had good knowledge of facts and was confident and clear. The counsel referred to a number of provisions to make his contentions more clear. Intensive discussions took place between the Counsel and the judges. In the ending, the judges diverted from the main contention which took a lot of time.
Counsel 2: The Counsel started with her contentions before the court confidently, with clarity and politely. She possessed good knowledge of facts. She cited a number of cases to strengthen her case. She tried to satisfy the judges at her best.
The Counsel exercised her right of sub-rebuttal with excellence.

COURTROOM NO. : 3
TC 27 (Petitioner) v. TC 74(Respondent)

PETITIONER

Oralist 1: The judges listened vigilantly to the facts of the case. The Counsel was calm, confident and crisp in her pleading. She was well versed with the facts of the authorities cited. Proper court etiquettes and time management was maintained. The Hon’ble bench was convinced with the arguments done.

Oralist 2: The Counsel quickly proceeded with his issues. An array of questions was asked by the bench to which the Counsel answered confidently.
The facts stated were precise and the pleading was concluded with the prayer.

RESPONDENT

Oralist 1: The Counsel started with great composure, confidence and was fluent in his pleading. The Hon’ble bench seemed quite impressed with the arguments being put forth.
Oralist 2: A fluent and uninterrupted start of Co-Counsel for the respondents along with a proper citation of case laws was great. The grilling by the judges was handled by the counsel humbly and calmly.
Rebuttals were handled tactfully by both the teams.

COURTROOM NO.:4
TC 22(Petitioner) V. TC 28(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

Oralist1: The Counsel humbly sought permission to move towards the  dais.The judges threw an array of questions which were answered by the Counsel confidently. She explained the facts with impressive instances. The judges challenged the arguments on grounds of facts, However, she answered all the queries with confidence.

Oralist 2: The Co-Counsel approached the dais and started off with the arguments fluently and confidently. All the questions raised by the judges were answered easily by the Counsel, who were courteous and humble. The question answer round went on for some time and ended with an effective rebuttal.

RESPONDENTS

Oralist1- The Counsel approached the dais on behalf of the respondent.The judges asked her to elaborate the held of the case law cited by her to which she could not answer. Judges were not convinced with her arguments and asked her to proceed further. The Counsel seemed confused and lacked in basic knowledge of the law. She was grilled to the core and seemed to get flustered and was finally asked to conclude.

Oralist2-  The Co-Counsel approached the dais confidently which gradually faded away.S he was confused with the moot propositions and lacked knowledge of the law. She failed to answer the queries raised by the judges.Also, her style of arguing was vague and casual. Eventually, judges ask her to conclude it. The did not give her any opportunity surrebuttals

COURTROOM NO.:5
TC 42 (Petitioner) v. TC 40 (Respondent)

PETITIONERS

The Counsel started by stating the facts of the case law cited. The Hon’ble bench grilled the Counsel with multiple fundamental and applicable questions but the counsel did not lose his calm and tried to answer them tactfully but could not manage the time properly.

RESPONDENTS

The council is grilled with multiple questions by the Hon’ble bench as soon as she started, the Counsel courteously answered them using genuine facts and kept up with her pace. She was well composed and confident. The team satisfied the Hon’ble bench with their strong arguments.

 

COURTROOM NO.:6
TC 58 (Petitioner) v.TC 13(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

Oralist 1- The counsel was confident and had a fair knowledge of the case facts. His arguments were researched and fairly detailed. Though, he was not much confident with his arguments yet succeeded in satisfying the bench.
Oralist 2- The Co-Counsel was confident but not convincing with his arguments. He was not able to maintain the diction of his voice and failed to put forward a strong case. He cited a few case laws and was not in accordance with the courtroom demeanour.
The petitioners exercised their rights to rebuttals

RESPONDENTS

Oralist 1- The Counsel was very confident and well appraised with the case facts. Her arguments were strong, well researched and composed. She had clarity and was well acquainted with the moot proposition.
Oralist 2- The Co-Counsel was fluent and well versed with the case laws and related jurisdictions. His arguments were fairly detailed and very convincing.
The respondents effectively exercised their rights to surrebuttals.

COURTROOM NO.:7
TC 55 (Petitioner) v.TC 10(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

Oralist 1:The Counsel was confident, courteous and presented her arguments along with the relevant authorities.The judges were satisfied with her arguments.
Oralist 2: The Co-Counsel got confused by the continuous questions asked by the honourable judges. The honourable judges were not  satisfied with the arguments presented by the Counsel.
The petitioners exercised their right to rebuttals and they did it tremendously.

