Live Blog: 1st “Vox Anatolis” National Moot Court Competition

So, here we see the National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam with their inaugural edition of ‘1st “Vox Anatolis” National Moot Court Competition.’ Witnessing a participation from all parts of the country, we are elated to host 25 teams this year from 1st March, 2019 to 3rd March, 2019. The first day would commence with the inaugural speech and the draw of lots followed by the Memorial exchange.

1st of March, 2019.

1625 hrs: The dignitaries have occupied the stage. The inauguration commences by witnessing a 2 minutes silence for the loss of CRPF Jawans in the Pulwana Attack.

1629 hrs: The event is graced by the presence of (Retd.) Js. B.K. Kataki and he is felicitated by the VC Prof. (Dr.) J.S. Patil. The VC is felicitated by the Faculty Advisor of the Mourt Court Committee, NLUJA, Mr. Ankur Madhia. He also felicitates the Registrar Mr. Miftauddin Ahmed.

1631 hrs: The dignitaries proceed to light the lamp. Lighting of the lamp signifies the lighting of the way from darkness to light and so do we believe.

The lamp is lit. the stage is set. The breathing is heavy. And the anticipation is at the pinnacle.

1632 hrs: Mr. Madhia addresses the crowd and expresses his pleasure on being given the chance to host such a plethora of participants. He talks about the time management in the competition and the importance of Moot Court Competitions in the life of litigation. The maiden edition of Vox Anatolis deals with the issue of citizenship faced in the North East. He hopes that the Competition comes out to be of great learning experience for all.

1637 hrs: The choir is invited to sing “Vaishnav Janato.”

1642 hrs: The beautiful bhajan comes to an end.

1642 hrs: The Vice Chancellor of NLUJAA is invited to address the gathering. He begins by addressing the issue of Indo-Pak issues present. He talks about the ‘mind game’ played by the countries and cheers for the safe return of Wing Commander Abhinandan! Victory can come by humble submission or by conquering the whole world. He emphasises on the latter. Justice shall prevail and the way the road is cut out, the mind game is very important. It is not about oration, but also a deep commitment to justice and truth. He talks about the challenges faced by the University being the sole National Law University in the North – East. He congratulated the Moot Court Committee for organizing such a competition and also talks about Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition. He wishes the teams luck and ends with his signature “Jai Hind!”

1652 hrs: Hon’ble Justice B. K. Kataki is invited to address the crowd. Js. Kataki is the present Chairman of Assam State Police Accountability Commission. He talks about his college days and mentions about his love and passion for cricket. He states that the law course was not taken up at the candidate’s choice. The idea of setting up National Law Universities in India was to create good lawyers. The jail inmates are too poor to engage a lawyer. A good lawyer serves the country, serves the people and serves the poor. There cannot be justice to all. Organizing these kinds of Moot Court Competitions is going to benefit the would-be lawyers. One must be a good listener as an advocate is a legal representative of the client. The client confides in the lawyer and hence, that is put forth to the Court of Law. Therefore, developing the art of listening is one of the prime necessities of being a good lawyer. He concludes on the note of hoping the competition to be a successful and spreads the message of the serving the society as a lawyer and thanks the University.

1705 hrs: The Convenor of the Moot Court Committee proposes the vote of thanks on behalf of the Committee and the University.

1706 hrs: The gathering proceeds for high tea.

1800 hrs: The draw of lot commences.

For the first preliminary rounds, we have:

Petitioner v. Respondent

  1. Dhubri Law College v. School of Excellence of Law, Chennai
  2. UPES, Dehradun v. Amity University, Kolkata
  3. Amity University, Chattisgarh v. TNNLS, Tiruchirapalli
  4. Royal Global Law School v. MNLU, Nagpur
  5. Amity University, Noida v. Reva University
  6. JIMS, Greater Noida v. CLC, Delhi
  7. USTM v. NUJS, Kolkata
  8. NEF, Guwahati v. SLS, Pune
  9. Assam University v. New Law College, BVP, Pune
  • HNLU, Chattisgarh v. LC 1, Delhi
  • NALSAR, Hyderabad v. SLS, Hyderabad
  • Christ University, Bangalore v. Prestige University, Indore
  • MNLU, Mumbai v. UILS, Punjab

For the second preliminary rounds, we have:

Petitioner v. Respondent

  1. Amity Law School, Kolkata v. Amity Law School, Noida
  2. Reva University v. NEF, Guwahati
  3. UILS, Punjab v. USTM
  4. LC 1 Delhi v. NALSAR, Hyderabad
  5. SLS, Pune v. JIMS
  6. NUJS, Kolkata v. Christ University, Bangalore
  7. CLC, Delhi v. Royal Global Law School, Guwahati
  8. MNLU, Nagpur v. HNLU, Chattisgarh
  9. TNNLS, Tiruchirapalli v. Dhubri Law College
  • SLS, Hyderabad v. UPES, Dehradun
  • New Law College, BVP, Pune v. Amity Law School, Chattisgarh
  • SOEL, Chennai v. Assam University
  • Prestige University, Indore v. MNLU, Mumbai

The first day ends with an elaborate dinner at 2000 hrs.

Day 2: 2nd of March, 2019

The judges have been briefed. The Courtrooms have been set. The memorials have been exchanged. Let the arguments begin!

Live from Courtroom Number 1:
Bench- Saptarshi Das , Irfan Hasieb
Teams- TC14 (Petitioner) vs TC 12 (Respondent)
Time- 11:04 am
The court thus, is in session as the Honourable bench has been ushered by the Court-in- Charge. The silence in the court room thus lingers while the honourable bench is in perusal of the memorials submitted before the bench.

Petitioner.
Speaker No.1 (11:10 am)
The first speaker on the behalf of the petitioner,aproches the bench with the due permission and is recused of the facts. But duly questioned over the jurisdiction of the present case. The honourable court also seeks into the jurisdiction. The agent thus is also questioned over the language of the issues raised and its modus formation. The counsel appearing seems fazed by the volley of questions and resorts towards statement of summary of arguments. The counsel delves now with the permission of the court to oblige with the first issue raised in this court. The honourable bench now questions the memorial as well and asks thus the reason for citing the judgement of the lower court to which the counsel then retorts to being similarity in the facts to which the judge thus says the court will not be bound by it.

The court has fired a number of questions over applicability of the laws mentioned namely UDHR and citizenship act to which the judge thus seems binding of both the laws. The acceptance of the same is also brought by the bench to the council. The grounds behind mentioning of Assam Accord is thus also brought to the agent to which the counsel answers vaguely.

The judge demands the compendium and thus also voices the concern of the bench upon non presentation of the same. The developmental aspect of the State of Pochinki is thus also of concern to the bench and questions now turn to applicability of the case law mentioned in the Keshavnanda Bharati v Union of India to which the counsel pleads ignorance. The Kameshki Accord is also facing a volley of questions and the signatory bodies of the same are thus also thus not seem to be accepted in the honourable court. The judge in the regard questions the binding nature of the accord. The political attention which seems to be the go to answer is thus questioned duly in this honourable court.

Speaker No.( 11:25)

The speaker with the due permission approaches the dais and thus seeks to start in a monotonous baritone and thus is subjected now to the very question on the nature of the issue framed and the acceptance of the language mentioned duly in the memorial. The Counsel unsuccessfully tries to pursued the judge but has not been able to do it. The Bill to which the argument has been based is thus subject to authority of the facts and the questions relies on
the efforts of the petitioner in the containing the porous border. The counsel falters during the same and thus is also in turn subjected to another volley of questions and the counsel remains silent. The Fourth issue upon deliberation of the bench is also brought before the court. The binding nature of the convention is brought to the questions. The counsel in turn remains silent and are clearly very much fazed. The last thirty seconds for the speaker on behalf of the petitioner and the agent tries to summarize but is facing another question to which

Respondent(11.:40)
Speaker 1
With the due permission the counsel thus seeks permission to present the issues. The counsel thus is asked by the court to contend the locus standi of the submission of the petitioner. The counsel with salutations and is brought to read Article 32 and Article 226. The first case law from the side of the respondent has been cited and the question of its wider connotation is brought the judge highlighted the preparedness of the researcher. The bench asks the counsel to move on to the pivotal issues. The citizenship amendment act and its historical nature of formation thus is mentioned by the court. The difference between refuge and asylum is brought by the bench to be answered by the counsel to which the researcher aids the speaker.

The court allows an extension of time and thus seems pretty satisfied up to now. The speaker seems in control and well versed with the facts as well as cases and statues cited. The counsel in the last thirty seconds seems to be speeding in turn to cover all the issues. The fundamental rights of the immigrants is thus questioned. To which the counsel answers successfully.

