Interviews

   

Dr Vijay Kumar Singh is presently the Dean at UPES School of Law. He is a lawyer by training with LLM in business laws (gold medalist). He is a certified trainer on “managing disputes and difficult conversations on the board” by Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR), as a Course Director, he has conducted training in commercial mediation and negotiation, IBC, NCLT, etc. for senior professionals. He has participated, organised and presented papers in a number of national and international seminars/conferences/workshops. He had been a faculty at Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU) Raipur and has worked with the competition regulator (CCI) for 5 years. 

He has been interviewed by Aditi Sharma, EBC/SCC Online Student Ambassador who is currently pursuing law from UPES, Dehradun.

  1. To begin with, for the interest of our readers would you be kind enough to tell us something about yourself, your journey in the profession and your early years?

It is always a humbling experience when you are asked to introduce yourself or speak about your achievements. However, for the new readers I am a student of law currently discharging the responsibility of Professor and Dean at School of Law, UPES Dehradun.  My journey as a professional has seen many twists and turns and on each of these turns I learnt a lot which makes me what I am.  I had a humble background which necessitated me to work and support myself.  Being eldest in the family, I had many responsibilities as well.  At the hindsight, I think these made me a self-made person.  I had worked as a law clerk, a medical transcriptionist, and many would not know that I have even worked in a security company of my uncle in Nagpur.  I got my permanent teaching break with HNLU Raipur and a lot of honing of my professional skills happened with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA) in Delhi-NCR, before I joined UPES.

  1. What motivated you towards the field of legal education? Do you recall any specific episode of your life that made you choose law as a career?

During my college days of LLB 3 years course at Dr. Ambedkar College, Deekshabhoomi, I discovered that I enjoy teaching while I was making my first presentation to an audience at a national seminar on child rights.  For this seminar, I recollect interviewing the children at the streets and their conditions in Nagpur.  Later this thought got further strengthened with my PG at PG Department wherein I discharged the role of contributory lecturer along with my responsibility as a law clerk.  I had a brief stint of professional practice in Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court and tribunals, but ultimately it was legal education which took over.  I had the privilege of teaching information technology law at a very young age to the judicial officers at JOTI as well as to a batch of air warriors immediately after my LLM. I would only say my professors and mentors have been very kind to provide me with best of the opportunities.  I was a BSc student and after my BSc I did medical transcription for a year to support myself.  While doing my job, I enrolled in the LLB course and after attending few classes of torts and Constitution, I made up my mind that I belong to law.

  1. You are a lawyer by training and a doctorate in law with gold medals in LLM and LLB examinations. Could you please enlighten our readers about your college life experience and how law schools have evolved over time compared to what it was 20 years back then?

I studied law through the traditional 3-year LLB format from Dr. Ambedkar College, Deekshabhoomi, Nagpur.  We were the privileged ones to get legal education under the precincts of Deekshabhoomi wherein Dr Ambedkar got his “diksha”.  Some of the teachers like Dr Hema Menon, Dr Varsha Deshpande, Dr Thrity Patel and Dr Gopal Sharma (late) seeded inside me a thought to excel in the legal field and in particular legal education.  There is a difference between the cohort you have in 3-year LLB and 5-year LLB.  In 3-year course, you generally have experienced people doing law.  Along with me there were many of my colleagues who were working professionals.  This provided a different approach to learning law.  In the present day context, the students decide doing law after 12th itself, which is in a way good, as they save one year which they can devote to PG (LLM) if they want to continue.  Standalone law schools with a specialised focus on law have definitely changed the way legal education used to be looked at.  It is no more a part-time education, it has evolved over the years as a separate stream in its own right.  Now Bar Council has come up with India International University of Legal Education and Research (IIULER) which is further raising the bar of legal education in India.  It is now going international.  Facility wise, I envy the young students and wish I could travel back in time to do law once again.

  1. Research paper publications are an integral part of a law student’s career but in the early stages, students often tend to indulge in other co-curricular activities. How important is it for a law student to realise the value of publications as you yourself have published and presented papers in several recognised journals/seminars/conferences/workshops, etc.?

We call it KSA framework i.e. knowledge, skills and attitude.  A law student shall not only earn the knowledge of legal subjects but acquire skills and attitude of a legal professional.  A law professional is a lifetime researcher, research skills shall flow like blood in the blood vessels of a law student.  Developing research temperament shall begin early in the career, it is like developing a habit to read, research and write.  The more you do, the more you enjoy and more skilful you become.  Nowadays law schools mandate project writing and research by students, this is towards the objective of building research culture.  Presenting papers at the conferences and seminar helps not only showcase your researching and oratory skills, but also to network, which is again very important.  I never missed an opportunity to attend conferences/seminars during my college days.  Though initial objective was to visit different places and meet different people, I realised over time how helpful it was in my career.  I became an associate member of Indian Society of International Law very early.  Many conferences sponsor students, I got one to present my paper at IIT Kanpur.  First time I travelled in AC 2 tier sponsored by the organisers for presenting my paper.  If you are interested in higher studies having good publications is an important key to success.  In short, I would say publishing in the life of a law student is a must, either it may be a journal, blog post, book chapter or even twitter posts.  Publish for staying relevant in the profession.  I also feel that any publication project forces you to update yourself, read new things and critically think, which keeps your mental faculty alive and going.  You may like to read more about my publications at <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1113018>.

  1. Please tell us about your book titled Corporate Power to Corporate Crimes: Understanding Corporate Criminal Liability in India which is an enhancement of your PhD thesis and your journey to this accomplishment.

My book on corporate crimes is an updated version of my PhD thesis.  I had always in mind that your publications shall not be kept in a closet rather shall be made available to the interested readers at large.  Foreword to my book was written by Justice Sirpurkar and was launched at NLU Delhi with the blessings of Prof. Ranbir Singh and Prof. Srikrishna Dev Rao.  This book is a comprehensive literature on corporate criminal liability in Indian context and contains copious references for scholars who want to do further studies.  My work in this area allowed me to further advise on corporate frauds, ponzi schemes and securities fraud, which goes on unabated.  Update of the book is due which I intent to take up as my next project.  You can find more about the book at <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2973719>.

  1. With a humongous increase in the number of applicants for law entrance exams in India, the practice of law has become very competitive, and the competition for jobs has intensified in recent years, what advice would you like to give to the law enthusiasts who find it difficult to cope with such competition.

Law as a career options has indeed seen an increase over the last few years, especially given the multifarious opportunities a law graduate has, students are now opting it over plain engineering or plain graduation.  Though the competition is stiff for getting into the few top law schools, students ultimately are able to get admission in private institutions of repute, some of which are better than the last rung law schools which are yet to come up with their own infrastructure or have good permanent faculty.  However, competition is in every field, this is due to the population of youth we have.  While young population provides us with a demographic dividend, on other hand an unskilled and unguided dividend becomes a cost later.  My suggestion for the youngsters is that they shall not limit themselves in acquiring skills and attitude.  Standing out in competition is important and this can be done by thinking innovatively.  Youngsters should think about entrepreneurship as an option, where they become “job givers than job seekers”.  Serving rural India could be an option.  We still do not have good law professionals in hinterland.  There are plenty of opportunities, it is about crafting your own journey towards one of them.  Plan early and execute the action plan.

  1. What recommendations and guidance would you like to give to students who wish to make a career the same as yours i.e. academia and what do you think are the factors which should be taken into account before pursuing postgraduation (LLM)?

It is heartening to know that many youngsters are attracted to legal education as their career.  Life of an educator is a service and the job is that of a passion, if the mindset is to earn money, it is not the right profession.  Anyone interested in academia shall have a temperament of patience and empathy.  Continuous passion of learning and teaching and research is a must.  My suggestion would be to spend some time in industry/practice before one does their postgraduation.  Nowadays legal academicians are expected to know practical dimension of theory they teach.  Working with a law and policy firm could be a great asset.

  1. What is the significance of doing proper legal research and how should law students equip themselves with legal research skills? Also, what is your view on the concept of “exhaustion of a search” as many people are not aware of it?

I think I have already elaborated upon the importance of research in legal profession and especially for legal educators.  As regards status of legal research in India, I find still a lot has not changed and legal research takes a backseat, especially when you compare them with scientific and social science research.  Legal research as a domain has not progressed well.  The concept of “exhaustion of a search” is very important, as until you complete your review of literature you cannot find something new.  In my role as a PhD supervisor and during my guidance on projects, seminars and dissertations, I observe, the students often take the shortcut and do not consult the original literature.  Often, they do not read the original judgment, rather rely on the headnotes.  Headline research may not be the right approach to research.  In-depth understanding of literature already available is important to lay down a new theory or perspective.  It is also important to save oneself from falling into the traps of plagiarism.

  1. What is the most challenging part of your job as an academician and how do you overcome it?

Challenges make your work exciting and interesting.  As an academician there are few challenges than an administrator.  In fact I would say there are no challenges for a true academician, every challenge is a learning opportunity and also an opportunity to contribute something to the existing body of knowledge and academic practice.  In terms of students and scholars as well as introduction of technology has changed the role of an academician.  It is no more about providing information, rather it is about engaging in critical analysis and evolving tools to deal with the technological challenges posed by the information burst.

  1. Any advice you would like to give to the readers of the SCC blog? Or is there anything you would like to share with our readers?

SCC blog is a reputed blog in the area of tracking legal developments and also providing a platform for its readers to engage and network with professionals. As it tagline goes “bringing you the best analytical legal news”, readers of SCC blog shall enjoy the benefits of this platform by contributing and commenting on the threads and engage in a discussion with the author.  Also readers are encouraged to contribute to the platform as sustainability of a blog depends upon good content, analysis and engagement by its readers.  My best wishes to SCC blog for continued success.

New releasesNews

Contents


A Prologue

COVID-19 – Law and Policy Response in India

Vijay Kumar Singh and Shilpika Pandey — 1

Articles

Role of Virtual Learning Amidst Covid – 19: Challenges & Recommendations

Ekta Sood — 18

Moving Beyond the Rhetoric: Addressing the Issues Relating to Crisis Cartels in India

Dipali Rai and Sheena Gupta — 37

Covid – 19 Vis-À-Vis Domestic and International Law Regulating Wildlife Trade

Rama Devi Gudemela — 57

Coronavirus Pandemic in East Africa: Tanzanian and Ugandan Approaches in Legal Perspectives

Issa Babatunde Oba — 69

Scope of Intellectual Property Rights in Times of Covid: Indian Scenario

Anjana Girish — 87

Covid-19 and its Impact on Fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Region through the Lens of IUU Fishing

Tarique Faiyaz — 100

The Unkindest Cut of All – Labour Law and the Covid-19 Crisis

Karthik Shiva B — 116

Corporate Social Responsibility and Covid 19 Crisis: Analysing
the Role of Indian Companies

Rajdip Bhadra Chaudhuri — 129

The Role of Media During Covid-19: Ethical and Regulatory Challenges

Sruthi Prabhakar and Yamuna Vijayagopal — 151

Technology and Unemployment: Cause, Cure and the Future

Smriti Kanwar and Kartikeya Vashist — 170

The Corona Menace and Impact on IP Rights: Analyzing the Need for Better Decisions

Anuja Misra — 187

Rethinking Globalisation and Trade-in Covid-19 Era

Kushagra Prasad —  207

Law School NewsLive Blogging

Welcome to the Madhyastham UPES ADR Fest, 2021, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun.

The Alternate Dispute Resolution Association of UPES School of Law is proud to organize “Madhyastham UPES ADR Fest, 2021. Due to the risk associated with a novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) outbreak, this Competition will be organized in Online Mode only. UPES School of Law is a private school that was established in 2007 in Dehradun. UPES is one of the constituent schools of the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES) and is recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC). UPES is the first Indian University to partner with UK-based The University of Law for legal studies.

Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR as it is commonly known is almost a movement that has quickly gained momentum in the Indian as well as the International Legal Fraternity. Dispute Resolution is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute. It is a bargaining process between parties when both seek to reach an agreement that settles a matter of mutual concern or resolves a conflict.

“Madhyastham UPES ADR Fest’21” will be held in February from 25th-28th. This fest will witness three national competitions:

  • 3rdNational Mediation Competition 
  • 1stNational Negotiation Competition 
  • 1stNational Arbitral Award Writing Competition 

BRIEF ITINERARY OF THE EVENT:

Day 1– 25th February 2021: Inaugural Ceremony [6:00 PM]

Day 2– 26th February 2021:

  • Preliminary Round of 1st National Negotiation Competition [9:00 AM]
  • Quarter-Final Round of 1st National Negotiation Competition [2:00 PM]
  • Semi-Final Round of 1st National Negotiation Competition [5:30 PM]

Day 3: 27th February 2021:

  • Final Round of 1st National Negotiation Competition [10:00 AM]
  • Preliminary Round of 3rd National Mediation Competition [2:00 PM]
  • Quarter-Final Round of 3rd National Mediation Competition [6:30 PM]

Day 4: 28th February 2021:

  • Semi-Final Round of 3rd National Mediation Competition [10:30 AM]
  • Final Round of 3rd National Mediation Competition [2:00 PM]
  • Valedictory Ceremony [6:00 PM]

INAUGURAL CEREMONY

06:00 PM: The inaugural ceremony commences. It commenced with the introduction by the hosts Mr. Nishant and Ms. Simran. They briefed about the University, ADR Association, and the Event (Madhyastam’21).

06:05 PM: The hosts thanked all the collaborations and to the Dean, UPES School of Law, Prof. (Dr.) Vijay Kumar Singh.

06:10 PM: Prof. (Dr.) Vijay Kumar Singh motivated the participants and imparted knowledge about the importance of ADR mechanism.

06:15 PM: The hosts thanked our faculty coordinators; Mr. Afkar Ahmed, Ms. Aprajita Singh and Mr. Shashank Pathak.

06:17 PM: Mr. Shashank Pathak wished all the students all the best and appreciated the efforts of the entire ADR Association for organizing the event.

06:20 PM: The session was concluded by the hosts and the student convener Ms. Nishtha Kansal, ADR Association, and wished all the participants the best of luck for the competition.

06:23 PM: The inaugural ceremony hereby ends.

 

1st National Negotiation Competition 2021

PRELIMINARY ROUND:

10:00 AM: Judges Briefing 

The Judges for the preliminary round of the 1st National Negotiation Competition were briefed about the facts by the core members of the committee.