RESPONDENTS

Oralist 1: The Counsel spoke hastily.The honourable judges grilled the Counsel and he was unable to present his arguments with clarity.
Oralist 2: The Co-Counsel had court etiquettes.The honourable judges grilled the Co-Counsel even before the pleading could be started.The Counsel could not satisfy the bench with the arguments.

The respondents exercised their right to surrebuttal but could not present their arguments clearly.

COURT ROOM NO.:8
TC 51 (Petitioner) v.TC 65(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

The Counsel was confident and well versed with the facts but misinterpreted  the articles related to the moot proposition as per the hon’ble bench and could not cite any relevant case laws in support of the arguments. The Counsel was polite and courteous and had knowledge of law. The hon’ble bench inquired about the evidences and threw  contrary argument but the counsel could not satisfy the court by arguments. The petitioner exercised their right to rebuttals effectively.

  RESPONDENTS

The counsel laid down the arguments confidently. The counsel was fast in his arguments. The hon’ble bench asked the counsel to address the court at a moderate speed. The counsel mentioned a few case laws in support of the argument. The counsel was presenting the recent judgements in support of the arguments. Time was very well managed by the respondents . The hon’ble bench was well satisfied with the arguments given by the counsel.

The respondents were able to present surrebuttals.

COURT ROOM NO.:9
TC 04 (Petitioner) v.TC 21(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

The counsel started with confidence and argued on the facts and laws points related to the cases. The judges asked questions that required a good legal backing however the counsel was unable to provide satisfactory answers.

RESPONDENTS

The counsel was not clear with the facts of the moot proposition.The judges asked for clarification which was satisfactory.

COURT ROOM NO.: 10
TC 71 (Petitioner) v.TC 07(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

Oralist 1: The Counsel is loud but is speaking a bit too fast. He encounters a roadblock in the beginning and wasted time clarifying his rocky start. As the time passed his lack in clarity of thoughts and expression could be seen. Though he knew the case laws,  he failed to clearly answer the questions. He underwent the grilling and took a substantial 4 minute extension before summarizing the case.

The Co-Counsel was fairly audible and clear but failed to take pauses in between the  sentences. He was well versed with the case and the principles but his references to his memorials were quite weak.

Their rebuttal was good and well explained.

RESPONDENTS

Oralist1:The Counsel started with good expressions and clarity. The lordships grilled the counsel with regards to empowering all and not a specific category of women in the society. His answers contained more opinions and less facts. The judges continued enquiring about the Counsel’s  intentions but received generalized and unsatisfactory answers. He took a 2 minute extension without the judge’s permission.

Oralist 2: The Counsel started confidently and was well versed with the facts. He was unable to answer the queries sufficiently in the beginning but subsequently started to falter. The judges questioned him continuously making it difficult for the Counsel to manage the queries with discussing all the issues.

The perspective with which they handled the sur rebuttal was good consisting couple of facts.

COURT ROOM NO.11
TC 15 (Petitioner) v.TC 02(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

Both the Counsels were confident and well-spoken. They strongly put forth their arguments, and had clarity of thought. Moreover, there was proper mixture of facts and authorities.

RESPONDENTS

Both the Counsels were confident, however, they took pauses often. They cited many authorities. The conduct of the second Co-Counsel was rather informal.

COURT ROOM NO.12
TC 12 (Petitioner) v.TC 72(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

Oralist1:The Counsel  started her arguments in very confident manner. She had a good knowledge of law ,her ingenuity and ability to answer the question was pretty good. Proper court ethics were followed.
Oralist 2: The Co-Counsel  had convincing speaking skills, the use of authorities were  properly made, and the judges seemed to be satisfied with the answers.

RESPONDENTS

Oralist: The Counsel had presented her arguments in a very confident manner however she fumbled a lot while speaking, although the knowledge of law was good she was unable to answer fundamental question asked by the Bench .Co-Counsel had good knowledge of facts ,but there were no citation of authorities. Proper courtroom ethics were observed Co-Counsel.

COURT ROOM NO.13
TC 39 (Petitioner) v.TC 56(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

Oralist 1:The was very fluent and confident . However in the due course of action the oralist lost tempo and got  swayed away by the questions put up by the judges.
Oralist 2: Co-Counsel was confident in the beginning as well but once the questions of law were put forth it lead to the loss of confidence.

RESPONDENTS

Oralist 1: The Counsel was very able to satisfy the court from the very beginning. The arguments were done with proper court manners and with utmost confidence.
Oralist 2 : The Co-Counsel was extremely well versed with the authorities.The  extreme confidence of the oralist helped him in dealing with all the questions of the judges.