Speaker No.2
With the due permission the counsel thus seeks permission to present the issues, the counsel at present seeks to move to the presentation of the arguments. The counsel also thus brings to fore a book mentioning the Passport Act. The questions of the bench thus seem to be on thenature of the laws and its analogous nature to other laws and in the regard the counsel seems well versed. The counsel seeks to contend that that the respondent on this regard has powers to enact laws. The argument thus in this regard seems to be shifted towards the analogous of
the case towards state of Assam and judge thus also seeks clarification of the similar governmental parties at both the state and centre. The bench rejects the exhibits because the data seems vague. The data thus is not verifiable in this regard and the counsel also seems to be pressing to make the judge accept the data. Counsel in this regard values Kamekshi Accord as law to which the bench raises an objection the counsel seems fazed by the volley of questions and the researcher is thus trying to provide answers. The rebuttal rounds thus would begin.

Rebuttal (12:25)
The counsel answers that the suit is duly maintainable and thus the bench answers in affirmative. There seems to be no contention up to now over the memorial and the counsel duly continues. The counsel is using its time to clarify its own stand. The counsel contends religious bigotry and moves with the prayers. The counsel prays scraping of citizenship amendment act. The tribunals should also be set as prayed.

Sur Rebuttal (12:29)
The counsel seeks to raise questions but the bench seems to take objection to it. The bench also highlights need for the counsel in this regard to stick to contentions of the petitioner. The counsel seems to be repeating the points of the bench which has been duly objected twice unto now. The counsel thus seeks to move on the prayer. The counsel prays non maintainability, constitutional nature of passport act. The counsel thus also in this regard seeks to question the authority of the court and the judge seems fazed and warns of the contempt proceedings.

Session Ends.

 

Court Room No: 2
Bench: Manish Das and Satyam Saikia
Teams: TC 1 and TC 15 (Amity Kolkata and UPES)
TC 01 (Respondent)
TC 15 (Petitioner)
11:04: The Judges have approached the court room.
The judges warned the TC 15 for being late.

(TC 15)
Counsel 1

11:15: TC 15 approaches the dais. Counsel 1 discusses the issue 1 &2. Counsel 1 speaker is confidently speaking and putting forward her points. The Counsel 1 is continue to speak confidently without any hesitation and is showing a very good research which she has done and the amount of hard work. Counsel 1 is well aware with citizenship and the amendment act and is showing a good research on the topic. The counsel 1 is well aware with abundant number of precedent cases to support her cases. The judges are agreeing. Also counsel 1 is well aware with the principles, charters and the Indian constitution.

11:23: Five minutes left. Judge 2 ask the counsel a basic question which she tries to tackle very cleverly and is successful in her effort to answer cleverly to tackle the question. But the judge is not agreeing to her answer but still the counsel is trying her best to pursue to the judge.

11:27: 2 minutes left. The judge is explaining his question to the counsel which the counsel understood and is trying to explain her best with lots of articles of the constitution and precedent cases. But still the judge is not satisfied with the answer. This shows that the counsel is trying to repeat the same things but is unable to make her point. So the counsel is unable to convince the judges.
11:31 the counsel is permitted to take another 1 minute as the time is over. The counsel is speaking very fast and is trying to summarize all the points. The 1 minute is over and so the counsel 1 is quickly summarizing all her points.

Counsel 2

11:32: TC 15 counsel 2 approaches the dais. The counsel 2 is dealing with the remaining issues. Counsel 2 seems to be confident is well aware with what she is speaking and dealing. Counsel 2 is using lots of precedent to support her points. The counsel is well aware with what the local problem is so using that in her advantage. The judges ask her a very tricky and critical analysis question which the counsel 2 is trying to answer confidently. The judges were grilling the counsel 2 but the counsel is very good in terms of tackling the challenge put forward by the judge. The judges is asking tough questions which the counsel is answering confidently but is still not successful in convincing the judges. The judges became able to trap the counsel in a tough question and the counsel slowly loses her confidence and so the other teammates help her through passing the chits. The judges are not convinced. The counsel loses her confidence but her confidence comes back as she moves forward to another issue.

11:43: Five minutes left. The counsel increases her speed to explain all the issues. Judge 1 ask the counsel a very hard question which she is again trying to explain confidently but the judge 2 is again try to grill her but this time the counsel is cleverly trying to answer and is being to explain the question. The judges are convinced this time.
11:46: The TC 15 says its prayer. The judges were finally not convinced with the prayer due to some faults in the prayer.

TC 01

Counsel 1

11:48: The counsel 1 approaches the dais. The counsel 1 is speaking confidently. The issues 1 and 2 will be dealt by the counsel 1 and the last issue 3 will be dealt by counsel 2. The counsel 1 is speaking confidently and is putting forward his point confidently. The counsel makes a fact with which the judge is not convinced and then the counsel tries to tackle the question which the judge is asking. He is unable to explain and the judge is not convinced. Judge1 ask a very basic question but counsel is unable the answer in that moment. The counsel is trying their best to explain his fact with compendiums and books. But still the judges were still not convinced. The counsel is speaking confidently but he is still unable to explain his case to judges and both the judges are not convinced.
11:56: The judges ask a question to the counsel and the counsel is tries to cleverly try to tackle it but the judges is unconvinced. The counsel moves to the next issue. The judge 2 again points out a mistake to which the counsel is unable to answer any question and so has to rest an argument.
12:00: 5 Minutes left. But the judge is still grilling the counsel. The teammates through chit help the counsel. Then the counsel refers to a case in the compendium.
12:02: The counsel moves to another issue and is speaking confidently. Lots of chits are being passed.
12:03 only 2 minutes left to wrap up. So the counsel moves on to discuss the next issue. Before wrapping the judges ask the counsel a question to which the counsel put his point very cleverly to which the judges are convinced.
12:06: The time is over.

Counsel 2

12: 07: The counsel 2 arrives and starts speaking confidently. And is explaining issue 3. She seems to be well aware with the principles, Indian constitution and precedents. The counsel seems well versed and well researched. The counsel seems to be tensed but still is speaking confidently.
12:10 the judge 2 ask the counsel about a judgment to which the counsel is unable to answer anything because she is unaware of the fact in the judgment. The counsel is tensed and is slowly losing her confidence. The counsel fails to put forward his statement. And so moves forward to the next argument. The counsel is unable to answer basic set of questions asked by the judges and again moves to another argument where she again fails to convince the judges.
12:15 the counsel 2 places her prayer. To which the judges are convinced.

Rebuttals
12:16 the TC 15 approaches the dais and raises a very tricky issue in front of the petitioner on the rights of the indigenous people.
12:17 the TC 01 approaches the dais and tries to answer the tricky issue confidently and is able to convince the judges.

 

Courtroom Number 4.
Hon’ble Bench comprising of Ms. Juri Goswami and Mr. Gaurab J Sharma.
(Petitioner) Royal Global School, Guwahati v. (Respondent) Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur.

1115: The arguments commence sharp at quarter past 11. The first speaker from the Petitioner side has approached the dais and the Judge is already asking her about the prayer. The judge is trying to get her to break down the prayer and seems he seems unsatisfied with the prayer. Nevertheless, he permits her to move forth with the arguments.
1125: The Judge grills the first speaker with regard to her choice of presentation. The Petitioner does not seem very confident about the contentions. The judge says that he is in favour of the argument but the petitioner seems faltering. The time is already over but the Judge seems apprehensive of the Respondents mentioned in the Prayer.
1132: Speaker 2 of the Petitioner Side has approached the dais and now a discussion about the comparison between ‘due process of law’ and the ‘procedure established by law’ has begun before the oral submission of the petitioner. The judge questions the second speaker and the latter submit that the said query has been dealt with by the first speaker and then the judge poses a question the first speaker again. She pleads that she would get back to the question.
1139: There seems to be an issue with the date mentioned by the petitioner. The judges are seeking the source of the date mentioned and the petitioner looks confounded with the question posed. The judges allow her to proceed nevertheless. The petitioner moves forth her arguments but the judges look very dissatisfied with the submissions. Now the bench is ensued into a serious conflict between the principles of refoulment and the difference between illegal immigrant and refugees.
1157: The judges pose the question to the first speaker about the difference between due process of law and procedure established by law but it seems that she is not ready with the answer. The judges wrap up the contentions and proceed to invite the Respondents on the Dais.
1158: The first speaker from the respondent side has already approached the dais and begins by negating the petitioners and then moves forth to submit his arguments. The speaker seems very confident about his submissions and is quoting international conventions and treaties. The grilling has begun and the speaker is taking the question very gracefully.
1213: The judges are yet again in a tiff with regard to the dates mentioned. The judges are not content with the sources of the dates and the casual attitude of the speaker.
1216: The Second speaker from the Respondents has approached the dais and seems very calm and composed with the submissions. The judges pose questions but the speaker answers them with proper citations and reasoning and the judges look satisfied.
1227: The judges do not have any more questions as the submissions being made by the counsel seem very satisfactory. The time is over but the judges now start asking questions. The counsel finally pleads the prayer and then the judges’ question about the laws of the nation. The round comes to an end.
1238: The Petitioners begin with the rebuttal round.
1241: The Respondents take the dais for the sur-rebuttals.
1244: The round in Court room 4 come to an end.

