•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

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

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 23-minute read

Liveblog: 7th Jamia National Moot Court Competition 2017

 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

The Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia is all set to organize the 7th edition of its National Moot Court Competition from 17th to 19th March 2017.

A total of 32 teams have qualified for the competition after the Memorial Elimination Round who will be competing against each other for the following awards:

i.) Winning Team Award: Cash Prize of Rs. 30,000.

ii.) Runners-Up Team Award: Cash Prize of Rs. 15,000.

iii.) Best Speaker Male Advocate Award: Cash Prize of Rs. 5,000.

iv) Best Female Advocate Award: Cash Prize of Rs. 5,000.

v.) Best Researcher Award: Cash Prize of Rs. 5,000.

vi.) Best Memorial Team Award: Cash Prize of Rs. 5,000.

The participating teams are (not in any particular order):

  1. Gujarat National Law University
  2. Christ University, School of Law
  3. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
  4. Faculty of Law, AMU
  5. NUJS
  6. DSNLU, Vishakhapatnam
  7. ILS Law College, Pune
  8. NLU, Odisha
  9. Institute of Law, Nirma University
  10. UILS, Chandigarh Punjab University
  11. Amity Law School, Lucknow
  12. NLIU, Bhopal
  13. Faculty of Law, Delhi University
  14. IMS, Dehradun
  15. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  16. NUALS, Kochi
  17. RMLNLU, Lucknow
  18. NUSRL, Ranchi
  19. Amity Law School, Centre-II
  20. CNLU, Patna
  21. Delhi Metropolitan Education, GGSIPU
  22. Amity Law School, IP University
  23. Sastra University, Thirumalaisamudiram, Thaivjavur
  24. UPES, Dehradun
  25. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  26. Maharashtra Law University
  27. JIMS School of Law, Greater Noida
  28. Amity Law School, Centre-1, Noida
  29. Thane Law College, Maharashtra
  30. Central University of South Bihar, Gaya
  31. Amity University, Rajasthan
  32. Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida

The moot problem for the competition involves questions on Constitutional law, Criminal law, International law and Death Penalty. The proposition can be accessed from here. The rules for the competition can be accessed from here.

The event is being conducted by the Convener, Mr. Shoaib Khan, Co-Convener, Ms. Huma Nasir and the students of Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia under the supervision of their Dean, Prof. Dr. Nuzhat Parveen Khan, and Subject Advisor, Dr. Asad Malik. The knowledge partner of the event is SCC Online and the trophies for the event are being sponsored by Nitiaalya Legal, a leading legal law firm based in Delhi.

The event beginning from tomorrow would consist of four rounds: Preliminary Rounds and Quarter-finals on 18th March and Semi-finals and Final Rounds on 19th March.

So stay tuned for all the updates from 7th Jamia National Moot Court Competition!


Day 1: Registration, Researchers Test, Inaugural Function



Your reporters for today are Bhumika & Anirudh Vijay and we will be bringing you all the live updates of the event.b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG-20170317-WA0010.jpg


The Registrations are about to begin and the participating teams are being escorted to the Registration venue by their team mentors.


Registrations are now open!



The teams are here and are availing the resources from our library.b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG-20170317-WA0011.jpg


A huge shout out to our Convener Mr. Shoaib Khan and Co- Convener Ms. Huma Nasir for the smooth inception of the event. Your sincere efforts are clearly visible.


After the Registration, the teams have proceeded for lunch. The participants can be seen relishing mouth-watering vegetarian and nonvegetarian food.


The Researchers test is currently going on. All the participants seem diligently involved in it.b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG-20170317-WA0013.jpg


The floor is all set for a presentation from our knowledge partner SCC Online and the Inaugural Function. We are here at our next venue, the M.A. Ansari Auditorium, so climatically different from the sweating heat outside. God bless the ACs.




The Researchers test is over and the teams are settling down in the Hall and very soon we will be beginning with the events lined up.


Mr. Ishfaq Ahmad from SCC Online has started with the presentation. He is informing the teams about the SCC Online and the SCC blog which facilitates both online and offline legal research with a rich database and an interface designed to facilitate effective and quicker research results at the click of a mouse.




The SCC Presentation has just ended and very soon we will be starting with the Inaugural Function.


For the Inaugural, we have Hon'ble Mr. A.M. Ahmadi, Former Chief Justice of India as the Chief Guest, Mr.Sanjay Hegde, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court as the Guest of Honor, and Mr. Ahmad Payam Siddiqui, IPS, Registrar, JMI as the presiding guest of the function.