 

COURT ROOM NO.14
TC 47 (Petitioner) v.TC 33(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

Oralist 1: The counsel approached the dais  with courtesy and was well mannered. The judge asked him to start with the arguments. He looked nervous but kept forward the arguments in a composed manner. He was being grilled by the judges and was unable to wrap up his arguments. The judges seemed to be partially satisfied.
Oralist 2: The Co-Counsel started with a loud and confident voice. The judge began with the question and answer round. She concluded with the prayer.

RESPONDENTS

Oralist1: The Counsel started with confidence and maintained a good temperament. The judges vigilantly listened to the arguments advanced. The judges interrupted her with queries regarding the doctrines and she was unable to answer them. Moving forward with her next argument she did not seem to be well prepared and judges looked unsatisfied.
Oralist 2: The Co-Counsel started with his arguments in an effective manner.
He presented the arguments calmly. He was being grilled by the judges and he looked nervous while responding. He proceeded with his next argument.  The judges seemed to be unsatisfied with his answers.

 

COURT ROOM NO.15
TC 52 (Petitioner) v.TC 37(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

Oralist-1 The Counsel had a very good knowledge of law and was fully acquainted with the facts of the case.

Oralist 2-The Co-Counsel had a very good knowledge of law and cited many relevant authorities.

RESPONDENTS

Oralist-1 The Counsel had a very good knowledge of law and was fully acquainted with the facts of the case.

Oralist 2-The Co-Counsel knew all the facts and cited relevant case laws as well..

COURT ROOM NO.16
TC 67 (Petitioner) v.TC 45(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

Oralist-1: The Counsel was calm and confident while arguing. The judges grilled the Counsel on her arguments which made her nervous and fumble a bit.She was well mannered and courteous. The Counsel sought for extension and was granted the same.
Oralist-2: The co-counsel seemed a bit nervous while proceeding with her arguments but quickly calmed down and continued confidently. She was well versed with the facts and was able to satisfy the judges with her answers.
The counsel exercised their right of rebuttals.

RESPONDENTS

Oralist-1: The Counsel for respondent has started off and has not shown any sign of nervousness when subjected to heavy grilling, but the judges did not seem satisfied with the answers provided. The Counsel looked fluttered. Series of questions continued from the side of judges.
Oralist2: The co-counsel directly started with his arguments by stating precedents in support of the same. He also cited various authorities to back his issues and was confident and clear about the facts. With the continuous bombardment of questions the speaker was getting agitated and tried to keep his nerves calm.
The co-counsel gave counter-arguments to the points of rebuttals raised.

 

JUDGES FELICITATION

As we know day 2 began with great hustle and bustle, and vivacity in the campus with all the participating teams geared up to present their labour in the preliminary rounds.
Both the preliminary rounds involved loads of brain storming and proved like a battleground from where the best teams shined out like a sword from an armour.
The event was then headed by judges felicitation who contributed in both the rounds by their intellectual assistance and valuable time.
The Judges being for the preliminary rounds were :
1. Mr. Vaibhav Uniyal
2. Mr. Sutikshan Sharma
3. Mr. S. Anand
4. Mr. Yatharth Nautiyal
5. Mr. Razit Sharma
6. Mr. Rajat Dua
7. Ms. Ruby Yadav
8. Mr. Aishwarjya Borbora
9. Dr. Anil Dixit
10. Mr. Abhijay Negi
11. Mr. Vaibhav Goel
12. Ms. Ritagya Riti
13. Dr. L.S.Rawat
14. Mr. Kushal Sharma
15. Mr. Rachit Verma
16. Mr. Praneet Singh
17. Ms. Aradhya
18. Mr. Aishverya Shandilya
19. Mr. Abhiranjan Dixit
20. Mr. Shantnu Gaur
21. Mr. Ramakant Tripathi
22. Mr. Kunal Dey
23. Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Singh
24. Mr. Saaheil Sharma
25. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan
26. Ms. Deepika Sharma
27. Ms. Aruna Negi
28. Mr. Vaibhav Jain
29. Mr. Sushim Shukla
30. Ms. Pallavi Ghai
31. Mr. Saurabh Gautam
32. Mr. Nishant Kumar

Further, the day advanced with great fervor, with 8 out of 32 teams going all guns blazing into the quarter finals . Felicitation of the Judges along with exchange of memorials preceded the quarter finals. The Judge’s panel for quarter finals consisted of :

