{"id":350337,"date":"2025-06-11T14:00:12","date_gmt":"2025-06-11T08:30:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=350337"},"modified":"2025-06-11T13:37:43","modified_gmt":"2025-06-11T08:07:43","slug":"6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/","title":{"rendered":"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Moot Court Committee of National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam organised the 6th Edition of Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition from 6th – 8th June, 2025, in collaboration with the Chambers of Abhinav Mishra as our Title Sponsor, Lexcuria Lawyers as our Industry Engagement Partner, and SCC Online and SCC Times as our Knowledge and Media Partners respectively.<\/p>\n

Their generous support enabled teams from premier Indian law schools to engage in a rigorous three-day competition of substantive, procedural, and constitutional law under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and Articles 21<\/a>, 136<\/a>, and 134<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

NLUJA, Assam was established by the Government of Assam by way of the enactment of the National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam Act, 2009 (Assam Act No. XXV of 2009). The Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court is the Chancellor of the University. NLUJAA promotes and makes available modern legal education and research facilities to its students, scholars, and faculty drawn from across the country, including the North East, hailing from different socio-economic, ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds.<\/p>\n

The Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition is organised by the National Law University and Judicial Academy of Assam, in memory of beloved founder, Late Prof.(Dr.) Gurjeet Singh, who left for his heavenly abode on the 1-04-2017, out of indebtedness for his contribution and to symbolically immortalise his legacy in the annals of the National Law University and Judicial Academy of Assam.<\/p>\n

6-06-2025 (Day 1): Registration | 10:00 AM<\/h3>\n

The sixth edition of the 6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition officially kicked off on Friday, 6th June 2025, with the registration process beginning at 10:00 AM. The Moot Court Committee welcomed all the participating teams at the reception desk, where they completed their registration smoothly with the assistance of dedicated student volunteers. The teams were then directed to the designated area, where they had the opportunity to interact with fellow participants, organisers, and volunteers, setting the tone for a day filled with competitive spirit and camaraderie.<\/p>\n

2:30 PM | Researcher Test | Academic Block<\/h3>\n

At 2:30 PM, the Researchers\u2019 Test was conducted in the designated hall. This written round was designed to evaluate the depth of legal research, conceptual clarity, and understanding of the moot proposition by the researchers from each team. The test served as a vital component of the competition, emphasising the importance of behind-the-scenes legal scholarship that supports oral advocacy.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

3:30 PM | SCC Online Orientation | Academic Block<\/h3>\n

At 3:30 PM, the SCC Online Orientation session was conducted at the Academic Block, offering participants a comprehensive overview of the premier legal research platform. The session was designed to familiarise students with the features and functionalities of SCC Online, enabling them to navigate legal databases efficiently and enhance their research capabilities. Attendees were guided through practical demonstrations on case law search, statute analysis, and the use of advanced filters, equipping them with essential tools for effective legal research and mooting. The orientation proved to be highly informative and interactive, with students actively engaging in the session and clarifying their queries.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

4:45 PM | Draw of Lots and Memorial Exchange | Academic Block<\/h3>\n

The Drawing of Lots was held, where all teams convened to learn about their preliminary round matchups. Overseen by the Moot Court Committee to ensure full transparency, the drawing revealed which sides (petitioner\/respondent) each team would represent and their corresponding opponents. This moment generated excitement and anticipation, prompting participants to start strategising for their oral rounds.<\/p>\n