The Function has begun and the Guests for the event are approaching the stage.


Following the traditions of Jamia, the function is commencing with a reading from the holy Quran.


It has just been announced that the SCC Online also would be giving additional prizes worth Rs. 2.5 lakhs.


A few glimpses from the event:

The esteemed guests with our Dean, Prof. Dr. Nuzhat Parveen Khan and Subject Advisor, Dr. Asad Malik.


The launch of 2nd Jamia Law Journal.b2ap3_thumbnail_DSC_0651.JPG


Mr.Siddiqui told us how everyday things such as a newspaper can teach one law. Further, he pointed out the importance of Moot Court Competitions in a law student's life.

Mr. Hegde spoke of Moot Courts and the skills young students must possess to hone their advocacy skills.



Justice Ahmadi spoke of the importance of five year law course programs and how that has made a huge difference. He also shared several examples from his life as a former judge.


The draw of lots for the Preliminary Rounds has begun.


The draw of lots has concluded and the teams have proceeded for High Tea.

That's all for today. Stay tuned as the Preliminary rounds and Quarterfinals unfold tomorrow.


Day 2: Preliminary Rounds and Quarter – Finals


A very good morning!

We are back to bring forth live updates from the competition.

(Bhumika & Anirudh Vijay)


The air seems tense as the participating teams are now in their allotted courtrooms for Preliminary round 1.


The judges for the preliminary rounds are:

Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3
Chayan Sarkar Ms. Sonakshi Dhiman Ahmed Ali
Anas Tanwir Nikhil Kashyap Majabeen
Faraz Khan Sagar Suri Aqsa Fatima
Guneet Kaur Sharyar Asaf Khan Rishi Raj Sharma
Fuzail Ayyubi Ravi Chandra Prakash Victor Vaibhav
Bharat Hari Adnan Siddiqui Zafar Hussain
Ankit Yadav Dr. Vandana Singh Tariq Siddiqui
Garima Srivastava Ashwini Siwal Rajesh Kohli
Anuj Kapoor Firasat Siddiqui Dr. K.K. Geeta
Aakriti Mathur Shariq Abbasi Mansi Sharma
Shakil Ahmed Mr. Madhva Mallya Dhruv Malik
Swarnendu Chatterjee Owais Farooqui Saurav Datta
Prof. S.S. Jaiswal Anjum Wali Khan Naushad A. Khan
Ms. Aqueeda Khan Faisal Zafar Tanya Choudhary
G.K. Sarkar Dr. Neelam Tyagi Mr. Sanjay Vashishta
Ms. Qurratulain Govind Jee Dakshita Sangwan


The Prelims are about to begin in eight minutes.


Courtroom 3

TC07 v. TC13

The judges seem very strict about time and court manners.


Courtroom 4

TC18 v. TC 15

The speaker 1 of TC18 is trying hard to convince the bench with her arguments.


Court Room 16
The first speaker is ready with her arguments and requested the judges to refer to the Compendium.


Courtroom 7

TC09 v. TC26

The third judge is asking a lot of questions. He is not pleased with the arguments of the first speaker of TC09.


Court Room 15
Counsel requested for an extra time to complete her arguments. The judges agreed to the same.


Court Room no. 14
The speaker is speaking really fast. It seems that it will be tough for the respondents to figure out the same.


Courtroom 6

TC04 v. TC06

The speaker of TC04 pleads ignorance as she is unaware of the facts of the case she just cited.



Courtroom 5

TC20 v. TC24

The judges are questioning the speaker about mitigating circumstances and whether being a law student would be considered so?

Court Room 2
Speaker: Your Lordship! Please refer to the 6th issue.
J: You have only 5 issues, counsel.
Court Room 1
The Speaker seems cool and confident enough as he answering all the questions in a calm manner.


Courtroom 13

TC27 v. TC23

The judge points out that the counsel has not mentioned the most recent NCRB reports.


Court Room 5
The appellant speaker finally submits her arguments after a mild grilling!


Courtroom 12

TC19 v. TC01

The speaker is finding it difficult to answer the row of questions the judges are asking.


