Advocates’ Legion, the Moot Court Committee is ecstatic to welcome you to the most anticipated event, the 9th VIPS International Moot Court Competition 2023, wherein teams representing the top universities participate from all over the country.
ABOUT VIPS
VSLLS has from its very inception aimed at imparting quality legal education and training to young minds with the objective of making them able lawyers, sensitive judges, good researchers, brilliant academics, and industry-ready professionals while being committed to the values of “Man Making, Character Building, Nation Building” as envisioned by Swami Vivekananda. Over a period of time, the school has produced a large number of legal professionals who are serving society to achieve the goals and values envisaged in the Constitution of India. It has recently started a Master’s Program in various contemporary areas of importance and is committed to achieving new horizons in imparting quality advanced legal and judicial education.
ABOUT ADVOCATES’ LEGION
Advocates’ Legion is the Moot Court Committee of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies which has been providing a platform for aspiring young lawyers to experience real-life court situations in the legal arena. The society has been organizing different types of moot court competitions thereby enabling the students of Vivekananda Law School to experience the practical side of law by analyzing different legal issues and giving the opportunities to practice their oral advocacy and writing skills.
ABOUT 9TH VIPS INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Advocates’ Legion, the Moot Court Committee of Vivekananda Institute of Law and Legal Studies, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies-Technical Campus in association with Competition Commission of India and in partnership with SCC Online, EBC, Live Law and The Indian Society of International Law conducted the 9th edition of its International Moot Court Competition, 2023 with the Preliminary Rounds in an Online Mode on 29th and 30th September, 2023 and further rounds in an Offline Mode on 4th and 5th November, 2023.
ABOUT COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Competition Commission Of India is a body which adjudicates competition law matters in India and is governed by the Competition Act, 2002, as amended by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 , it is the best means of ensuring that the ‘Common Man’ or ‘Aam Aadmi’ has access to the broadest range of goods and services at the most competitive prices. It is the duty of the Commission to eliminate practices having adverse effect on competition, promote and sustain competition, protect the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade in the markets of India.
ABOUT EBC
The EBC Group, which was founded in 1942, is the industry leader in legal publishing, with offices in several Indian cities and abroad. In the 1940s, two brothers, the late Shri C.L. Malik, and the late Shri P.L. Malik, together laid the foundation of EBC group. EBC has traditionally focused on publishing legal commentaries, student texts, law reports, and digests. Nowadays, EBC works in both print and electronic media. Supreme Court Cases (SCC), SC Yearly Digest and Complete Digest, SCC Online, EBC Webstore, EBC Student Books and Practitioner Commentaries, EBC Reader, SCC Online Blog, EBC Explorer, and Practical Lawyer magazine are the products of the EBC Group.
ABOUT SCC
The Supreme Court Cases, or SCC, is the law report that was started in 1969 and currently has over 400 volumes. With a wide audience and extensive circulation, it is the leading law report in India. The Supreme Court of India and other courts in India, along with all other standard works of the law, cite it 67% of the time. Other apex courts, including the House of Lords, the South African Constitutional Court, the VSSC, the Pakistan Supreme Court, the Bay Supreme Court, and Malaysian courts, also cite it. The entire legal community respects and recognizes the standard of legal reporting set by the SCC.
ABOUT LIVELAW
LiveLaw is an Independent Media, engaged in fact- based, non-sensational journalism. A strong and independent Judiciary is the foundation of a fair, meaningful, and informed Democracy and Independent Judiciary in turn creates a vibrant democracy.
SEMI FINAL ROUNDS
9:45 AM: The briefing session for the judges is taking place in the Conference Room to make them aware about the intricacies of the proposition and question of law involved
COURT ROOM 1
9:57 AM: Both teams in Court Room 1 have arrived for the Semi-Final Rounds and have informed the Court Marshal regarding the time bifurcation.
10:18 AM: The judges have arrived and the court master extended heartfelt gratitude to the judges and have started briefing them about the moot problem and the time allotted between the speakers of both the teams.
10:21 AM: The court master has briefed the judges about the facts of the case and the scoring criteria.