11:00 AM: Preliminary Round

1st Negotiation Competition has started. Every participant poured their skills and knowledge into the competition. The low temperature of winter just faded with the highly competitive atmosphere.

12:00 AM: Result of the Preliminary Round

The result of the preliminary round of the 1st National Negotiation Competition is here.
The teams that have qualified for the quarter-finals are :
TC – 101
TC – 107
TC – 118
TC – 111
TC – 106
TC – 112
TC – 117
TC – 119

QUARTER-FINAL ROUND

02:00 PM: Judges Briefing

The Judges for the quarter-final round of the 1st National Negotiation Competition were briefed about the facts by the core members of the committee.

4:00 PM: Quarter-Final Round

The quarter-final round for the 1st National Negotiation Competition has ended. The highly competitive faces of the participants were really noticeable. Everyone gave their best for the competition. May victory serve the worthy and may the light of knowledge grace us all.

4:40 PM: Result of the Quarter-Final Round

The result of the quarter-final round of the 1st National Negotiation Competition is here.
The teams that have qualified for the semi-final round are :
TC – 107
TC – 111
TC – 106
TC – 118

SEMI-FINAL ROUND

06:00 PM Judges Briefing

The Judges for the Semi-Final round of the 1st National Negotiation Competition were briefed about the facts by the core members of the committee.

08:00 PM: Semi-Final Round

The nail-biting atmosphere of the semi-final round of the 1st National Negotiation Competition had everyone on the edge of their seats. The judges weren’t letting them off easily. They were placing hurdles, one after another although these hurdles weren’t enough to down their courage.

08:20 PM: Result of the Semi-Final Round

The result of the Semi-final round of the 1st National Negotiation Competition is here.
The teams that have qualified for the final round are :
TC – 111
TC – 118

DAY 3

11:50 AM: Final Round of 1st National Negotiation Competition

The teams with glitter in their eyes and butterflies in their stomach have started their journey for the final round of the 1st National Negotiation Competition. They utilized their every skill and ability to compete and make it to victory.

May victory serve the worthy, our best wishes are with them.

3rd National Mediation Competition 2021

02:00 PM Judges Briefing

The Judges for the preliminary round of the 3rd National Mediation Competition were briefed about the facts by the core members of the committee and research team.

All the very best to all the participants.

03:45 PM Preliminary Round

The first round of the competition ended successfully. These lazy afternoons weren’t lazy enough as everyone was fighting their own battles. Although it was a tough competition still everybody tried to give their best for the competition.

05:30 PM: Result of the Preliminary Round

The result of the preliminary round of the 3rd National Mediation Competition is here.
The teams that have qualified for the quarter-final round are:
Mediators
TC-302
TC-306
TC-311
TC-313
TC-315
TC-316
TC-328
TC-332

Client counsel Pairs
TC-305
TC-306
TC-308
TC-321
TC-322
TC-329
TC-331
TC-332

All the best to the qualifying teams!!

06:30 PM Judges Briefing

The Judges for the quarter-final round of the 3rd National Mediation Competition were briefed about the facts by the core members of the committee and research team.

08:30 PM  Quarter-Final Round

The quarter-final round ended. Beside being virtual round, the tension on the faces so much visible. It was hard for the judges also to evaluate the teams as every team performed so well.

11:30 PM: Result of the Quarter-Final Round

The result of the quarter-final round of the 3rd National Mediation Competition is here.
The teams that have qualified for the quarter-final round are:
Mediators
TC- 302
TC- 311
TC- 316
TC- 332

Client counsel Pairs
TC- 332
TC- 306
TC- 329
TC- 321

DAY- 4

11:45 AM: SEMI-FINAL ROUND

The semi-final rounds of the 3rd National Mediation Competition has commenced. After the commendable performance of the participants, judges look impressed and a bit stressed about the marking, awaiting results.
Teams are quite stressed but they are happy about how they managed to finally deliver their best. The judges were least concerned about the lapse of time and were more interested in watching their competitive nature.

1:15 PM: Results of the Semi-Final Round

The result of the semi-final round of the 3rd National Mediation Competition is here.
The teams that have qualified for the final round are:
Mediators
TC- 311
TC- 332

Client counsel Pairs
TC- 306
TC- 329

2:20 PM: Judges Briefing for the Final Round

The Judges for the Final Round of the 3rd National Mediation Competition were briefed about the facts by the core members of the committee and research team.

4:30 PM: Final Round 

The final round of the 3rd National Mediation Competition ended. The teams had made it to the final after so much hardship that none was ready to give in for a moment and everyone just did an extraordinary job.

6:00 PM: Valedictory Ceremony

We are all set for the valedictory ceremony of MADHYASTHAM UPES FEST’21.

This COVID-19 situation has changed our way of living a lot and still, we are adopting this new normal. There was a time when we used to gather for fests and go through the ups and downs together. But now we held meetings on online platforms and sort all problems virtually. It proves that no matter what when there is a team working together no obstacles matter in front of their courage and dedication.

We would like to thank each of you who has contributed to this MADHYASTHAM UPES FEST’21 and raised it to a grand success. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all our faculty coordinators and Prof.(Dr.) Vijay Kumar Singh, Dean, UPES School of Law for giving us their valuable time and having faith in us in organising such a big event via virtual mode.

ADR Competition AnnouncementsLaw School News

Choicest regards from the Legal Aid Cell, and ADR Association, from School Of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun.
UPES is organising “The UPES National Mediation Competition, 2019 (“the Competition”) from March 7th to 8th , 2019, in precursor to aid in instilling awareness and orientation in alternative dispute resolution methods, that have recently made a significant mark in the Indian Dispute-resolve scenario, in an efficient and quick manner.
Mock pair mediation is a format that will help students understand interest-based mediation in a new and unique way.  Mediation is most aptly described in our college on the lines of as “the future belongs to specialists”. It gives us immense pleasure to invite your University to participate in the same.
Format: The Competition will involve two preliminary rounds, from which twelve teams with the highest cumulative team scores in each category will qualify to the quarter-final, and consecutively to the semi-finals and the final, in the “mediator” and client-advocate pair”.
Each law college/university/institute can send up to two teams consisting of three members each (Acceptance for participation of a third team is contingent on the discretion of the organizing committee). Each member of the team shall play the role of advocate-client pair and mediator over the course of the two preliminary rounds followed by quarter-final, semi-final and the final round.
Eligibility: Any student pursuing their five-year undergraduate Bachelor’s degree in law is eligible to participate in the competition.
Awards: Awards will be given to Winning teams and individuals, to the total tune of INR 42,000/-
Winners would also be entitled to other freebies and educational gift hampers.
Registration:
Rs. 6000/ per team (Inclusive of Registration Fees & Accommodation)
NOTE: Colleges falling under the boundaries of Dehradun may choose to pay an amount of Rs. 2500/ per team as registration amount in cash (if not availing Accommodation facility)
  • Lunch will be provided to all the students during the event.
  • The Accommodation will include 2 days Stay, Breakfast and Dinner. The Accommodation shall be provided to the teams from 6th March, 2019, Evening to 8th March 2019, Morning 11:00 am. Room will be on Triple Sharing Basis.
  • The teams will be registered on ‘first come first served’ basis. The registration is restricted to 30 teams only for the UPES National Mediation Competition, 2019.
Important dates:
Deadline for registration:
Final Date for Accepting Invitations: 25th February, 2019
Last Date for Registration: –
  • Soft Copy – 25th February, 2019
  • Hard Copy – 28th February, 2019
Problem Release on: – 2nd March, 2019
Competition dates: – 7th-8th March, 2019
The submission of registration forms, along with the payment receipt is to be sent to soladr@ddn.upes.ac.in
FOR BROCHURE, click HERE
FOR RULE BOOK, Click HERE
FOR ANY FURTHER QUERIES CONTACT
  • Mr. Ashutosh Tripathi (Faculty Coordinator) – 8586071507
  • Mr. Abhinav Kumar Singh (Convener) – 7903389409, 9411701822
  • Mr. Raghav Gupta (Jt. Secretary) – 9602452874, 8078673463
Or Email us @ soladr@ddn.upes.ac.in
Law School NewsOthers

VIDHIOTSAV’ spring edition is the first of the bi -annual law fest to be organized by UPES, School of Law and is scheduled to be held from 7th  to 10th March, 2019.  The fest shall be an amalgamation of various National academic events and will witness the participation of students across law schools in India

 

VIDHIOTSAV seeks to provide a platform for exchange of ideas and experience between students across Law Schools in India. The events would serve as academic stimulation and harness skills like self -awareness, critical thinking, organizational skills and team work, making them better professionals.

UPES School Of Law proudly announces its fifth edition of UPES National Trial Advocacy Competition, 2019 which is scheduled to take place from March 8th to March 10th, 2019 at School of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies.

This Competition was conceived with the aim of promoting &developing skills about the procedure followed by Trial Courts and testing the knowledge of the law students across the nation.

In all four editions, Moot Court Association has witnessed success of the event and there were teams representing their college from all around India. The participants have always shown zeal and enthusiasm in this event and we get to experience powerful arguments from the law students who are on the path of becoming the established advocates of coming time.

With this edition of ours we invite teams from reputed university/colleges/institutions to participate and gain an enriching experience from our trial advocacy competition.

Registration

For registering for competition, the registration form (link below) must be submitted online at mootcourt@ddn.upes.ac.in on or before February 28, 2019.

The Registration fee for the competition is Rs. 6000/- team that is to be transferred in favour of University of Petroleum  & Energy Studies via electronic means in the account details provided in the rule-book (link below).

There is a team capping of 22 teams for this event. The slots will be filled in first-cum-first-serve basis on the receipt of  soft copy of registration form.

     Important Dates

  • Commencement of Registration: February 10, 2019
  • Last Date of Registration: February 28, 2019
  • Last date for sending soft copy of Registration Form with Transaction ID receipt: February 28, 2019
  • Last Date for Submission of Memorials & Travel Form (Soft Copy): March 03, 2019
  • Inauguration, Orientation and Researchers Test: March 08, 2019
  • Submission of Memorials (Six Hard Copies): March 08, 2019
  • Oral Rounds – March 09, 2019 & March 10, 2019
  • Valedictory & Prize Distribution- March 10, 2019

Important Links

  • For Trial Proposition -click HERE 
  • For Rule Book-click HERE 

Contact:

For any kind of information contact relating to Competition: mootcourt@ddn.upes.ac.in

Student Team

Mr. Girdhar Gopal Khattar

Student Convenor, MCA

Phone: 8979192333

Ms. Alini Successena

Student Secretary, MCA

Phone: 7060945918

For Registration Fee related queries:

Mr. Samriddh Bindal

Student Treasurer, MCA

Phone: 9627638488

For Travel & Accommodation related queries

Mr. Anuj Karnatak

Student Co-Convenor, MCA

Phone: 9669776904

 Faculty Coordinators

Dr. Mamta Rana

Faculty Coordinator, MCA

E-mail: mrana@ddn.upes.ac.in

 Mr. Ashish Jain

Faculty Convenor, MCA

E-mail: ashish.jain@ddn.upes.ac.in

 Ms. Pooja Gautam

Faculty Co-convenor, MCA

Phone no: 8787030978

Mr. Joyanta Chakraborty

Faculty Co-convenor, MCA

Phone no: 7409165021

We hope to see you at 5th UPES National Trial Advocacy Competition, 2019

Law School NewsOthers

*If your actions create a legacy that inspires others to dream more, do more and become more, then, you are an excellent leader.*
UPES MUN Club are proud to announce the 6th edition of the UPES International MUN 2019 on March 30-31st 2019 at UPES, Bidholi. We invite students to be a part of this remarkable conference that will embark on a journey to make future leaders and speakers. You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You must do the thing you think you cannot do. The various committees and agendas are as follows:
UNGA Plenary 
High-level Meeting to discuss the gaps and challenges of middle-income countries in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
UNESCO 
Effect of protection of cultural heritage on development with special emphasis on the comparison between Asia and Europe.
UNSC Historic 
Continuous Crisis Committee on the timeline of Kosovo war.
Note – Freeze Date to be given three days prior to the conference.
UNHRC 
Review of universal declaration of human rights and the implications of universal period review of HRC
AIPPM
Discussion for strengthening the Agriculture Sector and way forward.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee – Cabinet Committee on Security 
Continuous Crisis Committee
Note – Freeze Date to be given three days prior to the conference.
UNFCCC
Capacity building for combating climate change in developing countries.
  • Registration fee(with accommodation)- ?3200
  • Registration fee(without accommodation)-  ?1500
  • Registration fee( for UPES Students) -?1300
For Registration link, click HERE
For Portfolio matrix, click HERE
For more details contact:
  • Elwyn Elango (Deputy Secretary General) : 9967850029
  • Kumar Utkarsh (Head of Delegate Affairs): 8579082133
Law School NewsMoot Court Announcements

UPES School of Law proudly announces its ninth edition of “UPES – DR. PARAS DIWAN MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL ‘ENERGY LAW’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019’. The competition is scheduled from April 5, 2019 to April 7, 2019. 

UPES School of Law has been successfully organizing Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International ‘Energy Law’ Moot Court Competitions since 2011. The competition aims at creating opportunities for learning and testing one’s skill in the field of energy laws

We cordially invite teams from prestigious Law Universities/Schools/Colleges/Institutions to participate in this prestigious Moot Court Competition, which shall, as we hope, give you an unforgettable enriching experience. We look forward to your participation in the 9th UPES – Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International ‘Energy Law’ Moot Court Competition, 2019

Registration

For registering for competition, the registration form (link below) must be submitted online at mootcourt@ddn.upes.ac.in on or before February 10, 2019 and hard copy of the same shall reach our college by February 15, 2019

The Registration fee for the competition is Rs. 6000/team that is to be transferred in favour of University of Petroleum & Energy Studies via electronic means in the account details provided in the rule-book (link below).

There is a team capping of 26 teams for this event. The slots will be filled in first-cum-first-serve basis on the receipt of soft copy of registration form.