Court Room No.- 5
Teams: -TC 18 (Amity Noida) Vs TC 2 (Reva)
Bench: – Mr. Ashok Kumar Das
Mr. Ujjal Pathak
PETITONER
COUNSEL 1
11:25-The judges briefed the both sides the procedure of presentation of their arguments
stressing upon clarity and conciseness of the arguments the counsel from the side of the
petitioner has approached the bench and started off by taking the permission to state the brief
facts of the case. The judges have been intently listening to the arguments being presented by
the petitioners. The Counsel 1 of the petitioner side has proceeded to stating the facts of the
case. Judges interjected the Counsel 1 of pioneer regarding the maintainability and
jurisdiction of the case. The counsel from the portioner side moved on to state the reason for
the same. The Counsel moves on to summarize her arguments. The judges questioned the
counsel over the issues being referred and addressed. The Counsel summarised her arguments
and asked the counsel to move on to the next argument. The Counsel starts with the issues
assertively and has also answered the preliminary questions of the judges satisfactorily. The
Counsel proceeds with the arguments. The Judges warned the counsel over the discrepancies
in the memorial of the Petitioner. After that counsel proceeds with her issue and the judges
asks the counsel to sum up the arguments
11: 37-The Counsel 2 proceeds with asking the judges for permission and proceeds to present
her arguments. Counsel proceeds to present the other arguments. She proceeds confidently
and the judges are intently listening to her. The judges are asking question in between the
arguments but called that article 21 being used in their arguments could be a double-edged
sword where both sides could get hampered. The Counsel proceeds with her arguments but
Judges mention discrepancy regarding the absence of proper prayer in the memorial and
states to them to be specific in their prayer. The Counsel is baffled but proceeds with her
augments. The Judge interjects to advise the counsel to not go beyond what is mentioned in
the statements of fact and also questioned them over applicability of the basic structure of the
constitution in the current case asking them to elaborate their case with citations and
sufficient case laws focusing upon the ratio decidendi due to plausibility of time. The
Counsel wraps up their arguments and proceeds with the Prayer but there was clear absence
of court etiquettes
RESPONDANT
COUNSEL 1
11:52-Counsel 1 of the Respondents has started off with the issues of the case and mention
that the burden of proof is upon them to prove their issue. The judges asked the counsel to not
get nervous and the counsel patiently proceeds with her arguments. The judges have been
grilling the Counsel with regard to whether the case has been filed under a Writ petition or a
PIL to which the counsel from the respondent side couldn’t present the bench a satisfactory

answer. Meanwhile, passing of chits ensues between the counsel and the researcher. Counsel
is questioned over the basic structure of the constitution. The Counsel is answering the
questions of the Judges and is citing authorities to substantiate her answer. The Judges has
taken steps to elaborate on the present facts and circumstances of the case along with the
relevant laws with respect to the same. The judges asked the counsel to move on with the
next issue in hand where the counsel mentions a convention but the judges interject seeking
clarity whether or not the state is signatory to that convention. The counsel tries to answer but
the judges seem dissatisfied with the reply and asked the counsel to conclude her issue and
sum up the arguments.
COUNSEL 2
12:07-The Counsel 2 from the respondent asked the permission of the judges to present her
issue. She begins contenting her issue in a calm manner. There seems to be an effort from the
counsel in trying to convince the judges by playing with the facts but is stopped in between
for further clarity. Counsel 2 proceeds with her arguments but however, Counsel 2 has
exceeded her time, and she asks for permission to move on to the prayer for which she has
been granted the same.
REBUTTALS
12:10-The rebuttals have now begun and the Petitioners seem to be very adamant about the
facts and issues and after pointing out the discrepancies in respondent side they sum up their
rebuttals
12:12-The Respondent side is yet again questioned whether the said case is bought as a Writ
or a PIL the council could not provide them with a satisfactory reply. The round ends with the
rebuttals from both the sides. In the end the judges advised the petitioner to be specific in
their prayer and with that the Preliminary Round I come to an end!

Courtroom No. 6

Courtroom No. 7

Bench : Partho Biswas and and Bendanta Kaushik
Teams :-
PETITIONERS: T- 20
RESPONDENT: T – 06
11:07- The bench secured the seats. The teams were not there in the court room.
11:17- The petitioners reached the courtroom, the respondents were still not there.
11:21- The respondents arrived and got themselves seated, placing their research materials
which created some hustle in front of the bench, while the petitioners were already seated.
PETITIONERS
Council 1
11 :24 The Round began with both the teams greeting the bench. Council 1 greeted the bench
respectfully, and began with the Statement of Jurisdiction, on which no questions were raised.
Without taking much time in the Statement of Facts, the council 1 began with AA1. The first
issue was challenging the maintainability. He briefed both the issues and took some 3
minutes in the same, which nullified the time saved in the Statement of Facts. The council
was calm confident and expressive. But was using the words like basically and was speaking
as the first person , using acronyms like “I won’t”, and asked the Hon’ble bench “ Are you
with me, Your Lordship”, while bringing their attention to moot proposition. which made the
proceedings quite informal which is against the court etiquettes. In order to bring in emotions
to the speech he also opened a question to the government.
11: 38 A question was raised after his speaking time got over. The bench asked the question
on the writ, to which the council, which was rightly answered by him. The speech was more
emotional and less law based. The council argued really well on the basis of logic though.
The Hon’ble bench used the same logic against him and raised a counter question which was
again very emotionally and logically answered by him. The Hon’ble bench then raised a
question on the validity of Art 29 and UDHR, in which the former relation was answered
well by him and the second answer he delegated to council 2
Council 2
11: 46: The council 2 greeted the bench and began with the 2 nd half of the 2 nd issue. She was
calm and confident. She brought forward different national , international and local
legislations. Her arguments were a perfect combination of law and logic. During the same
time the researcher of the respondent’s team was using her mobile for with she was rightly
pointed out. Her body language was respectful and inferred her confidence in her
contentions. She was pausing and bringing passion in her speech exactly at the right places.

While concluding her speech he diverted her way of arguments from “legal and logical” to
“emotionally and morally right”. She spoke about rights, duties and saving lives. At 11:57
she concluded her arguments.
After the prayer she faced her first question which she answered in a very calm way again.
Her answers made it further evident that she, if not anything, completely believes on the
righteousness of the side she was arguing upon and thus the bench raised a question on the
moral grounds which was again answered by her, and the same answer was cut by the bench
in the middle by another question, but without breaking the flow she respectfully answered
that as well. She answered the questions raised on law, logic, morals and assumptions and the
bench seemed satisfied with her answers.
RESPONDENTS
Council 1
12:05 Council 1 apologised for the delay in arriving with the court before beginning her
contentions. She began with the issues raised. She had rightly dissected her arguments, and
she tended to prove it part by part. Despite of the use of the right language, the speech of the
council sounded monotonous and under-confident. Mostly because she was relying on her
speech placed on the podium which was quite evident. She did not seem connected to the
arguments she was raising somehow.
20:15 Bench asked her the first question which she delegated to her co-council. The bench
did not looked very happy with the delegation. The second question by the Hon’ble bench
was also not answered very confidently. The Hon’ble bench asked her to refer to the
amendment which she read, and then explained her contentions on the basis of the same.
12:19 Her speaking time got over. The bench then asked questions on the Citizenship Act, on
which the entire contention was based but the team did not have the act due to which the
bench explained the act to the council, and then the council spontaneously came up with the
other questions. Failing to answer the counter questions raised by the bench, the council again
delegated the questions to the co-council.
Council 2
12:22 The Council 2 after seeking permission from the bench approached the podium. She
began with explaining the scheme of the issue. She began with confidence but then began
flustering. She summed up the second issue in 5 minutes and at 12: 27 began with the 3 rd
Issue, She did not make any efforts in being subtle while reading her speech placed on the
podium.
12: 29 She summed up her issues. The bench questioned her and claimed that the petitioner
has established their case very well, and asked her to counter the same. She based her
questions on law to which the bench overpowered by raising another question on logic. Even
while answering the questions of the bench the council was continuously reading her speech
which sounded very mechanical. The bench succeeded in making her lose her calm and her

speech began to become aggressive , which was an addition to the flustering. She failed to
answer the questions of the bench and council left them dissatisfied by answering with
silence, inferring her unawareness and lack of preparation.
REBUTTALS
Petitioners
12:37 : Council 2 from side petitioner came for rebuttals. She contented the arguments of the
petitioners. She relied her counter arguments on the moot proposition, case laws , legislations
and statues.
Respondents
12:41 :Council 1 from side respondent came for rebutters. She questioned the validity of
Assam Accord from the petitioners. She summed her arguments up in one minute to which
the dissatisfied bench asked her another question which was answered by her, but the
satisfaction of the bench remained the same.