10:28 AM: With due permission from judges, the proceedings have commenced between TC-06 vs TC-10. The speaking time of TC-06 Speaker 1 has now begun and their arguments have commenced
10:37 AM: Speaker 1 from TC-06 is currently emphasizing Issues 1 and 2, as the respected Judges are reviewing the memorials, Hon’ble Judge, Professor (Dr.) Varsha Vahini is questioning the speaker regarding instances of both lawful and unlawful referendums.
10:47 AM: The Speaker 2 of TC-06 has started their arguments on Issue 2 and 3 and Hon’ble Judge Shri Sanjay Dewan is questioning the speaker regarding the jurisdiction over the case and has asked for clarity about the issue being discussed.
10:55 AM: Hon’ble Judge, Prof. (Dr.) Versha Vahini reiterates the fact that the army of “Hagner Group” was hired by USS and thus, the responsibility lies with the latter. She further questions about the demand of the agent as to which the speaker responds in a satisfactory manner.
11:00 AM: The Speaker 2 of TC-06 presented the prayer while concluding her arguments.
11:02 AM: The speaking time of TC-10 has begun and the Speaker 1 has started the arguments with respect to Issue 1 while briefing the Hon’ble Judges with the main contentions of the speaker involving legitimacy of referendum
11:08 AM: Hon’ble Judge, Prof. (Dr.) Versha Vahini remarks that the referendum is thoroughly examined and it seems one-sided, manipulated and independent observers have also raised questions pertaining to it.
11:11 AM: Speaker 2 of TC-10 after answering the question put forward by Hon’ble Judge, Prof. (Dr.) Versha Vahini, Speaker 2 has requested permission from the Hon’ble Judges to move forward with their arguments regarding Issue 2 and the same was allowed by the hon’ble judges.
11:14 AM: The Hon’ble Judge Ms. Shama Nargis asks the Speaker 2 of TC-10 to differentiate between monopoly and dominance after the speaker ended his arguments on the issue. The Speaker further elaborates.
11:15 AM: Speaker 1 of TC-10 takes a leave and Speaker 2 approaches the bench and has started presenting arguments pertaining to Issue 3 and 4 of the present case.
11:23 AM: The Hon’ble Judge- Prof. (Dr.) Versha Vahini asks the speaker to explain facts of the case- Iran vs US and asks the speaker to substantiate the rational behind the US embassy paying compensation in this situation to which the speaker answers and interlinks it with her arguments.
11:27 AM: The Speaker helps the Hon’ble Judges navigate through the Memorial and the additional documents submitted to establish her arguments and is following through with the Prayer.
11:32 AM: The Hon’ble Judge Ms. Shama Nargis questioned from where does the cause of action arise. The Speaker requests for extension of one minute to answer the same which was allowed and the speaker was again cross questioned to which she failed to answer.
11:35 AM: The rebuttal round has begun and Speaker 1 of TC-06 has approached the dais with due permission of the Hon’ble Judges.
11:36 AM: Speaker 1 of TC-06 highlights nexus between state party and the Hagner group while on the other hand TC-10 speaker 1 highlights duty of sovereign to protect.
11:38 AM: The sur rebuttal by Speaker 2 highlighted the lack of protection and highlights corruption present in all nation states to which the Hon’ble Judges allowed an extension of a minute to conclude his statement.
11:41 AM: The Hon’ble Judges, while providing feedback highlighted that the appellants and respondents need to wait patiently to answer a question and extended appreciation to both the teams for their extensive research
11:43 AM: Hon’ble Judge, Ms. Shama Nargis gave her feedback and appreciated arguments put forward in the rebuttal round by TC-06 and Hon’ble Judge Shri. Sanjay Dewan pointed out that the questioning done by the judges is to clarify as to how clear the teams are on the point of law and appreciated the arguments put forward by both the teams along giving them a few pointers for improvement.
11:45 AM: Hon’ble Judge, Prof (Dr.) Versha Vahini applauds the teams and asked the teams to focus more on defending oneself while answering in the rebuttal.
11:47 AM: The Hon’ble Judges are discussing amongst themselves the performance of the teams and ascertaining the final scores as they fill the scoresheet.
