•  •  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 181-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in



Hidayatullah National Law University is pleased to host the 10th Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition, HNMCC'18. The Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition was started as a part of the centenary celebrations of the eminent jurist, author and linguist, Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah.

Over the course of a decade, HNMCC has established a reputation among the legal fraternity, of being one of India’s premier moot court competitions. After seven successful editions had been organized, the decision was made to switch from competition law to environmental law in its 8th edition, keeping in line with the institution’s dedication to and enthusiasm for issues concerning the environment. The transition was also made to draw attention towards the rapidly deteriorating state of the environment and provide impetus to environmental protection. The moot is organized by the students and faculty of Hidayatullah National Law University under the able guidance and mentorship of the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor Prof. (Dr.) Sukh Pal Singh.

HNMCC has always witnessed spirited participation from more than 20 universities in all of its previous editions. In this edition, after scrutinising over 40 memorials in the initial memorial round, 30 teams from various reputed universities across the country have been selected to compete against each other for the coveted Justice Hidayatullah Memorial trophy, the 1st runner’s up prize, the title of the best speaker, the best memorial, and the best researcher.

Eminent academician Prof. (Dr.) M.K. Ramesh was the Chief Guest for the inaugural ceremony. Prof. Ramesh holds the professorial chair on Urban Poor and the Law, instituted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation of Government of India. He also advised the government on climate negotiations leading to the Paris Agreement, 2015. Addressing the gathering with thought provoking words and refreshing candour, Prof. Ramesh emphasized on the role of mankind as children in the cradle of the environment rather than its masters.

In the previous editions, HNMCC has been fortunate to enjoy the expertise of a stellar panel comprising of eminent sitting judges of the High Court of Chhattisgarh for the final rounds while partners of reputed law firms, eminent academicians and experienced advocates from the Supreme Court and High Court of India served as judges for the preceding rounds.

HNMCC will be conducted from 23rd to the 25th of March at the University. The problem for this year's competition is based on the themes of "International Environmental Law, Trans-border Pollution and Ownership of New Territories".

The event will officially begin on 23-03-2018 at 2:00PM with the registrations. Stay tuned to the blog for more updates!





23rd March, Friday


09:00 AM- 10:00 AM


01:00 PM- 02:00 PM

Registration of Teams

02:00 PM- 03:00 PM

Inaugural Session

04:00 PM – 05:00 PM

Tea Break

05:15 PM – 05:45 PM

Orientation & Draw of Lots

/Exchange of Memorials

06:30 PM – 07:30 PM


08:30 PM – 10:00 PM

24th March, Saturday


08:00 AM – 09:00 AM

Researcher Test

09:00 AM – 10:00 AM

Prelims Session I

10:30 AM – 12:00 PM


12:30 PM – 01:30 PM

Prelims Session II

02:00 PM – 03:30 PM

Tea Break

03:30 PM – 04:00 PM

Declaration of Prelims Result

04:30 PM

Quarterfinal Rounds

05:00 PM – 06:30 PM

V.C. Dinner

08:00 PM – 10:00 PM

25th March, Sunday


10:30 AM – 12:00 PM


12:30 PM – 1:30 PM


02:00 PM – 04:00 PM

Tea Break

04:00 PM – 04:30 PM

Declaration of Results and

Valedictory Session

04:30 PM – 06:00 PM

Gala Dinner

08:00 PM - 09:30 PM

23 Friday 2017

4:00 PM: The Registration formalities have just been completed. Armed with their moot kits, participants are making their way to the auditorium for the official inaugural ceremony of the 10th Justice Hidayatullah National Moot Court Competition!

4:15 PM: The dignitaries have arrived! Among them are Dr. M.K. Ramesh, Professor, National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, the Chief Guest for the event; Prof. Dr. Sukh Pal Singh, Vice-Chancellor, Hidayatullah National Law University; Dr. Kaumudhi Challa, Coordinator, HNMCC 2018; and Dr. Ayan Hazra, Registrar-in-Charge.

4:20 PM: The event begins with the Hon'ble dignitaries lighting the traditional lamp. Two girls from Hidayatullah National Law University sing a hymn dedicated to the goddess of learning.

4:25 PM: The dignitaries on the dais are felicitated with bouquets and the Chief Guest is presented with a piece of Chhattisgarhi tribal art as a memento.

4:30 PM: The Vice Chancellor of HNLU, Prof. Dr. Sukh Pal Singh delivers an enlightening welcome address. He talks about the code of ethics that we followed in the past to ensure the protection of nature, and how it has been lost over time. He also talks about the evils of poverty and colonization, and how they have contributed towards environmental degradation.

4:50 PM: Dr. Kaumudhi Challa, Coordinator, HNMCC'18 talks about the legacy of Justice Hidayatullah and the reasons behind conducting HNMCC. She also mentions that the purpose behind the transition from competition law to environmental law is to draw attention to the rapidly degenerating state of the environment.

5:00 PM: The Chief Guest for HNMCC'18, Prof. (Dr.) M.K. Ramesh, the professorial chair on Urban Poor and the Law, instituted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation of Government of India, delivers his speech. Apart from lauding the institution for bringing attention to environmental issues through the medium of a moot court competition, he also stressed on the role of mooting activities in honing the skills of aspiring lawyers.

5:20 PM: Dr. Uttam Kumar Panda, Co-Coordinator, acknowledges and appreciates the hard work and efforts of all those involved in HNMCC'18 by delivering the vote of thanks.

5:30 PM: Post the National Anthem, all the participants leave for the 2nd floor where High Tea is served. Yummy Dhoklas, Samosas, Chutney, Tea and Biscuits are awaiting the participants!

6:30 PM: It's time for the draw of lots and the memorial exchange. The first chance to read what other team has written in their memos and scrutinize the opponents. The excitement of the competition is palpable in the air.

7:10 PM - 8:15 PM: Participants get time to relax, explore the campus and continue their research. Most teams are seen flocking to the library!

8:20 PM: It's dinner time! All the participants and students of HNLU enjoy a scrumptious dinner.

9:30 PM: Post-dinner, participants either head off to the library to do some more research or retire to their rooms to be fresh for the competition. The events of the day are at a close.




Court Room - 6

12:15 PM-1:20 PM

TC 02 (Applicant) v. TC 30 (Respondent)

Speaker 01 (Applicants) 12:15 PM:

The first speaker on behalf of the applicant, the Union of Arresia, approaches the dais with the permission of the bench, and seeks 15 minutes of the time of the honorable court to present his arguments... The bench asks the agent to state the facts of the dispute and the agent obliges with the request. Before the applicant can make his argument, he is questioned by the bench on the very maintainability of the case, and how their arguments seem frivolous on grounds of being presumptive. The agent makes his first argument, which is examined for its authority by the judges. They ask the agent to elucidate why it holds traction. He goes on to elaborate on the persuasive value held by the source at the root of his argument in light of relevant international statutes. Agent moves on to his second argument, but the phrasing is scrutinized by the judges for its vagueness, he tries to sail through, but the judges seem unsatisfied.

Agent is subject to yet another round of questioning, in light of the historical context of his arguments, and their parity with the present scenario. The judges seem vexed at the ambiguous use of words. They seek clarification on multiple points, which the agent answers satisfactorily, but the judges remark how they there shouldn’t have been scope for any misconstruction. Speaker comes under fire with his next argument as the bench asks him to present empirical evidence to bolster his discursive arguments, which he presents, but in light of the statistic as presented by the agent himself, the locus standi and the maintainability is questioned yet again. Agent tries to fend this off by citing a prior example, but judges point out patent differences between the two cases, and disregard the analogy. Speaker concludes with a summary of his arguments, however, their conviction remains to be seen.

Speaker 02 (Applicants):

Agent introduces herself as the second speaker, and is questioned why she referred to herself as such. She is further questioned on intricacies of court tradition, which the speaker deftly answers. Speaker presents the conclusion of a scientific report, but the validity of the same is questioned in the court. She cites a judicial precedent to the satisfaction of the judges, and the bench allows for the speaker to foray to her next argument.  Speaker is questioned on an apparent logical leap, and the rationale of her inferences from the facts. She answers the same to some extent, but the judges are stoic. They follow up on the basis of a legal doctrine, but the speaker replies that the said principle is not absolute in application, and hence may be skirted around in circumstances such as the present one, the reason of which she goes on to explain.