7-06-2025 (Day 2)<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

11:00 AM | Preliminary Rounds | Academic Block<\/h3>\n

Court Hall I<\/p>\n

On 7 June at 11:00 AM, Preliminary Round I in Courtroom 1 began with the Petitioners invoking Article 136 to argue that their Special Leave Petitions raised substantial questions of law and gross procedural violations, chiefly, that Section 24\u2019s reverse-burden presumption was improperly applied without a predicate offence. Counsel 1 contended that PMLA and UAPA proceedings could not proceed concurrently and that a Special PMLA Judge lacked jurisdiction absent a valid predicate crime under Section 3. Citing Paragraph 54 of their memorial and authorities such as Vijay Reddy and Bharti Cement, they stressed that money-laundering charges collapse without an established predicate offence. When judges queried the nexus between accused and alleged offences, referencing Prakash Industries v. UOI<\/span> and Ajay Kumar Wahedi v. DB<\/span>, Counsel 1 emphasised that mere allegations cannot substitute proof, and cited Harish Chandra<\/span> and DK Shivakumar<\/span> cases to underscore due-process concerns.<\/p>\n

Counsel 2 in the same Courtroom 1 then pressed issues of fair notice and procedural delay: the client was neither named in any FIR, chargesheet, nor ECIR; no summons had been issued; and the property in question was lawfully acquired. Highlighting a two-year gap before complaint filing and Annexures 1\u20143 showing no new facts, they argued mala fide intent. They maintained that Sections 200\u2014203 and Section 46 CrPC applied to PMLA Courts (citing Kukeja v. UOI<\/span>), and that Section 71 of the PMLA did not override CrPC safeguards. When asked about Section 50 statements and \u201chandsome\u201d payments, they distinguished criminal breach of trust from proceeds of crime and relied on Tamannah D\u00e9cor<\/span> case to reject automatic vicarious liability for corporate employees.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Respondents in Courtroom 1 opened by clarifying that PMLA proceedings are preventive, not punitive, and may run independently of predicate-offence convictions, per Chaudhary Lal v. UOI<\/span> and Rameswaram Kejriwal v. West Bengal<\/span>. They asserted that an ECIR, unlike an FIR, is internally valid at any stage (M. Venkataswamy case)<\/span> and that PMLA trials need not await UAPA conclusions. When judges probed the necessity of a predicate conviction under UAPA, respondents adroitly referred to the Vijay Mallya Chaudhary case<\/span> to uphold PMLA\u2019s autonomous operation. Their sur-rebuttal, though brief, maintained that existing case law and factual matrices favoured the State\u2019s position.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Court Hall II<\/p>\n

As the hearing commenced, Petitioners\u2019 counsel asserted that initiating PMLA proceedings while the predicate offence conviction remains under challenge in a separate appeal effectively punishes them twice for the same conduct. They argued that neither Article 300A nor Section 8 of the PMLA authorises attachment before final adjudication, and to do so infringes due process. In response, the CEB prosecutor pointed to the non-obstante clause in Section 8 and insisted Parliament deliberately allowed freezing of assets once a conviction is recorded, even if appeals are pending, to prevent dissipation. At one point, the judge probed whether any constitutional provision bars parallel proceedings and challenged the Petitioners to cite a unanimous precedent forbidding simultaneous trials based on identical facts.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Court Hall III<\/p>\n

The Petitioners opened by contending that attaching Solvex\u2019s properties under Schedule I of the PMLA, merely on a predicate conviction, exceeded the statute\u2019s scope, since Sections 5 and 8 require a \u201cfinal\u201d finding. They drew from bilateral mutual-legal-assistance treaties and analogised to narcotics forfeiture jurisprudence, where attachments await appellate outcome. The Respondents retorted that the express non-obstante language in Section 8 overrides all other statutes and that interim attachment is inherently statutory rather than punitive. When pressed, counsel admitted there is no directly on-point Supreme Court decision, and the bench questioned how the PMLA\u2019s freeze mechanism could be squared with Article 21 property rights.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Court Hall IV<\/p>\n

Petitioner Speaker 1 grappled with Section 42 jurisdiction and whether the High Court was the proper forum, reading Section 45 to justify maintainability. They challenged a co-promoter\u2019s liability absent mens rea, relying on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab<\/span> and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India<\/span> for fair-trial principles. Petitioner Speaker 2 argued procedural defects: PMLA\u2019s presumption under Section 24 differs from other statutes, and co-promoters acting in good faith cannot be held vicariously liable. Judges pressed them on active involvement versus position, and on whether ammonium nitrate transfers implicated all promoters.<\/p>\n