Courtroom No.- 8
2 judge bench
Teams- TC 21 and TC 5
Petitioner- TC 21
Speaker 1- issue 1, 12 minutes of the Hon’ble Court
a. Jurisdiction called for as part of PIL in the SC. However the speaker failed to name the Judge who had
introduced the concept of PIL in India, which bemused the judges.
b.She was not well versed with the Statement of Jurisdiction and was questioned pertinently on why a
PIL must be filed, to which there was mere silence.
c. The speaker went too fast with the Statement of Facts, as was put forward by one of the judges in her
general statements.
d. In the first argument dealing with maintainability, the speaker clearly highlighted the definition of "
indigenous people" and referred to the definition substantiated by the UNHRC, which was well
appreciated by the judge.
e. The second argument, centered around Article 14 and the premise of "Equality Before Law" invoked
an analogy of how religion is used as a piecemeal reform to do away with these guaranteed rights, to
which the judge bought the argument.
f. The question of Article 32 being the cornerstone of alternate remedy brought in a barrage of
questions from the judge, to which the speaker made wise use of the compendium in her defense. The
speaker was well informed about the applicability of each of the writs in the legal and the societal
context, and thus managed to establish the idea of maintainability before passing on the dais to her co-
counsel.
g. The first speaker had a balanced approach to the dais, having addressed the bench as it ought to be,
calmly seeking the permission to proceed with an argument every time as well as with the way she kept
her cool when questions were directed towards her.

Speaker 2- Issue 2 and Issue 3
a. She hurried off with the second issue that the Citizenship Amendment Act is detrimental to the basic
structure, without addressing the bench or taking permission from the judges to start off with her
arguments.
b. She made use of M.P. Jain; Indian Constitutional Law" to.establish whether the Keshavananda
Bharati case could be applicable in the present case, something which the judges were skeptical about.
c. She highlighted the importance of the Freedom of Conscience; and quote Article 25 of the
Constitution in her regard, which answered the questions of the bench substantially.

  1. The speaker was questioned on the idea of "stateless society; and whether the indigenous people, if
    sent back, would be accepted by their.own country. The speaker pleaded ignorance in this regard.
    e. She proceeded with the third argument with the consent of the judges. She was well versed with the
    intricacies of the Amendment proposed to the Citizenship Amendment Act, 1955, but when questioned
    on the differences between migrants; and refugees, there was no clear cut answer available from her
    or the researcher.
    f. The bench questioned her on what "procedure established by law" means, to which she, to the
    surprise of the judges, talked about notifications, Acts and statutes and ended up with inviting a series
    of questions. Having referred to the compendium multiple times in this 3 minute stretch to her failure,
    the bench requested her to proceed to the prayer.
    g. The counsel was not versed with her prayer and read from the moot memorial. Towards the end of
    the prayer, a question on the meaning of Equity was asked, to which she presented a quick retort.
    h. There was a general lack of court etiquette.

Team 2 Respondent- TC 5
Speaker 1- 15 minutes for Issues 1 and 2
a. The speaker was on point with the courtroom etiquette and substantiated his arguments within a
minute, which was appreciated by the bench. His address of the 2 judge bench as Your Ladyship; was
appreciated by the bench for its accuracy.
b. The speaker managed to quash the idea of maintainability put forward by the Petitioners, to which
not a single question was asked and there was general agreement on the part of the bench. He cited the
case of Sarabnanda Sonowal vs. State of Assam, and how it was misplaced by the Petitioners as part of
their arguments.
c. The speaker drew the attention of the bench to the definition of "influx of immigrants" and how the
idea of "aggression" does not apply to the impugned Act, which was appreciated by the bench. The
speaker further talked about the applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution of Pochinki.
d. The speaker envisaged the applicability of "appropriate proceedings" in the Hon’ble Court regard
and noted that the Petitioners had defaulted in directly knocking the doors of the Supreme Court for
alternate remedy. He highlighted the fact that there have been no questions raised on why the
Petitioners did not approach the lower Court and thus, it could lead to a situation of mounting arrears in
the SC. This was again held in stead by the judges.
e. He was questioned on whether there are grounds apart from the pendency of proceedings" that
could help the SC in directing the Petitioners to approach the Hon’ble HC instead of the SC. The speaker
was silent in this regard.
f. The speaker as part of his sub argument, drew a clever line of difference between aliens, legitimate
foreigners; and illegitimate citizens, thus defending the contention that adequate relief shall be
provided to them under the amended Act.

  1. The speaker highlighted that the need of the hour is to address the needs of the refugees and talked
    about the UDHR talking about a detailed definition. He again differentiated the idea of naturalisation;
    and acquired citizenship and that was again appreciated by the bench.
    h. The speaker definitively highlighted that the Amendment to the Act, shall in no way be introduced at
    the cost of the existing citizens of Pochinki and that the Amendment needs the requisite support of the
    public and the Courts in the Union decision.
    Speaker 2- 10 minutes Issues 3 and 4
    a. The speaker had a measured approach with regard to how she addressed the Bench as Your
    Ladyships, and cautiously proceeded with the second and the third issues.
    b. At the onset, the speaker talked about the idea of a Basic Structure; and then talked about how the
    idea of "Secularism" would not be affected by the Amendment proposed. She wittily noted that there is
    no straitjacket formula to determine collective wrong and right of the citizens, and that the Union
    decision must be given due regard.
    c. The speaker concluded her first argument with the contention that there has no violation of the basic
    structure of the Constitution and therefore futile attempts to wrap the actual facts of the case merely to
    attract the attention of the SC is a gimmick.
    d. The last argument she presented as part of her team centered around whether there were adequate
    right for the Ralibs and the Ghalibs. The bench questioned her as to whether the very idea of introducing
    an amendment on the lines of the religiously marginalised is violating the essence of Secularism, to
    which the Constitutional definition of secularism and the idea of protection and safeguards of the idea
    of the very existence of a State was provided by the speaker.
    e. The speaker mentioned that the communities were facing religious persecution and the Union, being
    concerned about the rights of the refugees, wanted to introduce this Amendment.
    f. She drew the attention of the bench to the case of NHRC vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, wherein a
    clear definition of right to life" sought to be provided, and compared the plight of the refugees to the
    same. As part of the Union, she remarked that the prerequisite of protection for the natural citizens as
    well as the refugees rests ultimately with the Government and that the judiciary must recognise the
    same.
    g. The speaker further drew the attention of the bench towards the idea of protection of international
    law and obligations by the State under Article 51 A, which was well appreciated by the judges. She
    substantiated that the State is bound to follow international procedural law and thus the Amendment was
    sought to help the refugees to seek protection.
    h. The speaker lastly highlighted the importance of Article 33(1) of the UDHR and how the Union is duty
    bound to preserve the much vaunted safety of the refugees. She was questioned by the Bench on
    whether international provisions could be sought by the SC to pass a direction, to which she referred to
    the judgment passed in the landmark case of Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan. She put the forward the Principle of Non Refoulment before the Bench, which was appreciated.
    i. The speaker was well versed with the contents of the Prayer and was able to establish her issues with
    confidence and ease.

Rebuttals
Team 1- 3 minutes
a. The rebuttal mainly centred around highlighting the typographical flaws of the Respondent.
b. The idea of "national security" and public order was floated by the speaker.
c. She highlighted that such a blatant amendment is against the procedure established by law.
Team 2- 4 minutes
a. The speaker highlighted that the citations for 4 of the cases provided in the memorandum on behalf
of the Petitioners was flawed.
b. He further contended that alternative remedy did not qualify if the case hadn’t been filtered through
the HC.
c. The issue of Union discretion and the best interests of the public had been negated by the Petitioners
is what he argued upon.
d. The speaker argued that the case of Sarabnanda Sonowal v. Union of India; was a case which was
misconstured and talked about the fact that the judgment of the case had been subsquently over
turned.

Courtroom Number 9

TC-22—(Petitioner) v. TC-11 (Respondent)
11:09- The judges enter and are greeted by the participants and the court clerks. They take their
seat and go through the written submissions
11:15-The Speaker 1 behalf of the petitioner approached the dais and asked to address the
statement of facts. Speaker 1 was straight away questioned by the judge based on the very
maintainability of the case, which was instantly answered based on the contents of Art. 32 and its
provisions regarding the maintainability of the PIL. Also, Speaker1 backed the arguments by
referring the very famous case i.e., Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerela. There was also a
quick fire discussion between one of the judge and Speaker 1 regarding the very definition of
Secularism and its relevance with Art. 14 of the constitution. Speaker 1 was also asked about the
legality of an MOU or Accord which was proven later and was found binding. The
maintainability was accepted by the judge on the grounds of violation of rights as well as locus
standi in the case.
11:22-The issue 2 focused on citizenship and rights of refugees. The main contentions of the
speaker focused on the rights of the citizens whereas was straight away negated by the judge on
the basis of doctrine of proportionality. Which was further argued by the speaker on the basis of
several cases and precedents that talked about citizenship and rights of the citizen. Also, the
rights of the foreigners in a country were discussed based on its restriction to only Art. 21 and
22. There was also a validation of how the Kamishki Accord was a straight violation of three
clauses of the constitution.