The clerk of the court indicates the speaker is in the final two minutes of her time. The agent raises a final argument, but the judges fail to see the logical basis of it. Speaker tries her best to to defend her arguments, but under fire, ultimately pleads ignorance. Time runs out, but the judges do not relent. They continue with their interrogation, questioning on the nature of relief sought, and further remedies available in certain contingencies described by the judges. Speaker tries to tackle with an arguendo, but ultimately falters. She is granted time by the court to summarise her arguments, the speaker does so and leaves the roster, deeming it her privilege to have been permitted to address the court.

Speaker 01 (Respondents) 12:50 PM:

Speaker approaches the dais on behalf of the respondents, Republic of Boranda and Republic of Borressia. She begins her speech, but addresses the bench as ‘Your Lordships’. The judges quip that that is the incorrect title, and explain the correct manner of reference. Speaker begins her argument, and gives a verbose assertion, but the judges’ point out the lack of legal backing. Speaker fails to provide any legal authority, binding or persuasive. Judges ask her to proceed to her next argument. Speaker points out a fallacy in the case of their adversary. The judges enquire if the speaker can provide how that aspect of the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the court, to which the speaker gives a lukewarm response. Speaker draws to an end before time, and returns to her seat.

Speaker 02 (Respondents):

Speaker approaches the dais and before she can even launch into her arguments, she is hit with a volley of questions that she finds herself unable to answer, having no recourse except to plead ignorance. The judges point out that the arguments made by the team are largely assertions with no corroboration either by facts or law. Agent leaves the dais despondent.

Rebuttals 1:05PM:

Teams hardly engaged in any rebuttal and the round comes to an end on a bitter note.


Preliminary Round -1 (12:15 pm- 1:30 pm)

Court Room-1


(12: 20-1:00pm)


TC-03 (Applicant) v. TC-04 (Respondent)


Speaker 1 (12:15 pm):

The speaker starts on a confident note explaining the facts but is midway interjected by the judges asking under which article does the applicants term themselves as the agent. The speaker is left gobsmacked and pleads ignorance. The barrage of questions continues and the applicant is asked for a case regarding the Doctrine of discovery of a similar island. This time the speaker replies confidently and presents the relevant case.

Flipping through the moot problem, the curiosity of the judges is aroused, asking the applicants to explain whether the case is based on mythology. Speaker mentions Art.38(1) and the bench seeks clarification and explanation of the same and the fumbling on part of the speaker continues and she then proceeds with to the contentions

The judges note the thinly veiled arguments of the speaker and ask her to move to the second argument. After a treaty is supplied the speaker seeks extension of time, which is granted.

Speaker 02 (12:30 pm):

She starts with explaining the issues which will be dealt by her predecessor. The judges interject that they are not convinced with the arguments of speaker 1 and ask her to give satisfactory amendments. Still not convinced, the judges ask the speaker to proceed.

The speaker gets flushed as a fresh carnation, spluttering while delivering the arguments, but has not losing momentum.

The judges ask about the impact of emissions of sulphur dioxide. The speaker tackles the question in a well organised manner by explaining the environmental, economic repercussions. The speaker beautifully connects the farmer suicides and the low productivity of land due to high SO2 emissions. The independence of the organisations providing data is questioned by the judges and hence the stand. The speaker seeks the permission of the bench to conclude her arguments. The judges allow 30 seconds time extension and no surprises here- the team as well as the judges seem unsatisfied.



Speaker 01 (Respondent) (12; 50 pm)


Speaker is allowed to proceed towards the arguments. The judges ask the speaker for the respondents to counter the arguments given by the applicants. The speaker seems confused, hence, is told to continue with her arguments. She is taking a very long time to answer and seems nervous. The long pause is broken by the judge to help her regain her confidence. He asks whether the respondents are aware of the doctrine of discovery. She remains silent, and she is helped by the co-agent. The judges seek clarification the obligation question of Boressia. She is unable to answer the questions. The judges ask for a justification of the military base of Boressia. Speaker is not able to answer the questions and ends her arguments.


Speaker 02 (Respondent) (1:18 pm)

The speaker is confident and firm while arguing and stating the claims of her client. She claims the principle of economic necessity for Boranda to build coal industries and yet again the judges are not convinced with the arguments. She pleads that the farmer suicides were not foreseeable, but the judges promptly counter her statement saying that the environmental effects were quite apparent and foreseeable, but were ignored by Boranda. The Bench is curious about the ownership of the industries of Boranda. The respondents’ lack of knowledge is soon proved as all the questions posed by the bench go unanswered.

Rebuttals (1:23-1:30 pm)

Applicants start with the rebuttals, the bench interrupts and asks for crisp and concise rebuttals.

The speaker argues that Boranda came up with an easy option of exploiting the fossil fuels and not opting other environment friendly options. The speaker finally manages to answer the question of doctrine of discovery which was asked by the bench earlier. The speaker for the respondents choose not to rebut. The teams are requested to move out of the courtroom while judges discuss and deliberate about the arguments of both the teams.


Court Room 05

12:10 PM – 2:10 PM

Applicant (TC 25) v. Respondent (TC 11)

Speaker 01 (Applicant) 12:11 PM :

The speaker enumerates her time division and notifies the judges that she will be dealing with the issues 1 and 2 and her co-agent will deal with the rest. They have allotted one minute for the rebuttals. She starts by glancing at her notes often as she launches into the facts of the moot compromise. The judges interject her at the very onset of her speech and ask her a question pertaining to the geographical topography of the nations. Although visibly startled at the question, she manages to quickly pick up her confidence again and answers the question, the judges seem satisfied with her answer. The judges question the speaker on the structuring of her argument and suggest that she move forth with the legal aspect first. The judges ask her how they have substantiated their argument on philosophical-legal grounds. The faces of the team members and the speaker pale as they realise they do not have a submission regarding the same handy and on conveying the same to the judges the dissatisfaction on their faces is evident. The judges ask the speaker a question pertaining to the facts and question the ownership of the island and more confusion ensues. The speaker tries hard to remain confident. After her allotted time expires, speaker asks for a ten minute extension however she is only awarded with a five. The judges voice their disappointment when the Applicants refer to a case that they failed to mention in their written submission and the faces of the members of the team are whiter than a a round-up of 2016’s Oscar Nominees. Speaker is granted a further five minute extension and drags it a further one minute. She beings to launch into a detailed explanation and is chided by the judges and asked to answer crisply. Seeming to have gathered her wits, the speaker manages to coax out nods by the judges in approval of her argument. Time’s up.

Speaker 02 (Applicant):

The second speaker explains the scheme of his arguments. Speaker 1 abruptly corrects her co-speaker earning a glance from everyone in the room. The speaker seems more composed in his speech and despite attracting a volley of interjections right in the first minute of his speech, he manages to answer them effortlessly while continuously circling back his argument to his speech. The bench is quick to pose more questions to throw off the speaker but he manages to answer articulately enough for the judges to nod in silent appreciation. Trrrng, the warning bell goes, signifying the end of his allotted time, he is awarded with an extra time. He is questioned repeatedly about the damages sustained by the respondents but despite constantly referring to his notes, he manages to answer the onslaught of the questions with ease. Meanwhile, the Applicants share a sly smile among themselves, seemingly pleased by their teammate. However, the respondents appear to be a little nervous as they observe the proceedings and silently mull over their impending fate. The speaker while dealing with his final issue is interrupted by the warning bell, signifying the end of his allotted time. He is asked to move to the prayer.

Speaker 01 (Respondent) 1:11 PM:

The speaker approaches the dais and takes begins to explain the time bifurcation in her team. She is soft spoken yet assertive enough in her way of speech and appears to take a second before answering the interjections, seemingly articulating her response in her head and then speaking, the practice appears to be appreciated by the bench. In the very first second of her speech, the judges pose an interjection which is answered by the speaker effortlessly. She manages to put up a semblance of calm that the applicants observe and mull over in silent envy. The speaker has impeccable courtroom etiquettes and answers questions in depth, sweeping the bench off their feet! She is awarded with a time extension and the respondent team watch their Speaker with rapt attention and she manages to obtain another extension from the bench. She manages to tackle the questions with grace and requires minimal reference to her notes seemingly well versed with the arguments. Although she stumbled slightly in her speech, she managed to pick up her argument and end her speech on a conclusive note.