Important Dates 

  • Commencement of Registration: January 9, 2019
  • Last Date of Registration: February 10, 2019
  • Last date for seeking clarifications of Problem: February 25, 2019
  • Last date for sending soft copy of Registration form / Registration Form with Transaction ID receipt: February 10, 2019
  • Last date for sending hard copy of Registration form / Registration Form with Transaction ID receipt: February 15, 2019
  • Last Date for Submission of Memorials & Travel Form (Soft Copy): March 15, 2019
  • Last Date for Submission of one copy of Memorial & Travel Form (Hard Copy): March 23, 2019
  • Inauguration, Orientation and Researchers Test: April 05, 2019
  • Submission of Memorials (Five Hard Copies): April 05, 2019
  • Oral Rounds – April 06, 2019 & April 07, 2019
  • Valedictory & Prize Distribution- April 07, 2019

Important Links

Registration:   http://bit.ly/Regmoot

Moot Proposition –   http://bit.ly/mpupes

Rule Book-   http://bit.ly/rulesupes

Contact:

For any kind of information contact relating to Competition: mootcourt@ddn.upes.ac.in

Student Team 

Mr. Girdhar Gopal Khattar

Student Convenor, MCA

Phone: 8979192333

Ms. Alini Successena

Student Secretary, MCA

Phone: 7060945918

For Registration Fee related queries:

Mr. Samriddh Bindal

Student Treasurer, MCA

Phone: 9627638488

For Travel & Accommodation related queries

Mr. Anuj Karnatak

Student Co-Convenor, MCA

Phone: 9669776904

Faculty Coordinators: 

Dr. Mamta Rana

Faculty Coordinator, MCA

E-mail: mrana@ddn.upes.ac.in

 Mr. Ashish Jain

Faculty Convenor, MCA

E-mail: ashish.jain@ddn.upes.ac.in

 Ms. Pooja Gautam

Faculty Co-convenor, MCA

Phone no: 8787030978

Mr. Joyanta Chakraborty

Faculty Co-convenor, MCA

Phone no: 7409165021

Law School NewsLive Blogging

Day 1: 7th April 2017 – Registration and Inauguration

1:30 p.m. – We welcome all of you to the 7th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court Competition. Thank you for tuning in. The moot, one of the most prestigious in the country will soon be underway. We hope to keep you entertained throughout the moot.

2:05 p.m. – The participants have assembled in the auditorium and the registration process will soon commence.

2:20 p.m. – It’s great to see participants from almost 14 states of the country and a special shout-out to the team from Dhaka. The registration and draw of lots is now underway.

3:00 p.m. – The following teams have registered-

  1. Gujarat National Law University
  2. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  3. NMIMS Law School, Mumbai
  4. Central University of South Bihar
  5. Alliance School of Law, Alliance University
  6. Amity Law School, Delhi, (Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University)
  7. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  8. Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian Law College, Bengaluru
  9. L.Law College, Belagavi, Karnataka
  10. CMR Law School
  11. School of Excellence in Law, Chennai
  12. Government Law College, Ernakulam, Kerala
  13. National Law University, Odisha
  14. ILS, Pune
  15. Tamil Nadu National Law School
  16. The National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi, Kerala
  17. Lloyd Law College
  18. GLC, Mumbai
  19. National Law Institute University, Bhopal
  20. MNLU, Mumbai
  21. Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, DU
  22. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  23. Rayat and Bahra National University of Law, Punjab
  24. Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
  25. Damodram Sanjivayya National Law University, Vishakhapatnam, Andra Pradesh
  26. HNLU, Raipur
  27. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
  28. Faculty of Law, University of Dhaka

The teams have now stepped out for group photos. Congratulations to all the teams for making it through the memorial selection rounds.

 

3:10 p.m. – With the completion of registration process, we are now ready for the briefing of rules and the researcher’s test. The researchers seem to be excited and rearing to go. We are seeing some last-minute conversations amongst the team members and some last-minute research.

4:30 p.m. –  The teams have assembled back in the auditorium. We are soon beginning with the inauguration ceremony.

4:50 p.m. – We’d like to thank all the dignitaries for their esteemed presence. Our Chief Guest is Mr. Suresh Dhar, a leading advocate. Other guests include Dr. S.J. Chopra, our Chancellor; Dr. Srihari Honwad, Vice-Chancellor; Mr. Sanjiv Zutshi, Senior Director Operations; Ms. Deepa Verma, Director Institutional Affairs; Mr. Arun Dhand, Director Govt Relations, Deans from other colleges and heads of other departments.  Big thanks to our sponsors as well, SCC Online, GAIL and EBC.

4:55 p.m. – The Master of Ceremonies introduces our honored guests. The events are officially underway with the lighting of the lamp and the Saraswati Vandana.

5:00 p.m. – Dr. S.J. Chopra, The Chancellor imparts some wise words to the crowd.

5:05 p.m. – The Chief Guest, Mr. Suresh Dhar, a senior lawyer in the Uttrakhand High Court, is now on the stage. He specializes in the field of anti-corruption. He shares with us his experience and is engaged in an enlightening discourse.

5:11 p.m. – Ms.Shruti Reddy, faculty convenor of Society of Law and Literature, inaugurates the 2nd UPES Energy Law Judgement Writing Competition and briefs people regarding the rules, which shall be based on the memorial of the 7th Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court Competition. We expect some great entries this year from all the aspirants.

5:15 p.m. – We end this inauguration ceremony with a vote of thanks by Mr. Arun Dhand, Director of Government Relations, who commends the efforts of  the Organizing committee.

5: 17 p.m. – We break for high tea but stay tuned because right after this, we have a workshop by SCC online representatives.

6:45 p.m. – The SCC online presentation is underway. The representatives from the institution have divulged some important knowledge that will definitely help all those involved. They have given us some key points on honing our researching skills and the little gems of wisdom regarding reporting and cross-referencing.

7:28 p.m.- The end of the lecture brings about the end of first day. The participants are heading back to the hotel for dinner and we will see you tomorrow. Stay tuned for there will be a lot of exciting action waiting for us.


Day 2 : 8th April, 2017 – Preliminaries and Quarters

10:10 a.m. – Good morning and welcome back to the 2nd day of the Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court. We have an exciting day ahead of us. Stay tuned for some riveting action.

10:12 a.m. – And we are starting off today with the Judges’ Briefing. The Judges are being informed about the facts and issues of the moot proposition by the research committee. Soon, we’ll be beginning with the preliminaries.

11:05 a.m. – The judges briefing is done with. That was one long session. The judges are now moving for the group photograph.

11:30 a.m. – The preliminaries have commenced, we will be providing the real time updates from every courtroom.

 

Court Room No. 1: Tamil Nadu National Law School v SLS, Hyderabad: The applicant seems nervous and is trying to calm himself down but it is to no avail. The respondents are up next and are dealing with the Excellencies and supporting their arguments by the use of authorities. They are well aware of the facts and circumstances of the compromis.

The agents is mixing up his statements and is responding to questions that aren’t even put up. This might turn into a fiasco if they don’t salvage it soon. The applicant seems to be fumbling with his words which just gives the excellencies the opportunity to put them under more pressure. The excellencies have a frown on their face which probably shows that they are not very convinced by the version of facts being laid out in front of them.

Court Room No. 2: School of Excellence in Law, Chennai v GNLU: Applicant side has began with the facts of the case. The applicant is being bombarded with questions. Some they answer to the absolute satisfaction of the Excellencies but in others they seem to be disappointed. We’ll see how this round progresses. The applicant is struggling with the memorial in order to answer the questions. The excellencies are motivating the agents and that seems to be working well. A new life seems to have been breathed into the agents and while they do fumble with a few queries, they are gaining ground.

The respondent starts off by submitting a 500 page compendium. The questions of treaty interpretation are put forward. The Excellencies seem unconvinced with the answers. The co-agent for the respondents is so well-prepared that he need not even look at his submissions. He satisfies the excellencies.

Court Room No.3: Law Center I, Faculty of law, Delhi University v Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian Law College:It seems like the applicants are suffering from the very start. They fail to answer basic international law questions but we are hoping the co-agent can pull up the socks. The agents is responding to the excellencies but the answers don’t seem to hold any sway. The co-agents is responding to the queries raised by the excellencies. And we have hit a snag as the agents forgets decorum for a moment and address the Excellencies with pronouns.

The respondent begins weekly perhaps forgetting court decorum for a moment. They don’t seem to be very well versed with the facts of the case and fail to cite relevant authorities. There were faults in legal arguments which the excellencies needed to rectify. This might prove problematic

Court Room No. 4: GLC Mumbai v SLS, Noida: Right off the bat, the Excellencies are ready with the questions. Seems like the applicant is in for a grilling. But he seems to be fluent and well versed with the compromis. But when it comes to the legal aspect, the applicant seems to be lagging. Let’s see how long it takes for them to move to the front foot in this legal battle.

The respondents are humble and polite. They speak with care weighing every word. They are clear with the law and facts of the case. And all in all seem to be in stellar form. Both these teams are tough and this will be a well fought battle.

Court Room No.5: Symbiosis Law School, Pune v DSNLU: Agent of the applicant seeks the permission of the Excellencies to proceed. There were some questions during the proceedings but they went past them with ease. All of the Judge’s doubts were extinguished swiftly by the agents of the applicants. Agents conveyed there contentions fully and clearly to the Excellencies. The 2nd agent took a little extra time to settle her arguments and was not able to give a suitable case law to the satisfaction of the Excellencies.

The agents of respondents are attacked with questions immediately and they failed to answer them definitely. This shook the confidence of the agents and affected their performance. While the respondent seem to be aware of the general principles of law, they seem to be losing ground when it comes to specific principles of international law.

Court Room No. 6: NLIU, Bhopal v Central University of South Bihar: Applicant was performing well but the time ran out, so with the permission of the Excellencies she asked for a little more time to wrap her arguments. The other agent of the applicants is fumbling a bit due to the pressure but manages to pull through but with some questions unanswered. Also the agents were very formal in addressing the Excellencies and were procedural in their approach which will definitely fetch them more points.
The respondent are answering the questions of the Excellencies through the interpretation of treaties and the facts of the matter. The agent is well versed with international law and is performing very well. Agent 2 took the help of various case laws to cement his contentions.
 

Court Room No.7:Amity Law School, Delhi, IP University v Lloyd Law College:  The agents are unable to answer satisfactorily and have run out of time with some issues remaining undealt. We’ll see if this harms their chances of moving on to the quarters.
Before the respondents can even begin, the Excellencies are asking them questions which they cannot answer. The respondents response is not satisfactory which seems to confuse the Excellencies and the fact that they are contradicting their previous argument does not seem to be helping their case at all.

Court Room No.8 : ILS Pune v Campus Law Centre, Delhi University: The applicants are answering the question put before the confidently, speaking with utmost poise. The applicant is fluent and is able to deal with all the issues.
The respondent seems to be nervous in the very beginning. They are answering the Excellencies satisfactorily. The Excellencies don’t raise a lot of questions and it seems that the respondents are doing a good job satisfying them with their argument.

Court Room No.9 : GLC, Kerala v Faculty of Law, Dhaka: 

The Applicant has begun with a formal stating of issues. The excellencies have started with the questions and the applicant has been pushed into a defensive mode. The time for the agent is running out, and the pressure is building up fast. Let’s see if the co-agent can pull things together but their legal knowledge seems to be lacking. Stay tuned.
The second Agent is here, and he seems far more confident and composed. This is turning into a interesting battle between the questions of the Excellencies and the Agent, and he is definitely giving a tough fight. The talisman of “Who must pay the compensation? ” seems to be haunting the applicants.
The first Agent for the Respondents has begun with an introduction. The Agent looks extremely confident and is diligently answering the questions put forth by the Excellencies, to their satisfaction. She seems in control of the proceedings. Only time will tell, if she can keep it up.
The second Agent has taken the dias and has erroneously said something that has been picked up by the Excellencies. It was a difficult situation but the speaker has made it out of that situation confidently. The Excellencies are governing the flow of the proceedings and the Agent is cornered.

The Second Agent is running out of time and the Excellencies have gotten under his skin. The speaker is well past the allotted time and still has a lot to contend. The Excellencies have allowed a last few minutes, but the speaker is tangled in the questions put forward by the Excellencies and the the extension is about to end.

 

Court Room No.10 : Alliance School of Law v NUALS, Kochi : The Excellencies are in total control. The applicant is finding it difficult to answer and the clock is ticking. The applicant has been pushed into a corner and the questions don’t seem to be ending anytime soon. The co-agent takes the stage to answer the questions Could he pull this together and end on a high note? Stay tuned for more.

The first agent for the respondents is done with her arguments and she has laid down a firm base for the second agent to consolidate upon. The second agent has been interrupted in her very first argument and the Excellencies seem to have picked up a flaw. Moving on with her arguments, the agent seems to be playing it cautiously and the strategy seems to be temporarily working.
And here it goes again, the Excellencies have again picked up a flaw and the speaker is being targeted with questions and the Excellencies do not seem entirely satisfied with her arguments.

Court Room No.11: SMR Law School v NMIMS Law School, Mumbai: The applicants are articulate when they put forward their arguments. They are brisk when they are responding to the queries and their use of authorities shows that their preparation is commendable. The queries of the Excellencies though seems to break through the confident exterior of the co-agent and he seems to fumble.

The respondent has taken the dias. He seems a bit inarticulate in the beginning of his submissions but soon gains eloquence. He seems very well prepared to clear the queries of the excellencies.

Court Room No.12: MNLU Mumbai v RGNUL: The grilling by the Excellencies doesn’t seem to faze the very confident agent who looks nervous and yet composed. It is remarkable in the way they are precisely stating what the excellencies want to hear. But they have sadly run out of time before they can deal with all the issues.

Court Room No.13: Rayat & Bahra, Mohali v R.L Law College Karnataka: The applicant seems to be under pressure yet the agent tries her best to answer the questions raised by the Excellencies. The Excellencies aren’t really convinced with what the applicants are stating.

The respondents are facing what seems to be an uphill climb. The Excellencies remind them of the human cost of their actions and that seems to tear their argument asunder. No proper answer seems forthcoming.

Court Room No.14: HNLU, Raipur v NLU, Odisha: The applicant begins with the utmost confidence. Mr. President asks the agent to brief the court with the facts of the case and then continue with the statements of jurisdiction. The agent is succinct and persuasive and answers the queries raised by the Excellencies with confidence. The applicant tries to smartly side-step questions that could lead to problems for them but the Excellencies seem determined to get an answer.
The respondents plead ignorance to a lot of queries and that doesn’t buy them any favors from the judges. They run out of time but that isn’t enough to stop the respondents. They are given an extension but soon that runs out too because of the constant grilling by the excellencies.

1:10 p.m.- That brings us to the end of the first prelims. That was a very interesting round, we’ll start the updates for another engaging session, in a few minutes. Stay tuned!

