•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 33-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

5th Feb '14, Wednesday

Hello and welcome to the live blog of the 15th D. M. Harish Memorial Government Law College International Moot Court Competition 2014 a.k.a DMH, which is from the 6th-9th February, 2014.

The total prize money is an amazing Rs. 1,18,000 with the Winning Team taking a cash prize of Rs 30,000, Second Best Team taking home Rs 20,000 and Best Speaker and Memorial and Best Speaker in the Finals getting Rs. 12,000 each. The Second Best Speaker and the team winning the Runner-up Memorial prize get Rs 8,000 each while the Best Researcher gets Rs 10,000 and Second Best Researcher gets Rs 6,000.

And for all of you there, who are missing out on the action, we bring you the ‘DMH Experience’ LIVE. So you get to sit through the Panel Discussion and the Oral Rounds (a layman's perspective, as the rules of the competition forbid us from revealing the arguments till the finals) and the Finale. Pretty cool, eh?

In the year 2000, Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, with the support of the D. M. Harish Foundation, conceptualized the idea of having a moot court competition which gave birth to the D. M. Harish Memorial Government Law College National Moot Court Competition, which was elevated to the International Level in the year 2005 making it the first of its kind in the country.

Apart from the serious and intense mooting rounds, the D. M. Harish Foundation hosts the DMH Banquet, an exquisite dinner at a splendid venue, which also serves as an ice-breaker and an interactive session between the participants and the hosts. After the conclusion of the moot, free spirits are in order as the MCA holds an ‘informal social gathering’ for the participants to give them a glimpse of the much talked of nightlife of the city.

The moot problem for DMH 2014 is an array of contemporary issues. It is in the backdrop of an internal armed conflict. The compromis explores issues that penetrate into basic tenets of international law such as humanitarian intervention, use of force and violation of sovereignty. While dealing with the entire armed conflict issue, the problem examines crimes of aggression and issues such as extradition. The problem also deals with the impact of armed conflict on international investment, environmental impact assessment and other environmental issues.

To read the entire problem, please visit: http://www.mcaglc.org/dmh/international-moot-court-competition/case-study.htm

The list of participating colleges are:

  •          Chanakya National Law University, Patna
  •          Government Law College, Mumbai
  •          Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  •          Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
  •          ILS Law College, Pune
  •          Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal
  •          NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad
  •          National Law Institute University, Bhopal
  •          National Law School of India University, Bangalore
  •          National Law University, Delhi
  •          National Law University, Jodhpur
  •          National Law University, Odisha
  •          National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata
  •          National University of Research in Law, Ranchi
  •          New York University School of Law, U.S.A.
  •          Nepal Law School, Tribhuvan University, Nepal
  •          Nirma University, Ahmadabad
  •          Riara University, Kenya
  •          Sri Lanka Law College, Sri Lanka
  •          Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  •          Symbiosis Law College, Pune
  •          University of Southampton, United Kingdom
  •          University of Wroclaw, Poland
  •          University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe
  •          University of Nairobi, Kenya
  •          University of Sussex, United Kingdom
  •          Valparaiso University, U.S.A.

There are 5 rounds in total: Prelims on 7th Feb, Octo-Final and Quarter-Final on 8th Feb, Semi-Final and the Finals on 9th Feb ’14.

The Preliminary Rounds of Argument is the one in which teams will be required to argue from both sides (Applicant and Respondent). Sixteen (16) teams will qualify for the Octo-Final Rounds. The Octo-Final Rounds of Argument, where teams will be required to argue from both sides (Applicant and Respondent). The top eight (8) teams will qualify for the Quarter-Final Round. The Quarter-Final Round will be a Knock-out Round. Four (4) winning teams will proceed to the Semi-Final Round. The Semi-Final Round will be a Knock-out Round. Two (2) winning teams will proceed to the Final Rounds of Argument.

From a rich pool of great experience and expertise, judges are invited from the legal fraternity to judge the various rounds, with the experience of the bench enriching as each round goes by. Associates and Advocates in the Preliminary Rounds, Senior Associates, Partners and Professors in the Octo-Finals, Senior Partners, Managing Partners and Senior Advocates in the Quarters and Senior Counsels in the Semis all culminating with a constitutional bench of 4 sitting judges of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the final round of arguments.

 

We will go live with the Panel discussion at the International Convention Hall, Bombay Stock Exchange in Mumbai tomorrow at 6 p.m.

The topic for the Panel Discussion, 2014:

“Has the United Nations become the crony club of the Super Powers, compromising the Sovereignty of other nations?"