Speaker 02 (Respondent):

Speaker 2 appears to have impeccable courtroom etiquette as well as he launches into his speech by explaining the scheme of his argument. He is constantly aided by his team via notes and he too is posed with a volley of questions which only manage to slightly throw his composure off. He is awarded several time extensions, allowing him to further articulate in his arguments. He is questioned over the use of a certain kind of fuel but he fails to please the bench with his initial answer, following which, the bench offer further explanation to him and he launches into a detailed explanation, citing authorities confidently, and seldom referring to his notes. Despite all, he is interjected again, the bench express their discontent with his disability in answering the question posed satisfactorily. The speaker launches into a detailed explanation, seemingly egged on by the question posed over his understanding of the query. The bench offer nods of agreement and exchange a look among themselves and the speaker is then asked to recite the prayer.

Rebuttals 1:57PM:

The speaker of the Applicant team is asked to present his rebuttals on a issue by issue basis and he is confident in his speech, his co-agent nods in appreciation of his reasoning as the respondents listen with rapt attention. The Respondent speaker beings his rebuttal by citing the factual discrepancies presented by the Applicant and gives reference to the moot problem for the same. He then refutes the substance of the citations used by the Applicants and attributed them as mere commentaries and thus devoid of binding force. He runs out of time and is dismissed by the bench mid speech.b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_6802.JPG

Courtroom No.: 09

12:00 pm- 1:30 pm


Applicant (TC 40) v. Respondent (TC 22)

Speaker 1 (Applicants) 12:08 pm:

The judges have arrived and the applicants and respondents are standing to show respect. The judges are having glance at the documents provided by the court clerk.

Speaker 1 starts with seeking permission from the judges. The applicant seems to be confident but fails at grabbing the attention of the judges’. So maybe not the best start. The applicant composes himself and describes his points, fumbling here and there but full marks for the efforts. (At this point we have to calm our reporter down. It’s okay to get smitten but don’t let it cloud your judgment kids!)

Few more queries from the judges and and some interruptions later, the speaker seems to grow nervous as he is running out of time. Humbly prays for extension, which is granted by the kind judges. The applicant is questions the respondents and raises his points supporting the same with relevant documents. He wraps up in the next two minutes, focused on winding up his arguments in the most effective way.

Speaker 2 (Applicants)

The applicant’s voice seems to be a little less audible, who has moved to issue no. 3.

The bench repeatedly interrupts the speaker with queries which he gracefully clarifies. The speaker is mentioning articles to support his arguments, but fails to justify his grounds in some areas. The bench and the speaker seems to have some confusion regarding the compendium. The bench continues to bombard him with questions and he clarifies them all. We have a braveheart on the field, fellas. The speaker has asked the bench to look at the compendium and supports his arguments with various cases. The buzzer goes off, signalling his time is up. Summarizes within a minute which the judges don’t seem to mind.

Speaker 1 (Respondents) 12: 51 pm:

The speaker is loud with her arguments and speaks very fast, mentioning laws in the passing like it’s her second nature. Confident and fast, but still crisp in her arguments, she seems to impress the judges and owns the room. Supports her arguments referring to past cases. As the speaker is loud and fast, she seems to lose her voice. The demeanor is breaking. She fails to make eye contact with judges, losing some brownie points. She continues nonetheless, explaining with the help of examples, gaining back her momentum. With 5 minutes left, she is quick in summarising all her contentions, frequently addressing the bench to keep the judges’ attention glued to her. She ends her speech, satisfied with her performance, and by the looks of it, the judges aren’t complaining either.

Speaker 2 (Respondents)

The speaker sounds very polite but is very slow, a little lost in herself.  She is unable to draw a connection between pertinent facts of the case and has moved to further issues seeking permission from the bench. Nervous, she manages to somehow amble through her speech. With 5 minutes to explain her points, the judges are still unconvinced with her arguments and have asked questions from the speaker which she fails to answer. The judges are up with more questions and the speaker is lost and not clear about she is explaining. The speaker fails to understand further queries of the judges and the discussion goes on in a loop for a while. As she wraps up, the clock dies on her, judges still unsatisfied.

Rebuttals (applicant) 1:21 pm:

The speaker seems confident and organised with his points. Explains everything in clipped and crisp manner, and ends without any interruptions or queries from the judges.

Rebuttals (respondent)

The speaker from the respondents’ side starts by first replying to the rebuttals listed by the applicants. Gets interrupted frequently from the judges, but satisfies all queries cleverly.  


Courtroom No.: 10

12:00 pm- 1:30 pm


Applicant (TC 28) v. Respondent (TC 15)

Speaker 1 (Applicants) 12:12 PM:

After being invited by the judges, first speaker comes up to the podium and starts by presenting the facts and issues. Certain clarifications raised and addressed, but the answers doesn’t seem to satisfy the judges. The speaker hesitates, frequently sighing and stuttering. The judges sense this lack of confidence, amused now that they have caught the fish in shallow waters, and begin questioning on basics which were blatantly faffed about. The speaker attempted to answer the first two, but stumbled at the third. At this point the speaker tries to clash with the judges regarding the basic definition of sovereignty. After getting a small extension, speaker summarizes her points and invites her co-counsel.

Speaker 2 (Applicants)

Starts by raising issues 2 and 3, slyly trying to sidestep the issues left unaddressed by the first speaker. Fails, because the judges seem to be particularly hawk-eyed as they ask him to complete the issues raised by speaker 1 first. However, after the slight hiccup, speaker starts his own contentions on a great note. His tone crisp, hand movements in sync with the rise and fall in his pitch to elucidate every contention. He details a road map through which he will guide the discourse. The speaker is facing some intense questioning regarding general principles of environmental law, which he is unable to satisfy. Now, the PR committee could be wrong, but arguing with the judges about the law is one thing and asserting that the judges have the wrong knowledge of  law  is another. Did someone shut off the Air conditioning because the temperature is getting higher by the minute? Second issue raised by the speaker is regarding the damage to the cotton production by the republic of Borresia. No questions asked further. Phew. This was something!

Speaker 1 (Respondents) 12:49 PM:

The speaker seems fluent with the language as well as the knowledge of the submissions. She explains the time distribution and proceeds with addressing herself as the  ‘agent’, and dives straight into her first issue. The bench, having heard most of her first contention, put up the first line of questioning, and the speaker seemingly manages to clear all the doubts. She seemed to have been taken aback from a question by the bench, but she manages to a confidently reply to the question after a little pause. The speaker has some problem conveying the crux of her contention but quickly provides the clarification, drawing an affirmative nod from the judges. The bench seems adequately convinced by the arguments and with the time slipping fast, she concludes her contentions and invites her co-counsel.

Speaker 2 (Respondents)

The speaker comes to the podium and starts with the contention no. 3 and 4. He provides the two fold arguments regarding his issue  developing a causal link in the process. The speaker started with his arguments rather enthusiastically. Continues explaining the cited case laws. Stumbles around when caught off guard once the questioning begins. Fails to hit the mark. Animated expressions and excessive hand gestures make his speech is one of the mast actions packed speeches (quite literally!). He continues speaking to no affect, and the reporter muses that sometimes too much speaking for too long just does not make sense (Take notes, readers. These pearls of wisdom come free of cost. You have the PR committee to thank).

Rebuttals (applicant) 1:23 PM:

Speaker 2 approaches for the rebuttals. He concisely concludes his arguments and  bench advices to not to make casual approach towards the problem. Afterall a little seriousness never hurt nobody.

Rebuttals (Respondent)

Speaker 2 up for the rebuttals. He seems confident from the beginning. He categorically rebuts the applicant’s arguments by citing relevant authorities which support his reasoning.



Court Room – 2


(12: 19 pm- 1:55 pm)


TC 18 (Applicant) v. TC 33 (Respondent)  

Speaker 1 (Applicant) 12:19 pm:

The speaker started with submitting his contentions. Right after his first argument the judges fire two questions. He tackled the questions easily. He proceeds to give some case laws but judges doubt their relevance. The judges proceed to ask questions about the mysterious island and the scientific evidence. With no fresh points to be made the speaker adopts the strategy of repeating the same thing again and again.