11:31-Speaker 2 approached the dais and told the judges that he shall be reserving 13 minutes of
the honorable court’s time. Speaker 3 dealt with the 3 rd issue that was based on the refugee rights.
The referential value of international law on the domestic laws was also contended and was
finally negated by the honorable judge. The main contentions of the issue were based on 3
premises and that being external aggression, cultural identities and economic distress which were
properly explained by the speaker with its relevance as well as modern day examples. Although
the arguments were presumptuous in nature but held a great referential value in the eyes of the
bench. The arguments were also backed by the Doctrine of public rights prevailing over private
rights. This argument left the judges impressed. Speaker 2 summed up his arguments within the
valid time frame contending the impugned act and rights of the indigenous people. Speaker 2
ended the arguments with the prayer.

11:41-Speaker 1 on behalf of the respondent approached the dais and informed the judges that he
shall be reserving 11 minutes of the honorable court’s time and moved on, challenging the very
maintainability of the case which was overruled by the judge. It was backed by the fact that there
is always an alternative remedy in such cases, which was backed by the judge stating the
conventions and judicial precedents in the Union of India since 1971. The main questions of the
judges were based upon the duties of the Union under Art. 355 and has the union been able to
fulfill the necessary duties under this Article. The contentions were based on the core of the
Citizenship Amendment Bill and the crisis in Assam that it has led to and that being in
contradiction to the preamble and the secular structure of it. The Kamishki Accord’s justification
was also considered to be justified as the demographic structure of the state for so many years
has been constantly changing. The speaker 1 thus concluded justifying the secularism and its
relevance on their behalf.
11:55-Speaker 2 approached the dais and dealt with the issue 3 that had refugee rights in it.
Speaker 2 seemed frivolous and stressed upon the definition of refugee according to the Africa
treaty that Pochinki is a signatory to. Speaker 2 was well versed with the facts of the case and
stressed upon that to justify his arguments. The lack of cases in the written submission wasn’t
considered as a problem as the facts with a lesser no. of cases were self sufficient. Also, the
counsel tried to negate the arguments of the petitioner; by how there has been no ruckus and lack
of opportunity in employment after the influx of refugees and backed his arguments by the
central government reports. The counsel was also asked about prioritizing between welfare state
and rights of the citizen to which he proved as to how welfare of the state was more important.
Speaker summed up with the prayer and left the dais.
12:10-Rebuttals were short and only a single contention was raised by the side of the petitioner
based on certain laws being unconstitutional related to refugees and the core of the Kamishki
Accord being justified which was answered by the respondents based on precedents and reports
of Indian government sites and the need of the hour to change such rules that are
unconstitutional.

Court room-11
Judges- Mrs Ankita Paul

T.C (APPLICANT) 24 V. T.C 10 (RESPONDENT)
SPEAKER-01 (APPLICANTS)
11.12- team no 10 not only being late did not ask for permission for entering court room as well,
which was reprimanded by the judges for the same.
11.17- the applicant seeks permission to approach the dais. The applicant 1 has begun presenting
the case. The judges ask for summarising the case facts.
11.20- The applicants presents the arguments with a confident and a very calm tone, the
environment has been set, the case facts established and the context of the case presented. the
orals went smoothly for the applicant largely due to his skill in dealing with the case arguments and
the tone apt for the sombre context of the case. The applicant impeccably blends the arguments
presented along with the language of the law being dealt in the instant case but that does not seems
to satisfy the judges and they questions the applicant on a seeming point which assumes the moral
responsibility on the sides of the applicants. The judges not satisfied with the answer of the
applicant’s points out the flaw in the legal acumen of applicant with their superior knowledge and
understanding of the law. Despite the kink, the applicant 01 continues with the arguments in a
gentlemanly and a humble manner. As the applicant addresses the more complex part of the
present case, he present the case with the similar demeanour to that of the initial stages. The
judges’ questions the ambiguous linking between the case presented and the arguments advanced.
despite of exceeding his allotted time, the judges gave him an extra minute for carrying out his
arguments. The applicant again exceeds the allotted time in order to finish his case.
11.42- the co-counsel has been left with very little time and starts his presentation in a hurried tone,
the judges question the co-counsel on his misinterpretation of law, but he seems to have satisfied
the judges with his answer. The co-counsel continues his case in a sense of hurriedness but with an
air of confidence as well. Alas! Due to the paucity of time, the co-counsel tries to close his arguments
but gets grilled by the judges because of his carelessness in dealing with his closing, the judges
presents him with a hard hitting questions which he tries to answer, the co-counsel in his last ditch
attempts valiantly tries answering the question but the judges gets better of him, the team 24
exceeds their time. The judges playing it fair and kind awards the defendants with extra time similar
to that of the applicants without penalising them for the same.
Team-10
11.52- the counsel of the defendants approaches the dais, the very opening statement has been
questioned by the judges due to the callousness of the statement made, the counsel despite of
being nervous, bravely puts forwards the arguments. Unfortunately the mistake only cascades into a
spiral of difficult questions put forward to the defendant. The judges’ presents very valid and
practical questions to the defendants which led the counsel to being grilled on the moral grounds of
the arguments presented. The question put forward are getting harder and merciless by the
moment and the counter presented is only making it worse for the counsel. The judges gives
permission to the researcher to answer due to the incomplete replies of the counsel at the same

time they state dissatisfaction with the answers of the defendants, a setback for the defendant
indeed!
The defendant tries to bounce back by providing cases, which falls flat as the judges alleges no
causal or persuasive relation between cases presented and the instant case. The courtroom is
getting intense by the moment in contrast to the calm prevalent during the applicants. Questions
upon question is being pilled upon the defendants and the counsel tries her best to address them,
but is unable to convert their dissatisfaction into something positive for her team. The final nail in
the coffin for the first speaker seems to have been struck with clear expression by the judges that
the arguments of the defendant has not been convincing so far. A brave show was put up by the
counsel in her closing statements but unfortunately the judges have made mincemeat of the
counsel.
12.12- the co-counsel approaches the dais and attempts to take a fresh new initiative, but the judges
are not in a mood to spare the rod and grills her on the arguments advanced as well as application of
the law. The co-counsel tries to balance the lost initiative of a favourable start, appears to stabilise
the situation with her persuasive arguments and it seems to work for the defendants, as the
questions are not as merciless as they were earlier, but the relief was momentary as the judges are
in no mood to cede any mistake of the applicant, the justification presented are overshadowed by
the contention presented by the judges. The ball has been set and the judges are not in a mood to
spare the counsel to the point where the rapporteur is running out of words to describe the
situation. The judges are immensely cross at the demeanour of the co-counsel and reprimands them
for their inability to clarify the ambiguous parts of the cases, and their habit of interrupting the
statement made by the judges. The co-counsel unfortunately falls for the baits set up by the judges
and this proved to be the lowering of the coffin whose nails were knocked home by the counsel. The
judges interrupts the co-counsel in her last arguments and directs her to address the prayer, but
alas! The defendant makes a mistake in reading the prayer and this might prove to be the costliest
mistake.
12.30- the applicants 01 steps up for rebuttals and knocks down the flaws of the defendant with
rebuttals which even the judges agree to. The applicant addresses the rebuttals with the same
demeanour to that of his case presented.
12.33- the defendant approaches the dais and was sneered by the judges for their point of
contention was negated upon by the co-counsel and have no locus standi in even addressing the
rebuttals, but the judges tears into the rebuttals presented by the defendant and even addresses the
applicant to re-address the rebuttals as the applicants were supposedly not being attentive enough.
The judges directs the applicant team to address the contention on the behalf of the defendant.
12.38- the judges invites the applicants again for addressing a re-rebuttal and the applicant is in no
mood to spare the axe.
12.40 The re-rebuttal is over and the judges gives a chance to the researcher of the defendant team
to address the contention, the researcher expresses the team is done and with this the round-1
marks it twilight.

 

BENCH: Debjani Chowdhary and Debashis Nandi

TEAMS:  TC-25 (PETITIONER)

TC-13 (RESPONDENT)

 

PETITIONER:

11:18: The Petitioners approached the dais. The statement of facts was commenced by Counsel 1. He briskly narrated the scene in an impressive manner. The judges were clear of the facts explained briefly by the counsel.