1. Dr. Ashish Verma
2. Mr. Deepak Chauhan
3. Dr. Shikha Dimri
4. Mr. Alok Pundir
5. Mr. Shashank Pandey
6. Ms. Simi pal
7. Mr. Naved Akhtar
8. Mr. Nishant Chaturvedi

 

QUARTER FINAL ROUNDS

COURT ROOM NO. 1
TC 13 (Petitioner) v. TC 22 (Respondent)


PETITIONERS

Oralist 1: The Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, approached the dais with the permission of the bench and started the arguments directly as the bench was well versed with the facts of the case. The speaker looked confident, fluent and calm. The counsel was grilled before the start of the 2nd issue. The counsel stuck at a tricky query but managed to proceed tactfully. At the same time, the queries from the bench seemed to take the petitioners by surprise.T he bench inquired about the law points which were mentioned in their compendium. the oralist was very well able to satisfy the bench the witty analogy of her answers. She was able to manage the time properly.

Oralist 2:The bench granted permission to the Co-Counsel. Co-Counsel appeared  before the hon’ble court and laid down the structure in which he would proceed with his arguments.  Co-Counsel sought permission to directly proceed with his arguments, which were granted by the bench. The counsel tried to establish the  4th submission and the bench enlightened the counsel to overlook the law being stated by him. The counsel faces some poignant questions assertively. The counsel looked a bit confused as the bench tried to help the counsel by hinting towards the correct line of argument. He was able to manage the time properly and concluded with prayer.

RESPONDENTS

Oralist 1: The counsel began her arguments confidently and assertively. She was loud, clear and kept the bench engrossed in the arguments. The bench asked them to first brief additional issues and then move forward. The counsel asked to argue legally and not emotionally. The oralist seemed confused and the bench asked the oralist to recheck the jurisdiction under 32 & 139 A. The bench dropped numerous hints to guide counsel to correct the submission in her argument. There was continuous questioning by the bench and the counsel was struggling to establish the 1st issue. The bench was very critical about the sections mentioned on the issue. The bench caught a minor bluff given by the oralist  in her arguments. The bench was not satisfied with the argument raised and the answers given . The speaker wrapped up arguments indicating a sense of nervousness.

Oralist 2: The Co-Counsel started her argument and seemed a little anxious. The arguments reflected weak research work. The counsel was not well versed with the facts and arguments presented. As  Co-Counsel made the submission, the judges were not satisfied with the cases cited as they did not know the exact citation of the cases. There was a continuous passing of chits done by her counsel so that her co-counsel could proceed with the argument. Although Co-Counsel was subjected to a lot of questions, she stood calm, composed and tried to handle them with utmost ease at the initial stage. However later she became confused and apologised. The questions that were put forward by the bench were quite straightforward, and they were looking for precise answers.
Rebuttals from both sides were not satisfactory.

 

COURT ROOM NO. 2
TC 12(Petitioner) v. TC 15(Respondent)

PETITIONERS

The counsel was precise and confident. She was at ease while she was providing the bench with arguments. The speaker was courteous and put forth her contention, which was backed by various authorities and judicial precedents. The speaker took the help of numerous landmark cases to support her arguments and drew nexus from them in reference to her points of contention. Counsel instead derailing from her issues presented her case in a very direct manner so as to drive home the point and not beat around the bush. Though the speaker spoke confidently, she fumbled when questions were put forward by the Hon’ble bench. The counsel was unable to explain the queries and got confused by the questions.

Co-Counsel was fluent with the arguments.Th e speaker gave hints of nervousness. The pivotal point of the argument was the violation of Article 14. Support from case laws was taken by the speaker to prove her point. The counsel seems very agitated, which could be seen in her constant swaying while pleading on the dais. The speaker fumbled a lot and stammered while arguing. The speaker was not asked any questions regarding her issues.
Co-Counsel exercised her right to rebuttal. The speaker dissects the arguments of the respondents one by one and creates doubt on the part of their adversaries.