Speaker 2 (Applicant) 12 :40 pm:

The speaker proceeds to give his views on how the emissions of sulphur-dioxide have affected his client and how the respondent party is responsible for violating international law. The Speaker gives a satisfactory answer to the judges’ questions and proceeds to rip the respondents’ defence of necessity. The judges question whether the respondent state will be able to dole out the compensation.

RESPONDENT (1:04 -1:48 pm)

Speaker 1 (Respondent) 1:04 pm

The respondent makes short arguments his lack of confidence on display but fights his fear and tries his best to satisfy the judges. The speaker takes a minute to brainstorm but fails to answer and another question is posed by the judges. He defends the lack of an environmental assessment by showing the urgency of setting up a military base on the island, swiftly dodges the questions posed and keeps on repeating his previous argument.

Speaker 2 (Respondent) 1:25 pm

The speaker starts denies any liability on part of Boranda and states that no international law has been violated. The judges grill her regarding her preliminary arguments.

Then she moves to her last contention that they are not liable to pay any compensation but at that same point judge stopped her and asked her to justify her previous argument regarding trans boundary pollution and how they are not liable. Then she argued that it was the responsibility of applicant to take some measures for such situations. But it can be seen that judges are not satisfied by her answer.

Rebuttals 1: 50 pm:

The Applicant deny the fact that Borrasia has any claim over the Borsi Land and they also said that the island was submerged in the sea for the long time and it is impractical to have such knowledge about the island. The judges state that no rebuttals on part of the respondents are required.


 TC 23 (Applicants) v. TC 34 (Respondents)



12.10 P.M.: The court is in motion. The first speaker for the applicants seeks permission to proceed with the arguments and informs them of the time and issue split between the two speakers of his team. He is interjected in the first minute of his speech by the judge who points out a mistake in the memo which the speaker accepts as a clerical error and apologizes for the same. He is asked about a principle of International Law and the judges do not seem wholly satisfied by his answer.

The judge probes the speaker if a precedent cited by the applicants is relevant keeping in mind the facts of the case. The judge continues to subject the speaker to a volley of questions, but the speaker, whose mannerism is still somewhat tentative, responds to them and points to the facts of the case to substantiate his contentions.

The speaker seems to be finding his footing and seems more confident in his approach, but the judges have been unrelenting in their questioning and this newfound confidence does not last for long. He differentiates different modes of acquisition of territory to the judges and further asserts his claim but the judges just do not seem to be buying it. The speaker also fumbles when explaining the binding nature of an authority he has cited and the judge chooses not to press further upon the same. The speaker has apparently saved his most important contention for last, alas, he runs out of time and the judges do not grant him time over the additional minutes they had already granted.


12.30 P.M: The second speaker begins on a more self-assured note than the first speaker, and handles a question by the judges on the precautionary principle with relative ease. However, she does not do any better than her teammate on the question regarding the binding nature a cited authority in the memo, and fails to put forth an alternative authority in defense of her claim.

The speaker, however, seems unperturbed by this setback and is more poised and composed in her approach. However, the speaker and the judges are still struggling to find some middle ground and she needs a helping hand from her teammates in the form of a note passed by the first speaker to get going again.

On the whole, the judges seem dissatisfied with the Applicants’ contentions and the speaker is asked to wrap up her contentions promptly. The judges put one last question to her but she fails to answer in either the affirmative or negative and fails to redeem herself.



12.48 P.M: The speaker addresses the bench as ‘Your Lordship’ and the judges are quick to set right this error. The judges continue with their no-nonsense approach and cut her short while she states the facts, and ask for case laws. They open discussion on a case that was discussed with the Applicants as well.

The judges doubt the speaker’s contention regarding the status of the island in dispute in the case and she points to the facts of the case to satisfy this. However, she is immediately asked about a time condition regarding the same and she pleads ignorance. Further, a principle that she states in course of her argument is outright rejected by the judge. The speaker makes an argument purely on the basis of logic and rationale and the judges suppress a smile and ask her if logic is an acceptable source of law. The speaker is quick to apologize for her lack of authorities.

Quite ironically, the judges spot a logical inconsistency in the speaker’s very next contention. The judges bring up an article of a Declaration that the Speaker comfortably thwarts as being non-obligatory in nature. She follows it up with an assertion that the military base set up on the disputed island was for the welfare of their people, and the judges are all smiles.


The speaker is asked about an alternative course of action that the two parties could have pursued, and the speaker tactfully handles this. She contends that the transboundary pollution caused was unforeseeable and the judges reject this.

The speaker tries to defend the actions of the respondent State but the judges point out clear environmental oversights committed by them while rebuilding their industries. The speaker seems insistent on the importance of intention on the part of the respondents but the judge states that intention is essential for crimes and not damages.

The judges ask her to compare the present case with other landmark cases of International Environmental law, and although the speaker seems knowledgeable about the same, the arguments are not deemed tenable by the judges. The speaker is also asked to skip the prayer but the judges, ask her the meaning of ‘justice, equity and good conscience’ which the speaker does not answer satisfactorily. The applicants first speaker is also asked this and doesn’t do much better.


1.22 P.M: The first speaker of side Applicants begins to go through her rebuttals to the opposition’s contentions. The judges ask her to rebut a particular point instead. The judges find a serious error in their prayer which the judges do not excuse as being merely typographical. The judges, who are now on the verge of withering, give the first speaker of the respondent 30 seconds to make a sur-rebuttal, and this last opportunity to redeem their case is wasted.



Room No. 12


Teams: TC36 (Applicant) v. TC09 (Respondent)

11:53 AM: Preliminary rounds start now! The air conditioning in the room is providing a much needed relief from the sweltering heat outside. The participants waiting patiently and eagerly for the judges to get the rounds going.



12:15  P.M: Judges are keeping the speaker on his toes with simple, yet important questions of law from the very beginning of his speech. The speaker seems confident and is taking his time putting across his understanding of the said provisions of law.

The judges seem to be in no mood to deal with any arguments based on ‘logical’ derivations and are demanding a strict legal authorities in all arguments being submitted. The speaker’s confidence seems to be washing away by the second due to this seemingly unexpected objection of the judges. However, he is trying to pull it together and continue.

Judges seem to have rattled the speaker enough to shred his argumentative structure, his train of thoughts has derailed. The speaker’s teammates seem to be earnestly attempting to telepathically communicate with him to point out an argument he seems to have skipped. Sadly, the applicant team seems to lack psychic powers and we are never to know this golden argument. The judges are yet to buy any argument made by the Applicants, finding them to be wanting in both legal authority as logic.

The speaker seems to have gone on the offensive now, instead of defending his arguments, now directly attacking the Respondents team in his speech.The Respondents seem unfazed by the Applicant’s speech, seemingly expecting all raised arguments in the speaker speech.

The applicant researcher seems to be anxious, passing chits regularly to help his lead speaker on the dais.

The judges have ignored the Court Clerk’s timing bells and are insisting upon in grilling the speaker further and the judges have started putting up more questions, and are apparently relishing their task of grilling speaker, who is notably still smiling and answering questions in a calm and patient manner.

The Respondents have been simply referring to their own memorandums and notes, seemingly already prepared for the arguments raised by Speaker.


12:42 P.M: The second speaker for the applicants seems quieter and more collected than his teammate. Not wasting any time, he manages to refer to his memorandum twice and cites legal  provisions. However, the judges are evidently unsatisfied and want for more legal backing for all arguments.

The applicants bench looks like a classic mooting bench. The researcher and speaker furiously fumble through all available material (and there’s plenty) to find an answer to help their comrade who’s now being grilled by the judges on a different point of law. Despite flying loose sheets of paper, the team seems to have handed over the relevant documents.

Despite all effort, the judges seem to be unsatisfied by all arguments, though the team seemed hopeful.

The speaker has made the dais his comfort zone, leaning on the podium(the judges don’t seem to pleased with it) and calmly going through his documents, referring to and elaborating on all legal provisions asked for by the bench. The judges have been trying to pick apart the speakers arguments, yet he has held fort, seemingly unfazed by the questions put up to him.

The judges seemed to have finally put the speaker in a fix, with an array of questions being hurled at him, finally making him falter in his submissions and break the structure of his arguments.The bench seems to be in tandem with respect to their judgement of the Applicants, having a quick chat ending with understanding nods by the both of them.