The panelists for this year include:

1) Mr. Prakash Shah, Former Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations;

2) Mr. Navroz H. Seervai, Senior Advocate, Bombay High Court

3) Mr. Kishore Mandhyan, former Diplomat and Political Scientist

4) Ms. Geeta Anand, Journalist and Author with the Wall Street Journal and Pulitzer Prize Winner.

Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, Bombay High Court shall be moderating the panel.

 

Excited? So are we! See you. Keep an eye for the updates. Ciao :D

PS: For the lazy ones, the live blog on/about DMH will take off tomorrow at 6pm. You’re welcome.

 

------------------

6th Feb '14, Thursday

Day 1, Panel Discussion

 10 am: Impromptu update: I just had to share this. All our teams got these lovely cupckes on checking into the hotel. It's yum! :')

b2ap3_thumbnail_2014-02-06-23.31.56.jpg

6pm, International Convention Hall, Bombay Stock Exchange, Mumbai.

Hey there! So, we're at this very cool Convention hall, so climatically different from the sweltering heat outside (God bless ACs!).

The Panel Discussion starts soon, for now we have the contestants seated comfortably and the stage's all set. The Dignitaries were given a very warm welcome with the Guard of Honour.

The Orientation and Researcher’s test was conducted in the afternoon today, and the photograph of all the participating teams has been taken.

06:30 pm: The program's begun with an introduction to the moot. Judge R. B. Malik, Principal, Government Law College gives the welcome address and wishes all the participants the very best. Ms Kanchan from SCC Online also shares a few words. The dignitaries now proceed to light the ceremonial lamp. Mr. Prakash Shah, Former Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations releases the official souvenir of the competition.

Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, the moderator for the Discussion is now introducing the panel. [Pic coming up, kindly ignore the quality-mobile camera :( ]

b2ap3_thumbnail_20140206_183101.jpg

07:00 pm: The Panel Discussion is on.

Mr Jagtiani, the moderator, gave an introduction to the topic of the Panel by quoting the articles of the UN Charter. He says that today the UN is viewed with skepticism. 

The topic is

“Has the United Nations become the crony club of the Super Powers, compromising the Sovereignty of other nations?" 

Mr Jagtiani spoke about the relevance of today's topic by putting forth a question to the eager audience whether there should be equality in the UN by no longer granting the 5 superpowers the right to veto?!

PS: This hall is so beautiful, we feel obliged to share with you a picture of the same :D

b2ap3_thumbnail_20140206_185039.jpg

07:15 pm: The first question put forth by the Moderator to Mr Prakash Shah is “What is the exact content of sovereignty?”

Mr Shah responded to the question by stating that sovereignty is reflected in the UN charter. According to him, in matters of internal affair, every country has sovereignty. However what should be considered as internal affairs has gone through a vast change over a period of time. He cited the example of genocide to drive home the point. He also said that on signing the treaties of UN, countries willingly give up a part of their sovereignty. But a few countries are wary of signing the same as they would rather try the cases in their own country.

07:30 pm: The next question is for Mr. Kishore Mandhyan which was about the proportionality of intervention of UN in matters of sovereignty of other countries. Mr. Mandhyan replied that UN acted disproportionally than they should have in the Yugoslavian crisis in 1990’s when the question of intervention cropped up. When the resolution in the Iraq crisis was not passed, UN hesitated to move further while they could’ve done more. 

07:40 pm: Mr. Navroz H. Seervai is asked to speak about the failures and success of the UN. He started off by saying that if UN is looked at the macro level with respect to its predecessor, The League of Nations, it has certainly been a success. But when looked at microscopically, it’s a ‘mixed bag’. The hard reality is that UN was formed by the victors and great powers, who won’t let their (Veto) power go easily and are bound to have personal interest. He feels that the Rwanda, Somalia and Syrian crises are failures on the part of the UN but on the positive side, UN as an organisation has a lot of potential and can do a lot of good. In the end, think of UN as an organisation that serves nations and would be better off without the superpowers having the right to veto.

08:00 pm: "Do you believe that International press can play a more important role in covering the UN and its activities?” is the question to Ms Geeta Anand to which she replied that the press can always play a better and important role in exposing the exploitation of human rights. The important thing is to guarantee freedom and safety of the press specially when they are in the conflict area. The second question was “What according to you is the most disturbing trend in the modern day world?” According to her, globally, the most important issues concern about the human rights. In India, it’s with regards to healthcare as it’s a tragedy when we don’t help our own people. 

08:15 pm: After an amazing discussion between the moderator and the panelists, the audience then questioned the Panel. Here's an excerpt:

Q1. What are the benefits India derives from being a member of the UN?

Mr Shah replied with a straight face that India is not a memberof the UN for its benefits. It's not about what you gain but what you contribute to the organisation.