RESPONDENTS

The counsel started by clarifying their stand in regard to the case and proceeding further by stating that since there was no violation of fundamental rights the petition by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners was not maintainable. The speaker was polite and calm but presented his case vehemently. The speaker at the spur of the moment switched to informal manner instead of formal speech but quickly returned to the track. Reference of authorities in support of the arguments was delivered by the speaker. The speaker wrapped up his arguments within time.
Co-Counsel was confident and strong in presenting her case, and the same was reflected in her dealings with the issue. The demeanour of the speaker was calm and showed no signs of any nervousness. The etiquette of the speaker was courteous and then she asked for permission to proceed with her next arguments every time she wrapped up the issue at hand. The determination to prove her point could clearly be seen in the modulation of her tone. No questions were put forth by the Hon’ble bench.
The counsel exercised their right to sur rebuttals. The speaker gave counterarguments for each of the points raised by their adversaries. The speaker points out a contradiction on the part of the counsel for the petitioners and used it for their own advantage to prove their own point. The speaker revolved around just one point and did not enumerate other points. The speaker also pointed out a mistake in the prayer of the petitioners.

 

COURT ROOM NO. 3
TC 33 (Petitioner) v. TC 40 (Respondent)

PETITIONER

Oralist 1: The speaker started off with great composure. Hon ‘ble bench asked the counsel to lay down the structure of the issues before proceeding with the facts of the case. The Hon’ble bench interrupted midway and asked the counsel to stick to the facts and main issue i.e., about 33% reservations as counsel were getting deviated from the main and highlighted issues of the moot proposition. The judges asked the counsel to maintain his composure and to begin afresh.The Hon’ble bench interrogated the sovereignty of Indica and also about the involvement of foreign countries in the workings of Parliament to which the response of counsel was direct and satisfactory. The counsel took permission to proceed with the last issue i.e., in which the counsel addressed the court about the Hindu agenda. The counsel proceeded  to the ‘Whistleblower act’ and was trying to explain what the whistleblower act was and therefore the Hon’ble bench cross-questioned the counsel to relate his argument to the present case.
 
Oralist 2: The speaker started very politely and confidently. Before the start of the proceedings the Hon’ble bench posed a couple of questions before the counsel and then the council answered it very humbly. The court asked the counsel to explain the locus of the case in which the counsel was unable to explain.  Hon ’ble bench asked the counsel to state any two fundamental rights that have been violated in this case. Article 14 and Article 19 were explained by the counsel in reply to the question of Hon’ble court. The counsel further seeks permission from the court to move to the 2nd issue of Article 19(2) talking about reasonable restrictions and further counsel presented in the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India in support of the argument. Further, the counsel dealt with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The counsel also stated two more cases i.e Indra Sahni v. Union of India and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, where the counsel stated that the election should be free.The Hon’ble bench was once again interrupted in between interrogating that as in the present scenario every political party favours nepotism and further the court asked the counsel to state any other way other than the present impugned law. The counsel spoke confidently because the judges were not eventually satisfied with the conclusion.

RESPONDENT

Oralist 1: Counsel started off very politely and courteously, and he was confident in his gestures before the bench. At the outset, Hon ‘ble bench asked the counsel to state that “whether sting operations should be considered or not? to which the counsel replied in affirmation. The counsel further dealt with the issue of communal riots due to the hate speeches were given by the women members of Parliament. The counsel seemed well versed with the facts while dealing with the Public Interest Litigation filed in Dehri High Court and in the Supreme Court of Indica by Dr. Swain and Ms. Fatima Ghansari, respectively. The Hon’ble bench interrupted in between and interrogated the counsel, asking for a better way to empower women apart from 33% reservation in Parliament. The counsel in turn stated that empowerment is important with reservation and further stated the difference between equity and equality when asked by the Hon’ble bench in relation to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The counsel also dealt with the Whistle Blowers Act, to which the Hon’ble bench asked the counsel if Ms.Fatima Ghansari was a whistleblower or not, for which the counsel denied and also pleaded against Ms. Fatima Ghansari’s protection.

ORALIST 2: The counsel started off in an extremely humble and confident manner. The counsel started arguments relating the issues and 33% reservations in particular with a patriarchal society. The Hon’ble bench asked the counsel to state the locus of petitioner for which the counsel denied stating that the argument was arbitrary to which the Hon’ble Court refused. Further, the counsel argued that there was no violation of Art. 14 taking the support of grounds of equality . The Hon’ble court, by citing others like laws that were being misused by women to some extent, questioned the fairness of this particular reservation that the moot proposition deals with. The counsel ended the argument eloquently and the bench was quite satisfied with her arguments.

 

COURTROOM NO.4
TC 11 (Petitioner) v. TC 45 ( Respondent)

PETITIONER

Oralist 1: The counsel started the proceedings in an organized manner and guided the Hon’ble Judges through his written submissions. He submitted a strong argument regarding legislation over 33% reservations for women in Parliament, which convinced the bench on a particular point. His knowledge of the facts regarding the moot problem was very cogent. He was also asked about the Basic Structure of the Constitution and the concept of secularism. The counsel was able to convince the bench over the issue of the Whistleblower Act and whether the petitioner deserved protection under the Act. He concluded all the issues and summarized them in a comprehensive manner that impressed the judges.