12:58 P.M: The Bench asks the speaker to directly venture into her arguments, not wanting to waste the time of the Court on repetition of well-versed facts.The team looks more organized with impressive numbered flags and perfectly structured speeches. The Speaker seems to be in conversation with the judges, rather than making speeches and submissions in front of them.

The Respondents until now, have shown remarkable planning and organization in their memorandums and speeches. Looking at their bench, all seems to be going as planned.

After a barrage of questions, the speaker seems to finally be a bit fazed, having to explain all the provisions cited.
The bench has turned its own questions on its head and it seems to make the team uncomfortable and sail into uncharted territory.


1:14 P.M.: The judges continue with their interrogative line of questioning, and are soon exasperated by evasive answers given by the the speaker, directing her to justify her submissions with, you guessed correctly, legal provisions

The speaker has been asked to speak louder, and has already been cornered into a blatant rejection by the bench with regards to the knowledge of a legal provision. Not a good start, it seems. The bench has started pointing out holes in the speakers arguments, willing to go toe-to-toe with the speaker, even with logical arguments, not backed by legal provisions.

The organized outlook of the Respondent team seems to be faltering as the arguments advance. Failure to refer to legal provisions surely won’t go unmarked by the Bench. The Respondent team table also looks disappointed and beat.

There were considerably less questions put forth to the Respondent team, in comparison to the Appellant team. Judges have one last question after the prayers were put forth. It was a question which left the Respondent baffled.

1:28 P.M.: Rebuttals, unsurprisingly started with a question for the Applicant even before he could start speaking. Two questions of the bench were answered smilingly and calmly by the first speaker.

The bench seemed to understand the points put forward by the speaker, and he even cited legal provisions in the rebuttals itself. All’s well that ends well, or so it seems.

As for the respondents, the submission was made with two simple rhetoric questions by the speaker and no defense to the points raised by the Appellants was provided.




12:15 am: Preliminary rounds begin now!

TC08 (Applicants) v. TC 35 (Respondent)


12:15 am: Speaker 1 has begun and will be speaking for 12 minutes. She has provided the judges with a seemingly smooth road map for the team’s argument. A sudden barrage of questions follows from the judges, the speaker takes time to think before answering. The speaker lacks clarity her argumentative structure and has revolved her argument around historical facts. With only a few minutes left for the speaker, judges don’t seem to be convinced but instruct her to move to the next contention. She goes on to point out the loopholes in the respondent’s memorandum and judges posed subjective questions asking what the international remedy could be, which the counsel amusingly avoided on the pretense of answering them later. Overall, it has been somewhat a ruffled start for the applicant’s team.


12:30 pm: The speaker seems more self-assured to face the probing questions of the judges and has taken off with sufficient confidence. She seems to have impressed the judges with clarity in thought and sound structure, but this hasn’t spared her from facing a fresh sugre of questions. She is tackling questions with great confidence; her answers seem to appease judges. Despite regular interruption by judges, the speaker seems unflustered and manages to draw the judges’ attention back to her major contention.

Concluding with her share of the arguments, she seems have immediately jumped to damage-control and is attempting to make up for the yet unacknowledged questions posed to her co-counsel. The speaker is stating and explaining the definitions to her favour and is weaving a strong fabric of facts to strengthen her argument. She is quick in pulling out case references and hasn’t hesitated from creating analogy from questions asked to highlight her argument.

Meanwhile, the cameraman pops in and both the teams manage to smile and look like they have it together in spite of the obvious pressure building up in the room. However, the speaker, in all her poise, manages to sweep off an uninterrupted summarization and then a conclusion. It ends with a generic prayer.


12:45 pm: The speaker, in a calm and maybe bored way, requests permission to approach the dais the stand. Surprisingly, he must wait till the judges are done fumbling around memorandums to find the right one. The speaker introduces himself in low voice and maintains a peaceful composure while explaining the issues. He will be speaking for 14 minutes. The speaker takes an unusually hard-line stance and the judges have a brief, questioning eye contact between each other. He, however, reassures judges that the team will be effective in proving this undertaken burden. This promise seems to have backfired. One minute into the speech, the judges have put several questions to the speaker. Amusingly, he holds true to his composed manner and handles the question fairly well but fails to maintain a logical consistency which judges poke with other continuous questions.

On questions of law, even though answered confidently by the speaker, there seems to be no evidence as to how much of the contentions are bought by the judges. The mystery continues as the judges don’t seem keen on revealing how much they appreciate the answers. The speaker continues to defend his team’s stance and justify the burden by arguing based on rationality. He makes frequent references to the Gita-like compendium that he has proudly brought with himself. With only a few minutes left on the clock, the speaker seems almost pleased but tensed with how his speech has drawn out. He laudably manages to keep the calm demeanor  that he began with.  The speaker concludes and doesn’t seem shaken even though his arguments have been raided with questions.

12:59 pm: The speaker begins his argument out rightly denying all the claims of the applicant, giving, in modern lingo, ‘the vibe’ of a whip’s speech in a tooth and nail parliamentary debate. However, his confidence-trip is short lived as a question comes hurling at him even before he can initiate his line of arguments. Seemingly self-possessed, the speaker takes on the question with utmost sincerity and makes decent attempt to satisfy the bench. Despite the fat compendium, there are loose sheets being handed over to the judges for references. The judges seem somewhat on the brink of annoyance. The speaker is able to handle the question well to which the bench responds by merely nodding. The speaker runs out of the time but judges grant him 2 minutes to wrap up their arguments. With the pressure of time and increasing difficulty of questions, the speaker’s self-assurance seems to be eroding by the second. The court clerk again rings the bell again and the speaker is forced to conclude in two statements and recite the prayer.


1.19 pm: Having only a couple of minutes saved for rebuttals, the applicant take the chance to clear and emphasize and poke holes to the argument made by the respondent.
He decides to answer with strong legal evidence and denies the maintainability of the argument attempted to put forth.

The speaker for the respondents is only able to summarize his speech in a sentence and is unable to directly attack anything else.

With that, the first round of prelims in the courtroom ends and the judges put their head down focusing to the score sheets and all participants glace hopefully at the bench hoping the result will be in their favour.


Court Room- 3

TC 38 (Applicant) vs TC 01 (Respondent) : 12:11 PM -1:39 PM

Speaker 1 (Applicant) - 12:11 PM

After being invited by the judges, the first speaker approaches the podium. The judges ask the speaker to elaborate the facts of the case. The speaker is off to a good start, he is keeping his pace steady. However the good start and the steady pace doesn’t continue for too long as the judges begin a rapid round of questioning.  This forces the speaker to plead ignorance to a question of the bench but he maintains his composure and answers the rest of the questions. He has quickly moved on to the rest of his arguments but time is running out. The speaker seems to have gotten his pace and composure back. But the bench is not ready to let the speaker get off so easily and the questions have started again. The speaker is answering the questions as the time runs out. He requests for an extension, that the judges have granted. He uses his last few seconds to answer the questions of the judges.

Speaker 2 (Applicant)- 12:29

The second speaker informs the bench about the issues that she will be dealing with. She begins her argument but soon seeks a few seconds to settle down and arrange her things at the podium. Multiple questions come her way and they are cleverly answered. The speaker moves on to her next argument as she remains undeterred by the multiple questions of the bench.. However, the heat of the competition seems to be getting to the speaker and even a sip of water doesn’t help as she continues to fumble. The bench raises questions about farmer suicides and control of industries. The time has run out and after multiple extensions, the applicant tries her best to answer the queries of the bench.

Speaker 1 (Respondent) - 12:50PM

The speaker seeks permission to move to the facts of the case but is asked to move on to the arguments. The bench does not seem to be satisfied by the first argument of the speaker. However she cleverly dodges the questions of the bench. The bench seems to be much more hotter in the case of the respondents. The speaker proceeds with her argument but the bench interjects again and cites a few cases from their side.

The second issue seems to be going much better for the respondents. The bench seems much more relaxed. Wait! The questions have started again and the speaker is trying her best to answer them. The speaker is still answering as the time runs out. An extension of time is granted. The bench raises question about the loss of biodiversity that the agent is unable to answer.