11:55 AM: The proceedings have concluded.
COURT ROOM 2
9:52 AM: Both teams in Court Room 2 have arrived for the Semi-Final Rounds and have informed the Court Marshal the time they will be reserving for speaking.
10:11 AM: The Semi-Final Rounds have begun with the arrival of the Judges and the teams are very enthusiastic for the same.
10:14 AM: The Court Master is briefing the Hon’ble Judges regarding the scoring criterion and the brief facts of the case for their perusal.
10:25 AM: With the due permission of the Judges, the rounds have begun with Speaker 1 of TC 01 (Applicant) approaching the dais to present their arguments before the Hon’ble Bench.
10:26 AM: Speaker 1 has begun addressing issues 1 and 2 and adroitly establishing the same. The Judges are following her arguments through the Memorials and documents provided.
10:36 AM: Hon’ble Judges, Dr. Shikhar Ranjan and Dr. Sai Ramani Garimella, asked whether the Advisory Jurisdiction can be exercised herein or not. They further question whether an order can be invoked when it has not been mentioned.
10:38 AM: Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Shikha Ranjan establishes that WTO comes under the DSU and asks whether the dispute at hand is a covered agreement or not. Dr. Sai Ramani Garimella further seeks clarification on whether it is permissible for the party in question can approach the World Trade Organization.
10:42 AM: The Counsel emphasizes that WTO is an alternative remedy which the opposite party did not exercise and the Judges further ask if previous judgements of ICJ are binding upon the Court or not, the Counsel establishes that they only have a persuasive value and proceeds with her concluding remark.
10:44 AM: Speaker-2 of TC-01 has greeted the Hon’ble Judges and begun his arguments on Issue 3 and 4. The Judges interject and ask whether the ‘Articles of State Responsibility’ are ‘Draft Articles’ or not and places emphasis on the fact that the terminology used must be accurate.
10:49 AM: Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Sai Ramani Garimella, in pursuance of ‘The Pulp Mill Case’ mentioned by the Counsel asks whether similar logic of due diligence can be extended to matters like that at hand, further questioning whether there is any normative feature from which due diligence can be drawn herein.
10:52 AM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Shikha Ranjan asks the Counsel to guide them in regards to the status of National Liberation Movements in International Law, interjecting that the word ‘peaceful’ is a colonial term and Articles never presume such a word. In furtherance of this, they question the Speaker whether it is related to ICCPR or not.
10:56 AM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Sai Raman Garimella continues to question the Speaker regarding the use of force under Article 1. When the Counsel answers in the affirmative, she questions as to how they can place ‘Right To Protect’ in such a scenario. Moreover, she asks the Counsel to highlight how the Referendum is not a legitimate action.
10:59 AM: Hon’ble Judge Dr.Garimella futher questions the Counsel if she considers them as ‘freedom fighters’ and if yes, then why is the counsel questioning the legitimacy of the referendum. Furthermore, she refers to the language of the Fact Sheet where it is mentioned that 98% of the people have voted and emphasized that a democratic government exists. She questions the logic behind the Applicants’ question of the legitimacy of the referendum.
11:02 AM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Shikha Ranjan questions the Applicants’ on the presumption of the fact that the people in question do not belong from Ordealia and the Counsel emphasizes the principle of ‘lex speacialis’ in response. The laws that govern the Arms Act were asked and the Counsel was requested to guide the Bench via Treaty Law rather than Settlements.
11:06 AM: Additional protocol of Geneva Convention mentioned by Speaker 2 were requested to be elaborated on by the Hon’ble Judges.
11:10 AM: The Speaker helps the Hon’ble Judges navigate his Memorial and additional documents submitted to establish their arguments. Hon’ble Judge Dr. Garimella questions whether the Counsel if he is basing his arguments on International Law, Treaty Law, or Customary International Law and further asks him to establish a local custom in support of his argument. She also refers to the ILC Report mentioned by the Respondents and questions if it includes these two aspects in regards of will of the people.