Court Room 6
The female speaker has been asked by the judge to wind up her arguments in 2 minutes. The appellants have 5 issues and have just completed only 3 issues. Time is precious!
Court Room 7
The Researcher passed a sheet via the Court Masters. Looks like they have some really crucial stuff to communicate.
Speaker: Your lordship! This is counsel no.1 on behalf of the respondent.
-judge intervenes-
J: Who is the Respondent?
Court Room 3
The judges asked the Respondents to summarize 5 points in the proposition that favors their arguments.
Courtroom 11
TC32 v. TC11
The speaker seems very nervous. The judge points out that this is Supreme Court and she should not make vague arguments.
Courtroom 10
TC03 v. TC28
The speaker asks permission to drink water before answering the question! Tough question!
Courtroom 9
TC17 v. TC16
The judge is making certain of what the Respondent speaker just said.
Courtroom 8
TC30 v. TC29
The judges decline to hear the Respondents' prayer as they have already read it.
The Preliminary Round 2 has begun.
Court Room14
The applicant has not moved an inch while submitting her arguments, not even a hint of nervousness.
Courtroom 3
TC05 v. TC02
The first judge keeps correcting the appellant speaker.
Courtroom 4
TC24 v. TC27
The lady judge asks whether Bachan Singh's case can be considered per in curium.
Court Room 16
The lady judge pointed out that the speaker has cited the landmark case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka as Selvi v. State of Kerela. Eh!
Courtroom 5
TC28 v. TC19
The appellant speaker seems well prepared.
Court Room 15
Judges grilled the counsel by informing that Article 14 and 19 are not applicable to foreign nationals and that the sources referred are hardly credible.


Courtroom 6

TC22 v. TC32

The judges are asking whether the case cited is binding on this court.


Court Room 1
Applicants' researcher looks like she didn't get enough sleep last night. Too many doctrines and cases cited.


Courtroom 7

TC01 v. TC03

The speaker is citing a number of cases to prove her point.

Court Room 2


Courtroom 8

TC29 v. TC17

The respondent speaker is answering a question pertaining to jurisdiction in the present matter.

Court Room no 7
The Respondent side just smiled for the photographer while appellant argues. The appellants have brought a suitcase full of books and other researched stuff.
Courtroom 9
TC23 v. TC30
The speaker asks the bench permission to cite a few more cases. Permission granted.
Court Room no. 3
The Judge is questioning extensively and the speaker is handling it well. Great work.
But wait, the lady judge was referred as 'Sir'. Eh!
Courtroom 10
TC06 v. TC09
The speaker refuses to let an international court decide the matter. She points out that the crime took place within the territory of this country.
Court Room No. 4
Judges are literally taking the first appellant through his own memo.
Courtroom no. 6
The speaker seems well versed with the facts of the case.
Courtroom 13
TC31 v. TC18
The speaker has been asked to cite a recent case to prove his point.
Courtroom 11
TC15 v. TC04
The appellants have now proceeded for the rebuttal
The judges seem very particular with the words that are being used in the Courtroom.
The Preliminary round 2 is about to end. Meanwhile, the amazing smell of the food is distracting the reporters in their work. Kudos to the Food Committee!

After the Prelims, the teams had proceeded for lunch and are anxiously waiting for the results. b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG-20170318-WA0013.jpg


The results of the Preliminary rounds are out. The teams qualifying for the Quarter- Final round are:

TC 03

TC 05


TC 15


TC 20

TC 27

TC 09


Congratulations to the qualifying teams. The draw of lots and exchange of memorials for the Quarter- Final round will be beginning very shortly.


The Quarter- Final round has begun.


Courtroom 1

TC03 v. TC10

The first speaker has been asked to skip the facts of the case.



Courtroom 1

TC03 v. TC10

The speaker is making reference to the moot proposition to prove his point.


Court Room No. 2
The judges seem confused in figuring out the factsheet and the memorials!
Overall, the speaker is doing really well and has good knowledge of the law. She 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!


Courtroom 2

TC20 v. TC05

The speaker is trying hard to answer the questions put forth by the bench.



Court No. 3
The appellants seem to have a good research done, as the speaker is extremely comfortable answering questions and his answers seem to satisfy the judges. Nice!
Courtroom 2
TC20 v TC05
The petitioners just ended with their prayer.
The respondents have been asked to refer to the bench as 'Your Honour' and not as 'Your lordships'
Courtroom 4
TC09 v. TC17
The speaker is trying to defend the retention of the death penalty. The judge had raised the question of Right to Die.
Courtroom 1

TC03 v. TC10

The second respondent speaker is very confidently arguing before the bench, using a lot of references to the moot proposition.


