Experts & Views
4th Jamia Millia Islamia National Moot Court Competition, 2013 - Live Blog
We apologize for the redirecting link to our earlier post which led you away from our blog to another blog. We have now rectified this problem and shall truly be live from this moment on.
12th April 2013
Welcome to the Live Blog of the 4th Jamia Millia Islamia National Moot Court Competition.
We look to bring to you a blow to blow account of the events as they unfold in the Courtrooms over the next two days.
In that very effort, it would only be fair that we give a brief account of the inauguration function that ended just a few minutes ago.
It was a privilege for the Faculty of Law to have had The Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Justice Mr. Altamas Kabir as our Chief Guest and Mrs. Asha Menon, Member Secretary, National Legal Services Authority as our Guest of Honour. The idea of having a Problem on Criminal Law was appreciated and a discourse from the Chief Justice himself about the provisions of the Bar Council Rules which dictate the conduct of Advocates in the Indian Courts should have influenced the speakers of every team. It will be interesting to see them attempt to incorporate the same while making their arguments tomorrow.
We received applications from about 49 colleges which were interested in participating in this competition of which we could only accept only 35 due to various constraints. Later 2 teams backed out as they could not make it given a few unfortunate circumstances.
Thus, we take pride in declaring that we are hosting 33 teams from across the country this year.
- VIPS, New Delhi
- KIIT University, Bhubaneshwar
- Symbiosis Law School, Noida
- K.S.L.U's Law School, Dharwad
- Department of Law, University of Calcutta
- National Law University, Orissa, Cuttack
- HNLU, Raipur
- ILS, Pune
- School of Law, Sastra University
- University Institute of Law and Management Studies (UILMS)
- MS Ramaiah College of Law, Bangalore
- University of Petroleum & Energy Studies
- Ideal School of Law, Karkaduma, Delhi
- Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow
- Symbiosis, Pune
- RMLNLU, Lucknow
- Law College, Dehradun
- NLIU, Bhopal
- CLC, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
- National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi
- University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGS IP
- School of Law, Christ University
- Allahbad University
- NLU, Jodhpur
- RGNUL, Patiala
- New Law College, Pune
- Army Institute of Law, Mohali
- Amity, IP
- Seedling School of Law & Governance, Jaipur National University
- CCS University
- SDM Law College
- Institute of Law, Nirma University
- Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida
It should be an interesting show this time and we promise that all our efforts shall go into bringing in every single detail onto this page.
13th April 2013
8.56 am: Research Test is currently going on. We will be starting with the preliminary rounds shortly.
10.00 am: We have begun with the Preliminary Round 1 and it is exciting to have 17 Courtrooms to cover at the same time. We will try our best to bring in everything on this forum and are also excited about the performance of the teams, in that effect we would like to wish them the very best of luck
10.05 am: Allahabad University v. ILS, Pune The appellants seem quiet confident about their case and they handled the questions put forward by the judges efficiently.
10.09. am: In court room no. 12 M.S Rammaiyya vs Christ College. Judges are keenly listening to the counsel from M.S. Rammiyya.
10.11 am: University School of Law and Legal Studies seems to be having smooth reception of its arguments by the judges who are not looking to bombard them with any questions at the very onset. But the look in their eyes suggests otherwise. There is also seems to be an tingle of excitement in the eyes of the opponents (NLU, Orissa). This should be interesting!
In the adjacent Courtroom Law College, Dehradun is sailing smooth with its arguments. Hope they do not hit the rough seas anytime soon.
10.15 am: Nirma University v. Seedling College. The Counsel on the behalf of the appellants is having a problem answering a question about the right of a party to a suit. Tricky scenario. Hope they get through fine.
10.20 am: CCS University v. UILMS. The Counsel has been asked not to read off her paper and has actually been allowed to discuss her arguments again with her team-mates!
10.26 am: Symbiosis, Pune v. SDM Law College, The second speaker has taken the charge and tries to satisfy the judges with the leading and most recent cases. The Judges seem to be satisfied with the arguments presented.
10.30 am: Judges grilling the Counsel on behalf of the petitioners (CLC, Faculty of Law, Delhi University). The calm demeanor and poise maintained by him is admirable.
10.42 am: HNLU, Raipur v. NLIU, Bhopal, The second counsel on behalf of the appellant is stating cases and the Judges seem to be quiet satisfied. The respondent counsel have just started their contentions. It doesn't seem that he is very comfortable in this situation.