Respondent speakers in Courtroom 4 countered that Section 44 permits concurrent PMLA and UAPA trials, that the organisation\u2019s classification did not bar proceedings, and that no double jeopardy arises when offences under different statutes are independent. They invoked K.S. Puttaswamy<\/span> for proportionality and stressed that subsequent UAPA convictions empower, rather than impede, PMLA action. A second respondent speaker corrected a cause-title error, explained the three stages of money laundering under Section 3, and argued that directors\u2019 due diligence obligations impose vicarious liability. Judges drilled into corporate veil principles, Section 70 of UAPA, and the scope of Section 3, concluding with the petitioner’s objections on jurisdiction and unaccounted payments.<\/p>\n

Court Hall V<\/p>\n

Petitioners argued that, despite the Special Court\u2019s order, neither Sections 17\u201419 nor Article 136 should be read to bar Supreme Court review, and that Parliament\u2019s silence on ousting SLP jurisdiction is meaningful. The CEB countered that Section 17(1) plainly vests appellate jurisdiction in the High Court, and that allowing SLPs would undermine statutory expediency. Counsel sparred over legislative intent, with the judge asking whether any committee report or parliamentary debate clarified why the Supreme Court was excluded, and prompting Petitioners to identify any instance where Parliament explicitly deprived Article 136 review.<\/p>\n

2:30 PM | Preliminary Rounds II | Academic Block<\/h3>\n

Court Hall I<\/p>\n

The Petitioners insisted that a conviction under appeal cannot serve as \u201cconclusive proof\u201d for identifying \u201cproceeds of crime,\u201d since finality is a necessary condition. They likened it to criminal forfeiture in other statutes, where attachments routinely await appeal disposal. The Respondents maintained that if finality were required, the statute would so state, and that conviction alone triggers jurisdiction to act. During the argument, counsel acknowledged that \u201cconclusive proof\u201d in PMLA may be a term of art, and the bench asked whether any principle of statutory interpretation supports treating it as provisional rather than absolute.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Court Hall II<\/p>\n

Preliminary Round 2 on 7 June at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 2 opened with Petitioner Speaker 1 citing Chuni Lal Mehta case<\/span> to justify substantial questions of law and pressing why a Division Bench had not been approached earlier. They contended that PMLA charges are parasitic on predicate offences (citing Prakash Industries case<\/span>), and that natural-justice principles bar undue burdens on unacquitted individuals. The Bench pressed on Article 21 scrutiny under Nighesh Singh v. UOI<\/span>, property attachment issues, and the standard of proof (\u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d). Respondent Speaker 1 defended PMLA\u2019s independence from predicate convictions and distinguished Section 8 from Section 50; Respondent Speaker 2 justified multiple entity prayers and highlighted the redundancy of a third prayer. In rebuttals, petitioners emphasised PMLA and NDPS as special statutes requiring harmonious interpretation, while respondents relied on financial documents signed by petitioners to support attachment.<\/p>\n

Court Hall III<\/p>\n

Facing the court, the three co-promoters argued that mere directorship and shareholding cannot impute knowledge or wilful blindness under Section 3, and submitted affidavits showing no involvement in daily accounting or meetings with flagged shell companies. The CEB prosecutor countered that PMLA\u2019s phrase \u201cinvolved in any manner\u201d encompasses board-level oversight and that constructive knowledge suffices. When probed, Petitioners\u2019 counsel struggled to point to a threshold of mens rea less than actual knowledge recognised in binding PMLA cases, prompting the judge to question whether any lesser standard of fault had been judicially endorsed.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Court Hall IV<\/p>\n