1:40 p.m. – Round 2 of the Preliminaries have begun. Let’s catch up with the action.

Court Room No.1 – NLU,Odisha v. School of Excellence in Law, Chennai

The Applicant is nervous but they are well versed in their arguments and that is helping them overcome their initial jitters. No questions were further put up by the excellencies during their arguments, and they seemed convinced. The moot proceedings are put on hold since the excellencies grill the teams simultaneously. The excellencies point out grounds for rebuttal to both the teams and this seems like quite a mess.

Court Room No.2 – R.L. Law College v. Tamil Nadu National Law School

The applicant started off with their argument but were interrupted by their excellency with queries which the Applicant could not satisfy at all. They were confounded by one question for a long time which weakened their argument. The applicant got no chance to speak as the excellencies grilled them continuously.

The co-agent was very nervous and was asked to relax by the excellency. Even the co-agent seems unable to satisfy the queries of the excellency and seems unprepared. The first agent steps in to answer, but the judges are still not satisfied. The respondents seem to have lost their grip on this match as they struggle to answer the questions. It might not be too late though as they are still attempting to give a good fight.

Court Room No.3 – RGNUL v. GLC, Mumbai: The applicants are well versed with the facts but seem to contradict themselves in the prayer. They confirm with their researcher and respond to the judges but the judges do not seem wholly satisfied.

The respondent find trouble as there is inconsistency between their oral and written submissions. They skips issues and forget court mannerism which might cost them points. They are unable to satisfy the courts queries.

Court Room No.4 – NMIMS Law School, Mumbai v. Faculty of Law, Law Center I: The applicant is humble and courteous before the court. They cite conventions and case laws to prove their points and that seems to work for a while until the applicant ends up contradicting themselves. The back and forth continues as every response to a query is greeted by another one. The agent answers most of the questions satisfactorily and passes on the rest to his co-agent.

The respondents are beginning now and observe all the niceties. The bench responds to the agents arguments with questions of their own, even sharing a joke or two. The respondent provides clarifications and then concludes.

Court Room No.5 – NUALS, Kochi v. NLIU, Bhopal

The applicants are faced with questions of the excellencies at the very start of their argument and are trying their very best to satisfy the excellencies. Agent 1 is trying very hard to ascertain the contentions with the help of the compromis. Agent 2 is confident but the excellencies are giving her a hard time. The excellencies are interacting with the agent so as to determine the basis of their contentions. The confidence of the agent seems to be fluctuating. Case laws on various contention are demanded from them for the acceptance of the same.

The very law is being challenged by the respondents as they attempt to dissuade the court to follow the decisions made in previous cases.

Court Room No.6 – Faculty of Law, Delhi v. Amity Law School, Delhi (IP University)

The Applicants are formal while addressing the excellencies. The applicant is very calm and composed and carries the proceeding smoothly. They answer various question put forth by the judges adequately with the help of the various articles and provisions of relevant treaties. So far the applicants are performing very well. The contentions are well formed by the applicants and are communicated properly to the excellencies. The applicants are checking all the right boxes regarding the matter.
The respondents start off at a blistering pace providing no opening to the excellencies. But the dynamics shift soon as they are caught in a torrent of questioning which they fail to get out of. This seems like a well balanced fight and any team could take this.

Court Room No.7 – Campus Law Center, DU v. Alliance School of Law: As the researcher attempts to prompt the team into action, we see an onslaught of questions against the applicants. While they are courteous, they seem to be struggling against the queries.

The respondents seems to be losing their composure when faced with a barrage of questions. It feels as if the excellencies are prodding them along and almost arguing for them. The questions raised seem to take them off balance but the respondent is soldiering on valiantly.

Court Room No.8 – LLoyd Law College v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune: The applicant begins their argument by citing case laws which garners admiration from the judges who seem to be agreeing with them. The snag arises when the judges ask a question that completely bewilders them.
The respondent starts out strong and continues on with that momentum. The excellencies seem convinced by the argument and all the queries are being answered to their satisfaction.

Court Room No.9 – Central University of South Bihar v. ILS, Pune: The applicant begins their argument by citing case laws which garners admiration from the judges who seem to be agreeing with them. The snag arises when the judges ask and question that completely bewilders them.

The Applicant has begun with a brief statement of facts and the bone of contentions. The Excellencies are putting up some very interesting questions and the agent for the applicants is giving precise and well thought answers. The questions are now pouring down upon the Applicants and they seem to be in a defensive position. The time is running out and the agent is still tangled in the queries of the Excellencies. The speaker has used up all of her time and has been allowed an extension of 1 minute to deal with their last issue.

The respondents begins their arguments in a very confident manner. The excellencies interrupt the speaker with questions to which the speaker answers confidently and to the satisfaction of the excellencies. Suddenly the tables are turned and the excellencies are stuck on a query which the respondent is unable to address. However, the agent’s confidence is remarkable and is constantly thinking on their feet. The excellencies are coming up with very well thought of queries which require a rather logical explanation accompanied by the relevant legal principles. The arguments are getting interesting. Even though the time limit is over, the excellencies have allowed an extension to address their reservations.

Court Room No.10 – DSNLU v. GLC, Kerala: The Applicant seem to be trying very hard to stay composed, but is pressurised due to the continuous interruptions by the Excellencies. The Agent seems to have gotten himself tangled up into his own arguments and the Excellencies have taken hold of the proceedings. The applicants are definitely on a back foot and the clock is ticking.

The respondents are in a time crunch and the agent is still left with one issue. The excellencies do not seem satisfied and the respondent is unable to come up with any satisfactory arguments. The second agent has come to the stand and has begun with his issue of maintainability upon which the excellencies have turned the tables on him and he is left with no response. As a result the respondents have been forced to move to their next issue.

Court Room No.11 – SLS,Noida v. MNLU: Since the beginning of the submissions, the applicant seems nervous. Their way of putting forth the submissions is rather dilatory. But the lack of grilling from the Excellencies is helping them gain their confidence. But as soon as the first question is put forth, nervousness took over the applicant which is predominant in the way they are presenting their argument.
The respondent has started their submission in a very clear and precise manner. They seem to be agitated while being grilled by the excellencies but they pull through.

Court Room No.12 – Bishop Cotton Women Christian Law College v. SMR Law School: The applicant seeks the permission of the Excellencies to begin. The approach adopted by the applicant is aggressive though it is not backed by substance. The queries raised are not satisfactorily responded to and it seems like it will be difficult for the applicants to turn this into a success.

The respondents seem to lack the requisite knowledge at first but then the co-agent brings steadiness to a rocky ship. They speak eloquently for a while but end up contradicting themselves.The respondents seem to lack the requisite knowledge at first but then the co-agent brings steadiness to a rocky ship. They speak eloquently for a while but end up contradicting themselves.

Court Room No.13 – GNLU v. HNLU, Raipur

Applicant takes the dias with utmost confidence. The Applicant is very formal and well mannered. Excellencies keep asking the Applicant questions but the Applicant answers them with utmost confidence and is able satisfy them. Excellencies are impressed and comment on one of the answers given by the agent with a, “very good” ! The agent was eloquent, she finished her arguments within the given time slot.
The Co-agent take the dias. He puts forward his arguments before the bench with flair. He took the base of various principles in order to substantiate his arguments and managed to satisfy the judges on the various questions raised by them.

The respondents begin and straightaway there seems to be a dispute regarding the statement of jurisdiction which is handled quite well by the respondents. The respondents are very soft spoken and this ends up being a bit problematic due to them being inaudible. The judges raise queries which are answered politely. The Excellencies don’t really seem to agree with what is put before them but due to paucity of time, they raise no further objections.

Court Room No.14 – SLS Hyderabad v.Rayat Bahara, Mohali 

The Applicant takes the podium.The deference of the applicant to the court has engaged the judges and also the respondents. They have a smooth flow,which makes everyone believe that they are making some strong points. The Excellencies are posing questions towards the agent, but the agent without getting suppressed is answering all the questions with utmost patience. The Co-agent begins. The judges are trying to corner him and the agent is confused. Agent 1 comes to his rescue and the Excellencies allow agent 1 to answer on his behalf. Co-agent seemed for extension of time and he was granted the same. The Co-agent somehow managed to end his speech on a positive note.

The respondents plead ignorance to a lot of queries and that doesn’t buy them any favors from the judges. They run out of time but that isn’t enough to stop the respondents. They are given an extension but soon that runs out too because of the constant grilling by the excellencies.

3:30 p.m. – With that exciting session, we come to an end of the prelims. Now we will be breaking for lunch. Will be right back with the results of the preliminaries and the Quarters. Watch this space for more!

5:41 p.m. –  Good evening guys, we are back with the prelims result. There will be eight teams which will qualify for the Quarter Finals.

This is the result-

  • NMIMS Law School, Mumbai
  • Faculty of Law, Dhaka
  • Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  • Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
  • GNLU
  • NUALS, Kochi
  • MNLU
  • ILS, Pune

We will start with the quarter finals by 6:00 p.m. Stay tuned for the live updates.

Quarter-Finals 1 – NMIMIS Law School, Mumbai v. ILS Pune: Agent 1 for the Applicant has begun on a very confident note and is in total control of the proceedings. There was a minor hiccup here, when the President and the excellencies came up with a question relating to the definition of the river, but the agent was able to answer the query.
The President has just raised a query as to a conclusive authority to crystallize state responsibility, but the extension is over. The Board has just allowed another minute to conclude the arguments. The first Agent has laid down a firm base for the second agent to come in and cement their position in this contest.
The second Agent has begun her arguments on a very confident note, but the first query from the board seems to have surprised her. The agent is facing problem in arguing for the two applicant states and the same has been pointed out by the Excellencies.

The agent makes ample use of their compendium and has been able to satisfy most of the queries of Mr. President and the Excellencies. One final query, but since the allotted time is up, Mr. President has just allowed an extension of 3 minute and the agent is about to conclude her arguments. And that is a wrap from the side of the applicants as they recite their prayer.

The Agent for the respondents has entered the battlefield all guns blazing and has, from the word go, began citing authorities in numbers. The Excellencies have broken the flow of agent one, with a couple of successive queries. The agent seems to have been put off their game and is being pushed into a defensive mode. The agent is doing exceptionally well to handle the overload of queries.
The flow of the proceedings has slowed down and the Excellencies are dictating the proceedings. The agent has exhausted the allotted time and the extension but has been granted a final extension of 2 minutes to sum up all of her arguments.

Quarter Finals 2 – Faculty of Law, Dhaka v. MNLU, Mumbai: The Agent 1 of the applicant in a very systematic manner first briefed about the facts of the case to the excellencies. The Agent then went on to answer the questions of the Judges, in a cool and calm manner. However, the Agent 1 has been unable to form a response to one of the questions, which the excellencies are bringing up again and again.
Agent 2 has been able to explain the issues that they will be dealing with in a satisfactory manner. However, they are unable to justify their Prayer and one of the gaping hole in their argument is their inability to prove liability of the respondents.

Right at the very beginning, Agent 1 from the side of the Respondent seems to be unsure with her arguments. Therefore, giving a chance to the Excellencies to grill her extensively. The team tries to recover from the blow by passing off the chits. Agent 1 has lost their calm and is unable to answer the queries of the Excellencies.
Without much ado, the Excellencies ask Agent 2 to begin, there seems to be a contradiction in the arguments presented by the Agents. The excellencies refer to the argument made by the Agent 2 as far-fetched.

Quarter Finals 3 – NUALS, Kochi v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune: The clock is ticking right about now and the participants are eagerly waiting for the judges to start the round. Agent 1 representing the Applicants begins by establishing the Statement of Jurisdiction. The judges tried to trap them on the issue of jurisdiction. The speaker did find her way out but it wasn’t without a loss. The Agent is very well prepared and confident with sound speaking skills. Agent 1 with a calmness in her voice manages to persuade the Excellencies to agree to her contentions. In between when the Excellencies are trying to corner the agent,the researcher is furiously passing on chits to the agent right now. The allotted time as well as the extension has elapsed but the Excellencies aren’t satisfied again granting the agent extension of time. The agent utilizes the time at hand in the most optimal manner and provides the Excellencies with a crisp summary. Finally after repeated  extensions the speaker concludes.
Agent 2 takes the dias. The second agent too is well versed with every point involved. However,pertinent queries were posed by the Excellencies and they were all answered well by the Appellant.

Agent 1 representing the respondents takes the podium. The composed speaker begins by clarifying to the bench the stand of the respondents on the Statement of Jurisdiction.  The Excellencies while enjoying  their sip of tea start to put the agent in a tight spot with their questions. The impressive part is how rarely the speaker seems to be referring to the memo.Mr. President shakes his head in despair when the agent answers one of his question.  The agent  is partially able to convince the judges regarding her issues. Agent 2 approaches the podium. The agent seems to be a confident speaker, with slight nervous stutters here and there. The loopholes in the Applicant’s arguments are pointed out by the bench. Co-Agent is trying her best with utmost confidence and logic in her speech to persuade the Excellencies but they just keep coming up with another set of questions for the Co-agent.

Quarter Finals 4 – SLS, Hyderabad v. GNLU: Agent 1 of the applicant speaks with conviction. The agent is requested to argue the contentions to which the agent obliges. The excellencies are grilling the agent heavily, it seems like their metaphorical boat is in need of heavy repair. They are not letting the agent catch his breathe. Though the agent made a good point in the argument, the argument as a whole was not satisfactory for the judges. The agent is taking a heavy beating.

Agent 2 of the applicant started out with a great opening but the excellencies are gradually puncturing holes in his arguments which is affecting his performance. The agent is shaken to his core and is now unable to answer even simple questions. The bench shared a good laugh with the agent on the point that the NGO cannot be bribed due to lack of money. The said issue is rejected completely. The excellencies are not stopping and are continuing to rip apart the applicant’s issues. An extra minute is given to the agent to wrap up his contentions. Let’s see how the respondent’s fare.

Agent 1 of the respondent presents her 1st issue to the excellencies who do not agree to the submissions of the agent. She is ambushed by questions. The excellencies term the respondent as a bully nation. The excellencies are continuing to be hard on the agent. The agent is not able to satisfy the questions of the excellencies completely. The topic of NGO comes up again and its alliance with either country is an amusing topic. The agent is citing various precedents in a way to cement her contention.
Agent 2 of the respondent is faring well compared to their colleague initially. The question of the excellencies is answered through a case law and it seems that they are satisfied by the answer. There is a question regarding negligence on the part of Rivendell. The agent is still somehow maintaining his composure.
Though to conclude it is clear that the excellencies are the only one who are winning this round.