10.49 am: Sasta University v. VIPS, The Respondent counsel is stating contentions on the basis of the facts of different cases and the CrPC.
10.50 am: CLC, Faculty of Law, Delhi University v. NLU, Jodhpur, The quality of Judging in this Courtroom should be appreciated. While the Judges seem keen on questioning, they are also yielding to any request made to them by the Counsel on behalf of the respondents to allow him to continue with his arguments. By the looks of it, his co-counsel will have to answer a good number of questions before he starts with his own arguments.
10.53 am: MS Rammiyyah v. Christ University, The Judges are asking the respondents about their contentions which the second respondent stated with confidence.
10.55 am: In CCS University v. UILMS the proceeding has become rough and the Counsels from both the sides are having trouble impressing the Judges, in fact the more they seem to try, the more their ship seems to sink.
10.57 am: The respondent Counsel from NLIU, Bhopal bounces back from his dis-comfort issues and seems to be very comfortable answering the questions put forward to him.
10.59 am:New College, Pune seems to be in a fix. The Judges are going after a minor mistake in their arguments. continuing with their arguments at this time seems an impossible task!
11.05 am: NUSRL, Ranchi seems to be in a totally different scenario, which is just as tricky. While the Judges in their Courtroom seems to agree with whatever they contend and is expressly stating that he agrees, he is asking them to provide with more authority which they are unable to do at this time by the looks of it. Satisfying the Judge in this courtroom seems impossible.
11.07 am: NLU, Orissa seems as convincing as their opponents, this time the judges step in and take control of the proceedings.
11.11 am: MS Rammiyyah v. Christ University, Respondents and Judges have a light moment talking about what moot courts are really about. Time for rebuttals in the courtroom. Judges are not satisfied wit the rebuttals of the appellants and the Counsel is struggling.
The second Preliminary round starts at 12.00 pm.
It is time. Here we go with our version of the Second Preliminary rounds.
12.05 - It is a good start for the Counsel from NLU, Ranchi who seems to be straight and to the point with his arguments giving little to no chance of there being any errors. As the arguments proceed, Questions are raised, but he handles them with ease.
12.06 pm: ILS vs. Shastra. The counsel from ILS is stating the facts and cases. The judges are keenly listening to the contentions and now there comes a question from the judge to which the counsel is replying quite confidently, but the Judges are not satisfied.
12.15 - It is not usual for the Judges to be soft-spoken and really hard on the participants at the same time. NLIU, Bhopal is facing one right now. The Judge is very calmly and a very sweet manner rejecting most of the authorities cited and if in doubt about anyone of the same, he is taking a few minutes to actually read up the authority cited from the compendium. Anxious Moments for any participant.
12.17 pm - The second speaker from NLUJ seems to be caught in a fix as the judges ask him whether he is appearing on behalf of "appellant" or "petitioner".
Under similar circumstances, in Lloyd Law College v. HNLU, Raipur, The Judges have pointed out that the points raised by the appellants are in direct contravention of the Contention put forth by him. This further gives the Counsel cold feet leading to his skipping of every question put forth from that point on.
12. 19 pm: UPES vs Amity IP. This is going very well with the appellant counsel form UPES. The counsel is stating a lot of recent judgements of high court , supreme court and even house of lords. Judges look quite impressed.
12.20 pm - School of Law, Christ University is facing a hard time working their Judge who is on a questioning spree. The questions are of the nature that can shake any Counsel, no matter how well-versed she is with her arguments. Personally, I think they are experiencing every Mooter's nightmare.
In another Courtroom we have Symbiosis Noida whose second speaker is more than just impressing the Judges with his arguments and overall poise. It had been a hard start for them with the first speaker facing the wrath of the judges but the recovery made by the second speaker is commendable.
12.25 pm - Seedling School of Law and Governance vs. Army Institute of Law, Mohali. Smooth sailing so far for Seedling School of Law.
12.31 pm - Ideal School of Law takes charge as the respondents and they have successfully amazed the judges with the confidence and straightforwardness. However, this confidence is a bit shaken when the respectable Judge corrects the speaker for missing out on an essential fact.
12.37 pm - School of Law, Christ University v. CLC, Faculty of Law, Delhi University, The respondents seem to have finally worked out what the Judges want from them and seem to be playing it right. Beautifully done.
SDM Law College v. GGS IP The Counsel on behalf of the Respondents definitely has the ability to convince the Judges. She actually has the Judges smiling with her statement that they could form charges on the basis of false evidence.