In Courtroom 4 later that afternoon, started with Petitioner Speaker 1\u2019s brief, an under-three-minute opening undermined by an incorrect party name in the memorial. Opting out of rebuttal, they conceded potential under-preparation. Speaker 2 argued that parallel UAPA and PMLA proceedings breed judicial confusion (citing Aslam Merchant<\/span>), and sought a stay of PMLA proceedings until UAPA\u2019s proceedings conclusion. Judges probed counsel\u2019s composure, error in statute references, and misapplication of UAPA charges. Respondents then summarised facts, cited Irshad Qureshi case<\/span> and Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case<\/span> for concurrent trial authority, and argued that Mr Boyle alone bore custody liability under Article 32. Respondent Speaker 2 pressed Nirmal Singh for director accountability and Bharti Mittal for corporate responsibility, while bench queries on mens rea and Section 70 of UAPA rounded out the session.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Court Hall V<\/p>\n

In their interim-stay application, Petitioners pleaded that freezing all assets has crippled their businesses, forced layoffs, and irreparably damaged reputations, and urged that harm far outweighs the public interest argument. The Respondents opposed, arguing the statute disallows stays once attachment is effected except by the designated appellate remedy, and that thwarting terrorism financing must remain paramount. The bench pressed Petitioners on quantifying \u201cirreparable harm\u201d and whether any PMLA provision even contemplates commercial hardship as a basis for stay, challenging them to show that judicial equity can override the legislative scheme.<\/p>\n

Teams Qualifying for Semi-Final Rounds<\/h3>\n

TC 02<\/p>\n

TC 04<\/p>\n

TC 06<\/p>\n

TC 11<\/p>\n

8-06-2025 (Day 3)<\/h3>\n

11:00 AM | Semi Finals Rounds | Academic Block<\/h3>\n

Court Hall I<\/p>\n

The Semi-Finals on 8 June at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 1 reignited debates over Article 134 and 136 jurisdiction, the admissibility of Section 50 statements (citing Prem Prakash v. ED<\/span>), and vicarious liability under Sunil Bharti Mittal<\/span>. Petitioners challenged Section 15\u2019s constitutionality and Section 24\u2019s reverse presumption, invoking Sarva Gupta case<\/span> for fair-trial rights. Respondents urged alternative remedies under Article 226, affirmed PMLA\u2019s independence from predicate convictions, and stressed companies\u2019 negligence liability via Section 70(2). They highlighted fresh material in the supplementary chargesheet (Para 19B, 19F) and refuted double jeopardy arguments. In rebuttals, petitioners attacked unconnected income and coerced statements; in sur-rebuttals, respondents reaffirmed Section 24\u2019s validity, cited M. Venkatesh v. ED<\/span>, and invoked the doctrine of attribution.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Court Hall II<\/p>\n

In Courtroom 2, Petitioners opened by citing Chunnilal Mehta<\/span> on concurrent proceedings and lack of mens rea, urging SLP continuation. They invoked Rayna Ayub case<\/span> to bar parallel trials upon cognisance in one court and argued that rapid FIR, ECIR, and chargesheet filings indicated mala fide intent. Their second speaker stressed Article 21 violations from simultaneous trials, citing Bharti Mittal v. CBI<\/span> and Hanif Khan<\/span> for director knowledge standards. Respondents countered with a \u20b912 lakh recovery trail, a \u20b952 crore turnover by Solvex Chemicals, and Vijay Madanlal<\/span> for parallel prosecutions. They requested extra time, alleging petitioners had overrun their allotment. Rebuttals saw petitioners’ fault in missing formal prayers and misinterpreted precedents (Mohan Lal v. Punjab<\/span>); respondents responded clearly, satisfying the bench on key inquiries about PMLA\u2019s standalone nature and evidentiary sufficiency.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Teams Qualifying for Final Rounds<\/h3>\n