7:30 p.m.- The Acoustic Evening, organised by MCA, in association with IZHAAR filled with band performances, and an entertaining dance performance by the dance group Paradigm is underway. Going by the crowd’s enthusiasm, they seem to be having a good time. We’ll soon post the pictures.

8:00 p.m. – The participants have moved on for Gala Dinner, time for some good food.

 

9:30 p.m. – The following teams have qualified for the semi-finals –

 

  • SLS, Pune
  • GNLU
  • NMIMS Law School, Mumbai
  • MNLU

Congratulations to all the teams that advanced. Tune in tomorrow for live updates of the semis and the finals as we bring an end to this great event. We hope to see you there. Thank you.


Day 3 – Semi-Finals, Finals and Valedictory Ceremony

9:45 a.m. – Good morning. We welcome you to the final day of the 7th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court Competition. We will be underway with the judges briefing soon and will then move on to the Semi-Finals. It’s going to be an exciting day. Stay tuned.

10:05 a.m. – We have begun with the Judges Briefing, the research committee is informing the esteemed panel regarding the relevant legal conventions and articles pertaining to the Compromis. This helps in hammering out a fixed set of legal issues that the judges can focus on.

10:20 a.m. – We are beginning with the semi-finals. Keep watching this space for all the live action.

Semi-Final 1 – NMIMS Law School, Mumbai v. MNLU, Mumbai: Here it goes. It’s down to four teams now and the first Semi final is on. The agent for the applicants has begun with a formal stating of issues and a brief explanation of his structure of arguments. This is going very well for the Applicant as so far there have been no interruptions by the Excellencies.
It seems the Excellencies just needed a little warm up. This has been a complete turn around, unlike the initial few minutes, it is the excellencies who are in total control of the flow of the proceedings, and it’s raining questions. The Agent for the applicant is doing exceptionally well to satisfy the Board, but it seems he is in a time crunch. With less than 10 minutes left, he still needs to cover 2 parts of his 3 fold argument scheme. Time Over, and the speaker still needs to deal with one more argument. The Excellencies have allowed an extension of 2 minutes. The mannerism here is exceptional and the quality of arguments has definitely laid a strong base for the second Agent for the Applicants.

The second Agent for the Applicant has taken up the reigns and perfectly compliments the contentions raised by the first agent. She begins in the same way as her Co-Agent, with a brief explanation of her argument scheme.
What just happened? The speaker has just said something fundamentally flawed regarding International Law(probably erroneously) and the Excellencies don’t seem pleased.
Time is running out and the Agent still has a contention to make.
It seemed though she would not be able to make it but somehow she was able to cover all the issues. The Applicants rise for their prayer and it’s a wrap for them.


The respondents are up next and the Excellencies have asked the Agent for the respondent to skip the pleasantries so as to conserve time for the arguments.
The respondent team is showing great team work and presence of mind. The Agent seemed to have been cornered by the Excellencies but the Researcher helped the Agent out of the crunch. There is a constant flow of chits from the researcher to the speaker.
The Agent is facing an onslaught of questions from the Board, and the Researcher is here to rescue. The speaker was able to finish her arguments, well within the allotted time (something that happens very rarely). The Researcher has been the Dark Knight of this team, time and again, throughout this competition.

The second agent has taken the dais and he has gotten straight down to business from the word go. The arguments are flowing smoothly and the extensive citation of authorities has definitely wooed the Excellencies. This is the longest perfect run by any speaker today.
Good times don’t last long and here we see another example of the same. The Excellencies have broken the flow of arguments. The agent is facing problems in satisfying the board due to lack of authority emphasizing logical over law.
The difference between good research and exceptional research is clearly visible here. The respondents would be fairly content with their performance today, they began on a strong note and ended on the same.
The Applicants begin with their rebuttals. They point out the various instances that the respondent mentioned in their oral submissions, and they are going on to elaborate reasons as to why the applicants believe that the respondents contentions were fallacious. They supplement their arguments with use of treaties and customary International law.

Semi Finals 2 – SLS, Pune v. GNLU:

Agent 1, is on the podium. The agent is precise and has in a procedural manner explained to the excellencies how they would be going ahead with their arguments.The agent seems to be a bit confused regarding the provisions so the Excellency lends a helping hand. The Speaker is facing some intense questioning regarding general principles of international law. But the Agent is not backing down and is trying to answer each and every question confidently. Calm demeanour of Agent 1 despite the continuous cross questioning from the bench, is quite appeasing.The allotted time period is over and the agent seeks permission for extension of time -as the Agent is yet to answer the question of the Excellency, which is granted. Co-agent passes chits to Agent1 in order to help the bench understand the argument in a better manner. The extra time has also elapsed, but the Excellencies still have some questions for the agent, which the agent answers with utmost confidence. The heat is now on the co-agent.

Agent 2 takes the dias and the tension and anxiety can be seen in the very first few words of the Co-agent as she wishes the Excellencies, Good-afternoon at 11 in the morning! The second speaker follows her teammate’s scheme and lays down the structure of her arguments. The Excellency ask the agent: What is the difference between hard law and soft law in the environmental laws ? Which the Co-agent answers wrongly and Ms. President has to interrupt to make the agent aware of the difference. Anyhow, there is nothing stopping the Co-agent as she moves ahead with her contentions with confidence. The point of international customary law is discussed heavily between the Co-agent and the Excellency. The continuous cross questioning from the bench has shaken the confidence of the agent as she pleads ignorance for the questions put forward. The Excellencies ask the agent to move forward with her contentions. The Speaker seems to have lost her flow in the face of a barrage of pointed questions. However, she gathers herself and continues with her submissions.. Heated discussions follow. The bench continues to bombard the speaker with numerous questions. The Co-agent somehow manages to move ahead with her arguments.The time period has elapsed, and the Co-agent concludes by saying the prayer. This has truly been a roller coaster ride for the team applicant.

The respondents are next up with their arguments. The agent is approaching the podium and outlining her arguments. She seems quite confident as she addresses the preliminary questions of the bench. The clarity of her concepts is visibly seen in the way she is articulating and laying down her points in great detail. Agent seems to be answering all the questions posed by the bench in the most satisfactory manner. She is now moving on to her second contention. Her arguments are structured and her expression is crystal clear. The agent continues with her contentions with the last one being about the jurisdiction. The Excellencies have a smirk across their face when they tell the agent that this should have been their first argument. Anyhow, she satisfies the questions of the Excellencies fairly. The time period has elapsed. But there’s a turning point in the proceedings when listening to an answer of the agent the Excellency tells the agent that, “She has dug her own grave” ! Woah! Seems like this could be trouble.

Co-Agent approaches the dais. His approach is quite structured and his initial submissions are satisfying the Excellencies. Continuous questioning from the bench does not seem to shake the confidence of the Co-agent, as they smoothly maneuver the heavy questioning. Managing the time well the Co-agent concludes with their submissions in the most precise manner.

12:15 p.m.- And that brings us to the end of an amazing semi-finals. The teams brought a level of sophistication to the Competition and it was great to witness such a knowledgeable session. Stay tuned, we’ll be back with the Final results!

12: 35 p.m. – The judges for the semi-finals are being felicitated, meanwhile the judges for the finals are being briefed.

12:37 p.m. – The much awaited finals are underway. The teams that have qualified are Symbiosis, Pune and NMIMS Law School, Mumbai. Stay tuned for the live updates, this is going to be one exciting match.

The agent 1 from the side of the Applicant has started the proceeding in a systematic manner. The Agent is clarifying the statement of jurisdiction as well as dealing with the principles of Trans-Boundary Harm, attempting to establish liability and responsibility.

The Agent is cementing her argument with the help of some of the classic cases in International Law, such as the Corfu Channel Case. The Agent seems to be in control of the proceedings, no intervention has yet occurred from the side of the Bench.
The Agent 1 of the Applicant attempts to prove that a dispute exists regarding Anora River, therefore it needs to be addressed. The Agent seems well versed with the facts of the compromis. The Agent alleges that the Respondent has breached Article 2, Article 11 of the Anora Treaty as well as the fact that they have breached their Upper-riparian duties. The Judges have finally interrupted the discourse of the Agent 1, there seems to be a conflict with regarding to certain facts as established by the Agent.
The Agent is unable to satisfy the court, even though they are specifically quoting certain cases as well as the compromis.


The Excellency has asked a question that strikes the very base of their argument and the Agent looks shaken. The Agent seems to be slowly regaining the command over the proceeding, as she is able to deflect the questions put forth by the bench. Agent 1 was raising a contention with regard to Appropriation, however they are not able to justify their argument and they seem to be caught in the web of their own words.
Agent 1 concludes but it does not seem to be a very satisfactory round. The argument revolved around the common heritage of mankind and yet there seemed to be a serious lack of any factual basis of contention.

Agent 2 is now on stage and they will attempt to establish a violation of the precautionary principle and preventive action. But the Agent 2 is under immense pressure, as they are unable to respond to any questions put forward by the excellencies.
But now we have a breakthrough as the Agent applies the principle of attribution and convinces the judges.

The agent seems to be circling around the questions put to her in regards to Customary international law but she seems to be unable to establish either state practice or opinio juris.

The excellencies move on to another question to which the agent is able to answer satisfactorily. Agent 2 has begun to gain ground and interest of the excellencies is piqued.  The excellencies are boring holes in their argument and since no causation can be proved it seems that defense of force majeure available to the respondents will sustain.

This seems like a rocky ending for a solid start to the applicants. Let’s see how the respondents fare.

The respondents are up now and Agent 1 seems to be in tune with court courtesy and possesses good oratory skills while discussing the proceeding in a systematic manner. The Agent 1 begins with the first submission, The agent tries to give clarification, regarding a statement presented by the Applicant, however it does not seem to move the Bench. The agent now proceeds with his Argument. The Agent tries to justify the joinder of issue done by them.

The Bench tries to understand the essence of the Anora treaty, and the Agent tries to answer however, it is pointed out to be a wrong Argument by one of the Excellencies. This question has seemed to trap the Agent as he seeks help of the International grundnorm- Pacta Sunt Servanda.The same question arises as it had with the applicant regarding the ‘Equitable use’ of resources. The agent seems to be on the backfoot as he is grilled regarding treaty provisions. His responses are erroneous which further causes the judges to drill further into the argument exposing more flaws.

The agent concludes due to paucity of time and Agent 2 takes the stand.

Agent 2 tries to bring some calm into the shaky proceedings of the side of the respondent. The Agent tries to address the issue with regard to the term ‘operator’ which seems to have a domino effect, resulting in several other trapping questions. The Agent tries to be receptive towards the questions raised by the Bench, however, both the Agent as well as the Bench seem to be stuck on the technicalities rather than the facts of law. The Excellency points out a major flaw in their argument, which might prove to be fatal. The question of state responsibility is raised and is not satisfactorily answered.

The judges have almost decimated the arguments of both the applicant and respondent. But both these parties have stood up to the occasion and responded in the best way they can. This will be a close match. We will be back with the valedictory ceremony soon with the results right in tow.

3:10 p.m. – The Valedictory ceremony is underway and we will be out soon with the results. The esteemed guests include Dr. Srihari Honwad, Dr. Parag Diwan, and the chief guest, Mr. Prakash Pant, Cabinet Minister, Uttarakhand.

3:32 p.m. – We are graced with speeches by Dr. Parag Diwan, and Mr. Prakash Pant, both of whom speak with the utmost eloquence and grace the students with their words. They are felicitated by the other dignitaries.

And the results are announced. The winners are –

Best Memorial – NMIMS School of Law, Mumbai who win Rs. 20000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors EBC.

Best Speaker – Stuti Dhundia, GNLU, who wins Rs. 10,000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors.

Best Researcher – Johann Valladares ,SLS Pune who wins Rs. 10000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors.

Runner up 1 – SLS, Pune, who win Rs. 30000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors.

Winner – NMIMS School of Law, Mumbai who win Rs. 50000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors EBC.

With the vote of thanks delivered by Dr. Srihari Honwad, we wrap up this edition of the 7th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court. We thank all the teams for participating and congratulate the winners and all the finalists. A big thanks to our sponsors, GAIL India, SCC online and Eastern Book Company.

Thank you for tuning in with us. From the UPES family and the Moot Court Association, we bid you farewell.

Law School NewsLive Blogging

A warm welcome to all of you to the 6th Dr. Paras Diwan International ‘Energy Law’ Moot Court Competition, 2016.

Participants from all over the country as well as outside are going to slug out for this year’s competition. They will be vying for Web Edition 1 year Subscription – 9 access cards worth Rs. 2,00,000 with SCC online, Books worth Rs. 25,000, one month SCC subscription to all the participants worth Rs. 1,00,000 as well as cash prizes worth Rs. 1,20,000.

The whole event will be hosted for a span of four days – Day of Registration & Inauguration (7th April, 2016), Energy Moot Stage 1 (8th April, 2016), Energy Moot Stage 2 (9th April, 2016) and Judgment Day (10th April, 2016).

  1. Day of Registration & Inauguration (7th April, 2016)

After the lunch scheduled at 01:00 PM, the registration process is going to start from 02:00 PM. Thereafter inauguration ceremony will begin at 03:00 PM. Researcher’s Test, Release of Fixtures and Exchange will be done at 06:00 PM. We have others events such as SCC Online Lecture in between.

2:15 PM Now that all the participants have arrived after the lunch, the registration process is going to begin. A cursory roll call has been done. Following teams have attended:

  1.  Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan
  2.  Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi University
  3. GLC, Mumbai
  4. Glocal University, Sahranpur
  5. The Faculty of Law, ICFAI University
  6. DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
  7. GNLU, Gujarat
  8. National Law University, Odisha
  9. NUALS, Kochi
  10. RGNUL, Patiala
  11. Tamil Nadu National Law School
  12. NMIMS School of Law, Mumbai
  13. Renaissance, Madhya Pradesh
  14. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderbad
  15. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  16. SLS Pune
  17. SOEL, Chennai
  18. University of Dhaka
  19. University of Lucknow
  20. Vivekananda Institute Of Professional Studies
  21. Amity Law School, Delhi
  22. LC-1, Faculty of Law, DU
  23. Kathmandu School of Law, Bhaktapur, Nepal
  24. NLSIU, Bangalore
  25. NLU, Mumbai
  26. Jindal Global Law School

A special shout out for the Teams from Kathmandu School of Law and University of Dhaka who are visiting from Nepal and Bangladesh respectively. Welcome Guys!