11: 14 AM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Garimella explains that ‘Jus Cogens’ is a contentious argument and questions the counsel on the reliability of this argument. She continues to question and asks, under which peremptory norm are the Respondents bringing the will of the people and how the application of ‘Jus Cogens’ strengthening this argument.
11:20 AM: Referring to the Compendium, the Speaker substantiated his arguments effectively and moved towards Issue 2. Hon’ble Judge Dr. Shikhar Ranjan requested the Counsel to explain the concept of ‘Market Dominance’ and Dr. Garimella questions whether compulsory jurisdiction negates any question in regards to attribution of responsibility in this matter.
11:22 AM: Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Ranjan questions whether the weapons were placed by IU and not by USS? Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Anil requested the Counsel to to explain how the Respondents are invoking ‘Abuse of Dominance’ in this case. To answer the queries, the Counsel highlighted Article 36 of the ICJ Statute.
11:25 AM: The normative content being highlighted to talk about market dominance is asked to be established by Hon’ble Judge Dr. Anil and he further questions as to which category the set of principles will be applied under Article 38.
11:28 AM: Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Garimella asks how the payments arising from Hagner and USS are being questioned and why did Hagner not exercise alternative remedies. The Counsel answered that all such remedies have been exhausted.
11:30 AM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Garimella highlights that the problem with the case is that the Respondents are approaching multiple jurisdictions at the same time. In furtherance of their argument that that the matter went to the Commercial Court, the Hon’ble Judges question how such a court can make an order against a Foreign State. They mention that the Counsel is bringing to a claim founded upon Non- Compliance and in terms of International Law it is not easily determinable whether this amounts to an actual claim or not.
11:33 AM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Anil mentions that that Counsel is using terms like ‘contractual issue’, ‘consumer issue’ and ‘competition issue’, very frequently and clarifies if they’re trying to establish that contractual issue amounts to abuse of dominance and further requests them to elaborate on the same some more.
11:34 AM: Speaker 2 of TC-07 approaches the dais and greets the Hon’ble Bench. She informs them that she’ll be dealing with Issues 3 and 4.
11:36 AM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Garimella asks if the fact that Hagner is paying taxes can be said to be a submission or not. The Counsel highlights the effective control principle in international law and emphasizes that Hagner was paying taxes.
11:38 AM: The Speaker is questioned if Hagner is paying taxes to the Opposition Leader or the Government by Hon’ble Judge Dr. Anil. The Speaker quickly deals with the query and moves forward to the last issue.
11:41 AM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Ranjan requests the Counsel to explain when a ‘custom’ becomes part of Customary International Law. Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Anil adds to the query, wanting the Counsel to establish whether there is any specific law which states the exact duration till which the custom should be followed to become Customary International Law.
11:44 AM: Speaker 2 of TC-07 concludes her arguments and proceeds towards the Prayer.
11:46 AM: Rebuttal of Applicants begins with Speaker 2 using 3 minutes reserved by him to reiterate his prior arguments and he asks if eye-witness testimonies or any other mechanisms that the ICJ can rely upon are relevant in this regard. The Hon’ble Judges praise him regarding the points made but emphasize that rebuttals should not seek clarifications, rather they should be made to rebuke arguments of the opposing team.
11:50 AM: As the Respondents begin with their rebuttal, Speaker 1 responds to the clarifications sought by the Applicants. He further questions the validity of the contentions put forth by the opposing team. The Hon’ble Judges thank the participants for their valuable efforts.
11:53 AM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Garimella appreciates the hardwork and efforts of the participants in reaching this stage of the competition. She further asks them to be clear in their fundamentals. She mentions the importance of understanding the structure of law and recalls the principle of ‘Non-Collision’ used by the participants, elaborating that this is not the methods to adopt.
11:55 AM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Shikhar Ranjan applauds the courage of the participants and suggests that International Adjudication is going to multiply and that this is something participants can make a career in.
11:56 AM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Anil praises both the teams. He mentions that the issues in question were related to different fields of law and were hence diverse and complex in nature. He emphasizes that instead of saying that there’s no jurisdiction at all, they should focus on proving the other team’s arguments incorrect. He remarks that very few arguments were made by the teams in terms of Competition Law and wishes all the teams luck.