Also, we forgot to mention the judges for the Quarter- Final. Here they are:

Courtroom 1   Courtroom 3
Anup Surendranath   Siddharth Srivastava
Rajesh Sharda   Saransh Kumar
A.T. Ansari   Dr. Pinki Sharma
Courtroom 2   Courtroom 4
Srishti Khare   Vivek Jha
Prof. O.B. Lal   Mr. Rakesh Dhingra
Mr. J.H. Jafri   Dr. Mahaveer Singh


The Quarter- Final round are finally over!


The results of the Quarter- Final will be out soon. Fingers crossed.


The result of the Quarter- final round is out. The teams qualifying for the Semi- Final round are:





Heartiest congratulations to the qualifying teams. We look forward for your performance in the Semi-finals. Good luck!


Draw of lots and memorial exchange for the Semi- Final round has begun.


We are signing off for today and will be back with live updates of Semi-finals and the Finals tomorrow!

See ya!

Day 3: Semi- Finals, Finals and Valedictory Function


Good morning!

We are back again to bring you live feed from the Semi- finals and the Finals.

(Bhumika and Anirudh Vijay)


The Semi-final rounds are about to begin in a short while.


The judges for Semi- final rounds are:

Courtroom 1

Mr Kunal Singh, Associate, J Sagar

Mr M Y Khan, Advocate, Supreme Court

Mr Aftab Ali, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court

Dr Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court

Mr Shashank Garg, Advocate, Supreme Court

Courtroom 2

Mr Bharat Chugh, Legal Counsel, Luthra & Luthra

Ms Zeba Khair, Advocate, Supreme Court

Prof. A P Singh, GGSIPU

Dr Qasi Mohd Usman, Professor

Mr Syed Zafar Alam, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court


The Semi- final rounds have begun.


Courtroom 1

TC20 v. TC03

The petitioner speaker has been asked from where the point on treaty law she just spoke is derived from.



The petitioner speaker has been has to explain a section of their memorandum.


The speaker is trying to answer the question on conflict between Vienna Convention and the municipal law.


Factual examples of where diplomatic individuals charged with crimes of terrorism have been prosecuted are asked by the bench.


The next issues of the petitioner will now be dealt by second co- counsel.


The speaker speaks of inadmissibility of narco- analysis test. The judge points out that their are other circumstantial evidence too.


Court Room No. 2
The speaker explains the judge that the laws of International Treaty is the law of the land and should be binding on the diplomats.
The speaker is calm and confident and definitely knows her material.
The first speaker has recently submitted his arguments and the second speaker has now approached the dias.
Mr. Bharat Chugh seems very particular about the Memorial of the appellant and is grilling him on the same. The judge asked the counsel about the premise of the Bachan Singh case.
Courtroom 2
The judges asked the appellant about the number of countries that have abolished Death Penalty to which the speaker answered that 59 countries have retained Death Penalty while others have abolished.
Courtroom 1
The speaker is saying that death penalty does not serve any deterrence effect.
Courtroom 2
Now, we have 2 photographers in the room. Too many flashes and camera clicks can be seen and heard repectively. The courtroom seems to have turned into a studio!
Courtroom 1
"Is procedure established by law flawed? Does Article 21 need to be amended?"
Courtroom 2
The judges asked the appellants to submit the arguments in a minute. _Minute to Win It!_
Courtroom 2
The appellants have now moved on to the Prayer.
Courtroom 2
The first speaker of the respondants has approached to the dias.
Courtroom 2
Speaker: Your Lordships, the first and second issue will be dealt by me and the third issue will be dealt by my co-councel.
J: Then who will be deal the 4th and the 5th issue.
Courtroom 1
A last question is being asked before they move to the prayer.
Courtroom 1
The respondent speaker has moved onto his issues.
Courtroom 2
The judge asked the repondent to explain the meaning of Justice in simple words.
Courtroom 1
The respondent has been asked to refer to section 4 of Vienna Convention.
Courtroom 1
Only five minutes left for the first repondent speaker.
Courtroom 1
"How can diplomatic provision be diluted? Any provisions?"
Courtroom 1
The speaker has been asked to cite an example of diplomatic immunity dilution. As the speaker is searching for the answer, the other judge gives him a hint.
Courtroom 1
The second speaker of respondents has taken up the dias and is speaking about clinching circumstantial evidence.
Courtroom 2
Judges Bharat Chugh and Syed Jafar Alam seem to focus more on grilling of the teams.
Courtroom 1
The speaker is very calmly trying to answer the questions pertaining to circumstantial evidence.
Courtroom 1
The speaker is making references to the moot propositions too prove his point.
Courtroom 1
The bench seems to agree with the speakers arguments.
Courtroom 1
The speaker says crime and criminal both should be equally considered.
Courtroom 2
The respondents are done with their arguments and have now moved on to the prayer.
Courtroom 2
The appellants have asked for a 6 minutes rebuttal.
Courtroom 1
The judge asks "When can right to life be taken away?" and moves onto the question of judicial discretion.
Courtroom 1
The speaker has been asked to state five points for rarest of the rare doctrine.
Courtroom 1
"Are you saying everyone in this courtroom does not fear life imprisonment?" asks Mr Kunal Singh.
Courtroom 1
Second speaker's time is up!
Courtroom 2
Sur-Rebuttal. The Respondant' speaker has now approached the dias. Chit-chats among the judges about whether they should consider a sur-rebuttal or not.
Courtroom 1
Mr Shashank Garg should there be arbitariness with the courts. He also refers to reintroduction of death penalty in Pakistan.
Courtroom 2
Allowed! The respondant is done with the sur-rebuttal and the judges are finally filling up the score sheets.
Courtroom 1
The respondents have moved to their prayer.
Courtroom 2
The following feedback was given by the judges to the teams:
1. The first speaker should always represent the scheme of the case in a proper way.
2. Don't keep asking permissions for irrelevant stuff.
3. Good understanding of laws. Well done!
Courtroom 1
The petitioners have been asked to keep the rebuttals short.
Courtroom 1
At the end Mr M Y Khan told the teams that they should try to convince their arguments in such a way that the judges think exactly what the Counsel has in mind.
After the Semi- finals, the hospitality committee has escorted the judges for high tea.