2:45 PM With the registration process finished, we are awaiting for the Inauguration ceremony. All the laptops and study materials are out. The teams are utilizing this period for further research. No wasting of time for them it seems!

3:10 PM With the inauguration ceremony underway, we are privileged to be in the presence of our Hon’ble Guests Ms. Kahkashan Khan, Additional Secretary (Law), Govt. of Uttarakhand; Mr. Biswajit Sarkar, Managing Partner, Biswajit Sarkar and Associates; Mr. Amit Sevak, CEO, Laureate [AMEA-Africa, Middle East & Asia] Region; Dr. Parag Diwan, Chief Academic Officer, Laureate International Universities; Prof. Utpal Ghosh, CEO-Laureate, UPES; Dr. S.J. Chopra, Chancellor; Dr. Shrihari Honwad, Vice-Chancellor; Mr. Sanjeev Zutshi, Senior Director- Operations, Mrs. Deepa Verma, Director, Institutional Affairs; Mr. Arun Dhand, Director-Government Relations; Dr. Tabrez Ahmad, Director, CoLS; Dean and Heads of other colleges in UPES; Administrative Heads; DSA Head and members; and the Faculty members of College of Legal Studies.

3:50 PM The event was declared open with the lighting of the lamp. And we were enlightened by the words of wisdom imparted upon us by the Honored Guests.

We will be taking a break for Group Photographs and the High Tea.

5:15 PM  The SCC Online presentation is well underway. The representatives from SCC Online have divulged nuances about legal research and the working machinery regarding how the cases are reported and cross-referenced. A feast for the researchers! Extra incentive of gift packs have also been handed out for the questions correctly answered by the audience.

6:10 PM With the insightful presentation provided by SCC Online coming to an end, it’s the time for the Release of Fixtures, Exchange of Memorials and the Researcher’s Test. Coming down to the business end!

6: 30 PM The researchers are away for the Researcher’s Test. And their teammates are drawing their opponents for the preliminary round fixtures scheduled tomorrow as well as the sides for which they would be arguing.

7:30 PM The Researcher’s Test has been done away with. The memorials have been exchanged. The teams have gotten a glimpse of what they will be facing tomorrow. So the stage is all set for tomorrow’s rounds. And if the determined faces of the participants are anything to go by, it will turn out to be a very high octane affair.

          2. Energy Moot Stage 1-(8th April, 2016)

Hello! It’s the second day of the competition and we are now to the business.

We will be having preliminary rounds today. Each team will have two rounds on the basis of which they would be moving to the Quarter Finals. Much is at stake. In the evening session, results will be declared. And the exchange of memorials will be done for the next round.

10:30 AM Briefing of Judges is being done. And the participants are taking their place in the court rooms. All the volunteers of MCA are looking alert and up to the task. The round will start anytime now with the conclusion of briefing.

11:00 AM Finally the briefing has ended. It took one and a half hours. Apparently the moot problem took its time in being tamed. Kudos to Moot Court Association who have drafted the problem under supervision of Ms. Pallavi Arora & Ms. Mary Sabina Peters.

11:05 AM The rounds have started at last! Now you all will get the juice on court proceedings for which you must have been waiting.

Court Room No.1  –  National Law University, Odisha v. LC-1, Faculty of Law, DU

Agent 1 for the Applicants seemed very confident as she took the dais. As a matter of fact, she had a smile on her face. In her oral submissions she did fumble a bit but regained her composure remarkably well. The Judges raised the question as to why the specialized forum of ICSID was excluded. The speaker persisted with answer and the Judge didn’t pursue with it further. But she finished her issues within the allotted time.

Agent 2 for the applicants now begins. His confident manner and a baritone voice inspires conviction. The judges are applying constant efforts towards entrapping the speaker but despite stumbling couple of times, the speaker digs out his way using the Fact sheet. The judges asked for the authority but the applicants have apparently failed to include it in their Compendium. The allotted extension time has also expired a while back!

Agent 1 for the Defendants begins the submission and Judges immediately try to corner him. He is doing his arguments in a very aggressive manner. When the judges raised a question, he carried on with his submissions citing the reason that the question has been dealt with in subsequent arguments. But the Judges seem put off and ask him to address the questions immediately. The defendants have now submitted a screenshot of a webpage as authority. This is followed by a lecture by the Judges on importance of Compendium and seriousness of the forum. The speaker again overrides the Judge and didn’t let him finish his question!

Agent 2 is now on the podium. He seems like a calmer version of his co-agent. He has satisfied the Judge on his first issue. But they continue to cite unacceptable authorities. The Judges caution them that submitting “random pages from random books that I do not know of” is not helping their case. And thereby, he rejects the authority. The agent also slips up by referring to his fellow co-agents as “friend” and this point is picked by the Judges. The agent has overshot the time by a huge margin. And he has promised to take “due care” of mistakes as has been pointed by the Judge.

Court Room No.2 – Renaissance, Madhya Pradesh  v. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad

The agent 1 for the applicants is going on with the statement of facts. The judges seem to be annoyed by the submissions going on. The response by the Judges have applicants breaking into a cold sweat. Meanwhile the Counsels for the Defendants almost seem disinterested. One of them is yawning!

The agent for the Defendant is submitting his arguments. But as they have now started with their statements, their seems to be a ray of hope on the face of Applicants. Their seems to be a hint of smile on the faces of applicants as they look at the judges. Now the researcher seems busy sending chits to their speaker. However, the speaker is not even able to understand the writing and the parties ends up laughing.

Court Room No.3. – Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies v. GLC, Mumbai

The agent no. 1 applicant seems to believe that she can win the war just by being loud. The judges don’t really seem to be interested in whatever she is saying. They are just playing with her by confusing her with queries. And it seems to be working well! It’s like a parliamentarian being asked a question about his actual accomplishment! That does tend to make them go silent. The agent is speaking so fast. It seems that she wants to save the courts time by not utilizing her full quota. And just as the agent was about to bow out, the judges just had to call her back.  The second speaker stood up thinking it was her time to shine but she was asked to sit down by the judges. If there’s one thing to be said then it must be noticed that the speaker didn’t lack for conviction.

Now it’s the turn of Agent 2. This one might have been more eloquent than the first one but her pace exceeds even her team-mate, so one can’t be sure. Like what did they have for breakfast?

As far as the researcher for the team……..wait……what is the researcher of the team doing?

All she is doing is to sit like a duck and warm her bench while her teammates are getting hammered by the judges very conveniently. Honestly, not much she can do from there at this stage. This is just one of the moments where you see the speakers swimming against the tide and the researcher is just chilling in the lovely weather of Doon!

Now it’s the turn of Defendants. The way this agent has started has actually caught the eye of the judges and also of their opposition. She has a very nice flow, with a lovely tone which makes everyone believe that she is making good points regarding her issue. The judges are actually paying attention to the speaker as she is making valid points. The agent stumbled a bit but it seems that she managed to pull a rabbit out of the hat and saved herself there. Very eloquently, she ended her statement and bowed out of the court room impressing everyone present here.

The Agent no.2 has a clear, peaceful voice and a very lucid language. He is making his assertions well and is substantiating them marvelously. He is actually managing to convince the judges because the judges have their eyes on him and not on the list of authorities which have been provided to them to make his life a living hell. If making one’s points subtly is the key then this guy is the key maker. About time that the judges started posing questions to him, but the manner in which he made his submissions and the way he connected all the dots has been beautiful.

Court Room No.4-  University of Lucknow v. NMIMS School of Law

The first Agent on behalf of the Applicant has started with the facts. There are a lot of questions coming from the Judges. The Judges are grilling the agent not only on the questions of law, but on the questions of fact as well. The Agent is unable to frame proper arguments and is speaking in an unclear and confusing manner.

The Judges then turn to the researcher to seek clarifications. The researcher on the other hand is unable to help the agents. He is completely blank about what is going on.

The second Agent takes the dais to do some damage control. Contrary to the first agent, the second agents seems to be handling the situation well and is succeeding to address all the questions raised by the judges.

The Agents on behalf of the defendants have started with their arguments. She seems to have marvelous speaking skills and has a way of convincing the judges. Oops! Someone’s phone has started ringing, it manages to seek everyone’s attention. The Agent confidently continued with her arguments. The judges point out that neither of the teams have requested extension of time.

The second agent on behalf of the defendants takes the dais. In the words of our reporter, she is a “Beauty with Brains”. She manages to get positive feedback from all the judges.

Court Room No.5- NLSIU, Bangalore v. Amity Law School, Delhi

With the arrival of the judges the proceeding can now begin. The looks on the faces of judges makes everyone aware that they mean business and won’t beat around the bush.

Agent 1: Taking the permission to address the court the agent for the applicant walks up to the podium looking pretty confident about his research. By the looks of it can be said that he’s going to go for the kill from the very beginning.  While making his statements he was being sarcastic but was making his points clear. At that very instance the judges decided to york him. It felt like his attitude towards the situation brought to his downfall. However, he did manage to dodge every question asked and move on.

Agent 2: The second speaker seeing the downfall of his teammate decided to be the smart guy and was very polite while making his approach in front of the judges. But as they say that the first impressions might be the ones that last, some pertinent questions were raised by the judges to him which left him dumbfounded. He went on beating about the bush and the judges were all intelligent about the agent’s mistakes and sent him for a toss.

The agent 1 for the defendant comes up with poise and is very calm about the entire situation. She knows not to lose her cool as it would cost her team. She’s making her points known to the judges slowly and steadily. Her pace is rising as she is gaining some confidence in herself. The judges albeit impressed by her still wanted to test her ability on how much she can rise. With the number of questions being asked the agent does get worried. She goes on a spree of making mistakes which starts disappointing the judges. The judges, perhaps, still dissatisfied by her performance asked her to wrap her statement.

Agent 2 for the defendant knowing that there was a lot of mess to clean, came up with a plan. All she had to do is to make valid points of law and finish off her arguments quickly and also have enough time to restore the former agents arguments as well. Soon she realised that the mess was just too much to handle. Soon her magical belief of completing things in a smooth manner vanished when she realised that she had a lot of problems to deal with her own. She was sure that she knew the law well but the judges knowing the proper way to toy with agents made her doubt her ability and also made her lose her track. Thus, this led to the end of the arguments of the second agent wherein she tried fighting an uphill battle but soon she came tumbling down.

Court Room No. 6 RGNUL, Patiala v. Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi

The First Agent on behalf of the applicants seemed a little nervous at first, but recovered in a very informative and confident manner. The agent seemed to know the memorial really well. The judges asked direct questions regarding jurisprudence of investment which were efficiently answered along with case laws.

The second Agent is speaking well enough to substantiate on the issues, but, is unable to answer the questions raised by the judges satisfactorily relating to the topic of state liability and its exceptions.

The Agents on behalf of the respondents have started with their arguments and she sounds a little nervous. The Judges on the other hand are grilling the agent with questions. She is unable to answer the questions properly. It seems that there are many loopholes in the arguments, which are not managed properly by the agent.

Court Room No.7 –  GNLU, Gujrat v. Symbiosis Law School, Noida

The Applicants have started with their arguments. And the Judges don’t look satisfied one bit. They failed to answer the questions raised by the Judges. The Judges are giving a disappointing look. And from their face it doesn’t seem that the team is improving much. Simple question such as difference between strict liability and absolute liability.

The Defendants seem to continue in the same vein as that of the applicants. While a lot of arguments were being raised, as far as Judges are concerned, they weren’t substantial enough to impress them.

 

12:30 PM Now the next set of teams are going to start.

 

Court No. 1 – Glocal University, Sahranpur v. Faculty of Law, ICFAI

The agent for the applicant has taken to the podium. Even though he was very confident when the round had commenced, he started fumbling on having a look at the judges. From the get-go he fumbled by making his submission as an appeal to the ICJ and also confirmed that it was an appeal even though the judge caught his mistake. The agent is failing to inspire confidence and authority. The judges seem unconvinced with the agent’s submissions and actually ask whether the team researcher can be provided with a chance to make submissions. Obviously, such a change cannot take place in reality and therefore, the agent continues his task. With a faulty piece of document provided to the judges which set their mood off. The judges request the agent to take his seat and allow his fellow agent to make the rest of the submissions.

The agent 2 for the applicant tries to make submissions to redeem his team and is actually an improvement from that of the former but he alone cannot clean up the mess of his fellow agent. The judges had extended a little support to the agent but he failed to recognize the help made to him.

On taking up the podium the agent for the respondent in a mellow voice brings to everyone’s notice that he would be making points and submissions which are crucial to the case. The agent is pretty sure of the case and that is something that he also portrays to the judges. At some point of time it seemed as if his confidence turned into overconfidence. The judges not impressed with the sudden change in the behaviour decided to bring them back to earth by asking them to pay up for the losses incurred by the applicant. On certain instances there were notes passed by the researcher to the agents to make sure that they do not stray from their path. The Speaker concludes by partially satisfying the judge.

The agent 2 for the Respondent starts making submissions in a manner that was confident and made everyone believe that he was a responsible agent. His exemplary skills impress the judges and he continues making his submissions with remarkable clarity. He is able to elucidate effectively. Pertinent queries were raised by the judges and they were answered well by the Respondent. He took his stand well and made his team proud.

 

Court No. 2 – Kathmandu School of Law v. SOEL, Chennai

Now, the second session has started with the arrival of Judges. The 1st Speaker on the side of the Applicants seems to be nervous and has lost her grasp on her arguments and is floundering after Judges have started grilling her. Judges seems to be unconvinced after the Arguments of 1st speaker. One of the Judge seems to be enjoying his Juice and Samosa. To their credit the applicants did finish well.

However, after listening the Defendants, who are answering smartly they have smile on their face.  They have started asking about different International agreements so as to confuse them. However, they have been able to justify their claim and Judges are totally convinced. The respondent paraded to the finish with only a slight hiccup.

 

Court No. 3 – Jindal Global Law School v. Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan

The clock is ticking right about now and the participants are really expecting the judges to start the round. They have this excitement which can only be seen in a moot court competition.

As the judges permit to start with the round, agent one comes up to the podium to deal with the first issue. The round was a pretty normal considering that the agent did nothing special other than to read from the memorial and then using a case law or two to support her claim. The judges asked her a couple of questions and finally relieved her of all her duties.