TC 02<\/p>\n

TC 04<\/p>\n

3:30 PM | Finals | Moot Court Hall<\/h3>\n

The final rounds of the 6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition were held in the Moot Court Hall of the Administrative Building at National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. The atmosphere was intense as the best two teams of the tournament argued before an esteemed five-judge bench, comprising Hon\u2019ble Justice Mir Jafar Ali (Former Judge, Gauhati High Court & Director, Judicial Academy Assam), Hon\u2019ble Justice Kalyan Rai Sarma, Hon\u2019ble Justice Soumitra Saikia, Hon\u2019ble Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, and Hon\u2019ble Justice Devashis Baruah\u2014all sitting Judges of the Gauhati High Court. The final promised not just a display of sharp legal reasoning but also a memorable culmination to a fiercely contested competition.<\/p>\n

The courtroom witnessed a tense legal battle in a case involving alleged money laundering. The petitioners began by questioning whether the case was even maintainable under Article 136<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, citing Pritam Singh<\/span> v. State<\/span> and Chunilal Mehta<\/span>. They argued that the matter raised a substantial question of law and involved a gross miscarriage of justice.<\/p>\n

When asked about the kind of relief they sought and whether leave had been granted, the petitioners responded that due to the seriousness of the issues, relief should still be available. Referring to Akhtari Bi<\/span> v. State of Madhya Pradesh<\/span>, they argued that similar facts can give rise to different offences, and both proceedings can be valid. Under the PMLA, Section 3 (money laundering) depends on a prior or \u201cpredicate\u201d offence, as per Section 2.<\/p>\n

The bench pointed to Section 2 of the UAPA about offences by companies. The petitioners clarified that they weren\u2019t directly charged under the PMLA but were linked through another person, Keyser Doyle. They cited Vijay Madanlal<\/span> and Bharti Cement<\/span> to show that legal outcomes must be consistent, otherwise the proceedings would be pointless. They also mentioned Section 11(1)(c) of the PMLA to highlight the risk of contradictory findings.<\/p>\n

The petitioner’s second speaker argued that the prosecution was premature and flawed in law, striking at the heart of Article 21. He said there was no clear evidence of proceeds of crime, which are essential to a money laundering charge. The property was attached before any crime was proven, violating due process. They cited Hardeep Singh<\/span> v. ED<\/span>, saying that without a conviction, the offence cannot be sustained. They stressed that the petitioners were only co-promoters, not active participants. No evidence had been shown to establish involvement\u2014\u201cIs status more important than conduct?\u201d the speaker asked.<\/p>\n

When the judge pointed out that a conviction suggests a prima facie case, the petitioners replied that \u201cmanagement\u201d is a subjective term\u2014just because someone is in the company doesn\u2019t mean they are liable. Citing Bharadwaj Trivenkata<\/span> v. PVR<\/span>, they argued that being a director alone doesn\u2019t make someone guilty. The ED had failed to connect them to the core crime.<\/p>\n

The state countered by arguing that co-promoters, knowingly or unknowingly, can be liable for illegal activities of a company. They stressed that this was a premature stage and the trial should begin. Under Section 70 (2) of the PMLA, directors can be held responsible. Referring to the Arvind Kejriwal<\/span> case, they invoked the doctrine of attribution, saying the corporate veil must be lifted to see who was really responsible. Directors, especially executive ones, must approve key decisions and audits, and cannot plead ignorance. They cited Pawan Kumar Dhoot<\/span> v. ED<\/span> to back this up.<\/p>\n

The second respondent speaker argued that the PMLA is a standalone law, and the offence of money laundering can be tried independently of UAPA. Citing M. Venkateshwar<\/span> v. ED<\/span> and Ankur Khurana<\/span> v. ED<\/span>, they said the burden of proof has shifted. There were fund transfers from company accounts to personal ones, indicating a prima facie link. However, the judge questioned whether such transfers alone were enough to prove a crime and noted that just because a company makes profits doesn\u2019t mean they are proceeds of crime.<\/p>\n

In rebuttals, the petitioners argued that the respondents were misleading the court. Section 3 of the PMLA requires \u201cknowing involvement,\u201d which has not been proven. They said no direct evidence had been shown to establish that the petitioners were part of any illicit financial movement. Tax returns and affidavits had been submitted. The judge noted that for such evidence to matter, the case needs to go to trial.<\/p>\n