12.40 pm - K.S.L.U's Law College, Dharwad seems to be in a strong position here with them answering the questions put forth by the judges with confidence. Though at first it seemed that he could not support his contentions with proper authorities, the Counsel takes his time and eventually manages to staisfy the judges with the argument put forth by him.
12.45 pm - Going back to NLIU, Bhopal v. Dept. of Law, University of Calcutta, It is now time for the speakers from the University of Calcutta to face the wrath of the same soft-spoken judges who had haunted the appellants. We can just guess who comes out on top in this encounter.
12.50 pm - NLU, Orissa v. KIIT University Bhubaneshwar, The arguments of the appellants showed us exactly what a valiant effort means. The respondents on the other hand, showed the value of good research and preparation.
The judges seem to be convinced with the contentions of Amity IP. Guess it would be difficult for the judges to determine the winner here.
12.54 pm - Institute of Law, Nirma University seems to be having a hard time convincing the judges. The Judges correct the speaker for his mistaken interpretation of law and advises the team to be more prepared and thorough with their research for their future moots.
12.56 pm - Joining in on the action from the Courtroom where ILS, Pune and Sastra University are going all out to impress the Judges, the second counsel from the respondent side gave his contentions and also managed to provide clarifications in cognizance to the questions asked by the judges to the appellants which the appellants could not answer. The contentions were accepted by the judges.
1.00 pm - It has been 20 minutes and the judges are still grilling the second counsel from K.S.L.U, From where I sit, The Counsel seems to be on fire.
That brings us to the end of the 2nd Preliminary rounds. Now comes the wait wherein every team must be hoping that they make it to the Quarter-final round to be held later today. All we can do from the position that we are in is wish the Best of Luck again.
The much awaited results of the Preliminary rounds are out. The teams that qualified for the Quarter-finals are,
- RGNUL, Patiala
- KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneshwar
- NLU, Orissa
- K.S.L.U's Law School, Dharwad
- Seedling School of Law and Governance, Jaipur National University
- School of Law, Sastra University
- School of Law, Christ University
- University of Petrolium and Energy Studies
The Quarter-finals shall begin in a few minutes and as always you can find all the updates on this page.
The Quarter-final rounds have begun. After 17 Courtrooms, this should be a cakewalk for us. We look make a much more detailed report of these rounds.
Quarter-final - 1
K.S.L.U's law School vs. School of Law, Shastra University
3.48 pm : The bench comprising of Mr. Maurya Vijay Chand and Mr. Grijesh Singh are making life difficult for the first counsel from K.S.L.U. A serious atmosphere has developed in the court room.
3. 56 pm : Time is up for the first speaker but he continues to present his contentions.
4.01 pm. : The second counsel is not being able to stand up against the assertions of the Judges and the Judges seem to be quite inquisitive.
4.07 pm : The second counsel trying to convince the judges on the basis of S30 of the Evidence Act.
4.09. pm.: The Judges take some time to discuss among themselves and the speaker pauses.
4. 12 pm: The respondent's first counsel addresses the bench with much ease and confidence referring to s. 227 and s. 228 of the CrPC. Judges did ask a question but counsel took care of it very easily and judges seem to be impressed.
4. 25 pm: The counsel is presenting his contentions like a machine gun with confidence and panache. Judges look quite impressed by the difference given by him between prima facie evidence and prima facie case.
4.27 pm: The Judges talking about confession advises the counsel to go the legal evidence and not by logic.
4.29 pm: Since the judges were not satisfied by the counsels contentions. The counsel apologized and stated his second contention.
4.30 pm: In order to avoid delay the counsel was cutting down the contention of " principal of natural justice " but the judges urged him to go on and said that it was a very important contention.
4.34 pm: So far so good for the second counsel from Shastra Univ. Lets see.. What happens next.
4.45 pm: Now starts the barrage of questions by the judges to the second counsel from Shastra. The counsel is trying very hard to convince the Judges how ever its not helping much. Judges correct the counsel for using unconventional language in court.
4.49 pm: Rebuttal time. Judges tell the appellant counsel rebutting to remain to the facts and not on the arguments. The counsel rebuts on whether a confession statement could be used on the co- accused.
4.50 pm: The respondent counsel answers in positive. There is mixed reaction by the Judges.
Quarter-final - 2
School of Law, Christ University v. RGNUL, Patiala
The Judges in this round are Mr. Bharat Chugh and Mr. Harvir Singh. It is heartening to see Mr. Chugh, who passed out of our college less than 3 years ago at that capacity.