Speaker 2 (Respondent)-  1:14

The speaker starts off by stating various statutory provisions that prove the stance taken by respondents.The bench and the agent are involved in a mini argument as they cherry pick facts from the proposition to support their claims and disprove the other.The speaker is trying her best to satisfy the bench but the bench does not seem to be satisfied.

The bench poses more questions and cites various United Nations agreements, forcing the speaker to fumble and take advice from here co-agent. However even after discussing with the co-agents the speaker pleads ignorance. It seems that as time goes on the bench becomes hotter and hotter. There is a rapid fire of questions. The speaker answers some and cleverly avoids the rest. As the time is running out the speaker quickens her pace to get through the rest of her arguments but it is not enough and the time runs out midway through her last argument. A time extension is pleaded for and granted by the bench. The speaker tries her best to answer a question posed by the bench and then quickly concludes and moves on to the prayer.

Rebuttal- 1:39 PM

Two minutes are granted by the bench for the rebuttals. The speaker for the applicants start tackling the respondents argument issue by issue. The speaker asks for a very short extension and quickly concludes her rebuttals. Similar approach is taken by the respondents, going through the arguments from the other side one by one.They are also granted a 30 second extension, and the speaker confidently concludes her rebuttals. The round concludes.



Court Room-14

T-32(Applicant) v. T-19(Respondent)

Speaker 1 (Applicant)- 12:18

The first speaker begins the proceedings with the issues that have been raised in the case. However, he is taken off guard as the judges immediately throw a volley of questions at him. The bench seems to dispute the authenticity of the facts that have been stated and is constantly asking for references and authorities to validate the arguments that have been raised so far.  While, the judges seem unsatisfied, the speaker doesn’t seem to be too concerned. The judges ask the speaker to move on to the next issue, however the adamant yet calm speaker, confidently continues to cover up for the mis-stated facts.

The agent begins the second issue with strong accusations against the Union of Boressia. They accuse the country of dumping waste and polluting the environment. The speaker emphasises on the fragile environment of the island. He is being questioned on empirical evidences as he tries to emphasise on the importance of previous judgements. The agent, tries to provide as much evidence as possible to establish his argument, as his time runs out.

Speaker 2 (Applicant): 12.28

The speaker calmly and confidently approaches the dias. However all that calmness fades slowly as she fumbles through her pages. Her mannerisms are devoid of the confidence that her walk to the dias, displayed. The inaudible agent fails to provide any concrete evidence or proof to support her argument. She begins her new submission with a renewed confidence. She makes strong accusations against the respondent and blames them for harming the interests of the applicant by not using alternative energy sources. However, due to paucity of time, the speaker requests permission to summarise the next argument. She makes a strong appeal demanding compensation, yet the judges do not seem convinced with the argument. The agent fails to provide strong replies and definite references and denies knowledge of the first contention that was raised by the Applicants.

Speaker 1 (Respondent)  12.44

The speaker calmly guides the judges over the facts of the case and the issues that have been identified by the Respondents. However, she fumbles and fails to provide convincing replies to the judges, who have labeled the case laws as ‘irrelevant’.  Therefore, she is forced to move on to her next submission. She contends that there is no violation of international law by stating multiple cases. She requests for an extension, which the judges grant. She uses these last few seconds to reaffirm her argument, that her respondents are not liable.  

Speaker 2 (Respondent) 1.02

The speaker confidently begins her submissions. She blames various other sources for the pollution that has been caused and denies any responsibility of the Republic of Boranda. She provides comprehensive reports and relevant documents to the Judges, to substantiate her claims.In the final submission of the Respondents, the Agent took the defence that her country invested in the development of the island and therefore cannot be accused of causing any harm. She ends the arguments on a good note as the judges seem content.

Rebuttal 1:15

The speakers from both sides continued to accuse each other, in a heated rebuttal session. However, an extremely apologetic respondent agent continued to read through her documents to the unimpressed judges.



Court Room - 15

12:10 PM – 2:30 PM

TC 17 (Applicant) v. TC 44 (Respondent)

Speaker 01 (Applicants) 12:13 PM:

The speaker begins by stating the facts and puts forward a map of the country of Aressia, which raises questions on the legitimacy of the map. The speaker satisfies the judges by his answers. The speaker seems to be well-versed with the facts of the case and is using every small detail in his favour. He seems to have lost track of time in his zest to state the facts, though.  After 7 minutes, the speaker has finally moved on to presenting the arguments. The researcher on Team 17’s behalf is continuously presenting data to the judges. The judges put forward questions that the speaker is not able to satisfy. The facts that the speaker is referring to fail to corroborate his arguments. The judges have found the chink in his armour and leave no opportunity to wound him. As he beats about the bush, he is rapidly losing time. Further documents are passed to the judges as a proof for the example being cited by the speaker. In a false move, the speaker rolls his eyes and is noticed by the judges, trouble in paradise?. The speaker seems to be having a really hard time in backing up his assertions. It seems that his arguments are based more on self-imposed laws rather than statute laws. The judges are further pointing out that the sources used by the applicants are questionable. Interestingly, the speaker just gave up one of his facts as false, the plot thickens! With 20 seconds left, speaker moves on to summarising his arguments. As pointed out by the judges, his arguments are filled with ‘mights’ rather than facts. Faced with the last bell, he despondently leaves the dais.

Speaker 02 (Applicants):

The judges in a moment of lightness ask to be called as ‘your ladyships’ by the speaker. It has made the silent room less ominous. After this, the judges volley questions at the speaker. The judges are questioning the speaker about his legal basis and the speaker disappoints them with his vague answers. The judges are not satisfied by the application of certain laws and the speaker is unable to answer their questions. Multiple notes are being passed by the researcher to the speaker and the speaker finally seems to gain some strong foundation for his argument which he soon loses. Speaker’s next argument is with regards to trans-border pollution issues. He seems to have misunderstood the question asked by the judges and gets interrupted for the same. The bench points out that the speaker’s arguments lack necessary backing by facts and laws and cannot be relied upon. And the time is up. The judges have granted the speaker two minutes to wrap up his line of argument. The judges, finding it hard not to point out the faults in his arguments, further interrupt him with their questions. The speaker leaves unable to answer the last question of the judge.

Speaker 01 (Respondents) 01:25 PM:

The speaker starts by stating the summary of arguments and is asked by the judges to directly move on to the arguments. The judge asks a very basic question to the speaker, who appears to misunderstand it and is unable to overcome the initial hurdle. He seems to be having a hard time at the dais. With two minutes left, the speaker’s arguments haven’t proceeded much further. The judges seem to have adopted a new manner of questioning, instead of waiting for the rebuttals, they ask the speaker to rebut one of the applicant’s argument. The judge points out that the speaker cannot use his own statements as basis behind his arguments. It can be safely stated that most of the speaker’s assertions were held as logically weak by the judges and largely backfired on him. The court clerk rings the bell indicating that the speaker’s time is over. The judges further ask various questions that the speaker is unable to answer in a satisfactory manner. He seems to be at a loss of words. Another bell from the court clerk. The speaker desperately needs to  keep a check on time. The judges openly state that the speaker has forward his assertions based on mere imagination and nothing else. After a third bell, the speaker finally leaves the dais.

Speaker 02 (Respondents):

The speaker starts by stating what the applicants have said against them. On being questioned, he answers calmly and seems to have satisfied the judges. A question that Speaker 1 was unable to answer is put to Speaker 2. The speaker just fell into a trap of his own words and it was immediately pointed out by the judges. He seems to be having a hard time recovering from the fall he had there. The court clerk rang the bell and it seems that the sands of time are quickly slipping from the hands of the speaker. The court clerk rings the bell and indicates that there is no more time left. The speaker pleads for an extension and continues speaking. Documents are passed to the judges from the researcher and it further backfires on the speaker as the judge find faults in it. The judges point out that the statutory laws stated by the speaker don’t apply on the issues at hand. The judges seem dissatisfied by the arguments of the speaker and give 30 seconds to the speaker to wrap up. The speaker ultimately ends with the prayer for relief.

Rebuttals 02:28 PM:

The speaker from the applicant’s side states his rebuttal in points. Speaker from the respondent’s side attempts to criticize the whole case as presented by the applicants but is interrupted. The bench points out that it seems as though he did not hear what was stated by the speaker from applicant’s side. He is at a loss for words.  The round comes to an end.