Q2. Can UN ever be truly united when there is discord amongst its member nations on crucial issues? 

A panelist replied that with 193 member nations, there is bound to be a difference of opinion with respect to certain critical issues and that one should have a practical approach by taking into account the views of the majority whilst simultaneously solving the issues of the minority.

08:40 pm: The Panel discussion concludes with a Vote of thanks by the General Secretary of the Moot Court Association thanking the panelists, the participants and the members. We disperse for dinner now, bon appetit! We'll see you tomorrow with the rounds then.

 

-------------

7th Feb '14, Friday

 Day 2, Prelims

PRELIMINARY ROUND I

08:25 am: Good Morning :D After a hearty breakfast, teams are all prepped and ready to go into Preliminary Round I, which begins in 5. We will be giving you all the updates soon! Keep an eye!

08:40 am: Rounds finally begin!

08:45 am:

HNLU v. University of Southampton: Speaker 1 of HNLU keeps saying “just coming to that” in response to the Judge’s question. Tch.

GLC v. Sri Lanka Law college: Speaker from GLC is doing well, and doesn’t refer to the notes.

08:52 am:

Valparaiso University v. NUSRL: The first speaker from Valparaiso speaks really well and seems prepared. Answers to the questions asked seem to please the judges. Good going!

GNLU v. NLIU:  Speaker 1 from GNLU is a little soft-spoken and is doing fine.

09:05 am:

CNLU v. Symbiosis, Noida: CNLU speaker tries to convince the Judges about the Human rights violation but fails to do so (Judge says so). Judges want the statistics about the lives lost during the civil war and ask the speaker to explain the reason for it being a civil war, which the speaker fails to explain.

NLSIU v. University of Sussex: Speaker from NLSIU talks a little fast and the opposite team seems to concentrate really hard to follow her arguments!

09:20 am:

NLUO v. ILS: Speaker from NLUO seems to be bombarded with questions from the Judges, but is unable to answer in a flow, though they seem to satisfy the Judges a little.

09.35 am:

NLU Jodhpur v. NUJS: In an all girls v. an all guys' team; the second lady speaker seems to be in a bit of a rush but manages to impress the judges with her precise and correct arguments.

Institute of Law v. NYU: The respondent seems cool and confident and answers all the questions in a calm manner.

09.50 am:

HNLU, Raipur v. University of Southampton: Respondent seems to satisfy the judges by answering correctly to the questions asked.

Valparaiso University v. NUSRL: The respondent was asked to explain the elements of a sovereign state, and managed to convince the Judges with his answers. Quoting the Judge, "Interesting enough, satisfied on that point." Nice.

10 am: 

Nalsar v. Symbi Pune: Respondent 1 quotes lots of judgments to drive a point which seems to satisfy the judges. Speaker 2 from Symbi happens to be speaking with such a flow, that the Judges don't seem to have any questions for her.

NLU Delhi v. University of Nairobi: Respondents have read through the applicant’s mem really well. Speaker 1 from Kenya seems to be really well-versed with the issues. Judges look like they are really following the speaker’s argument. 

10: 15 am:

Valparaiso University v. NUSRL: In the rejoinder, the lady participant was extremely confident and managed to get all her points across. 

10.30 am:

NLSIU v. University of Sussex: The court room's wrapped up. Judges offer a suggestion to the participants about maintaining eye contact during the course of their arguments and try and engage the Judges than just read it. Point noted!

10:55 am: 

All the courts have wrapped up. The teams are chilling for now, they will soon be visiting the DMH Trust. Updates and pictures coming up in a while. 

11 am- 2 pm: The teams visited the DMH office in two batches. They got to see the office and interact with the trustees of the DMH Foundation. Pictures coming up!

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG-20140207-WA0005.jpg

 

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG-20140207-WA0002.jpg

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG-20140207-WA0003.jpg

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG-20140207-WA0004.jpg

2 pm: Lunch is going on right now, and the teams then head to the hotel as rounds begin from 6 pm. See ya then!

PRELIMINARY ROUND II

05:30 pm: Courtrooms are set and teams are ready for Round II. Wish them luck!

06:00 pm: Rounds have begun! 

ILS v. University of Wroclaw: The first speaker from ILS is doing really well and has good knowledge of law. He seems to impress the judges with the way the contentions are presented and even contradicted a point mentioned in the applicant’s submission, earning a nod from the Judges. Good going, we say!

06:15 pm:

University of Sussex v. Valparaiso University: The applicants seem to be ignorant on the issues asked by the judges. The speaker is quite confused and is clearly running away from being questioned. Not pretty.

University of Southampton v. GLC: The first speaker from Southampton is not very loud but makes it up with his good court manners and is not interrupted throughout his course of arguments (They count, see!)