School of Law, Christ University – Counsel 1
The counsel from School of Law, Christ University has made a decent start to the round. He seems confident and no question up to this point has been able to rattle him. There seems to be a reasonable amount of application of the relevant laws and the facts of the case.
The plea of alibi has been discussed at length. The Counsel looks to convince the Judges that as the appellant was not in the scene of crime, she was being dragged into a trial due to a procedural flaw. Further, it is argued that there are some riders on the imposition of sec. 164 of the CrPC in that very same Act.
Overall, the Counsel gives a balanced performance. It was more than just a pleasure to watch him up there.
Counsel 2
She begins her arguments by arguing that the evidence is inadmissible. She states that it is a retracted confession not backed by corroborative evidence. Further, she goes on to allege a procedural flaw in admitting the evidence in the Lower Court.
It is pointed out by her that the Court itself had charged the person, whose confessional statement is in question, for giving false information. On this basis she goes on to question the framing of a whole case on the basis of that very evidence.
Her next argument is based on the power of the Court revise the decision of a lower court or the charges framed against a person. It is argued by her that this power of the HC has been conferred upon it to rectify any such mistake of the Lower Court and though these powers are limited, they apply to the case at hand.
It is stated that no reasons were given by the HC were given to dismiss the said revision petition.
She has hit an iceberg. Upon placing the question to the Judges as to whether she could continue with her arguments she is denied. Makes for an interesting read,
“If the Lordship is convinced with the arguments presented by the Counsel, she would like to move on to her next contention.”
“We are never convinced.”
After a little show, a few smiles and a small word of advice the proceedings continue.
The Counsel then provides precedents to enshrine the fact that a Court cannot dismiss a suit without a proper reason. With an addition of the principles of natural Justice into the same argument, she concludes.
RGNUL, Patiala Counsel – 1
The proceedings beginwith a strange request from the Counsel to provide in front of the Court, his own analysis of the case first. He then dwells on the same for less than a minute and then moves onto his arguments.
His arguments seem to be built on the merits of the case.
The first contention that he puts forward is that there is a fundamental difference between an appellant Court and a Court of Revision. He argues that the interlocutory orders cannot be considered the final decision of any Court. There are precedents given to back the same.
He further argues that if a prima facie case can be made out, then a case can be established in a Court of Law. He points out that as the confession in question led to the discovery of more evidence, it should be taken as evidence.
The Counsel is trying hard to stick to the facts of the case even as the Judges try to test his interpretation of the Law in question.
With 2 minutes left, the Counsel looks to rush through his final contention. Due to paucity of time. He is forced to skip 2 arguments.
Counsel – 2
The 2nd Counsel looks to begin his arguments on the basis of merits (as it is a Criminal case, it seems a prudent decision).
He argues that there has been no proper retraction of the confession as no proper reason was provided nor any examination was carried out of the same. Reference is taken to a few leading cases to substantiate the said argument.
He then moves to his next argument, wherein he states that a confessional statement can be made the legal basis for establishing a case.
The problem that he is facing at this time is the lack of time.
He is forced to skip the contention.
The rebuttals were strong from the appellant’s side, breaking down the precedents cited by the respondents.
The respondents were on the back foot in their rebuttals, trying to justify their arguments after the Appellants broke them down.
Quarter-finals 3
The Judges in this round are Ms. Iram Hasan and Mr. M.R. Shamsad. Ms. Hasan is also an alumni of our College and a source of inspiration for all of us.
University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (Appellant)
3:47 pm- The Judges points out mistakes and explain these mistakes to the Counsel. The judges don’t seem to be quite satisfied with the knowledge of law that the speaker has.
3:58 pm- The speaker needs to buck up as the time is over and he has a long way to go before he finishes his contentions.
4:03 pm- The second speaker takes the charge.
4:11 pm- The 1st counsel answers for the 2nd counsel when the latter is stuck up on a question. However, the judges don’t find it to be very appealing and penalize the counsel for the same.
KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneswar (Respondent)
4:28 pm- the respondents take the charge
4:34 pm- the speaker is stuck in middle of his arguments. A lot of effort will be required to by him to come out of this sticky situation.
4:52 pm- the speaker doesn’t seem to impress the judges as the answers given by him don't satisfy the judges.
5:04 pm- the judges graciously guide the participants on how they should answer. How considerate!
5:17 pm- the questions put forward by the appellants in the rebuttal round were good but the answers to those questions were brilliantly thought of and stated with confidence.