Courtroom No.: 7; Preliminary Rounds I

 12:00 pm- 1:30 pm.

Applicant (TC 39) V. Respondent (TC 6)

The judges have arrived! May the odds be in ever in your favor fellas.

Speaker 1 (Applicants) (15 minutes)

12:10 PM

After obtaining permission from the judges to start, the speaker starts with greeting the bench and intimating them of the time breakup. The agent moves directly to the issues. The speaker is fluent in his speech and seems confident. First query in, and the speaker fails to persuade the judges. He proceeds to clarify minor queries and gains the approval of the judges. The judges ask the speaker about the law he has referred to and he fumbles slightly but ultimately manages to convince them. He gets interrupted yet again, with the bench calling him out on his reliance on assumptions rather than facts. The speaker tries his best to answer but by the looks of it, the judges aren’t assured just yet. He asks for an extension of time and is allowed a 2-minute extension to wind up his contentions. The speaker answers the last query but the judges seem skeptical.

Speaker 2 (Applicants) (13 minutes):

The speaker starts with greeting the judges and opens up his contention on the third issue from the applicants’ side. He lacks coherence and keeps fumbling and stuttering in his speech. Within only 2 minutes of his speech, he has been interrupted four times by the judges. This disturbs his composure and he slightly panics which leads to an increased pace and fumbling. The judges bombard him with questions and despite a slight confusion on his part he seems to have answered satisfactorily. The courtroom proceedings have picked up the pace and the reporter can feel tension building up in the room. The room’s temperature is rivaling Raipur’s heat. Stay tuned to know who wins! Unlike the first speaker who wasn’t asked many questions, the second speaker is being asked several questions making it an interesting interaction between the agent and the bench. The time’s up but the speaker continues speaking without asking for extension. The judges interrupt him during the prayer and he seems to answer convincingly.

Speaker 1 (Respondents) (14 minutes)

12:45 PM

The speaker starts by greeting the bench and providing them with the time breakup for the respondents’ speech. Her voice is too soft and the judges ask her to raise it a bit (Ladies, you gotta be loud to have your voices heard. Hashtag Just Feminist Commentary Things). She starts with the issues and gets interrupted within one minute of her speech, gets interrupted again while answering and yet again during the follow up, yet keeps her composure. The speaker has a fluent speech and answers the clarifications raised confidently, but the judges seem skeptical and acknowledge her answers with a dry and unenthusiastic ‘ok’. You just can’t have everything you wish for. Such is life. The judges ask another question which she tries to answer by referring to several international treaties, agreement and cases. The speaker has a low pace and is able to start her second contention with only 2 minutes in hand. Continues arguing on her second issue, even when the time ends. She seems to have no regard for the time limit and is speaking without permission for extension. The speaker is reminded that the time is up but she still tries to present another submission which doesn’t go down well with the judges. Clearly, hunger pangs outweigh closing arguments.

Speaker 2 (Respondents) (14 minutes):

The speaker opens up his contention on the third issue from the respondents’ side. The judges interrupt and seek some clarifications regarding the facts of the case which he answers and proceeds to present his contentions. The speaker refers to his co-counsel’s speech and his compendium several times developing a causal link between the facts of the case. He certainly seems to know the law he is dealing with. The judges point out some inconsistency between the respondents’ conduct and their contentions. The speaker tries to tie all such loopholes and the judges seem convinced. The speaker is extremely thorough with his contentions and keeps passing documented evidence to support his case to the bench. Reporter comments: If he keeps going at this rate, he’ll give Harvey Specter a run for his money (We are inclined to say ‘too farfetched’ but we are not the judge so spare us y’all). The judges are going through his contentions in the memo and compendium and seem impressed. Another question about the merits of the case is asked. The speaker seems to be thrown off by the question and starts fumbling unlike the rest of his speech (Okay, the reporter takes her comments back). The judges seek a number of clarifications following up their original question which throws him off even further. In the end, he manages to answer the question but the judges don’t seem satisfied. The time is up with one whole contention yet to be submitted. He asks for extension and the judges agree unwillingly (Them hunger pangs again!). Finally done with his speech he proceeds to the prayer.  

Rebuttals (2 minutes)

1:25 PM

The agent for the applicants lists outs the arguments presented by the respondents and proceeds to rebut them one by one. The speaker rebuts by reiterating his original argument and refers to cases and facts of the case. He manages to rebut two out of the four contentions presented by the respondent before the time runs out.

Sur-rebuttals (2 minutes):

The agent for the respondents starts by rebutting the applicants’ first contention but doesn’t seem too confident. She isn’t able to finish her rebuttals as the time’s up and the judges don’t allow extension.


Courtroom 11 (Moot Court Hall- 3)

(11:30 am-2:00 pm)

TC 14 (Applicant) v.  TC 27 (Respondent)


The Judges have arrived. Let the games begin



Speaker 1- 12:14pm  

The Judges start off on a light note, taking time to carefully evaluate all documents before them. Judges asked the speakers to be confident and loud. The counsel started with confidence, but is stumbling soon enough as the judges asked her to summarize 5 key facts.

The ‘agent’ starts strongly, disregarding the claims of the other side, and soon slides into a quagmire of defining every word she uses. It seems she has created a landslide for herself, being forced to go into international law basics like Oppenheim and Kelsen. The bench chides her for making a reference to H.O.Agarwal. The Speaker’s mispronunciations provide enough smiles on the faces of the judges. She fumbles and stammers her way through arguments, and tries her best to satisfy the Court that indeed a divine intervention has taken place. However, the Bench is not satisfied, and asks her to move on. But the ‘agent’ persists.

In answer to the judge’s question, the speaker concedes points in favour of the respondents before realising her mistake, and is unable to provide case laws or examples to substantiate her arguments. A fabrication of the facts begins which the judges promptly point out and remind her that it is a court of law and arguments must be based on the law and facts, not mere arguendo. The respondents soon enough, enter into a frenzy to compose themselves. The bench asks her to calm down and continue after collecting her thoughts. It is commendable how the speaker is still fighting, even though the note of confidence in her voice is gone. By listening to the speaker, one gets a sense of Déja vu since the speaker has again slid into definitions of islands, states, high seas, contiguous zones aided by H.O.Agarwal.

The barrage of terms aides the Bench in promising the speaker that no more questions shall be posed. However, like all promises, this too is broken and the bench decided to give the same amount of extra time to the respondents.

Speaker 2- 12:38:

The speaker starts in a mellow tone and the judges ask her to speak up. The counsel obliged by addressing the bench as ‘Lordships’, and she is corrected by the judges but instead proceeds to address them by the speed of lightning as ‘your Expediency’. After a question from the judges, the speaker was visibly so perplexed that the judges asked the speaker to approach the bench with the answer after the round is over. The counsel seems to have been confused about Art. 38, which is dealt with in detail by the Bench, which the counsel affirms with a ‘yeah’. The Rest of the team looks bored and the speaker has to look twice towards the researcher before he responds.

Instead of referring to the compendium, the team keeps referring to their memo, which the judges object to. Both the speakers have impeccable court manners, with minimal hand movements. No ties are being made between facts and laws, while references have been made to ‘certain’ treaties, ‘specific’ cases and ‘some’ articles. Upon being asked to specify, the counsel has moved on to parallel documents, including the UNCLOS citing damage to high seas once again. The Judges refuse to accept such documents due to lack of substantiation.

The Judges are asking the speaker to speed up, which she refuses to do. It seems as if this courtroom has been transformed into a viva session, where the speaker is stumbling her way through. The bench has been compelled to summarize her arguments, due to paucity of time. The speaker has moved into a rant about the lack of industries in India (the Prime Minister may please take note). The Judges praised her on the logic, but keep requesting for laws and facts, which the speaker interprets by giving newspaper reports. The speaker is now possessed by Arnab, minus the shouting. She keeps pointing at the Bench, which has started to bother them. The bench is extremely polite and asks her to quickly wrap it up. The speaker shifts to directing that the court ‘should’ accept the activities of the applicant and ‘must’ grant relief ‘immediately’. The court opens a question to all participants, which is answered by none. The applicants have taken almost 10 minutes extra to hammer the plight of their applicant in the judges’ mind, without any suitable case laws. Time management leaves much to be desired.