The result of the Semi- final rounds is here. The teams qualifying for the Finals are:




Our heartiest congratulations to the finalists! The Finals are scheduled to be at 14:30. For now, the teams have proceeded for lunch.


The judges for the Final Rounds as follows:

Ms Indira Jaisingh

Mr Mehmood Pracha

Mr Yogesh Khanna

Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan

Prof. B. T. Kaul

Prof. Afzal Wani

Mr Adesh C. Aggarwala


Here is a sneak peek of the beautiful trophies sponsered by Nitiaalya Legal:

The FINALS have begun in the M A Ansari Auditorium!
Appellant speaker 1 ( TC20) is stating the facts of the case.
After addressing the bench, she has begun with her issues which are:
1. Whether the constitutional courts of Oz (the High Courts and the Supreme Court) can directly interpret and apply international law to determine legal rights and duties of interested parties?
2. Assuming that is so, whether the decision of the division bench of the Supreme Court in Parry Hotter &. Ors. v. State of Kronos (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 120 of 2016) is legally sound and whether the disregard of the diplomatic immunity of Mr. Parry Hotter, Won Reasely and Germione Hranger by the Government of USO violates Article 21 of the Ozian Constitution?
3. Whether the decision of the lower court convicting all the accused in Criminal Case No. 12 of 2016 correct?
She has moved onto her second issue.
The judges intervenes with questions on criminal jurisprudence of the country, Vienna Convention and the principle of jus cogens.
It seems the speaker is being asked a series of questions by judges.
She has being to answer the questions at her own pace. The judge do seem to realise that they showered a lot of questions on her at once.
She is trying to answer whether terrorism would be covered under diplomatic immunity.
The judges after being silent for quite sometime, finally have a lot questions to ask. They have been provided with a mic and it seems that it keeps moving from one judge to the other.
Ms Inira Jaisingh,"Are you willing to take action against the accused in your own country?"
Too much grilling happening. There is a hardly any time left and still a issue left to complete.The Counsel asks permission to sum up her submission as her alloted time is over.
The second speaker of appellant has finally approached the dias. She is dealing with the following issues:
1. Whether Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab is per incurium and needs to be reconsidered and overruled?
2. Assuming that is so, whether death penalty as a form of punishment violates Part III of the Constitution?
Too many judges! Too many questions! Ah!!
The counsel has now moved on to her fourth issue.
Judges have passed the lady speaker with a water bottle. SWEET!
The hard work of the Venue Committee is clearly evident.b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG-20170319-WA0020.jpg
"Why death penaltyshould not be awarded in your case?"
The speaker is refering to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the present case.
The Counsel for the appellants have rested their case.
The first speaker for the respondent (TC17) is here with his submissions.
He is citing the Vienna Convention for his arguments on the first issue:
Whether the constitutional courts of Oz (the High Courts and the Supreme Court) can directly interpret and apply international law to determine legal rights and duties of interested parties?
The speaker has moved onto the next issue.
Researcher has passed some sheets of his researched work to the bench.
The judges have asked the speaker to read the Preamble of Vienna Convention.
He is refering to the norm of jus cogens and the principle of greater interest.
It appears as the judges are trying to break the flow of arguments but the speaker manages to hold on.
Passing of research sheets to the judges by the researcher. Looks like the researcher has worked day in and day out for this event.
"What effect would the current political feud between the two countries in imparting fair trial?"