Oralist 2: The counsel was well versed with the facts. Counsel was polite and courteous. Further, she enlightened the judges about the issues. The counsel answered questions eloquently. She explained the Basic Structure Doctrine effectively. She elaborated on the differences between the concept of Separation of Power in the U.S. Constitution and the Indian Constitution.


RESPONDENTS

Oralist 1: The first speaker approached the dais. As the speaker  started throwing a trail of queries.While he started confidently there was a grilling by the judges, he gained enough confidence and argued marvelously. While supporting his arguments with proper authorities and satisfactorily answered the questions posed by the judges . The judges also seemed to applaud the reasoning of the council and asked for more case laws to rely their judgment upon.
Oralist 2: The 2nd counsel was fluent with regards to his contentions about the Whistleblower Act and the case laws relating to the basic structure of the Constitution. His logical arguments along with his style and posture impressed the judges.No sign of uneasiness was shown by the counsel in spite of the trail of queries being thrown at him.

 

MEMORIAL EXCHANGE

With much joy and excitement after the result declaration and memorial exchange, 4 best teams (TC: 11,13,15 and 40) progressed for the semi-finals to be held tomorrow at 8 AM.

We wish Good Luck to the teams who would be fighting the real battle tomorrow … hope the best team wins !!! Also, stay tuned for more updates!!

7th Oct. 2018 (DAY 3)

SEMI_FINALS

Day 3 began with a whole lot of vigour and enthusiasm, as all the 4 qualifying teams were minded to go for the semi-final rounds. It won’t be wrong to say that the teams had to go through a tough time to reach this point.

COURT ROOM NO.1
TC 40 (Petitioner) v. TC 13 (Respondent)

PETITIONERS

The counsel greeted the hon’ble bench and seeked permission to approach the dais.After the introduction of the team,the Counsel presented a brief summary of facts in a calm and composed manner. The judges imposed a direct question regarding the invocation of jurisdiction of the hon’ble court under Article 32 and raised a query why the petition was submitted under Article 226. The bench did not seem much satisfied with the arguments presented by the Counsel and asked her to be clear about the factual points. Further,the judges started throwing a trail of queries back to back , to which initially the Counsel became little nervous but soon came back to action with confidence. The judges continued with the grilling session and pointed out a contradiction in the arguments presented by the Counsel to which the Counsel logically replied.But the arguments by the Counsel could not be concluded on a very positive note as she fizzled to answer a very basic question related to the whistleblower’s act. The Co-Counsel apprised the Hon’ble bench with the issues she would be dealing with and proceeded with her arguments confidently.The Co-Counsel laid emphasis on her pivotal legal point that equality should prevail.The Co-Counsel pointed out an issue at which the judges didn’t seem to concur and tested the counsel for the same by continuous questioning. The nervousness and agitation was clearly visible on the part of the Co-Counsel due to the non-stop grilling and now she tried to convince the bench hastily with her arguments. Due to the constant trail of queries the counsel could not wrap up her arguments within the time limit and sought for an extension of a minute which was granted by the judges. The counsel presented her rebuttals on three grounds.

RESPONDENTS

The counsel approached the dais and informed the judges as to the issues that would be dealt by her. She then proceeded by citing relevant facts as to why the petition was not maintainable in the court, but the bench did not seemed to be convinced and put forth counter arguments for the same. The grilling began and the counsel was trapped in her own net. The Counsel was left speechless for a few moments. The bench asked her to proceed with her next issue. The counsel did not seem to be prepared for the questions brought forward by the hon’ble

bench. The counsel proceeded and pointed out that the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners was not correct and brought points to prove the same. The counsel failed to answer the questions of the bench, and who were not satisfied with the arguments.She couldn’t keep calm due to the constant questions being posed to her and therefore failed to conclude her arguments within time and was granted an extension of a minute to sum it up. The co-counsel started by informing the hon’ble bench regarding the issues that he would deal in his arguments.The judges questioned him on the intricacies of Whistle Blower Act ,but the counsel did not able to understand the question properly and isn’t able to satisfy the judges. The judges also advised the counsel not to digress from his point and clearly state legal arguments in regard to his issues. The counsel seeks ignorance for the lack of knowledge regarding questions raised by the judges. There was a bit of commotion regarding flagging in the compendiums. The judges didn’t seem satisfied by the arguments of counsel. The counsel is not able to wrap his arguments within time and is not allowed an extension of time.The counsel exercised her right to sur-rebuttals and presented her counterargument.
COURT ROOM NO.2
TC 15 (Petitioner) v. TC 11 (Respondent)