06: 25 pm: 

Symbi Pune v. GNLU: The speaker from GNLU is puzzled by the Judge's question and tries to skip it, but is caught by the Judge. That must’ve hurt! Being grilled forever now. 

NLIU v. Nalsar: NLIU seems to have a good research done, as the speaker is extremely comfortable answering questions and her answers seem to satisfy the judges. Nice.

06:40 pm:

Symbi Noida v. NLUJ: Speaker 1 from Symbi is too eager and is trying to hurry through his arguments as there is just a minute left and he needs to cover more arguments. Time management is always an issue.

Sri Lanka law college v. HNLU: Speaker from Sri Lanka is slightly nervous. She's unable to answer a question on judgments on international incidents related to the contentions even though the Judge tries to help, but manages to glide through with an impromptu answer. Lucky!

NUSRL v. NLSUI: Speaker from Applicants is tense and is unable to maintain a flow in his arguments. Not sure if he got his facts right as the judges ask him, "Where is that coming from?"

06:55 pm:

Nepal Law School v. NLUO: When the speaker from Nepal is asked whether genocide is an internal matter, he is unable to answer it. He is not very confident and knows only the content of the material he has. *thumbs down*

NUJS v. CNLU: The second speaker from NUJS has a calm demeanour and happens to be reading directly from his sheets. Hmm. Meanwhile, the respondent speaks well but isn’t very effective. Even he reads directly, but answers questions on the spot. 

07:00 pm:

NLIU v. Nalsar: Speaker 2 from NLIU is a good speaker, real good by the way, as she disagreed with the Judge but very smartly justified it. She knows the issue well and makes eye contact. The respondents meanwhile, seem to discuss their course of action after listening to her arguments very closely. 

07:20 pm:

NYU v. NLU-D: Speaker from NLU-D is given a quick grammar lesson on the difference between 'can' and 'may'. The judge disagreed with him on a point and he was unable to persuade them.

University of Sussex v. Valparaiso University School of Law:  Although the respondent has to concentrate just a tad bit more to listen to the judge's questions, he can answer the questions without any hesitation. Cute accent, by the way!

07:30 pm:

Symbi Pune v. GNLU: Though the speaker from GNLU started off well, poor court manners (sorry, yeah, okay- no, not okay!) and a confusing reply to the judge's query puts her in a tight spot. She gets back on her toes with an impressive reply to another question. Phew!

07:40 pm:

Sri Lanka Law College v. HNLU: Although the respondent requested to answer a difficult question asked by the judges later, he was refused, momentarily throwing him off. However, he managed the situation quite okay! Quoted quite a few judgments too.  

University of Southampton v. GLC: The respondent, although referred to his notes, seemed confident. He also answered the questions simultaneously asked by the judges without being rattled. 

07:50 pm:

University of Sussex v. Valparaiso University School of Law (VUSL from now on, too long to type!): The VUSL speaker is impressive in his manner of arguments and answers well too. During the rejoinder, speakers from the applicants rebuts on the issues raised by the opposite team and answers the judge's questions too. Pretty good.

Symbi Noida v. NLU-J: With the rounds done, Judges seem to be genuinely impressed with both the sides. Close call here!

08:10 pm: With the Prelim round II done, teams proceed to have dinner at the terrace of our college (Pic attached). Octo-Finals results to be announced soon, will post it soon!

b2ap3_thumbnail_20140207_210739.jpg

09:50  pm: *Drumroll* 

Teams qualifying for the Octo-finals are:

  1. Gujarat National Law University
  2. Government Law College
  3. Hidyatullah National Law University
  4. ILS, Pune
  5. Institute of Law, Nirma University
  6. NALSAR, Hyderabad
  7. NLIU, Bhopal 
  8. NLSIU, Bangalore
  9. NLU-D
  10. NLU-J
  11. NLUO
  12. NUJS, Kolkata
  13. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  14. University of Nairobi
  15. University of Southampton
  16. Valparaiso University, School of Law

We will be beginning with the Octos at 9 a.m. tomorrow! See you then! Root for your team!

 

--------------

8th February '14, Saturday

Day 3, Octo-Finals and Quarters

OCTO-FINALS I

09:00 am: Rounds have started. Teams are all set and look confident. Should be a really good round :)

09:10 am:

NUJS, Kolkata v. ILS, Pune: NUJS has a good start as speaker knows his stuff. Fumbles a bit with the second contention. And yes, “uhh” is not pleasing.

09:15 am:

NLSIU, Bangalore v. NLU-D: Speaker from NLSIU looks a little nervous, but has good research and answers well to a question put forth by the Judges after little discussion amongst themselves. Looks like they tried to confuse her, but she managed to dodge through. Good!