Quarter-final 4
NLU, Orissa v. Seedling School of Law and Governance
This round is being judged by a bench comprising of Mr. Apoorv Karmakar and Mr. M. V. Chandra.
15:45- appellant 1 is being questioned by the judges for their demands that what they want actually about the high court decision and say that they aren’t speaking clearly.
15:50- Mr. Karmakar is teaching the appellant Cr PC that in a section they cited high court is actually excluded
15:58- once again, the word ‘may’ is creating problems for the counsels, in his statement when he said that the statement may be recorded, Mr. Apoorv Karmakar pointed out may means it isn’t mandatory. And with this counsel’s time finishes and the Co-counsel is starting his statements
The appellants have finished their arguments and now the first counsel from the respondent side has started his arguments
16:21- both the judges are asking the respondents that the confession which was retracted in the case can be taken as evidence or not, the responded, though, having a hard time is still trying to convince the judges. The point judges are making is that the respondents themselves are saying that a confession was wrong or false and then are using the same as the base to accuse the appellants’ client.
16:28- judges denied respondents to use a judgment in their submission as the respondents failed to present a copy of the same. The judges don’t seem to be very happy about what the counsel is stating, according to them he is wrongly stating a judgment.
16:37- the respondents are continuously being bombarded with questions from the judges, answers are either not convincing or there are no answers at all. A real hard time they are having.
17:00- it seems real hard to satisfy Mr. Karmakar, the respondents are trying very hard but still making mistakes in stating the facts, and citing cases and sections, every second there is a new question and they are questioned again about the answer they give. A question in every answer.
17:10- the respondents have finally finished their arguments or I may say the judges asked them to finish it. Now, the appellants are presenting their contentions, and also they finished it off smoothly and now the respondents are back.
The Quarter-finals have come to an end.
Now all that remains today is the wait for the results of the quarter-final rounds which shall determine which teams shall compete in the semi-finals tomorrow.
The names of the teams that qualify for the semi-finals shall be updated on this page in a few moments.
The much awaited results of the quarter finals are out. The teams which have made it to the semi-finals are:
- School of Law, Sastra University
- School of Law, Christ University.
- Seedling School of Law and Governance, Jaipur National University.
- University of Petroleum and Energy Studies.
The semi-finals will be held at 10 am tomorrow.
14th April 2013
Semi-finals
School of Law, Sastra University v. School of Law, Christ University
The first round of the Semi-finals are being Judged by Mr. Sreekumar (Advocate, Supreme Court of India), Mr. S.G. Hasnain (Advocate, Supreme Court of India) and Mr. Puneet (Assistant Professor, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi).
Counsel 1 Sastra University
The Counsel has made a shaky start but seems to be making quick progress as his arguments proceed. If there was ever a race on how fast a person can speak, the Counsel would take the price.
The first question was put up by Mr. Puneet, wherein he asked the Counsel if he could establish any corroboration between the retracted statement and the facts of the case. The Counsel gives answering the question his best shot but fails to absolutely convince the Judges. They accept the answer.
Mr. Sreekumar seems to be in a fiery mood. He is in absolute control of the proceedings of the Court with his questions on the basis of the Counsel’s arguments and interpretation of facts.
The Counsel takes a strange argument that though the factsheet mentions that two people are ‘more than friends’ they could be having a relationship resembling that of siblings. Mr. Sreekumar then points out the fact that the factsheet also mentions the fact that they were once found in a compromising position.
Under pressure, the Counsel seems to be trying hard to dodge questions about the admissibility of the retracted confession. He tries to point out the fact that his co-counsel shall be dealing with the same.
The next issue, dealing with the powers of the High Court seems to be a stronghold of the Counsel. But then he again seems to be forgetting his arguments and has taken a minute to talk it out with his researcher.
Mr. Sreekumar and Mr. Puneet are amazingly active, this time his request to continue has been denied. It seems that the Judges will no longer concede to the fact that the question shall be dealt by the Co-counsel.
Mr. S.G. Hasnain has now taken charge of the proceedings. He holds up the arguments for more than 3 minutes while he makes the Counsel clarify the provisions of the CrPC which provide for the powers of the High Court.
The Counsel seems to be struggling now.
The Counsel runs out of time. As a whole issue remains, he has no option but to ask for more time.
After being granted the same, The Counsel goes on to discuss the difference between a judicial pronouncement and a non-speaking order. He rushes through these arguments at a much faster pace and ends within 3 minutes.
Counsel-2
The first issue that the 2nd counsel on behalf of the Appellants is dealing with is whether the confession of the approver can be retracted.