Moving on, he pointed out the four issues to be dealt in with, of which two will be dealt by him and followed by his co-counsel. He was speeding up with his arguments without really contending and explaining, which made no sense. The team was engaged in passing case references to the esteemed judges. The judges pointed out the error with regards to the date. Cases were referred in order to clearly substantiate the arguments. The court etiquettes and mannerism was brilliant. He was very argumentative and brought out the points and arguments, highlighting the issues in a clear manner.

The Lordships were satisfied with the first issue and the counsel moved further with the second issue. The judge pointed out and asked the counsel to be slow in arguing as the same was disturbing to the ear.

11:29: The counsel had 5 minutes left to wrap up his arguments and he went on to clearly explain his arguments. The counsel was again pacing with his arguments after reminders given by the judge to calm down a bit. The judges were satisfied with the arguments and thereafter raised questions. The counsel answered the question and cleared the doubts thus raised. The judge was very well engaged in asking questions to the counsel to whom the counsel brought into picture the highlights of the same. The judge trickily confused the counsel with a plethora of questions relating to his arguments. The counsel was outstanding and brilliant in answering the questions thus impressed the judge. The counsel 1 was again called by the judge to answer his queries wherein he pointed out about one of the judgement to be not in accordance with the arguments or the problem thus based. The counsel’s answer to the same didn’t really satisfy the judge and thereafter he pleaded ignorance.

11:44: The judges discussed and marked the speaker 1 individually and constructively resumed the rounds wherein the speaker 2 sought permission to approach the dais. The counsel proceeded with his arguments stating the issues. The counsel 2 went on to explain and highlight the basic credentials in a chronological and systematic manner. The judge asked the counsel to read the section thus stated, for the court. He clearly explained and put forward his points with regards to the section so stated and the judges seemed satisfied. He was calm and compost and was at the same time passionately arguing before the court in a substantiate manner. The judges seemed boldly satisfied with the counsel’s arguments.

11:51: He further went on his arguments and very well contented and submitted his arguments to the bench. He pointed out the recent contemporary precedents to substantiate his arguments. He positively proceeded in a manner that was satisfactory to the judges. Case laws, legal principles were stated by him and read out in the court to make the court aware of the recent rulings and amendments. The judges were satisfied with the arguments thus submitted.

11:57: The second issue was further dealt by him and briefly and briskly pointed out the integrities of law and thereby contended his arguments. The assistance provided by the learned co – counsels invoked team spirit. The arguments were put forward in a vivid manner and he contended the issue smoothly and unquestionably.

12:04: The judge raised a question to which the counsel answered aptly and precisely. The judge seemed impressed and satisfied. Further, the counsel was questioned about some basic law and differences, answer to which was given by the counsel aided by the co – counsel. The judge questioned the counsel on the functions and responsibilities of the government which made the counsel fumble with his arguments.

12:18: The prayer was laid down before the honourable court.

The counsels contented and submitted their arguments and satisfied the judges with their contentions. They were very lucid and elaborative and successfully cleared their arguments. No rebuttals took place due to lack of time.

 

 

 

RESPONDENT:

12:22: The counsel approached the dais and sought permission to proceed with the arguments advanced. The counsel proceeded with the arguments as nervousness was very vivid on her face. The counsel pointed put various legislations. The arguments were merely read rather than argued which made the environment sound lethargic and clumsy. The counsel was not very passionate. She blatantly went on pointing out laws, legislations with no good command on her speech. The counsel on behalf of the respondent merely submitted her arguments without really substantiating or proving the same.

12:29: 5 minutes were remaining and the counsel went on submitting her arguments to the court.

12:31: The counsel was exhaustive of arguments. The judges pointed out the error in the jurisdiction which was further clarified by the counsel.

12:32: The Speaker 2 sought permission to approach the dais and proceed with the issues and arguments. He was brilliantly arguing her points in a passionate manner. The counsel pointed out the basic credentials of law and forwarded with her arguments. The judges seemed confused and a discussion flowed in the courtroom. The counsel referred to pointers and highlights as has been mentioned in the fact sheet. The judges pointed out the error in the speech forwarded by the counsel which was further clarified by the counsel.

12:37: The counsel moved forward with her fourth issue and cited cases to substantiate her arguments. The judges questioned the counsel on her opinion about certain aspects of law to which the counsel decently answered. However, the judge further clarified about arguments thus made by the counsel. The counsel highlighted the points and answered the questions with clarity and satisfied the judges. The counsel further proceeded with her arguments and contended issues which are of prime importance.

The judge pointed out a query and asked for clarity. An addition of few minutes was provided to the counsel on the discretion of the judges. The counsel presented her arguments decently and explained the same to the judges. The judges mentioned an error and pointed out that one of the argument contended by the counsel made no sense. The judges also questioned on the maintainability of the case by the AASU and declared the inception unconstitutional. The judges seemed dissatisfied with the arguments thus contended by the counsel and made the counsel aware of the prime highlights of the case rather than just beating round the bush and substantiating arguments with secondary and unimportant contentions. The judges also pointed out the flaws and narrated how the counsels should have instead forwarded with the arguments.

12:54: The counsel was asked to wrap up her arguments and move forward with the prayer.

The team lacked court mannerism and were conversing and whispering in between rounds. They were not able to satisfy the judges as their arguments lacked basic contentions which they were asked to focus on by the honourable bench.

 

Court Room No: 13
Teams: MNLU Mumbai v UILS Punjab (TC-26 v TC-03)

Time: 11:20

Petitioner 1 seeks permission to approach the podium, and after an affirmative response from
the bench, he proceeds forward and highlights the issues pertaining to the problem. On
knowing the relevant issues, the bench asks about the facts of the case which the petitioner
briefly enumerates. After this, the petitioner continues his arguments and highlights the
grounds for maintainability of the issue. The bench, although satisfied with the submissions
presented by the speaker regarding the first issue, state that it was pertinent for the speaker to
mention the jurisdiction of the case before proceeding with the arguments, and then prompts
the speaker to continue with the next issues.
After highlighting the necessary arguments pertaining to the second issue, the speaker now
asks permission to proceed to the third one, and the bench grants him permission to continue,
and the speaker continues with his submissions, which the judges intently listen. The
etiquette maintained by the speaker are impeccable and he calmly and eloquently tackles the
questions that have been asked by the bench. After satisfying the queries of the judges, the
speaker seeks permission for his co-counsel to approach the podium and continue forward
with the issues, which the bench grants.
Petitioner 2 approaches the podium, and highlights the issue that she is going to deal with,
and then proceeds to give a brief summary of the issues that the first speaker dealt with. The
bench asks a question pertaining to whether a case relevant to the matter has been cited by the
petitioners, and the speaker answers in affirmative. The speaker, after satisfying whether the
bench has any further queries, seeks permission to proceed with the prayer, and the bench
states that the same will be allowed after the rebuttals have been put forth by both parties.
The speaker humbly obliges.
The petitioners put forth certain arguments for rebutting the submissions of the respondents,
and the same was also subjected to questions by the bench. After satisfying the queries of the judges, the speaker highlighted certain other points for substantiating the lacunae present in
the arguments of the respondents.
Finally, after both the rebuttal rounds were concluded, the petitioner proceeded to state the
prayer.

 

After the second day, we reach the Semi finals.

 

Semi-Finals

Court Room No. 1

TC-24 (Petitioner) v. TC-25 (Respondent)

11:00- We wish you a top of the morning from Court Room No. 1 where on this fine morning the Semi-Finalists have gathered today to present their arguments to the Hon’ble bench collectively compromised of Senior Advocates from the Guwahati High Court gracing us with their presence on this auspicious occasion.

11:27-The Petitioner has humbly approached the Deice and is presenting the contentions which will be dealt with directly by the first speaker and defining the time needed. As the bench is well-versed with the facts of the case, the bench allowed the Petitioner to go ahead with the arguments of advanced.

11:29- The Speaker goes ahead and cites the Kuldeep Nair case under which the speaker is providing the necessary doctrine in order to substantiate and validate his contention.

11:31- In Indira Gandhi v Raj, the Petitioner goes ahead with the contention of the basic structure of the Constitution and the Federal structure of the state

11:33-The arguments advance as the bench seems engaged with the arguments presented by the counsel on the socialist principles of the constitution under Article 25.

11:35-The speaker goes ahead and smoothly averts to their next argument to which the speaker goes ahead and begins to refer to the Constitution once again to the provisions which have been provided in the Constitution.

11:38-The Speaker goes ahead and speaks of the special provisions provided to specific states in the Constitution under Article 371. The speaker speaks of Article 371(b) read with Article 244(a) to the unique position which is provided under the sixth schedule, due to the unique position which exists for the states.