University of Nairobi v. NALSAR, Hyderabad: University of Nairobi is in a bit of a spot when a judge says that Speaker 1 loves making contradictory statements. And his love for his bottle has to be mentioned, kept holding it throughout the course of his arguments. (Everyone has their quirks!) The second speaker is a little more confident though speaker 1 was good too.

09:20 am:

HNLU v. NLUO: Hitchy start for the HNLU team after the speaker is questioned on a point mentioned in her submissions but she is unable to persuade them and not allowed to complete her contentions as the Judges are really particular about the time. Sab time time ki baat hai Johnny!

09:30 am: 

GNLU v. VUSL: The second speaker from the Applicants knows his matter and manages a convincing reply to a tricky Yes/No question. Whoo...

09:35 am:

University of Southampton v. GLC: Speaker from Southampton has a slow delivery style and a cool demeanour. Judges seem to be keenly listening to her arguments but time management is an issue again. 

09:45 am:

Symbi Noida v. NLU-J: The Judges are impressed with the Symbi speaker’s answer to a question. Is extremely patient and managed to end her arguments with a minute left (finally, one team does it!)

NUJS, Kolkata v. ILS, Pune: The ILS speaker is given a big thumbs up by the blogging team for his confidence and delivery style. He is given a minute to wrap up his arguments and is not at all nervous. 

09:55 am:

GNLU v. VUSL: Speaker from Valparaiso is going at a nice pace and is likeable. Answers the questions too. Okay overall.

10.00 am: 

NLSIU, Bangalore v. NLU-D: Though the NLU-D speaker has good knowledge of law, the delivery of arguments doesn’t seem to impress the judges. 

10.15 am:

HNLU v. NLUO: NLUO speakers are unable to convince the judges about their contentions (Judge even says that) Not a good position.

10.20 am:

University of Nairobi v. NALSAR, Hyderabad: Speaker 2 from Nalsar has an uneven pace and is unable to persuade the judge despite the researcher’s desperate attempts to help him! 

10:30 am:

Institute of Law, Nirma University v. NLIU, Bhopal: Speaker from NLIU is really good with her matter, though she refers her notes at times. During the rejoinder, the girl speaker tries to counter asmany points as possible in a limited time frame of 3 minutes and is fairly good at it.

10.40 am:

University of Southampton v. GLC: The rejoinder goes well as judges seem to agree with the applicant’s points too.

10:45 am:

Symbi Noida v. NLU-J: NLU-J speaker is confident and maintains eye contact. Even managed to finish on time! Impressive rebuttal by Symbi, with the speaker very sweetly requesting for extra time which leaves the opposite team and the judges smiling. 

11:00 am: Round I is done with and courts are being set for Round II.

OCTO-FINALS II

11.15 am: Round II underway. 

11.35 am:

NLIU, Bhopal v. NLU-D: Speaker from NLIU is arguing well and in a structured manner. She manages to complete her contention despite judge’s interruption. Impressive.

11.50 am:

NLUO v. NUJS: Though the speaker is well-prepared and answers all questions, he wipes his face every time the Judge asked a question. (Quirk 2 spotted!)

GLC v. University of Nairobi: Though the speaker from GLC sounds a little nervous, he’s good at answering questions.

11.55 am:

GNLU v. NLU-J: Both the speakers from GNLU are poised and collected. Good show!

12.05 pm:

VUSL v. Symbi Noida: Speaker from Valparaiso is not being interrupted. That means she’s either too good or the Judges are bored. Either way, she’s asked to move on to her next contention by the judges as they followed her first. Aha!

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4704.JPG

12.10 pm:

ILS v. HNLU: ILS seems to have restructured their arguments which slightly confuse the judges. Speaker 1 of ILS, as said earlier, is doing wonderfully well. Speaker 2 is slightly less impressive.

12.15 pm:

NLSIU v. Nirma: Speaker from NLSIU loses her flow of arguments when the Judge questions her, and then her answer confuses the Judges (They say so, it’s not us!).

12.25 pm:

University of Southampton v. Nalsar: Applicants do a decent job. The first respondent is a good speaker and is impressive overall.

12.35 pm:

NLIU v. NLU-D: Speaker from NLU-D seems a little unprepared and doesn't have very commendable court manners. Not done.

12.50 pm:

VUSL v. Symbi Noida: Judges seem to follow the arguments of the respondents (if nodding heads is anything to go by). Also the speaker answered questions posed by the Judges very well.

01:05 pm:

GLC v. University of Nairobi: GLC is doing well and the speakers seem to satisfy the Judges with their answers. 