Mr Sreekumar, whose knowledge of the CrPC has the Courtroom at awe is looking to make the Counsel link the merits of the case and the law in a higher capacity. The Counsel is struggling and has moved on to cite precedents.
The next argument put forth by the Counsel is whether the evidence in the said case is admissible. He looks to discuss the admissibility of the retracted statement.
The Counsel seems to be having his precedents in place. He goes back to the questions placed before the 1st Counsel by Mr. Puneet. Mr. Puneet then puts forward a few questions to the 2nd Counsel, which he fails to answer.
The Counsel goes on to interpret the facts of the case, wherein he argues that the evidence and the corroboration is weak, making it weak evidence.
Mr. Puneet is questioning the Counsel on the provisions that govern the working of the Court as provided in the CrPC and the admissibility of evidence. This basically linked an argument of the 1st and the 2nd Counsel and has thrown the Counsel off his stance.
The Counsel is now agitated and does not seem to be thinking straight. When Mr. Sreekumar starts speaking, the Counsel says that it is not the issue he is dealing with. Mr. Sreekumar points out that he was making a statement in the Counsel’s favor.
Listening is a virtue… lost in panic.
The Judges do not seem to be too happy with the arguments. They are questioning the Counsel on his understanding of the provisions of the CrPC that he had raised earlier.
The Counsel can be seen regaining his cool as the precedents he is citing seem to be accepted by the Judges. The hear him out and then bombard him with questions. Status quo remains.
After that attempt, he looks to go back to arguing on merits. He argues that s. 164 of the CrPC has not been adhered to. Mr. Puneet points out that the facts are silent on this point, then goes on to elaborately break down any interpretation of fact made in this effect by the Counsel.
Counsel – 1 Christ University
Mr. Sreekumar begins before the Counsel could even utter his first word. He states that he would like to hear the Counsel discuss a particular issue first. The Counsel is stumped but seems to have recovered in seconds.
He requests the Judges to accept the contentions in the order that he provides them.
He then moves on to his arguments pointing out that the SC, in providing any opinion, is not binding on any Court.
Mr. Sreekumar points out that the Counsel still has to prove that there is enough corroboration and there is some value to a retracted confession.
The Counsel agrees to the same and states that he, together with his co-counsel, shall be dealing with the same.
He then goes on to highlight the jurisprudence on the question of a confession. This is followed by precedents to support his arguments.
His precedents seem to be in place and the stability that is demonstrated by his is admirable. There is good interpretation of the facts and the law and at the same time he continues to break down the arguments of the Appellants.
The question of joint trail is raised by the Counsel. He points out how the accused persons can be tried in a joint trail.
The bench asks him if he could state any precedent relating to the matter of Admissibility of retracted confession.
He gives a pre independence case .at the same time stating that he recognizes the fact that it might only be persuasive in nature but it highlights the jurisprudence behind the matter. The arguments have been presented with clarity a trait that every person who attends Moot Courts should look to emulate.
Counsel -2
The 2nd Counsel raises the question of the procedure under which the High Court and the subordinate Courts refused to discharge and went on to frame charges.
She is very comfortable with the questions put forth by Mr. Puneet.
Mr. S.G. Hasnain seems to be in absolute agreement with the Counsel and practically summarized her arguments for her.
The Counsel then goes on to her next issue, dealing with Criminal Conspiracy. She mentions that as there is common intention, the charge of Criminal Conspiracy shall be valid in law. She further strengthens her arguments with precedents.
At this point, Mr. Sreekumar asks the Counsel to explain the difference between abetment and conspiracy. This catches the Counsel on the wrong foot.
Further contrary statements made by her lead her into a vortex of trouble as she is being questioned with every word she speaks. All her arguments are being scrutinized with utmost care and now she is in a very undesirable position.
The admirable fact is that she is not backing down, even under such pressure, nor is she losing her cool.
End of arguments.
The results of the semifinals are out and the teams that have made it to the finals are School of Law, Christ University and UPES, Dehradun.
Seedling School of Law, Jaipur National University vs. University of Petroleum and Energy Studies.
The Bench in the Court Room comprises of Mr. Bharat Chugh, Mr. Rakesh Sachdeva and Mr. C Mukund.
Counsel 1 from Seedling School of Law
As soon as the counsel from the appellant arrives to address the bench the sound of a wall drill disrupts his speech. Hoch-poch in the court room. After the drilling stops the counsel goes on stating cases
“What do you mean by Prima facie?” Mr. Bharat Chugh asks the counsel. Counsel faces difficulty in explaining.