The judges points out that no lawyer was present during the narco- analysis and that fundamental rights cannot be waived off when the speaker said that the accused Germione Hrange who herself was a law student refused to have an attorney during the test.
A big YAWN by the lady courtmaster. Time to hit the alarm bell!
The speaker after proving the chain of circumstances from the facts of the case has moved onto the next issue.
He is speaking how Bachan Singh is per in curiam. Prof B T Kaul refers to the NLUD death penalty report.
The respondent speaker is citing too many cases and simultaneosly, the researcher is passing along sheets of researched work to the bench. Great teamwork.
Time' up for the first speaker. He requested for an extra time to summarize his arguments and the judges approved it.
Back to back questions lined up in a row for the respondents.
The first speaker of respondent is done with his arguments and the second speaker has approached the dias.
The councel requested the judges to present the cases which are not mentioned in her memorial. Request approved and the lady speaker has now proceeded with her arguments.
The lady counsel is going very smooth with her confidents and her knowledge of case facts and case laws is clearly evident.
She is arguing that the accused taking advantage of their diplomatic immunity, breached the railway station security as they did not had to go through security check, while they carried black bags which had explosives.
The speaker has now moved to her next submission and simultaneously answers the questions that were previously asked by the judges.
The respondents have submitted their case.The speaker is proceeding towards the prayer.
The rebuttals are in process. The appellant speaker has approached the dias for the Rebuttal. She looks more confident now and is listening to each and every question asked by the judges.
No sur- rebuttals. The judges are now filling in the scoresheets.
Saplings, momentos and our law journal are being presented to the Judges of the final round.
After the finals, the teams are waiting for the Valedictory Function which will be beginning very shortly.
The Valedictory function has begun. We have with us Mr Ram Jethmalani as Chief Guest and Ms Indira Jaisingh as the Guest of Honour for the event. The audience seemed super delighted and gave a 'rockstar' welcome to the judges.
Recitation of a verse from the Quran is going on to start the event with the name of God.
The audience gave a standing ovation to Ms Jaisingh after her stimulating speech.
Mr Jethmalani, "When we walk in search of light you walk towards God.
The ink of a scholar is holier than a martyr."
"A lawyer who knows only law is a mason. A good lawyer should be an architect."
He is emphasising on the art of cross examination and facts to impart justice.

The much awaited results are here:

Winning Team: Institute of Law, Nirma University (TC17)

Runners-Up Team : Symbiosis Law School, Pune (TC20)

First Runner-Up: CNLU, Patna (TC15)

Best Speaker Male Advocate : Kirtikar Sukul, NUSRL Ranchi (TC10)

Best Female Advocate: Sruthi Dinesh, Symbiosis Law School, Pune (TC20)

Best Researcher : Prakriti Varshney, Faculty of Law, Delhi University (TC30)

Best Memorial Team: NUALS, Kochi (TC08)


After these three hectic days, it is time to party! We have a DJ Night coming up tonight for all the participants and the volunteers!


With this we come to the end of 7th Jamia National Moot Court Competition. We would once again like to thank our Dean, Prof. Dr. Nuzhat Parveen Khan, Subject Advisor, Dr. Asad Malik, the Convener, Mr. Shoaib Khan, Co-Convener, Ms. Huma Nasir and the students of Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia. We would also like to thank our knowledge partner, SCC Online and Nitiaalya Legal, a leading legal law firm based in Delhi for sponsoring the trophies.

This is Bhumika and Anirudh Vijay signing off! Hope you liked our coverage! Do leave a comment below and also keep checking our facebook page for all the MCC updates and for some more photos which will upload soon.

P.S. We are really glad that such an interesting task was alloted to us. And we wish to do more of this but this DJ Got Us Fallin In Love...

Click to show 2 comments
at your own risk
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.