01:15 pm:

ILS v. HNLU: HNLU speaker has got the Judge angry by not answering the question asked by the Judge directlyand looks like he's in a hurry to prove his point. The rebuttal by ILS is a little too aggressive, but since the Speaker is well-versed with the case, he gets off with it. Perks of being a good speaker, ha?!

01:35 pm: 

NLSIU v. Nirma: During the rejoinder, the speaker manages to convince the judges on one issue, then loses their attention completely. The Judge asks her to read up on a few things. Hmmm.

02:00 pm: 

The teams that have qualified for the Quarters are:

  • GLC, Mumbai
  • GNLU
  • ILS, Pune
  • Nalsar
  • NLIU
  • NLU-J
  • NLUO
  • Valparaiso University (VUSL)

PS: Sorry for the delay, net crashed! :(

05:20 pm: Quarters will start soon, cheer for your college people! In the unfortunate case of your college not getting through to the Quarters, place bets on other colleges :P

QUARTERS

05:35 pm: And the Quarters begin.

Teams going head-to-head in this round are:

  1. NLU-J v. VUSL
  2. ILS v. GLC
  3. NLUO v. NALSAR
  4. GNLUv. NLIU

Since we can't really give the proper arguments yet, pictures are here for you. Go Figure!

ILS v. GLC

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4735.JPG

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4743.JPG

NLUO v. NALSAR:

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4718_20140208-132730_1.JPG

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4721_20140208-132747_1.JPG

 

NLU-Jv. VSUL:

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4733_20140208-132831_1.JPG

 

NLIU v. GNLU:

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4749.JPG

05:50 pm:

NLU-J v. VUSL: The all girls team from NLU-J is extremely prepared, with both the speakers being extremely confident and well-versed with the law points. After first 10 minutes of hearing Speaker 2 from the Applicants side, the Judges try to break her flow of arguments, but she manages to hold her own. 

06:05 pm:

NLUO v. NALSAR: The speaker from NLUO is doing good and managed to get done just in time. Tends to delay giving answers though. Speaker 2 from NLUO is better though, and answers questions very specifically. Even the Judges say that they are able to follow her arguments. They try to confuse her, but she gets through. Excellent!

06:10 pm:

GNLU v. NLIU: First speaker from GNLU is skillful at convincing the judges, though Speaker 2 is having a tough time persuading them. 

NLU-J v. VUSL: Lady speaker from VUSL is calm and confident and definitely knows her material. Good overall.

06:30 pm:

NLUO v. NALSAR: Speaker from NALSAR is being grilled by the Judges, even got corrected once by them. He is asked to speak more about the law than the facts of the case. Hmph.

07:15 pm:

ILS v. GLC: GLC speakers are able to incline the Judges on their side with their way of argument. The second speaker was allowed to sur-rebut immediately! During the rejoinder, speaker 1 from ILS on a roll again. He even said that the respondents changed their arguments once they were unable to prove it, inviting them to the dias to prove him wrong (Judges refused obviously) High drama here; loving it!

07:40 pm:

GNLU v. NLIU: Speakers from NLIU satisfy the Judges with their arguments and really good. During the rejoinder, judge asks the speaker to directly come to an issue and deal with it, and were impressed with the answer. The judges are taking long to deliberate and say it was a tough call with both the teams doing so well, especially with their reference to the authorities and mastery over the facts.

08:00 pm:

Quarters was a knockout round. Teams getting into the Semi finals are:

  • ILS, Pune
  • NLIU, Bhopal
  • NLU, Jodhpur
  • NLU, Orissa

Congratulations to all the teams, it is a well-deserved win! Now we head to The Village, WTC for a banquet dinner and some chillar fun. Will post the pictures soon.

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4787.JPG

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4833.JPG 

 

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4790.JPG

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4830.JPG

 

---------------

9th February '14, Sunday

Day 3, Semis and Finals

SEMI-FINALS

09:45 am: Teams are going head-to-head in this round are:

  • NLUO v. NLU-J
  • NLIU v. ILS

NLUO v. NLU-J: Judges in this round are Mr Haresh Jagtiani, Mr Janak Dwarkadas and Mr Fredun De Vitre.

10.15 am:

Speaker 1 from the applicants has begun. He is questioned by Mr Dwarkadas if the intervention on humanitarian grounds is justified, to which he replies that it isn’t as it’s not a part of customary international law. He is then asked if use of military force against defenceless citizens of their own country is okay to which he says that use of force was not against the citizens but the BFG. He was also asked if there is any obligation on the part of the Ironmaidea government to support citizens from Cornucopia, and he said there is none. The next question was if Maynard Carey was to be held personally liable, to which he quoted an international convention and answered in affirmative.