Another question by Mr. Bharat Chugh “ What are the evidences that have been brought against you at the time of framing of charges”.
Mr. C. Mukund asks what is the confession statement. Counsel still is struggling and the judges seem not so impressed or satisfied. The judges are grilling the counsel. He is not able to convince them.
After a rather long speech by the counsel, the judges seem to be convinced The counsel goes on to refer a case when is asked about a citation. Does not answer well. But gets back up. This guy is playing dangerously.
Judges are discussing the case among themselves.
The counsel is talking about face value evidence. Mr. Bharat Chugh directs the counsel to read section 114B of the Indian evidence act. Counsel reads and apologizes for the contention he made.
Counsel is arguing with the judges on framing of chargesheet when Mr. Bharat Chugh asks him “ Cant charges be added after chargesheet has been framed.”
Time of murder is asked by C. Mukund . ie. 9.pm
Confusion in the court room when was the murder committed. Is the memo wrong? Counsel looks a lot confused.
Judges direct counsel to see p10 of meme. Asks him to read it out load. This could be embarrassing.
Counsel is arguing with the judges “is damn sure” he says.
The counsel is again and again moving before the bench with the papers. While the Timer bell is rung but the counsel is still roaming around with the fact sheet.
Counsel asks for two more minutes. Judges agree
Counsel is actually asking the questions from the judges and judges are answering.
Counsel 2
The contention given by the second counsel is “Whether the confession can be retracted”.
The counsel is citing cases. Judges seem to be calm and inquisitive. Is the silence before the storm
Whenever he is asked a question he goes to provisions. Looks like he is not prepared well. Says S26 is can be used as a defense but S25 cannot be retracted
Counsel does not understand the question asked by the Mr. C Mukund, who is grilling him by the way. Counsel says that the confession does not comply with S164 where he is questioned by Bharat Chugh about S161.
When the judges asked a question the counsel goes on ….”Let me just finish”. Is he trying to order the judge ……
Judges making the counsel refer to the facts of the case. Confusion again in the court whether body was found or body was recovered. Looks like the counsel has not read the case properly because the judges here are correcting the facts f the counsel.
Counsel is not in a comfortable position. Counsel is again and again correcting himself and apologizing for his mistakes. He is gulping water again and again. Hope this will get his confidence back.
Judges asking the counsel to read the facts of the case at p11. The counsel interferes while the judge is speaking . Mr. C Mukund tells the counsel not to interfere while he is speaking and listen to him first.
Counsel : to Mr. Bharat Chugh..“ I would like to question you”. Arguing that there is no prima facie.
Bell goes on but still the counsel is arguing g with the judges,
The counsel is arguing with the judges about upon who is the burden of proof is. The prosecution or the respondents.
Second bell rings. Counsel still going on……
Counsel is trying to convince the judges but the judges seem not satisfied and the time is also up. Counsel asks permission of the judges for the prayer. Judges refuse.
University of Petroleum and Energy Studies.
Counsel I
Counsel submits the compendium and states his first contention. i.e. Whether the High Court was justified to exercise its power under S401.
Judges are asking a lot of questions from the counsel and the counsel is replying confidently. However the counsel’s argument is not being able to convince the judges.
Counsel asks the judges to repeat the question. The judges do so. Counsel is getting too nervous and is fumbling a lot. Counsel is going on to state cases to support his contention
Judges ask the counsel to read the case in the compendium. Counsel very cleverly reads out particular lines which would help him support his argument but the judges read out the whole paragraph loud and further question the counsel.
The counsel tries to divert the topic to his second contention but Mr. C. Mukund tells the counsel that “your argument is for the Extra Marital Affair and not for the Murder”.
Mr. Bharat Chugh asks a question to the counsel, which the counsel does not understand. As a result Mr. C. Mukund and Mr. Rakesh Sachdeva have to explain it to the counsel.
Judges ask about the power of High Court questioning on the chargesheet but the counsel is answering on framing of charge. Guess he is to nervous.
Where it’s the duty of the counsel to make the judges refer to the memo, here the judges are making the counsel refer to the points in the memo.
Counsel II
Counsel starts with much confidence and poise. Judges seems inquisitive. The voice of the counsel is so loud that he can be heard even in the next court room, the judge in the next courtroom might be getting confused. The counsel is so energetic. He must have had an energy drink before coming to the court room
Counsel is not sure of the answer to the question asked by the judges. He asks permission to go through the memo again. The judges grant the permission. Counsel is arguing with the judges whether the High Court has power in this case or not.