12:00 PM: The Hon’ble Judges are discussing amongst themselves the performance of the teams and ascertaining the final scores as they fill the scoresheet.
12:02 PM: A vote of thanks is given by the Court Master following which the Judges give their best wishes and exit the Court Room.
FINAL ROUND
1:03 PM: TC-01 and TC-06 qualify for the Final Rounds and the proceedings begin with the arrival of the Hon’ble Judges.
1:05 PM: The Court Master is briefing the Hon’ble Judges regarding the scoring criterion and the rules of the competition.
1:07 PM: The Court Master is further informing the Hon’ble Judges about the time reserved by each speaker
1:08 PM: The Court Master is briefing the Hon’ble Judges regarding the facts of the case to make them aware about the intricacies of the moot proposition and questions of law involved.
1:09 PM: With due permission of the Hon’ble Judges, the proceedings commence with Speaker 1 of TC 01 (Applicants) presenting their arguments before the Hon’ble Bench.
1:11 PM: Speaker 1 has begun addressing issues 1 and 2. The Judges are following her arguments through the Memorials and documents provided.
1:16 PM: The Counsel is highlighting the diplomatic relations between ROS and USS. She further highlights the importance of territorial integrity in International Law.
1:17 PM: The Counsel refers to the Statement of Facts along with the judgement of Nicaragua V. State of USA to support their arguments for Issue 1.
1:23 PM: Hon’ble Judge Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna asks questions pertaining to the referendum.
1:25 PM: The Counsel refers to Resolutions in regards to the case of Kuwait which highlighted the importance of sovereignty and territorial integrity
1:27 PM: The Counsel smoothly concludes issue 1 and further proceeds their arguments in relation to the Issue 2, highlighting the vast number of cases adjudicated by the International Court of Justice. Hon’ble Judge, Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna questions the Counsel on the Articles used from the ICJ Statute and the Counsels answers the same.
1:32 PM: Hon’ble Judges Dr. Narinder Singh and Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna seek clarifications regarding the position of the Applicants in the current issue and further question them on whose behalf the Hagner group was acting on.
1:36 PM: Hon’ble Judge Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna questions the Counsel on the Human Rights Violations that have taken place in the current scenario and Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Narinder Singh further questions how the Hagner group’s violations can be attributed to them.
1:38 PM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Narinder Singh questions the Counsel the type of contract existing between the Hagner group and USS. Hon’ble Judge Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna further inquires whether ICHR is binding on the parties and the Counsel answers in the negative
1:44 PM: Speaker 2 of TC-01 proceeds towards the dais and begins his arguments with prior permission of the Hon’ble Judges.
1:45 PM: The Speaker deals with Issues 3 and 4. He furthers his contentions on the issue whether ROS owes damages to USS. A Compendium is submitted to the Hon’ble Judges for their perusal.
1:50 PM: The Counsel establishes the existence of a capitalist economy and highlights that there is no need to show that the act was conducted under the State since the Hagner group was a private entity and it’s actions are not attributable to the State.
1:53 PM: Hon’ble Judge Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna enquires as to why the ROS government was not asked before signing the contract. Hon’ble Judge Dr. Narinder Singh establishes this concern by bringing the Counsel’s attention to the memorial. The Counsel fails to provide a satisfactory answer to the Hon’ble Bench’s queries.
1:55 PM: Hon’ble Judge Dr. Narinder Singh further highlights Hagnor International’s establishment of a subsidiary in furtherance of ROS’ commands which establishes the existence of ‘effective control’. Hon’ble Judges Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna and Shri Sukesh Mishra further question the Counsel’s fundamentals by asking him to elaborate on the ‘Rule of Estoppel’.
1:58 PM: The Hon’ble Bench’s concerns regarding the protection of individual interest over the consent of government of ROS was not highlighted by the Speaker 2. The Counsel failed to give a satisfactory reply to the countless questions posed.
2:01 PM: The Hon’ble Bench highlights that the Principles of International Law, are also applicable in the Supreme Court of India. Equity, Good Conscience and Natural Justice are widely accepted norms in the Justice Dispensation System across the globe.