The second agent was properly dressed and it seemed that he was ready to bring the house down. The judges not impressed by this brash behaviour of the agent, started grilling him from the top. Queries after queries left the agent to doubt in his own abilities.

Respondent

Agent 1 put forward her arguments before the bench with flair. She took the base of various principles in order to substantiate her arguments and managed to satisfy the judges on the various questions raised by them. Speaker 2 too took the base of various international laws to support her arguments and put forward her arguments in a clear and crisp form.

 

Court No. 4 – DSNLU v. Tamil Nadu National Law School

The agents for the applicant were very aggressive. But the judges tried to trap them on the issue of jurisdiction. The speaker did find his way out but it wasn’t without damage. The agent also committed a couple of error in addressing the Judges. They were confused between ‘Your Excellency’ and ‘Your Lordship’. The second speaker though was calm and composed. Overall the judges did concede to couple of their arguments.

But as far as the agents for the respondents are concerned, they committed an absolute blunder. They were totally moving beyond the facts provided to them. The time management was lacking and their oral submissions exceeded that which they had provided under the written submission.

Court No.6 – SLS, Pune v. NUALS, Kochi

The proceeding was an interesting one. The judges had questions lined up for all the agents. The applicants had no chance of going through smoothly. The agents from the Applicant side spoke with confidence and the judges put forth direct questions regarding definitions, articles and jurisdiction. He is tensed and is not able to put up his arguments efficiently. The researcher is continuously passing chits and giving hints to get the speaker back on track.

The second agent has taken the podium. She displays confidence and is well off than the first agent. She was questioned on the latent defect to which the researcher passed a chit. It looks as if none in the team apart from the researcher is well versed with their submissions. Now she is being questioned over conventions and their authoritative powers. The question on circumstances, effect and nullification of a treaty were left unanswered.

The agent for the respondents has taken their place. She seems a bit loud and assertive. But Judges it seems are none too pleased. They are completely grilling the agent. The researcher is furiously passing on cheats to the concerned agent now. The agent is quite expressive with her rapid hand movement.

The second agent too is well versed with every point involved. And he is speaking quite confidently. Apart from the occasional and cursory queries, they seem quite satisfied with the submissions.

We will be breaking for a late lunch now after which the next Preliminary round will start. 

3:00 PM The teams are back after having their lunch and their Preliminary Round – 2 has started. While some teams would be attempting to continue their performances in the prior round, few will be contemplating how to improve upon their previous performance.

And the second preliminary round is under way..!!!

 

Court No. 1 – SLS, Noida v. Renaissance, Madhya Pradesh

The agent for the applicant is making her submissions in a competent manner. However the team has failed to carry case laws on which they are relying. The judges have asked the researcher to highlight the points in issue and have asked the speaker to proceed. After repeated  extensions the speaker finally concludes.

Second agent begins well however during course of arguments she admits contributory negligence on part of applicants!!! She recovers quickly and denies this! That could have gone horribly wrong. The arguments proceed at a steady pace and speaker concludes on a positive note.

The first agent takes over the podium. She appears confident and ready for the questions! The speaker is receiving much help from the researcher who supplies notes with every question. However this team too has failed to carry a bound compendium which again hampers the submissions.

The second speaker is very confident and speaks in an assured manner. The judges question her on common but differentiated responsibility. She is clueless but dodges the question cleverly and confidently. The speaker 2 concludes after considerable extensions.

Court No. 2 – Campus Law Center, Faculty of Law, DU v. NLU, Odisha

After the lunch Judges and participants are looking energentic. With the arrival of the Applicants, grilling by the Judges has started. The Applicants are too soft spoken and they are like the butterflies whispering in the air. The judges are finding it hard to go with their pace. The Applicants have started floundering and it seems that they are now being afraid of their own shadow (too nervous). But one can’t take it away from them they are well prepared.

However, after the coming of Defendants the situation has changed. The speaker on the side of the Defendant is calm composed . Every attempt made by the Judges to entrap is being countered courageously. Also, the second speaker is trying best to move on a secured path.

Court No. 3 – NMIMS, School of Law, Mumbai v. GNLU, Gujarat

Applicants started the proceedings with facts. She continues with the statement of jurisdiction submitting to the compulsory jurisdiction. The judges are bombarding her with questions. She seems unaware about the prayer.

The second agent on behalf of the applicants is pleading that the decision of albrosa was ex parte and in violation of natural justice. She seems very confident with her submissions.

The defendants have started their submissions in a very smart way. She has clarified all the judges’ doubts regarding jurisdiction. Despite continued efforts, the judges are unable to confuse or divert the agent.

The second agent has started with her submissions and the judges have started grilling her.

The applicants have started with rebuttals, which include interim reliefs which is being appreciated by the judges.

Court No. 4 – Amity Law School, Delhi v. Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies

Now the time has arrived as the judges arrived and they made one really interesting statement. “Let’s take mooting to a different level”.

The first agent for the applicant comes up in a manner which shows that the pressure is catching up to her. Somehow, the calm attitude has totally evaporated and she is sweating profusely. The Judges asked her simple question to which replied well enough. But still the Judges didn’t look satisfied.

The second agent looks calm and composed and her arguments convinced the judges. She was at ease with whatever questions that were posed to her. There wasn’t much of grilling from the side of the Judges. The team has managed the time well.

The first agent for the respondents started confidently with her arguments. However, when the questions were being posed, the speaker managed to answer them but the judges still don’t seem completely satisfied. The speaker exceed the allotted time and failed to plead for any such extension of time.

The second agent too started in the same manner. And she tried her level best to keep up with the bombardment of questions. She didn’t come out of this unscathed.

Court No. 5 – GLC, Mumbai v. RGNUL, Patiala

The Agents representing the Applicant State were very well prepared and confident with sound speaking skills. The interesting point in their argument was that they invoked the jurisdiction of ICJ on violation of Customary International Law and not due to violation of 123 Agreement by the Respondent State. The arguments put forth by agents were well structured and contentions were backed by law. In the end the Applicants badgered the respondents with multiples points of rebuttals.

The Respondents Agents were an equal match to the Applicants and presented their case in a well-structured manner. The contentions put forward by the agents before the court were backed by laws. As per the judges all the Agents spoke very well but the contentions put forward by the Applicants became too factual in the sense that they were reading in-between the lines of the fact sheet and the Respondents though had had good grasp in law and facts lacked the structure.

Court No. 6 – SLS, Hyderabad v. NLSIU, Bangalore

The first agent didn’t start on a positive note. He mixed up the citation of cases which resulted heavy scrutiny by the Judges and was followed by a trail of unanswered questions. But it is to be credited to the Agent that he kept his composure even in front of such aggressive treatment.

After watching the aggressive approach of the judges, the second speaker is doing none too well. He extends the trail of unanswered questions a bit longer. But again he shows a fighting spirit. Although, he did succumb to the pressure put on by the Judges and he was ultimately asked to move onwards to the Prayer.

In contrast, the agent for the respondent started his arguments with poise. But the Judges were not in the mood to curb their wrath and the speaker had to face the brunt of it. Couple of questions relating to jurisdiction did go unanswered. But he made a good comeback.

Our reporter is of opinion that performance of agent two was one of the stellar performances of the day. He was well versed with the facts and the nature of the problem. There was a healthy discussion going on between the Judges and the agent. Even though the Judges did succeed in applying pressure on the agent, the comeback was terrific and it left Judges impressed.

Court No. 7 –  LC-1, Faculty of Law, DU v. University of Lucknow

After a little delay in starting of the rounds, the agents on behalf of the applicants have started with their arguments. The agent seems confident and soft spoken. The judges begin grilling and the agent politely answers all the questions. Somehow, he is not able to satisfy the judges with his answers. The debate is getting intense and judges are extending time again and again. Poor Court Bailiffs! Their repeated cry for expiry of time was being ignored not only by agent, but judges as well.  There is a sign of relief on the face of second agent as the judges say that they will “manage time”.

After the long submissions of Agent one, Agent two takes the dais. He is asked to sum up his arguments in 5 mins.  In his urgency,  he seems a little nervous.  He regains his composure as the judges start asking questions. Again the time limit has expired and the judges are grilling the agent with questions.

After watching so much grilling, the respondents have started their submissions on a nervous note.  And the grilling begins. The agent seems to stammer,  trying to answer the questions raised by the judges. He does not seem to be thorough with the facts. Agent two on the other hand is handing note over note to the speaker,  desperately trying answer the questions and at last she succeeds.!
Now it is the turn of agent two to shine. She seems nervous as she takes the dais. The judges shower her with questions, most of which are answered. She seems nervous and hence is taking her own time to frame the arguments properly.  

Now the next set of teams!

Court No. 1 NUALS, Kochi v. Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal

The teams are stoic in their appearance and look prepared for submissions. The judges, perhaps, to avoid the instances in first round have directed the teams to stick to their written submissions.

Agent one for the applicant almost looks excited to commence with the arguments, but soon it gets serious as the judges all come down to the business. Finally, a light note as reference is made to Titanic being unsinkable and equipments being resistant to earthquakes. The speaker takes it all in stride and makes extra submissions which other teams haven’t.

Agent two goes on highlighting the difference between a “nuclear incidence” and “nuclear disaster”. The judges are throwing blatant hints as to how they would like the proceedings to unfold, but the speaker carries on with his merry way. On the second argument, the bench specifically declares that “when a pot is called black, the pot cannot defend itself by stating that the chimney is also black”.

The agent for the respondent is bamboozled by the vibrant approach of the judges. They are raising unconventional queries and circumstances which results in the speaker turning a bit pale. And, she eventually commits a blunder by accepting a point that undermines her entire case. The judges are quick to point it out.

Agent two isn’t faring a bit better as the pressure is being applied on him. He manages to evade few trap questions and is commended by the bench on a job well done. The bench also put forth a riddle to identify one thing for which he should pray to solve his problem, and the speaker fails.

Court No. 2 Swing Team v. Glocal University, Saharnapur

The judge clearly mentions that the arguments should be precise and not used as the Bible!

The Agent for the applicant remains composed and competently puts forth his arguments. The judges left no stone unturned in their efforts to break through the speaker’s resilience. They raised a myriad of questions that rendered the speaker unsure.

The second agent was highly tensed and was stammering initially. But he kept up his spirits and even though there were gaping holes in his argument, he concluded on a positive note.

The defendant’s agent was inaudible initially, but after the prompt by the judges, he improved his stature.Though the lack of confidence was quite clear. He was quite unsure of the content of the memorial and his approach was quite lethargic.

In comparison, Agent two performed quite well.

Court No. 4 Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan v. Damodaran Sanjivayya National Law University

Last Session, still the Judges and Participants seems full of life and energy.

It can be seen that the Applicant is having bundle of documents. Now the first speaker comes up and after listening to certain point of Arguments the Judges seems disappointed. The speaker is not able to answer the questions. One of the Judge finally  asked ” do you even know what are  the Sources of International Law”. That too has not been answered. Now the last question being asked by the Judge is what is ” latent defect” and surprisingly the Answer comes out the things which are visible.

The same is the situation with the Second Speaker.

Now comes the side of Defendant. She is answering well but then again she is panicked. The fellow members have now opened their Laptops and are continuously cross checking all the provisions and Articles.

Court No. 5 SOEL, Chennai v. SLS, Pune

The Applicant missed article 40 of the ICJ Statute defining the jurisdiction of the court and could not  satisfactorily answer the judges with regard to the jurisdiction of court. The Co- Agent raised  contentions with regard to the damage to the marine ecosystem and how imposition of moratorium  was a justified action of the Applicant State.

The defendant’s Agent approached the dais very confidently but the questions put forward by the judges acted as a game changer. The Respondents could not differentiate between General Principle of International Law & Customary International Law. They could not satisfy the court on the definition of Forum Non-convenience. The first agent summed up his arguments as – “ so basically if there is an alternative rule available ICJ jurisdiction should not be invoked.”  The Co-Agent in several instances mentioned points which were not there in their memorial which was time and again pointed out by the judges.

The Researcher of the team looked more prepared as compared to the agents and at one point the judges even asked the researcher to clarify the contentions. Upon the question raised by the judges with regard to moratorium the researcher took over the case from the Co-Agent and presented their case therefrom.

 

Court No. 6 Faculty of Law, ICFAI University v. University of Dhaka

The first Agent for the applicant is clear and to the point. He has raised some extra issues that the judges appreciate very much but still insisted that focus should be on the issues provided under the fact sheet. The speaker in the end had to summarize his arguments due to the lack of time.

The second speaker was asked by the judge to put forth his argument on certain issues. The speaker despite fumbling at start ultimately satisfied them with his points.

The agent from Dhaka has a different accent but it doesn’t prove to be a hurdle for him in putting forth his arguments eloquently. The second agent did start well but lost her thoughts in between and fumbled in her agreements. But ultimately on the prompt of Judges, she calmed down and concluded on a positive note.

And the proceedings are adjourned for the day!

      3. Energy Moot Stage 2– (9th April, 2016)

11:45 AM The Judges for today have been briefed. And the teams have taken their place in Court Rooms. Rounds will start anytime now.

12:05 PM So the QUARTER- FINALS are UNDERWAY!

Court No. 1 – Jindal Global Law School v. NLSIU, Bangalore

The session begins. The judges seem comfortable. All smiles. The teams look solemn though.

Agent one for the applicant looks confident as she begins her submission and she is very thorough with her case. She has tackled a difficult question 2 mins into her submissions. Finally! The speaker has moved on to her second issue. She remains unfazed despite of constant doubts being raised by the bench. The jurisdiction issue seems priority for the bench! They are urging the speaker to argue upon it despite of her time being over! The judges are difficult to please and they claim that the speaker is ‘harping on the same point!’ But to her credit the speaker bravely continues in a polite tone.

As the second speaker takes the podium, the Judges immediately ask to do away with formal opening statements and come to the crux of the matter. The Judges are making a constant effort to undermine the Applicant’s position. This raises a smile on the faces of defendants. They do realize that tables are going to be turned soon? Speaker 2 carries with him the same calm demeanor of his co-agent. This a difficult feat in light of the aggressive treatment of the Judges. The speaker has finally concluded.