10.40 am:

Speaker 2 from NLUO was not interrupted for a good 7-8 minutes after which she was questioned by Mr Jagtiani on the difference between rights and interests, and was asked to support the same with examples and she replied by quoting cases and conventions. The next question put forth was that if you make a taxation policy that encourages such policies (jamming practices), isn’t it interference to which she said that such a decision was made in its sovereign capacity to protect the citizens of Cornucopia against the terrorist organisation.

11:00 am:

The respondents have begun. Unfortunately, we cannot disclose the arguments made by them as NLU-J has qualified for the finals. Apologies. Overall, the round has an "extremely high standard" and it was an "excellent performance" by both the sides. Two suggestions made by the Judges (put in the blog as a general tip for all):

  • Do not assume the Judges know all the acronyms in the compromis and therefore spell them out the first time.
  • Slow down a bit to expound the maxims and phrases.

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4948.JPG

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4954.JPG

NLIU v. ILS: Judges in this round are Mr J P Cama, Mr T N Subramaniam and Mr Bahram Vakil. 

10.15 am:

NLIU Bhopal is now arguing before the bench. The first speaker from the applicant's side is questioned on whether a resolution was passed in the UNSC regarding the humanitarian intervention to which she says that it was tabled, but not passed. a "did you or did you not" question throws Speaker 2 a little off-guard, but she quickly recovers and answers it. 

11.05 am: 

ILS Pune have started putting forth their arguments. Again, the contentions or answers cannot be revealed as they have qualified for the finals. At the very end, the Judges say that the round was "amazing" and "brilliant". Tip given:

  • The speakers were asked to look at all the 3 judges while speaking. 

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4956.JPG

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_4961.JPG

12:30 pm: Results declared! Teams qualifying into the finals are ILS Pune and NLU, Jodhpur. Finals begin at 05:00 pm, wait for us till then!

LIVE COVERAGE OF THE FINALS

05:00 pm from Rama Watumull Hall, Churchgate:

The Finals are here!! Teams are here and the energy is infectious. 

PS: The hall is beautiful! Pictures attached.

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_5001.JPG

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_5002.JPG

05:40 pm:

The Judges presiding the Finals have arrived. The Bench will be headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.J.Vazifdar, Judge, Bombay High Court. The Bench also consiste of Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Patel, Judge, Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Sonak, Judge, Bombay High Court. 

Ayaan Patel and Ayushi Anandpara have begun compering for the finals.

05:41 pm: FINAL ROUNDS BEGIN.

The final round of arguments has begun with Speaker 1 from NLU-J addressing the Bench.

05:42 pm: Speaker from NLU-J has summarised her submissions and is now giving a summary of facts of the case.

05: 43 pm: Submission 1 by the Applicants is that Ironmaidea by its military intervention is in violation of Cornucopia’s sovereignty.

05:47 pm: Speaker then says that the military intervention by Ironmaidea is in violation of the principle of non-use of force and non-intervention.

05:50 pm: Speaker says that intervention can only be requested by the highest authorities in the State to which Hon'ble Justice Mr Vazifdar asks which is the highest authority of the state.

05:55 pm: Speaker wants to cite facts with reference to her next contention which on international environmental law.

05:58pm: "Ironmaidea’s claim is inadmissible owing to doctrine of clean hands." Speaker 1

06:03 pm: Is asked to explain the principle of transboundary harm by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Sonak.

06:05 pm: Speaker 2 begins after Speaker 1 wraps up after an getting an extension of 2 minutes.

06:08 pm: Speaker 2- State practice is supported by strong opinio juris in favour of an obligation to extradite or prosecute with respect to international crimes.

06:10 pm: Crimes against humanity and war crimes impose an obligation to extradite or prosecute even in the absence of a treaty between States.Therefore, the obligation on Ironmaidea to extradite or prosecute its minister arises due to the nature and gravity of the crimes committed by Ironmaidea in Cornucopia.

06:13 pm: Speaker 2 is trying to convince the Judges that States do prosecute for the same. Is now trying to prove that Maynard Carey doesn't enjoy diplomatic immunity.

06:15 pm: Cites arrest warrant case. Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Sonak asks, "On what provisions do you issue international warrants?"

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_5035.JPG

06:19 pm: Ironmaidea has no standing to bring the claim of expropriation, not being the national State of Trooper Mobiles and not being allowed to bring a claim on behalf of its nationals, as shareholders. 

06:21 pm: "Isn't this an excuse to lift the corporate veil?", Hon'ble Justice Mr Sonak. 

06:22 pm: "Would trooper be entitled to bring an action in your country?" "In deed." "Are your courts independent?" "It is a democratic country and courts are independent." Questions asked by Mr President.