2:06 PM: The Counsel, in furtherance of common Article 2 of ICCPR and ICESCR, established ROS’ responsibility. Hon’ble Judge, Shri Sukesh Mishra asks whether policy decisions can be reviewed by the Court or not.
2:08 PM: Hon’ble Judge ,Dr. Narinder Singh asks the rule for governing the acts of private military under the International Law. He further questions whether there is any evidence that ROS was providing support, training or weaponry to the group or not.
2:09 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Narinder Singh continues to question the Counsel drawing parallels to the Nicaragua case wherein the government was supporting the groups with weaponry, funding and training.
2:12 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Narinder Singh enquires if the Counsel wants the Court to declare that terrorists do not have Human Rights to which the Counsel answers in the affirmative. He further highlights that terrorists have different types of protection but their acts do not mean that they do not have Human Rights.
2:18 PM: Speaker 2 concludes his arguments and proceeds with the Prayer with the due permission of the Hon’ble Judges
2:20 PM: Speaker 1 of TC-06 approaches the dais with the permission of the Hon’ble Judges and begins establishing her arguments in relation to Issues 1 and 2.
2:24 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna questions the Counsel on the ‘Right to Self-Determination’ mentioned by the Counsel. Hon’ble Judge, Shri Sukesh Mishra further inquires the Counsel to elaborate on what is ‘law’. He further asks her to not use Constitutional language but to explain it in a general way.
2:27 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Narinder Singh highlights that in 1945, following the establishment of the UN Charter, Article 2(4) prohibited the use of force even in light of territorial integrity and sovereignty, that maintains that the current scenario is a violation of International Law.
2:29 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Narinder Singh further references Britain with relation to ‘Self-Determination’ in terms of the UN General Assembly. The Counsel highlights that the facts and circumstances in the current scenario are totally different and hence should be judged on a different scale.
2:33 PM: Hon’ble Judge Shri Sukesh Mishra questions the Counsel regarding the Article of the Constitution which provides prisoners’ rights to which she responds Article 20. She further clarifies that there has been no malpractices and coercion in the present case.
2:34 PM: The Counsel references the fact sheet to resolve the queries of the Hon’ble Bench and moves forward to the fourth issue.
2:36 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna enquires if the Counsel has any citation in reference to the question of non payment of dues and questions what is dominance. Hon’ble Judge, Shri Sukesh Mishra further references Competition Law which is related to the issue in question but was not mentioned by the Respondent.
2:41 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna questions the jurisdiction of International Court of Justice in the present matter. The Counsel clarifies their position and pleads that this matter is not under the jurisdiction of ICJ. Hon’ble Judge Shri Sukesh Mishra further asks the Counsel to elaborate this position with citations.
2:43 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna posed a series of questions which the Counsel was unable to answer.
2:45 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Narinder Singh interjects that the Barcelona Traction Case which was mentioned by the Respondents was dismissed and seeks clarification. He further asks why the Counsel is asking for payment herein. The Counsel responds by referencing the Fact Sheet, stating that USS was a subsidiary.
2:47 PM: Speaking time for Speaker 2 of TC-06 begins and she approaches the dais with the due permission of the Hon’ble Bench.
2:50 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna highlights the contradiction in the Respondent’s arguments which the Counsel agrees upon and proceeds further.
2:56 PM: The Counsel references the Articles of Responsibility of States, Customary International Law, ICCPR and Geneva Conventions to establish the importance of ‘Right to Life’ and Human Rights. Hon’ble Judge, Shri Sukesh Sharma asks the Counsel to highlight a case law related to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Counsel states the case of ‘ADM Jabalpur’.
3:00 PM: The Counsel highlights the State’s responsibility to provide personal freedom and Human Rights and that they can be held liable for violation of International obligations. Hon’ble Judge, Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna highlights the contradiction in the arguments of the Counsel.
3:03 PM: The Speaker concludes her arguments and proceeds with the Prayer.
3:04 PM: Speaker 2 of TC-01 approaches the dais for the rebuttals. Hon’ble Judge, Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna mentions that the referendum does not mention the territory being part of the State. The Counsel states the Fact Sheet to answer this query.