In sur-rebuttals, the respondents said both direct and indirect roles matter. Evidence should have been submitted by the petitioners to clarify their role. They added that government auditors should have caught discrepancies if everything was clean. The judge asked whether BNSS (the new criminal procedure code) applies, but the respondents insisted that Section 70 of the PMLA overrides BNSS. They were also cautioned that new arguments cannot be raised during rebuttals.<\/p>\n

While both sides agreed that different offences can arise from the same facts, they debated whether these are truly independent or closely linked. As the dust settles, the court must now weigh intent, evidence, and responsibility\u2014and decide where association ends and liability begins.<\/p>\n

\"\" \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \"\"<\/p>\n

5:30 PM | Valedictory Ceremony | Seminar Hall<\/h3>\n

The valedictory ceremony of the 6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition was as heartfelt as it was celebratory. It began with Prof. (Dr.) K.V.S. Sharma, the Hon\u2019ble Vice-Chancellor of National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam, set the tone for the evening. This was followed by Justice Mir Jafar Ali, Director of the Judicial Academy, Assam, who lightened the mood with a warm remark, pointing out that it wasn\u2019t just the students who were playing the role of lawyers, but even the High Court judges were stepping up as Supreme Court judges for the evening.<\/p>\n

Justice Soumitra Saikia shared an affectionate message, saying that the students felt like family to him that evening, and encouraged everyone to move forward with grace, regardless of the results. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi extended his congratulations in advance and quoted Justice Hansaria\u2019s words: \u201cThere is always room at the top.\u201d Justice Devashis Baruah applauded the high quality of research and quick thinking shown by the participants. He highlighted the value of mooting as a formative experience and stressed the importance of courtroom etiquette and the shared fraternity of the bar.<\/p>\n

A special highlight of the evening was the online launch of the book titled \u201cAccess to Justice Through Legal Aid,\u201d<\/span> edited by Prof. Kailash Jeenger, Faculty of Law at NLUJAA, Assam.<\/p>\n

The evening concluded with the much-awaited prize announcements:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Best Researcher: Tanya Rawat<\/span>, Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • Best Speaker: Udish Gautam<\/span>, Indian Law Society\u2019s Law College, Pune\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • Best Memorial (Petitioner): Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow<\/span>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • Best Memorial (Respondent): Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur<\/span>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • Runner-Up: Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur<\/span>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • Winner: Indian Law Society\u2019s Law College, Pune<\/span>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    The ceremony marked the end of a brilliant day of legal debate and camaraderie, and left behind a sense of both accomplishment and aspiration among everyone present.<\/p>\n