11:42- Article 332(3) and 332(4) is presented to the Bench to which the speaker goes ahead with swift eloquence defines the autonomous nature and reservation which exists within the Constitution and goes ahead to differentiate between the clauses in his oral arguments while providing substantial backing through the written submissions.

11:44- The speaker argues that there is a violation of basic structure and not an inordinate legislation which exists. He goes forth to speak of the balance of powers which was kept in mind by the Constituent Assembly.

11:47- The Speaker goes forth to continue the contention of the basic structure doctrine. The five minutes placard has been raised as the speaker continues avidly to present his argument under Article 355.

11:50- The Speaker completes his argument on the basic structure of the constitution and goes ahead and raises the contention of the violation of the fundamental right of Article 14 and the character of secularism. The speaker argues that all peoples have the right to be treated equally under the law, as the 2 minute placard has been raised by the clerk.

11:52- The speaker with haste raises his next argument to which it found that his time has been completed but gains permission by the bench to continue to argue on the concept of naturalization of citizens which exists within the State.

12:00-It is seen for a turn of events that the bench has gone ahead and is still entertaining the arguments of the speaker who has well over exceeded the time provided to him but the judges went forth and raised questions to the court.

12:01- The second speaker approaches the Deice and goes ahead to state that he will go ahead and state that he will argue the third and final issue.

12:02-The speaker begins by defining the source to which International Law can be applied to this court by the primary source of Article 51 by backing it by the Minerva Mills Case and goes ahead to argue the obligations to the cognizance of the Directive Principles.

12:04-The speaker argues that 3 primary objectives exist in order to apply International Principles in this court.

12:07-The speaker talks of the principles of International Customary Law stating two modes being the practice of courts and opinion juris.

12:10- The speaker continues his argument by stating Article 33 of the Refugee Convention in order to validate their argument. The five minute placard was also raised to signify that time is running short.

12:13- The Bench raises a query that no religious persecution is mentioned in the act but the counsel swiftly answers the question presented by providing judicial backing. The 2 minute placard was raised making the speaker move towards his final contention.

12:16-The Time Over placard is raised as the bench motions towards some clemency in allowing the Petitioner to continue his arguments as he speaks on the impugned Act. The counsel was presenting in the final argument that there is an inconsistency existing within the Act. It seems in an odd turn of events that the Petitioner has not gone forth and presented his Prayer but it does not seem to cause any misfit with the bench.

12:27- After the bench provided a short break; the Respondent had gone forth and humbly approached the Deice.

12:28- The speaker goes ahead and defines the four contentions which are going to be argued before the court as he states that he will be dealing with the first two issues.

12:29-The speaker with great articulation goes ahead and begins his first argument with providing judicial precedent in order to define the constitutional power of the government.

12:33- The speaker goes forth and is presenting his arguments as his co-counsels are providing the substantiating material directly to the bench which seems to show appeasement and engagement by the bench.

12:38-The Speaker continues to speak of the discretionary powers of the government in regards to anything detrimental occurring to the persons of the state.

12:42-The speaker talks of the difference between legislation and naturalization to continue his contentions raising the fact that the petitioners had not raised this point. The speaker states that naturalization is the only procedure for citizenship.

12:44-The 5 minute placards is raised as the speaker continues to speak on the concept of naturalization and how the Act at hand is valid as it is attempting to undo a wrong which existed in prior legislation.

12:47-The 2 minute placard has been raised and it is seen that the Respondent has finished without exceeding the time given and is seem to be satisficatory to the bench

12:48-The second speaker of the Respondent goes ahead and approaches the Deice showing great court etiquette.

12:49-The counsel for the Respondent goes ahead and cites many judicial precedent in order to provide that the act in hand is constitutionally valid.

12:56-The counsel states that the legislative capacity of the impugned act is in pursuance of Article 11 of the Constitution continuing his argument by stating Schedule 7.

12:58-The Bench raises the query that under the Triple Talaq Case has annulled one of the prior cases mentioned but the speaker quickly responded by stated that there are an umpteen amount of cases which can provide judicial backing for the case of the Respondent.

1:00-The counsel goes forth and states that the act is not against the fundamental right which is protected under Article 14.

1:01-The Speaker continues to go forth and present his final argument on the International Laws which exist by stating the Refugee convention.

1:05-The counsel continues his argument with an avid flow by providing judicial precedent to substantiate his argument.

1:08-The time over placard was raised but the judges had directly mentioned to the clerk to provide some time in order for the respondents to finish their argument as they go forth and conclude with their prayer.

1:12-The Petitioner approaches the Deice and requests the bench for an extra 3 minutes prior to beginning his argument to which the bench approves.

1:13-The speaker begins by stating that the cases stated by the Respondent as the speaker provides backing for the invalidity of arguments presented as the cases cited had provided for different interpretations.

1:15-The speaker continues to his next contention by providing judicial precedent to retort the cases stated saying that the ratio has been overruled not the case itself.

1:20-The time had been declared over for the rebuttal of the Petitioner but an extra two minutes were granted by the bench as well as clemency in order to state the Prayer which was not said by his co-counsel.

1:21-The bench showing leniency allows the Respondent to go forth and provide a rebuttal for the Respondent to which the respondent with much charisma and robust amount of energy goes ahead and presents his points to refute the points which were presented.

1:25-The bench in kindness allows the Petitioner to come for a minute to the Deice and provide another rebuttal to state that there were many lacunae presented in the rebuttal of the Respondent.

 

Courtroom- 2

Quorum-3

Judges-

 

T.C (petitioners) 26 v. T.C (respondents) 12

Speaker-01 (applicants)

11.08- the court has assembled along with the gathering of the participants.

11.11 speakers prepare for the submissions to be given by them as the time passes with build-up of  tension in the court as to the outcome of this contested two day battle of wits and legal acumen. An anticipation of expectation is ever present as the two teams had battled it out to reach the semi-finals.

11.20 The counsel of the petitioners have approached the dais and he is carving out the background of the case in order to prepare the field for employing his arguments.

11.21 The counsel has started his submissions in a confident note with a tinge of exuberance and why not, they are semi-finalists after all. The initiative as undertaken by the counsel seems to have passed unobstructed as the judges are all ears for any misgiving in the arguments of the counsel and with their absolutely superior knowledge have found a loophole in the argument of the counsel and are schooling the counsel on the grounds of moral relation and interpretation of law. The questions of the judges seems to have put the counsel on a sticky wicket and his answers might not be as effective as the he might have expected. The counsel have moved on to the second argument and is proceeding rather smoothly except for some minor questions on the interpretation of the law and the basic statutes. A major error on the part of the counsel has cornered him in a precarious situation and he appears to be fumbling and might have got on the hooks of the judges, but the calmness and the wisdom of the counsel might have enabled him to manoeuvre around the sticky wickets, but the judges are alert and won’t fall for the tricks of the counsel, this is only a minor indication of the unsurpassable gap of knowledge and experience between us hoi polloi and the judges. The judges have him cornered and are only dragging him deeper, a match of tug of war is being witnessed and the counsel might not prove to be strong enough to win this one. A big misgiving on the part of the counsel, as he resorts to the dreaded escape route, “the counsel pleads ignorance”. Having lost the battle, the counsel might want to salvage the war and with conviction he ventures out to do the same.  Counsel case might just not have enough juice to pull out this war and he is trying his best to avoid a conclusion averse to his aspirations. Again a barrage of questions have taken a visage of maelstrom and the counsel is only being dragged deeper into the eye. The counsel is trying best himself from the clutches of the impending storm but he should have had more juice and power to begin with. Trying his best, he might just have salvaged the case or flog it with fire, the route he will be taking is something which is yet to be seen. The counsel have salvaged the 3rd battle and is handing over the dais to the co-counsel.

11.58 the co-counsel approaches the dais, the drums are sounded and the co-counsel have started the submission with a very clear and buoyant tone similar to that of a person possessed with confidence, the submission is going fluidly with only minor question seeking to test the depth of the co-counsel, the co-counsel is diving deep into the complexities of the case with various examples without obsequious moral posturing or irrelevant babble but rather established by sticking to statutes, interpretation of law and established cases but the judges are not exactly not in a mood t let the co-counsel go off the hook easily, questioning the co-counsel on the moral and legal grounding of their case, the co-counsel is answering the doubts of the judges gracefully and might have just manoeuvred  herself out of dangers path with a legal acumen suited for the moment.