PETITIONERS

Counsel – The Court began at 9:45 A.M. and the counsel humbly approached the dias to begin with his arguments. He dealt with the first three issues of his written submissions. Though he was grilled with a lot of factual based questions in the beginning, he was able to confidently address to the queries of the Hon’ble Bench. He was also asked to explain the relation between Article 13 and Article 32 of the Constitution. The judges also inquired about the arbitrariness analysis under Article 14 and the background of Reasonable Classification and intelligible differentia under the Article. The Counsel’s replies about the objectives of reservation for women were vague and could not satisfy the judges on the same point. He referred to the right of male members of the community to defend his argument that the law of reservation should be struck down on grounds of inequality. The Counsel then tried to prove the amendment in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, specifically for women as unconstitutional on the ground that the criteria for women under it was very limited as compared to males whose freedom of speech could be curtailed on many other grounds. The Bench then informed the Counsel that “Public Order” was also a restriction under Article 19(2) which could easily regulate the Hate Speeches that the women parliamentarians were accused of and there was no reason that the law should be struck down.

Co-counsel- The counsel started his pleadings over the issue of the Whistleblower Act and argued upon the protection that Mrs. Fatima Ghansari should have got under the Act. He acquainted the court with the facts dealing with the Hate Speeches that the women of the Parliament delivered about the minority of the country that created an environment of dissatisfaction and differences in the country. The bench questioned him about the theory of Sovereignty as a legal concept as perfected by John Austin. He confidently answered to the query as to how the impugned law destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution. However, towards the end he got a bit aggressive due to the constant grilling of the judges.

RESPONDENT

Counsel : the counsel approached the dais and aggressively began with the issues of the case. He enlightened the judges with the background of the case and created an favourable atmosphere in his favour. He specifically emphasised on the ideals of equality under Art. 14 of Constitution. But the judges seemed disturbed and asked about the idea of democracy being hampered by the reservation to women. To this the counsel pleaded that if a law is being misused then it cannot form the ground for it being stricken down. To this the judges questioned the protection of fundamental rights of other being violated by this law. The counsel also cited the evil intention of members of Wrongrace party behind bringing up the PIL. He also pleaded that speeches on religious grounds does not amount to anti-secular agenda.

Co-Counsel : The counsel humbly approached the dais and started her pleading by clarifying the queries and objections of the judges being raised by them to the first counsel. After satisfying the court with her arguments, she began with her submissions. The counsel pleaded that the purpose of enacting women reservation is to ensure positive discrimination and not negative one. She stated that the principles of egalitarian state are the core concern of the respondent. She also referred to a number of leading cases to strengthen her arguments. She also pointed out that the petitioner wants to suppress the development of women by opposing their reservation at higher level. The counsel also cited the famous doctrines of the constitution to defend the law passed by the Union of Indica. Here the judges pointed out that the news channels are in the pocket of the Sub-rebuttals: she outstated all the arguments of the petitioner in a crisp and enlightened manner.

After the Semifinal there was a felicitation of the judges who gave us their valuable time and made us feel privileged with their presence. The Judge’s panel for the Semi-finals composed of:

  • C.S. Tiwari
  • Pramod Tiwari
  • Ajar Rab
  • Aman Rab
  • Chitra Nagpal
  • Prasanjeet Mohapatra

FINALS 

The Judges seemed to be all interested to find new arguments and gauge the participant’s legal acumen.  After the law battle, the teams which managed to crack for the final round were Hidayatullah National Law University & School of Excellence in Law, Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University and then there was an exchange of memorials took place for Final Round.

You can check the video of the final rounds at – https://www.facebook.com/lcdmcs

 