    The vote of thanks was delivered by the Convener of the Moot Court Committee, Mr. Aroni Dipto Swami, following the prize-distribution ceremony. He began by expressing deep gratitude to the Honourable Judges of the Gauhati High Court and to Kalyan Rai Surana, the Chief Guest of the Valedictory Ceremony. He then acknowledged the Vice-Chancellor and the University Administration for their unwavering support, as well as the esteemed collaborators, Chambers of Abhinav Mishra, Lexcuria Lawyers, SCC Online, and SCC Times. Finally, he conveyed heartfelt appreciation to the judges, volunteers, administrative staff, faculty members, participants, and all members of the Organising Committee for their dedicated efforts in making the event a success.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Indian Law Society’s Law College, Pune bagged the winner’s trophy for the competition.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":350359,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,22],"tags":[83354,47112,34405,83352,83353],"class_list":["post-350337","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawschoolnews","category-others","tag-6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial","tag-law-school-news","tag-moot-court-competition","tag-nluja-assam","tag-scc-times-media-partnership"],"yoast_head":"\n6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial MCC by NLUJA Assam | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam; Indian Law Society\u2019s Law College, Pune winner\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam; Indian Law Society\u2019s Law College, Pune winner\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-11T08:30:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/6th-Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/\",\"name\":\"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial MCC by NLUJA Assam | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/6th-Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-11T08:30:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam; Indian Law Society\u2019s Law College, Pune winner\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/6th-Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/6th-Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial MCC by NLUJA Assam | SCC Times","description":"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam; Indian Law Society\u2019s Law College, Pune winner","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam","og_description":"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam; Indian Law Society\u2019s Law College, Pune winner","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-06-11T08:30:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/6th-Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/","name":"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial MCC by NLUJA Assam | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/6th-Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.webp","datePublished":"2025-06-11T08:30:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam; Indian Law Society\u2019s Law College, Pune winner","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/6th-Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/6th-Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/11\/6th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"6th Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition by NLUJA Assam"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/6th-Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":348568,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/22\/6th-edition-of-the-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":350337,"position":0},"title":"NLUJAA presents 6th Edition of the Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition in collaboration with Chambers of Abhinav Mishra, Advocates & Solicitors","author":"Editor","date":"May 22, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Registrations are open till 28-05-2025.","rel":"","context":"In "Law School News"","block_context":{"text":"Law School News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Gurjeet-Singh-Memorial-Moot-Court-Competition.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":194466,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/27\/2nd-dr-gurjeet-singh-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-announced\/","url_meta":{"origin":350337,"position":1},"title":"2nd Dr. Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition announced","author":"Saba","date":"March 27, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"About us: NLUJA Assam is a premier institute of legal education set up in the year 2011 by an Act of the State Legislature. Ever since its inception, the University has endeavoured towards achieving higher standards of legal education and has focused on inculcating practical argumentative skills amongst students. With\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Law School News"","block_context":{"text":"Law School News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/NLUJA_GSMNMC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/NLUJA_GSMNMC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/NLUJA_GSMNMC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/NLUJA_GSMNMC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/NLUJA_GSMNMC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214273,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/03\/nlujaa-3rd-edition-of-dr-gurjeet-singh-memorial-moot-court-competition\/","url_meta":{"origin":350337,"position":2},"title":"NLUJAA | 3rd edition of Dr. Gurjeet Singh Memorial Moot Court Competition","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 3, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Khushboo Damani","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/NLUJAA-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/NLUJAA-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/NLUJAA-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/NLUJAA-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/NLUJAA-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/NLUJAA-2.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":289303,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/12\/4th-gurjeet-singh-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2023\/","url_meta":{"origin":350337,"position":3},"title":"4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 12, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"ABOUT NLUJAA The National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam (NLUJAA) has been established by the Government of Assam by way of enactment of the National Law School and Judicial Academy, Assam Act, 2009 (Assam Act No. XXV of 2009). The word \u2018School\u2013 was replaced by the word \u2018University\u2013 by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Law School News"","block_context":{"text":"Law School News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1095.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1095.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1095.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1095.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":196214,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/22\/report-on-2nd-dr-gurjeet-singh-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/","url_meta":{"origin":350337,"position":4},"title":"Report on 2nd Dr. Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2018","author":"Saba","date":"May 22, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Khushboo Damani","rel":"","context":"In "Law School News"","block_context":{"text":"Law School News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/NLUJA-MOOT-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/NLUJA-MOOT-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/NLUJA-MOOT-2018.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/NLUJA-MOOT-2018.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/04\/NLUJA-MOOT-2018.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":130751,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/13\/report-on-dr-gurjeet-singh-memorial-national-moot-court-competition\/","url_meta":{"origin":350337,"position":5},"title":"Report on Dr. Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition","author":"Saba","date":"May 13, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"The Dr. Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition is the first national moot court competition organised by the National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. The competition set the ball rolling as the 1st NLUJAA National Moot Court Competition but when our beloved Founder- Vice Chancellor, Late Prof (Dr.)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Law School News"","block_context":{"text":"Law School News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/NLUJA-Moot_o.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/NLUJA-Moot_o.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/NLUJA-Moot_o.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/NLUJA-Moot_o.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/05\/NLUJA-Moot_o.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350337","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=350337"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350337\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/350359"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=350337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=350337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=350337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}