 

12.11

The counsel of the defendants have approached the dais, the counsel have started the submission with a very powerful tone, a trademark of successful lawyer along with a bold and bombastic manner and have visibly struck the applicants with her demeanour, intonation and mannerism, a very good first impression indeed. The co-counsel with her impressive persona have ventured into the devils of the case and have started to address them head on from the start itself but the mannerism of the lawyer always not carries them out of the harm’s way but the judges attempt at questioning have not encroached upon the path of the almost juggernaut like manner and the counsel carries herself with aplomb and legal veracity. Answering the questions of the judges in the same manner and the same have not proven to be a blow to the flow of the counsel. The research of the defendants is clearly outstanding along with the execution of the same. Despite a minor kinks in the interpretation of the law, the ‘bull-dozerisation’ is going on unabated. The merciless manner of the counsel in her submission is something ‘awe-full’ and perhaps painful for the applicants. The counsel have not only establishing her own points but crushing the claims of the applicants at the same time. Counsel with an air of magnamity and aplomb is delivering her parting shot and hands over the stage to the co-counsel.

12.33 The co-counsel approaches the dais, she seems to be in a hurried manner, but addresses the contentions wisely. The co-counsel have carried on the baton with well-crafted arguments and sharp wit dodging and answering the questions of the judges in the best possible manner.  The judges again lay bare traps but the respondent as a team have been proficient in addressing the contentions and avoiding the pitfalls of weakness in their arguments, but the ride has turned bumpy as the judges are unforgiving in their pincers of wisdom grappling the co-counsel by the nape.  The co-counsel is presented with contentious issues disguised under the drape of question and the co-counsel have few choices left before her to address the issues raised by the judges. The response of the co-counsel has gotten into the nerves of the applicants and they are clearly visibly distressed as the co-counsel is mixing hard hitting rebuttals with submissions. At last, the co-counsel wraps up the submission with prayers.

01.14 The applicants have begun the rebuttals right along with direct attacks on the main loopholes in the case of the defendants, the rebuttals are strong and hard hitting. The judges seems to have no problems with the same and the laminar flow of the applicant 02 continues.

01.23 The defendant approaches the dais and begins the rebuttals with case laws and previous legislations. The defendant tries to rubbish the claims of the applicants and closes the rebuttals in a short period of time.

 

WITH THIS WE COME TO THE FINALS BETWEEN THE SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW, CHENNAI AND CHRIST UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE!

1520: The Hon’ble judges have occupied the bench. The bench comprises of sitting judges of the Guwahati High Court and Senior Advocates.

 

1524: The first counsel of the Petitioner has approached the dais with the due permission of the Judges. She continues with the statement of facts confidently.

1526: The Counsel proceeds to submit the first issue before the bench and states the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, popularly known as the First Judges’ Transfer Case. A compendium is submitted to the bench and is duly referred to by the Bench.

1529: The second sub – issue is presented by the Counsel. The judges seem very satisfied with the submissions being made by the Petitioner as no question till this point has been raised.

1530: Boom! No sooner than it was said, the first question comes being that of pointing the difference between Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India which is beautifully dealt with by the Counsel. The submissions take a dialogue route and result as an academic discourse.

1533: The first sub – issue of the second issue has been submitted with due permission of the Bench. The submissions include very prominent differentiation between immigrant and refugees and the Bench is seen nodding in affirmation.

1535: The counsel moves to the second sub – issue of the second issue with the due permission of the Bench. The Counsel brings forth the example of Israel to emphasise on her point. Justice Bhagwati has been beautifully and aptly quoted by her. The judges seem very satisfied with the submission as no other question has been raised till the particular time.

1539: The Counsel moves to third sub – issue of the second issue. Bam! The Judges ask her the second question or is it a question? No, it is not. The judges are in a very academic mode who are more than happy to discuss about the judgements than grill the Counsel.

1544: The Counsel points to the United Nations Treaty on Indigenous People and is affirmed with a nod from the Hon’ble Bench.

1549: The Counsel seems to have exhausted her share of time and seeks for an extension which is duly granted by the Bench. She goes on to conclude the second issue.

1550: The second counsel has already approached the dais and continues with the third issue. She speaks with much more conviction than her co – Counsel and looks like a passionate Petitioner.

1554: The submission takes a passionate turn. She is in no mood to breathe and neither are the judges in any mood to question her submissions. The passion is beautiful and the judges are duly referring to the submitted compendium and the book as and when requested and hence, nodding in affirmation.

1556: The Counsel moves to the second sub – issue. Her articulation skills are entirely on point and it seems like there is a lot to learn about oratory and conviction from this lady here!

1559: The Counsel makes sure that the Bench has opened the right page mentioning the right case and waits till the Hon’ble Judges do that.

1600: The first interjection of the Judges comes in but that is only with regard to the centre point of her submission. No queries raised.

1602: The Counsel moves forth with the next issue and aptly mentions the points of necessity of non – refoulement, extradition and expulsion.

1607: The Refugee Convention has been brought into light and the requisites of declaring a person as refugee. The judges do not have any query at all to raise.

1610: Here it comes! The first ‘information’ by the judges as the Bench seem not at all in mood to grill the Counsel. But there is a tail question to which the Counsel has an answer ready and now the judges seem even more content with the submissions made.

1612: The Counsels submits the prayer to the Hon’ble Bench.

The side of Petitioners comes to an end.

 

1614: The Respondent has approached the dais and the first thing that a Judge from the Hon’ble bench points to is the unbuttoned blazer of the Counsel. The Counsel apologises with a sheepish smile and then moves forth with the submissions with due permission from the Bench.

1617: The famous Chakma case sees the light of the day along with the Articles from the Constitution as well.

1621: The cases are being cited one after the other and the judges seem very satisfied.

1623: The Counsel from the Respondents’ side moves forth to the second issue with no queries raised by the Bench till the moment.

1628: The Counsel raises a pertinent point of lowering the tenure of naturalization.

1632: The first query is raised by one of the judges and is aptly and satisfactorily answers the same. The judge asks a tail question which again is answered beautifully.

1634: Another judge has a query and even that is dealt with along with a conclusion.

1636: The second Counsel has approached the dais and the judges proceed to the next issue.

1642: The judges seem very content and satisfied with the submission of the Respondent’s side as well. There were no queries at all in this issue.

1646: The Articles of the Constitution are being mentioned one after the other in the submissions which is in consonance with the issues. The judges nod in acceptance.

1649: The second Counsel moved to the last issue which is to be submitted to the Bench. The judges do not have any second thoughts and the principles of national and international law are being pointed out the by the Counsel one after the other in utmost fluency.

1655: The conviction with which the Counsel is presenting the case is commendable.

1657: The prayer is being submitted humble before the Hon’ble Bench.

End of Respondents side.

 

1658: The rebuttals begin and the Petitioners seem to have a lot to rebut.

1700: The time is over but the queries are not! The Petitioner still has points to rebut. She seeks an extension of a minute.

1701: The rebuttals are still on. The Court person raises the placard of “Time Over” to which the Judge points that they are very strict with regard to time. The Counsel says that somehow it is not surprising with a sheepish smile. The Hall shares a light laugh.

1703: The Respondent approached the dais, yet again with his blazer buttons open which is duly pointed out by the same judge. The judge is famous for making tense moments light since NLUJAA’s inception. The sur – rebuttal is equally good.

1705: The sur – rebuttal comes to an end. But it seems like that the Petitioner has another point to make. Judges grant her 30 seconds of time to conclude.

1706: The Counsel runs to the dais and tries to summarize her point in half a minute but fails miserably.

1707: The judge chips in and says that “Every good thing must come to an end and hence, the arguments, howsoever good must come to an end!” and the round finally ends!

 

The Finals come to an end.

Stay tuned for the declaration of results!

 

1738: The teams are gathering in the Seminar hall for the big announcement.

1740: The dignitaries have occupied the stage. There is a buzz of anticipation in the air. Everyone wants to know who gets the big things at the end of it.

As we all know, it is not about the good and the bad. It is about the good and the better.

1742: The show begins. The felicitations are going on where the Hon’ble VC is felicitating Hon’ble Justice Ujjwal Bhuyan, Judge, Guwahati High Court.

1745: Justice Bhuyan is invited to take over the mic and the students look excited. He addresses the lot. The mood, he says, is set and he doesn’t want to delay it any further! He congratulates the participants. He says that he points out to the advocates of his court that they should learn from us, the students, as the students are more zealous in comparison to the practising advocates. They need to raise the bar. It is a Sunday evening and better things await us. Winning and losing come as a part and parcel of a competition and life, as well.

1750: And the time has come!

So, here we go!

Best Memorial Award: MNLU, Mumbai.

Best Researcher Award: MNLU, Nagpur.

Best Speaker Award: NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.

Runners’ Up: School of Excellence in Law, Chennai

Winners: Christ University, Bangalore.

 

1753: The felicitation of the winners commences.

1757: The formalities are over and the vote of thanks is proposed by the VC, NLUJAA.

1800: The VC keeps it short and sweet and invites the Universities for the “3rd Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2019,” the flagship event of NLUJA, Assam to be held in the month of May. The students and participants proceed to enjoy the cultural evening to mark the successful conclusion of “1st ‘Vox Anatolis’ National Moot Court Competition!”

One comment

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.