3:08 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna enquires where the Applicants raised the question of use of force. The Counsel referred the Hon’ble Bench to the same in their Memorial, highlighting the responsibility if state over private entities in the process.
3:10 PM: Speaker 1 of TC-06 starts with her sur-rebuttal. She draws inferences from the arguments of the Applicants to oppose their contentions.
3:12 PM: The proceedings end and the Court Master requests the Hon’ble Bench to provide their feedbacks.
3:15 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Shri Sukesh Mishra praises the participants for their conduct and articulation. He advises them to listen attentively to the Judges’ questions and to not reiterate their own points. He further asks them to be robust on procedural laws that will help them become good officers of the Court.
3:17 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Dr. Narinder Singh congratulates the hardwork of the participants and appreciated their research and presentation skills. He emphasizes the importance of the ability to being prepared, to identify the gist of the matter and to articulate well and asks them to focus more on being aware of the facts of the case laws being mentioned so that they can make responses to the Judges’ queries in advance.
3:18 PM: Hon’ble Judge, Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna emphasizes the importance of listening well. He points out that Judges give hints at times which may work in the participants’ favour and it is thus, beneficial to be vigilant and to incorporate them into their arguments. He also highlights the significance of preparedness and the capability of formulating answers.
3:21 PM: The Court Master thanks the Hon’ble Bench for their guidance and asks the participants to leave the Court Room for the Judges to deliberate upon the results.
3:25 PM: The proceedings have concluded.
VALEDICTORY CEREMONY
4:02 PM: The esteemed dignitaries arrive in the auditorium to begin the Valedictory Session
4:03 PM: Professor (Dr.) Rashmi Salpekar along with Professor (Dr.) T.V. Subba Rao facilitate the esteemed dignitaries, Shri Sukesh Mishra, Director (Law), CCI, Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Dr. Narinder Singh, Secretary General, ISIL, with a shawl, a sapling and a statue of Swami Vivekananda.
4:07 PM: Professor (Dr.) Rashmi Salpekar, Dean, Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies-TC begins with a welcome address.
4:09 PM: Dr. Salpekar thanks the dignitaries , elaborates more on the significance of International Law on which the Moot Court Competition was based and emphasizes how ‘Vasudeva Kutumbakam’ is a motto of national and international importance.
4:12 PM: Professor Mr. Aaditya Vikram Sharma, Faculty Event Convenor, Advocates‘ Legion approaches the dais to report on the events of the competition. He applauds the enthusiastic participation of all Participants, Partners, Faculty Members and Students who made this competition a great success.
4:13 PM: Shri Sukesh Mishra is introduced as a prestigious guest who started his career in the year 2000 and transitioned to the Competition Commission of India as a Joint Director. He was recently appointed as the Director of Competition Commission of India and edits the ‘Fair Play Newsletter’ for the same.
4:16 PM: Shri Sukesh Mishra focused on how important it is to learn the art of advocacy through the elements of substantive and procedural law. He further highlights the need for articulation amongst the budding advocates.
4:18 PM: He further elaborates on the working of the Competition Commission of India. He explains what happens in the Commission, the way it creates an environment of competition and protects the interests of the consumers and emphasizes upon the freedom of trade and its challenges.
4:22 PM: Dr. Narinder Singh is introduced and he approaches the dais. He plays a pivotal role in the International Law circuits as the current Secretary General in the Indian Society of International Law and as the former Chairman of International Law Commission. He has been part of drafting various bilateral treaties and worked as a Legal Advisor to the Government of India between 2002-12.
4:25 PM: He elucidates on the importance of International Law which deals with the relationship between States but differs from Domestic Laws. He continues, that unlike the domestic sphere where there is Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, at the International Level it is the States which make the law and implement it. Rules of International Law requires the consent of states.
4:29 PM: He draws a parallel between International and Domestic Laws for the better understanding of the students. Unlike Domestic Law where higher courts’ judgements are binding on lower ones, ICJ judgements are binding on the parties to the case alone. Citing them only holds persuasive value.
4:32 PM: He remarks how this year is the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that all the International Conventions in the history of Human Rights continue to flow from this Declaration.