Counsel is not sure where a case is citied in the memo asks the researcher in that matter. After that he goes on to explain the contention of fair trial.
The bell rings. Counsel continues to present his contentions.
Judges have now fired a barrage of questions onto the counsel. Counsel is repeatedly referring to the memo.
The second bell has rung but the counsel has not presented his third issue. The judges agree to let him finish
Counsel’s third issue deals with the concept of pardon. The bell rings for the third time.
While the counsel was talking about the confession of the co- accused. Mr. Bharat Chugh asserts “Confession of the co- accused has absolutely no value”.
Counsel seeks permission of the judges to rebute first. Judges refuse to grant permission.
Final Round
UPES, Dehradun v. School of Law, Christ University
The Judges for the final round are Mr. Z.A. Khan, The Chairman, Bar Council of India, Mr. Siddarth Luthra, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Aruna Suresh.
UPES, Dehradun Counsel -1
The bench lives up to the names that it consists of. To appear before such a bench should be a dream for every Counsel. After stating that this is turning out to be a nightmare for this Counsel as he is being torn apart, the style in which the same is being done gives me the chills.
Mr. Luthra is playing the Counsel and the level of discomfort the Counsel must be experiencing can only be contemplated by us. He is actually stating cases which would be more suited to the arguments and asking the Counsels to quote these cases. Unfortunately, the Counsel seems to be in the dark about these precedents.
Counsel states V. C. Shukla’s case, Mr. Siddarth Luthra points out that a divisional bench of the Delhi High Court had over-ruled the same and the matter is sub jurice in the SC. The Counsel is asked to compare the two cases. The Counsel pleads ignorance to the existence of any such case. Basically, from here on, the struggle begins.
Mr. Luthra points out that there are two different views held by the same Court and questions the Counsel as to which view is more appropriate. The Counsel picks the view that concurs with his arguments and invites hell upon himself.
Mr. Luthra definitely makes an interesting Judge. His questions relating to the interpretation of Law and facts have a deep and visible psychological effect upon the Counsel.
Mr. Z.A. Khan is reserved in going after the arguments of the Counsel. Most of his questions are in the form of clarifications. He seeks clarification on the issue of non-speaking orders.
The basic arguments that have been highlighted by the Counsel are similar to the arguments put forth by them in the earlier rounds.
The most extra-ordinary events that are taking place at this time are all related tp the Judges. I apologize to the Counsels of both sides who I neglect, but the Judges are way too awesome.
The Counsel is having a hard time working his arguments through to the Judges.
Mr. Luthra Magic Moments
“What you are doing, Counsel, is what most intelligent Counsel do. You are stating everything that is not related to the issue.”
“Counsel, you are in the Apex Court, there can be no ignorance here."
School of Law, Christ University
The first argument taken up by the Counsel is rejected by the Bench.
Mr. Z. A. Khan now jumps in, teams up with Mr. Luthra, and grill the Counsel as to why exactly he has raised a question on jurisdiction.
The Counsel moves on to the arguments relating to the jurisprudence of confessions with regard to the French Civil Law System. Mr. Luthra finds this an interesting argument ad strangely, reserves these arguments for the rebuttals.
Mr. Luthra is killing 2 birds wiith one stone. He is making a point and is also making it very clear that he wants to Knock off the respondents for his absurd contentions.
The center for attraction at this point is definitely Mr. Luthra. Forgive me Mr. Counsel, I am actually enjoying this.
There seems to be a lot of pleas of ignorance and moments which can definitely make any person who wants to go on a moot court, rethink once. The Official declaration is that this is the Sidharth Luthra show!
A few more Mr. Luthra Magic Moments
“Facts determine the proposition in Criminal Law, do not cite a case if you can’t state the facts.”
The final round has now come to an end.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra stayed back as the Chief Guest of the Valedictory function and given his work in the final round, we can't wait to see more of him.
The results of the 4th National Moot Court Competition conducted by Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi are as follows,
Winners - University of Petroleum and Energy Sciences, Dehradun
Runners Up - School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore
Best Speaker - Reshma Raja, School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore
Best Memorial - Army Law Institute, Mohali
Best Researcher - Mishika Bajpai, Symbiosis Law College, Noida
It was fun blogging about our event on this forum and we cannot wait to be back, as soon as possible, to do this again.
For now, it is good bye.
Organizing Committee, 4th National Moot Court Competition, Jamia Millia Islamia