DECLARATION OF RESULT & VALEDICTORY CEREMONY

The valedictory ceremony commenced with the welcome speech of Ms Mehrul Arora, Secretary Administration, Moot Court Society, Law College Dehradun. Later, Prof. Dr. Rajesh Bahuguna, Principal and Dean, LCD took the stage to welcome all the Chief Guests of the National Moot Court Competition who were Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India and Former Chairperson, National Green tribunal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Tandon, Chairman, Law Commission Uttarakhand and Former Judge, Uttarakhand High Court, Mr. Shammi Khan, Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun and Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India and also Chancellor, Uttaranchal University Sh. Jitendra Joshi, Vice-chancellor Prof. Dr N.K Joshi and Mr Abhishek Joshi, Director, S.A. and I.T. Services, Uttaranchal University.
Dr Bahuguna enlightened the gathering with the vision and purpose of Uttaranchal University and specifically Law College Dehradun. He also appreciated the efforts of the Moot Court Society in organizing such an event in the college and blessed the entire organizing committee for their help and support. He requested Hon’ble Chancellor Shri Jitendra, Uttaranchal University to felicitate all the Chief Guests on the occasion. This was followed by the Traditional Lightening of the Lamp as a tribute to Mother Saraswati.
Ms Mehrul Arora then requested all the Chief Guests to address the gathering.

MR. SHAMMI KHAN

He mentioned that it is a matter of great pride and honour to be a part of National Moot Court 2018 of Law College Dehradun and congratulated all the participants and the winners of the competition who would be declared shortly.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH TANDON
He welcomed all the Chief Guests, Judges of the competition, Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor, Faculty members, Participants and Students of the College. He took a moment to thank Prof. Dr. Rajesh Bahuguna, Dean, Law College Dehradun for judging the final rounds of NMCC 2018 and for his kind gesture to invite him as a Judge and Chief Guest for the event.
Later he discussed about the importance of Article 32 of the Constitution of India which has made the Supreme Court, the guarantor or defender of fundamental rights of the citizens of the Country. He also mentioned that Uttarakhand has always taken a lead in matters of environmental concerns.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar

He welcomed all the guests, faculty members, participants from all the distinguished 32 institutions of the Nation and the media persons. He blessed the entire team of LCD which organized the National Moot Court Competition 2018 and mentioned that organizing such a competition is a very encouraging sign in itself. He then continued to congratulate the participants who were to be bestowed as Winners of NMCC 2018 along with all the other participants without whose efforts this competition wouldn’t have achieved its end and by whose advocacy skills, he was greatly impressed.
Before proceeding in his address to the gathering, he mentioned that it is a positive opportunity for him to share some of his ideas with everyone. He said that ‘It is not winning the prize that matters but courage and a sense of competition which is important for any student.’ He also explained it to the audience that though law is a prestigious and remunerative profession but losing is a part of this profession too. He also threw light over the role of teachers and parents in every student’s life who are the only two persons who claim pride in a student’s success He enlightened everyone by the fact that in the U.K Supreme Court, it is the professors who participate in the administration of Justice.
Law is the noblest profession and he advised the students not to ever underestimate the profession because high merit is required for it. Fundamentally, the profession of lawyers is a link between the administration of justice and the common man. In the recent times, even academia has formed an important aspect of development in India and it is in the teachers/professors’ external strength and exposition for which he admires them the most.
Giving stress to mediation, conciliation and other like counseling techniques to resolve the issues, he talked about Gandhiji who believed that a lawyer should make all efforts to compromise and strongly believed that when you try to resolve conflicts in such a manner, you may lose your friends, clients and others but you will never lose your conscience. He told the budding lawyers that there is a 3 H principle that everyone must follow- Honesty, Hard work and Humility. He shared his deep concern over the dependence of budding lawyers on laptops and computers and said that such devices are made by the human brain and not the human brain by such devices.
Lastly, he delved upon the environmental issues that have plagued the nation. He said that we have a country of rich heritage and principles and Uttarakhand is the most eco-sensitive region of the country. He added that the Indian constitution has an environmental triangle also including Art.48, 51 A (g) and 21. He ended his speech on the famous words of Late Mr Nanabhoy Palkhivala that there are two kinds of fool in this world; one who offer advice without being called for and the other is who hear the advice and do not follow it and that he belongs to the first category but expects the students not to belong to the second category.

WINNERS– HIDAYAT ULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR

RUNNERS-UP– SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW Dr AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY, TAMIL NADU

BEST SPEAKER MALE– GANTAV GUPTA, RGNUL PATIALA

BEST SPEAKER FEMALE– DEVIKA MALLICK, SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD

BEST RESEARCHER- TANYA SRIVASTAV, ARMY LAW INSTITUTE MOHALI.

BEST MEMORIAL– SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD

 

It was an amazing episode of our 3rd National Moot Court Competition,2018.

 

This Live Blogging was done by:
Ms. Anshu Yadav
assisted by
Mr. Krishna Rastogi and Ms. Saumya Dhyani

 

WE ARE PROUD TO HAVE LAWCTOPUS AS OUR MEDIA PARTNER 

 

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.