4:36 PM: He mentions the International Courts and Tribunals that contribute to the development of International Law. These are all independent and their decisions are final and binding. This can also lead to conflicts which have been addressed by the UN General Assembly but no conclusion has been made.
4:39 PM: Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna is introduced as a distinguished Legal Practitioner, specializing in almost all fields of law. His expansive career ranges from working as the Additional Advocate General for Punjab from 2010-2017, former Advocate Solicitor General of India and Former President, Supreme Court of its Bar Association along with being a current Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India.
4:45 PM: Shri Rakesh Kumar Khanna introduces the profession of ‘law’ as as one of the most important professions, historically and presently. He lays emphasis that once students choose this as a career option, they need to prepare and develop their skills accordingly. Mastering the facts of the case and comprehending the fundamentals of the principles of law applied are the most basic and significant work that a law student must be aware of.
4:49 PM: He highlights the various laws which were involved in the current proposition and gave examples to explain the same. He further asks the students to look at the legal position of the applicable laws, case laws related to it from the Supreme Court and the High Court and makes references from his personal experience to emphasize the significance of articulation and out-of-the-box thinking.
4:55 PM: He calls the profession of law ‘demanding’ and relays his experiences to encourage students to be ready and to establish themselves well. He concludes his speech by giving his best wishes to the students.
4:57 PM: Professor (Dr.) T.V. Subba Rao, Professor Emeritus, Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies-TC approaches the dais and addresses the dignitaries and everyone present in the auditorium, congratulating them for the successful end of the competition.
5:05 PM: Sir highlights the Institute’s intellectually challenging, socially relevant and logically competent curriculum and training and emphasizes the paradigm between legal knowledge and experience that the college has successfully achieved. Sir moves on to discuss the moot proposition and asks the students to work on this international sphere including Conventions, their signatories and their application in India.
5:12 PM: Professor (Dr.) T.V. Subba Rao points out the significance of practice and the importance of Moot Courts that bridges the gaps between experiences and learning. He communicates how such co-curricular activities help which facilitates holistic development, effective education and improve one’s articulation and presentation abilities. It also helps familiarizing with legal procedures and helps communication skills.
5:13 PM: Sir lay emphasis on how beneficial Moot Court Competitions are and asks the students to appreciate the art of argumentation. He concludes by asking the participants to send their feedbacks to the Conveners and congratulates everyone.
5:16 PM: The dignitaries approach the stage to facilitate the Semi-Finalists, TC-07 (Christ University, Delhi) and TC-10 (NLU, Shimla) with trophies and certificates.
5:18 PM: Best Memorial Award is given to TC-01 (Lloyd College) and they are awarded with certificates, trophy and a prize money of Rs. 7500
5:19 PM: Best Speaker is given to Symbiosis Law School, Pune with certificates, trophy and prize money of Rs. 7500 and one year subscription of EBC
5:21 PM: The winning team is announced to be Lloyd College who won a Winner’s trophy, Rs. 25,000 award money and a one year subscription to EBC Learning worth Rs. 14,500. The Runners-up, Symbiosis Law School, Pune win Rs. 15,000 award money and a Runners-up Trophy with a one year subscription to EBC Learning worth Rs. 14,500
5:23 PM: A Token of Appreciation is provided to Mr. Aaditya V. Sharma for preparing the proposition. Faculty Members including, Dr. Sonali Sharma, Dr. Avinash Kumar, Ms. Ayesha Gupta, Ms. Samriddhi, Dr. Abhishek Trivedi, Ms. Soumya Khanna, Ms. Nitika Upadhyaya were also given Tokens of Appreciation for their unwavering support and guidance
5:26 PM: The Organising Committee Members are provided with a certificate and a trophy for their hardwork and the the Faculty Convener expresses her gratitude to everyone associated for the successful completion of this competition.
5:40 PM: A vote of thanks was delivered by Dr. Gunjan Malhotra Ahuja, who expressed her gratitude towards all who endeavored to make this competition a success. The esteemed dignitaries leave the auditorium and the participants are provided a certificate to acknowledge their hardwork.