06:24 pm: Giving tax cuts doesn't attribute it to the State, says the Speaker and goes to explain the same.

06:25 pm: "Would you not be responsible vicariously by giving such cuts?" asks the President, which is smartly denied by the Speaker. 

06:29 pm: Is now wrapping up her arguments after asking for an extension. Applicants rest.

06:31 pm: Speaker 1 from Respondents has given a summary of the contentions and time split and now questions the jurisdiction of this court as Baysea is an indispensable party to the same.

06:40 pm: All 4 requirements of a State are fulfilled and hence Baysea is a state.

06:44 pm: Cites international cases of intervention to support his argument. 

06:46 pm: "Could you have not gone to the General Assembly?" "Said resolution has seen absolutely no state practice."

06:48 pm: First deal with the arrest warrant issue. Arrest warrant was only for crime of aggression: two-fold submission.

06:49 pm: Maynard Carey enjoys functional immunity.

06:52 pm: States have actually gone in the opposite end of prosecution, and hence no state custom exists to prosecute.

06:54 pm: Speaker 1 from ILS has wrapped up his arguments but is asked to answer a question by Mr President, which he does. 

06:55 pm: Speaker 2 has begun stating her contentions. 

07:01 pm: "Which is the arbitrary tribunal and how was it constituted?" "Facts are silent."

07:03 pm: Attribution to the State- Article11 is applicable here. Conduct of Cornocupia results in indirect taking under international law.

07:06 pm: Hon'ble Justice Mr.Patel asks a question on the concept of expropriation.

07:10 pm: Law on state responsibility and issue of non-discrimination being discussed now.

07:13 pm: Payment of compensation and doctrine of clean hands and esstopel is being dealt with. 

07:17 pm: Complete disregard to EIA report, says Speaker 2 w.r.t the dam construction and position.

07:21 pm: Requests for a time extension again, but is denied. Wraps up.

07:23 pm: Rebuttal: cites Article 12 of the Charter w.r.t General assembly argument and Jamming of towers, not blocking.

07:24 pm: Sur-rebuttal: Legality of use of force does not deal with Cornucopia but Baysea. 

07:27 pm: Speaker for Respondents is done. Judges leave to deliberate. 

07:37 pm: The final round of arguments is being discussed by all the participants in the hall. It is an extremely close call.

07:45 pm: The Judges are back! The Principal of Government Law College, Justice R.B.Malik is now speaking to the audience.

07:50 pm: Mr Anil Harish, Trustee, DMH Foundation is speaking now. "In the last 60 hours, all we have heard interstate dispute but seen inter-state friendship", he says. He thanks the Judges in the finals and earlier rounds, the framer of the problem, Mr Shreyas Shreedhar, panelists of the Discussion and the participants of the competition and the SCC and the Moot court Association, the organisers. 

07:58 pm: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Sonak is now addressing the audience.

08:03 pm: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Patel is at his witty best (as usual!)

08:05 pm: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.J. Vazifdar addresses the audience and says he is impressed with the standard of the competition and appreciates MCA's hospitability and introduces about Mr D M Harish and his family, as he knows them personally. 

08:21 pm: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.J. Vazifdar says that teams were so good that there is only a difference of 4 points for the Best Team and 2 points for the Best Speaker. Whewww!

A few points of advice (take it, it's from a sitting Bombay High Court Judge)

  • No yeah, it's just too informal.
  • Don't flatter the bench too much, a "My Lord" once in a while is fine. 
  • Don't be a slave to your computers, let them be your slave.
  • Don't mislead the bench, even if it's too tempting, especially if the Judges tseem to be ignorant.

08:28 pm: Prof Sanjay Kadam, Chairman of the Moot Court Association of Government Law College is now addressing the audience.

08:31 pm: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Sonak is now presenting the teams with their participating certificates and the online subscription of SCC Online for a month for each member.

08:42 pm: 

*DRUMROLLS*

Results are announced!

Winning Team: NLU-J

Runner Up Team: ILS Law College, Pune

Best Speaker in the Final: Zacarias Kanjirath Joseph, ILS Pune

Best Speaker: Priyanka Murali, NLUO

Second Best Speaker: Zacarias Kanjirath Joseph, ILS Pune

Best Memorial: NLU-J

Second Best Memorial: NLUO

Best Researcher: Catherine P Joseph, ILS Pune

Congratulations to all! :D

08:43 pm: Mr Raghav Dev Garg, the General Secretary of Moot Court Association of Government Law College is now giving the vote of thanks.

Thank you guys for following the blog. Hope it was fun! See you next year now! :)

Click to show 17 comments
at your own risk
(alt+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.

Latest comments