The first agent for the Defendants takes the dais now. The Judges keep on the heat and ask the speaker to move to his strongest argument first. How the tables have turned. But the speaker has a humble demeanor and is quickly responding to the question raised by the Judges. The Defendant speaker is still defending his stand on jurisdiction. The bench is quizzing him on a range of subjects from investment law to customary international law. The panel in particular is looking for the respondent to cite a particular case law. The respondent has confidently replied that he is not aware of such a case, but furnishes alternative arguments before the bench.

Now the second speaker has taken over. The Judges are trying to throw the speaker in a loop. The speaker takes time to rephrase and continue without dropping his line of argument. The heat on the defendants is at all time high. The speaker has been put on spot. There are analogies and examples floating around, all offered by the judges. The end of submission was very abrupt as the Judges ask the speaker to take his seat.

With no rebuttals on offer, the proceeding in this court room has come to an end.

Court No. 2 –  University of Dhaka v. LC-1, Faculty of Law, Delhi

Before the start of the Session, both the parties are having brainstorming session. Finally after the arrival of the Judges the session has now started.

The 1st agent has very brilliantly stated the facts and enumerated the issues. However, as The Judges start raising queries regarding the Jurisdiction, the speaker has also started to fumble. The speaker is bombarded with questions. Finally the speaker asks for 15 extra minutes to conclude his arguments. But the Judges being charitable, provide 2 extra minutes to conclude the arguments.

Now the 2nd speaker on the side of Applicants started dealing with Issue No. 3. The Judges have started asking for Authoritative Sources. The overwhelming amount of questions inevitably led to the shortage of time. Bench at the end of the arguments didn’t seem entirely convinced.

Now comes the chance of the Defendant. The 1st speaker after following all the formalities has expeditiously started with his arguments. The questions are also being answered smartly.  The Judges seems to agree on the points stated brilliantly by the speaker. The agent maneuvers himself beautifully throughout and ends on an amazing note.

The second speaker from the defendants also started his arguments energetically. The Judges raised various questions which were calmly handled by the Defendant. He has given certain clarification on various points. The Agent has also put full blame on the Applicant for the disaster.  In all, it has been a praise worthy performance. But it remains to be seen if the Judges concur with it.

Court No. 3 – GNLU, Gujarat v. DSNLU

The Agent for the applicants has started smoothly and is sticking to her issues. Though soft spoken, she is answering all the questions in an appropriate manner. It seems that she has convinced the judges. Despite the heavy inquest by the panel, she has maneuvered herself well. Towards the end of her allotted time, she tries to summarize her arguments, but the judges seem hell-bent on questioning her even further.

The second agent, immediately after taking the dais impresses the panel even more by answering the barrage of questions. But as was the will of the judges, they finally trapped the speaker on the issue of jus cogens. This rendered the speaker unsure and nervous. To her credit, she answers the question in her next issue and even manages to escape the liability of contributory negligence.

The judges, in no mood to spare, tried to trap the first agent for the defendants as soon as she took the dais. She was asked to state only the facts which were against her. The whole team seems to be in hyperactive mode as they keep passing notes to the speaker as well as authorities to the judges. She manages to recover from the initial slump by answering the subsequent questions. At one point, she did stumble when she failed to properly comprehend a question. The researcher to the rescue! As she finishes her submissions, the judges seem impressed and even concede that the defendant are “too good a supplier”.

The agent two on behalf of the defendants seems very confident with his submissions. But as soon as the judges started giving him a hard time, he started to stammer a bit. To his credit, he did manage to get out of the trap. The judges lay another trap in form of liability of “other two nations”, and despite his continuous efforts, the agent could not completely satisfy the judges. The judges didn’t even spare the defendants during their prayer. Questions were raised on the validity of counter claims or lack of it when they have not submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.

Court No. 4 – NUALS, Kochi v. RGNLU, Patiala

The agent for the Applicants has started well enough. Her approach displays confidence. The Judges also seem to be accommodating in nature. While they are posing numerous questions, the prompt is in a manner that isn’t quite as harsh compared to what we have seen. And inspired by it the speaker is also putting forward her arguments with flair. But she ended up exceeding her time by a good margin, though the Judges also seem to be disinterested in the Court Bailiff’s signal for allotted time being over.

But the same treatment as before was not afforded to the second agent who was bombarded with constant questions as soon as he took the dais. And a significant time was expended only in reaching to the main argument. Apparently not satisfied by it, the judges asked him to move to his second argument. The speaker raised to the occasion and satisfied the Judges in the second argument by replaying to the questions posed.

Same was the case for the Defendant’s speaker who started it off with a warm statement. The same frequency of questions were afforded to the speaker. The Judges went into a lot of detail and raised numerous question which were relevant to the issues. And the speaker worked admirably to sate the requirements.

The second speaker did commit couple of mistakes but the Judges did look convinced on the points that raised.

2:45 PM The quarter finals are over and all teams are breaking for lunch. We’ll be shortly back with the results!!

3:30 PM The results have been declared and we have our Semi-finalists. Our heartous congratulations to:

GNLU, Gujrat

LC-1, Faculty of Law, DU

NUALS, Kochi

Jindal Global Law School

04:00 PM The semifinal Rounds have started.

Court No. 1 – LC-1, Faculty of Law, DU v. GNLU, Gujarat

The first agent for the Applicant starts with his opening statement and is immediately stopped by the Judge on some account for which clarification has been demanded. And the Judges have asked for a restart and stopwatch is clocked to zero again. So now there will be a reboot of proceedings?

The agent again starts in his soft voice. He displays an immaculate mannerism and appears very humble. But it doesn’t seem to have any effect on the Judges as they immediately torpedo the speaker on the issue of jurisdiction. They are quoting all the sections and conventions for the ‘convenience’ of the speaker. One thinks that the speaker would gladly waive such convenience. A point blank, yes or no, question has been shot at the speaker with the Judge pressing for the response before the chit from the speaker’s teammate arrives. It’s a race between the speaker holding his resilience against the constant chant of Judge’s ‘yes or no’ and chit being passed through the Court Bailiff! Even though the chit won the race, the answer wasn’t entirely satisfactory in Judge’s view. Now all the Judges are hounding on the sovereignty issue. The speaker’s shoulder though slumped and his mannerism deflated; he is still maintaining the same polite and humble mannerism. But the Judges remain unsatisfied with the answers provided and considering that time has bled away like a river, they abruptly ask him to finish.

The second agent is much more energetic and zealously tries to remedy the damage done previously by trying to answer the questions posed to first speaker. The Judges categorically declare, ‘it is for the speaker’s benefit only that those questions shouldn’t be raised once again.’ A warning to heed perhaps. The second speaker does move on. And moves on to citing Keshvananda Bharti! Now the Judges are smiling and have asked the speaker not to cite such authorities. Regardless, he seems to be faring a bit better than his team mate. Though, he seems to be evading the questions, he is doing so confidently. The Judges again end the arguments abruptly and send the speaker back.

Now it’s the turn of Defendants. Their first agent is again interrupted in her first statement. A point blank question. Why are the speakers even bothering with stating the arguments? There is a barrage of question and to her credit the speaker is maneuvering herself perfectly while tackling such aggressive treatment. She is using succinct language and for the first time in this proceeding we see a speaker submitting her argument for a stretch without any interruption. She is gaining speed and is rallying her arguments. As if on cue, the Judges strike back. They try to drag the speaker into a downwards barrel and the speaker cleverly evades it. But it leaves the Judges dissatisfied. However it has to be said that it looks more like a discussion rather than the massacre that happened earlier. In contrast to applicants, she isn’t being defensive. Rather she is cheekily skirting around the traps. The same pattern is repeated again on the issue of ‘investment’. And as she was leaving the dais, the Judges had to stop her once again for a last question. However she answered it in a satisfactory manner.

The second agent fails to continue the streak set by her co-agent. She buckles under the immense pressure and actually concedes on the issue. Oops! That has to be counted as a blunder. And that is followed by wrong comprehension of questions asked. She remains unsure and under-confident throughout her arguments. Even the Judges turned disinterested at last while picking her off.

Court No. 2 Jindal Global Law School v. NUALS, Kochi

The court is set for the second semi-finals and one can see the anxiety on the faces of the participants.

The first agent on behalf of the Applicants takes the podium and commences her speech by summarising the arguments. She moves on to the arguments submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. A panel comprising of four judges was more than ready with its questions. The first one being the relevance of applicant No. 2 & 3 in the case. The agent, though soft spoken and a little nervous, seems to efficiently answer all the queries raised by the judges. But the judges have trapped her in a debate about hierarchy of courts and they simply ask her to explain the jurisdiction of ICJ over all other courts quoting the example of Supreme Court. The sheer volume of the questions is causing the speaker to stammer a little. But the veracity of her answers seems to carry her through his hurdle. On the other hand, judges are pointing out the use of remotely improper words by her. Even after numerous attempts to confuse her, she did not concede to any of the points.

The second agent for the defendants has taken the dais in a bold manner. Though he is soft spoken, his stance reflects the confidence in his submissions. But this confidence seems to break as the judges pose questions regarding the liability of applicant one against other applicants. Meanwhile the opponents seem to be active probably noting a point to rebut. The judges question him regarding arbitrariness of their actions, and at this point, he is unable to interpret the question rendering him a little nervous. However, he succeeds in satisfying the judges with his answers.

Now, it is the agents on behalf of the defendant take the dais. The first agent seems very confident, in fact, she wears a slight smile. Similar to the applicants, she begins her submissions with a summary of the issues. The first issue she raises is regarding the relevance of “other two islands”, as they are not a party to the agreement. Even after being grilled by the judges, she still manages to wear a smile and argues with same confidence. At this point one cannot help but notice the nervousness on the applicants’ faces. Even after conceding to first issue, she manages to answer most of the questions posed by the judges, with the help of her team. After a lot of cross questioning and grilling, the judges compel her to say “Counsel is not sure”, when she was asked to back her views on position of “responsible states” by case laws. Towards the end of her arguments, the judges ask her to sum up in 2 minutes.

The second agent for the defendants has taken the dais rather zealously. He seems very confident with his submissions. He seems to have a good command over the memorial. But, the judges corner him when he challenged the evidentiary value of the only expert report available on the dispute. His team on the other hand is constantly handing him notes, in desperation to get him out of the trap which was very intelligently placed by the judges. Even though the judges are not completely satisfied with his answers, they move on to the next issue. Oops, the agent has committed a little mistake! In order to list alternatives, he seems to have contradicted his own statement while giving an example. Now the judges seem to have hounded against him. They are bombarding him with questions, and his answers are interrupted be questions. But this guy is simply not ducking out! Judges summarize their claims which are again denied by the agent. His resilience holds through all the attempts made by the judges to dislodge his arguments. To his credit, he is clear about one thing, that is, he will not concede, no matter what. He is sticking to his arguments and that seems to impress the judges.

06:30 PM The rounds have finished and the teams are enjoying their Brownies! No doubt they will be anxious, for the results are going to announced within few minutes itself.

06:50 PM The teams going into finals are:

NUALS, Kochi 

GNLU, Gujarat

Congratulations to both the teams for making their way into final amidst such intense competition and not to mention the hostile Judges.

          3. Judgment Day  (10th April, 2016)

So we have arrived to the Judgment day! The two deserving teams are going to battle it out on the grand forum.

10: 30 AM The honorable members of the Grand Jury have taken their place and the teams are raring to go.

GNLU, Gujarat v. NUALS, Kochi

10:35 AM The submissions for the applicants has started. The first agent is poised and looks ready to tackle the might of the Jury. And they do look ominous! She goes on fluently into her submissions with only few prompts by the Judges in between. And the speaker enjoys this as she rallies with her points. But the Judges are slowly getting into the act as they, in tandem, raise various queries. The speaker tries her best to engage the Judges in a positive manner. This proceeding is in direct contrast to what was happening in the semi-finals yesterday. Rather than the heavy and aggressive grilling, today, we see a slow roasting. Now it seems that the Judges are orchestrating a tune, as they are quoting the submissions made earlier and slowly leashing the speaker. But to her credit, the speaker has remained assured throughout and has finally concluded her submissions on a positive note.

But the second speaker is interrupted only in her first statement. And that sets the mood for her entire proceeding. As she isn’t getting any fluency in her submissions. The numerous questions have made her unsure and she steps into the proceedings very lightly. This reflects in the lack of conviction in her arguments. She only seems to be brushing upon the questions that the panel is posing rather than going into the detail as is the wish of Panel. And the fumbling isn’t helping her in any way. But she is shows a lot of spirit as she persists in front of a full assault. As was the case with her co-agent, several time extensions have been provided. And in the end, she has to conclude her arguments in a hurry and go straight to the prayer.

 The first agent for the respondents is clear and concise. Even the Judges take a while before raising their first query. Steadily and slowly, the panel tries the same tactic as used for the earlier speakers. But the speaker in this instance seems much more assured as she weaves around the small prompts. And when the point blank questions do arrive, she has taken an innovative approach and gone with the wishes of the Judges in arguing upon the questions raised. She isn’t using the evasive approach. It is reflected upon the the Judges as they seem satisfied on couple of issues. And as the Panel points out a mistake, the speaker admirably maneuvers it into a lighthearted moment. But again due to the paucity of time, the Judges ask her to conclude in a jiffy.

The second agent is much more energetic and vibrant. But he isn’t as collect as his co-agent. Regardless, he also progresses with his arguments fluently and tackles the wants of Judges satisfactorily. The Judges raise basic conceptual questions and the speaker convincingly answers them. The Judge points out a blunder in the footnoting of the submission by the defendants. The speaker immediately admits and apologies for such mistake. But he manages to maintain his composure and goes well into his conclusion.

So the final proceedings have come to an end. This proceeding was not as boisterous as the previous rounds. But it was on conceptual levels that the Judges queried upon and the long discussions were, simply put, very enlightening.

00:45 PM The participants have gone for the lunch. After the lunch we will be having the Valedictory ceremony.

01:45 PM The participants have had their lunch and from their expressions one thinks that they had been provided some delicious food.

After some wonderful words by the dignitaries such as Mr. Venkatramini, Senior Counsel, Supreme Court and Prof. K.L. Bhatia.

AND THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED!!

WINNER : NUALS, KOCHI

RUNNER-UP : GNLU, Gujarat

Best Researcher : Ms. Shruti Joshi, GNLU

Best Speaker : Md. Naimul Hussan, University of Dhaka

Best Memorial : NMIMS Institute of Law, Mumbai

Best Foreign Team : University of Dhaka.

Congratulations to the winners!