Respondent (1:01-1:55 pm)

Speaker 1- 13:01

The speaker starts suavely with introducing himself and his co-counsel and the judges are satisfied when their immediate volley of questions are answered in a calm demeanour. The bench starts askes the same questions posed to the applicants, which the speaker answers calmly. The speaker is rarely referring to his material, choosing instead to speak confidently by mental notes. There is ample referencing to the compromis and even the clarifications, but none to their compendium. The verbal reference to cases along with proper substantiation seems to satisfy the judges. Upon being asked, there is a prompt referral to their compendium. He seems to have recovered his composition, fielding questions carefully, not beating around the bush. The Courtroom has heated up with constant back and forth statements from the judges and the speaker. The speaker has prompt case laws and analogies at his disposal. Upon a particularly difficult contemporary affairs question by the bench, the speaker quietly waits at the side while the researcher scribbles furiously.

However, the confidence seems to have worked against him, as he starts interrupting the bench in a bid to finish fast. Upon being asked whether NGO reports have any value, the speaker specifies that it has ‘some uncertain value’ and ‘must be considered’. Upon being asked whether it has ‘persuasive value’, the counsel starts arguing on behalf of the applicants completely disregarding the question itself. When the bench asks him to conclude, the speaker instead graciously asks his co-counsel to do so. Forget bullets, this guy can dodge missiles with ease.

Speaker 2- 13:28

Due to paucity of time, the judges ask him to conclude within 5 minutes, to which the speaker replies by stating that he would take at least 4 minutes.  This inability to improvise begins to irk the bench. The speaker is extremely polite and is slow and collected, while detailing nicely on the important submissions. The arguments are well structured and rounded off with proper citations. The questions of the Bench don’t seem to bother him, and pat comes every reply.

The speaker frequently mentions submissions of the applicant and refutes them with relevant conventions. It seems that the Bench has begun questioning with renewed vigour. The Bench has forgotten time limits as the speaker is constantly being questioned with scarce time for answers, until he is forced to plead ignorance for a series of questions. The speaker is still as cool as a cucumber, pleading ignorance with swag. The applicants have lost their cool however, with the researcher frantically gesturing to his teammates.


Rebuttals 1:55 pm

Applicant: -

The rebuttal started with the bench reminding the participants to stick to the references made by the other sideInstead of dealing with the claims made by the respondents, the applicant speaker concludes their own submissions. When asked by the bench to address the question that had been asked previously at the end of the 1st speaker’s speech, the counsel replied that she’d forgotten it, which was brushed aside by the bench.

The respondents continued with their previous approach, but quickly moved into negating their own arguments and were saved by the bench when they asked a question, signalling that he was shocking them. All in all, it was rounded off nicely by the speaker.

PRELIMINARY ROUND 1: 12:12 pm - 2:04 pm

Court room: 4

TC12 ( Applicant) v. TC26 (Respondent)

Speaker 1 (Applicant): 12:12 PM

The speaker kicks off the proceeding by narrating the facts of the case. However, the judges seem unsatisfied and have a few problems with the way the applicants have interpreted the facts.The judges question the agent on the geographical conditions of the Republic of Boressia. The Speaker entertains these queries with a brief reply and moves on to the first contention. Tha agent stresses on the fact that the island has no navigation systems in place.However, the judges do not seem to be convinced with the argument and therefore they request the speaker to summarise the contention.

The Speaker runs out of time due to the volley of questions thrown by the judges. Therefore, the considerate bench provides a five minute extension to figure out if the applicants want to keep the island as a ‘no man land’.

Speaker 2(Applicant):

The speaker brings to the notice of the bench that there has been a serious violation of various principles of international law, like the principle of sustainable development. The judges however point out to the fact that the Republic of Boressia is dependent on fossil fuel for their development. To this, the speaker replied that the effect of the industries should be within the territory of the country but in this case, the effects have been felt outside the territory, which has caused the damage of ships. The speaker further used scientific reports to prove that 60% of the Sulphur could be traced back to the Respondent Party.  In the last few minutes, the applicants provided alternative solutions to the industries of Boressia, such as improving the Agricultural sector.

Speaker 1 (Respondent): 1:10 PM

While opening the respondent case, the agent was not provided any time to settle into the speech. He was asked by the bench to start his speech by summarising the facts within a minute. After a quick summary, the Agent begins his arguments. However the judges requested the agent to clarify if the arguments were made in the pre tsunami or the post tsunami context. Since the arguments centred around the post-tsunami context, the bench raised important questions on the condition of the island before the tsunami. The Respondents justified the establishment of the military base as a sovereign right of their country.

The time runs out as the agent is left with the entirety of the second contention. Therefore, the bench provides an extension to the speaker to summarise the second issue. The summary, however did not seem to satisfy the bench.

Speaker 2 (Respondent):

While dealing with the last two issues, the speaker contended that there has been no harm caused. Therefore, it was argued that the respondents were not liable to provide compensation The agent relied on Article 2, to establish the same. Further, he stressed on the devastating effect of the 2012 Tsunami that led to the collapse of the economy. This was provided as a justification by the last speaker, for the fossil fuel consumption.

They denied any responsibility of causing pollution due to the release of Sulphur Dioxide. However, the bench did not seem convinced with the argument. The respondents continued to maintain that action cannot be instituted at this stage, as the applicants have failed to prove any direct link with the fossil fuel consumption and the harm caused to the applicants.

Rebuttal: 2:00 PM

The Rebuttal round lasted for only 2 minutes. Both teams have been flummoxed by the questions thrown by the judges.  The Respondents pleaded the lack of research provided on the subject matter while the applicant’s plea were in silence. With this, the first preliminary round comes to an end, and the clear winner of the rebuttal round was the judges.


Preliminary Round 2- 3:17pm to 4:45pm


Court Room - 4

TC 04 (Applicant) v. TC 02 (Respondent)

Speaker 1 (Applicant) 3:20pm

The bench interposes the first speaker’s arguments in the very first minute of her speech. She was not able to tackle the first wave of questions. 30 seconds time got over and the speaker was asked to move forward the contention. It seems as if the speaker 1 is not well prepared. Since contention 1 was not having any relevant grounds,teh bench asked speaker 1 to move on with contention 2.  The judges point out the fact that the Applicants have failed to provide any of the article, law and cases to support their cause in the second issue. The Speaker was ignorant about the law when questioned about Article 136. However, ignorance is never an excuse,as an unsatisfied bench requested the speaker to conclude.

Speaker 2( Applicant) 3:37pm

Before the speaker could advance to her contentions, the bench raised many theoretical questions which were not answered satisfactorily. Further, she claimed that the island belongs to them before it submerged. However the bench repeatedly asked for proof of such assertions. The speaker failed to provide any evidence to substantiate her claim. The applicants further claim that the military base has led to exploitation of resources and has damaged the environment. The bench asked the applicants to prove that the release of Sulphur dioxide is the cause of Air pollution. The bench does not seem content with the responses that were provided to them.

Speaker 1 ( Respondent) 3:57pm

The Speaker grabs the attention of the judges with a well structured beginning. The bench interrupted the speaker and questioned the agent, if the sovereign right actually existed at the time, contended by the Respondents. The Respondents emphasised on the natives of the island. However, the speaker failed to answer the questions of the judges.

The speaker humbly requested the judges to move on to the second issue, if the bench had been convinced. However, an unconvinced bench made their dissatisfaction explicit, yet allowed the speaker to continue.The speaker hurriedly tried to prove that the Respondents had taken precautionary measure to prevent the leak of Sulphur dioxide. Yet again, they have no authorities to substantiate their assertions.  Due to paucity of time, the bench asks the speaker to provide a summary of the arguments.

Speaker 2 (Respondent) 4:25pm

The final speaker provides a refreshing change to the tone of the hearing. She displays those widely sought after mooting characteristics- Composure,Calmness and Confidence. The bench bench seems to be convinced with her initial submission.  She moves on to contention 2, where she meets a volley of questions on sustainable development. She makes me reconsider all the praise that I have showered as she falters and fumbles to satisfy the bench with the present situation of the island.She tries to dodge the remaining questions posed by the bench. In the dying moments, she seeks permission to summarise the case for respondents.

Rebuttal: 4:44pm

The rebuttal round did not witness any clash between the teams. They accused each other for not providing enough evidence.Both teams disagreed on this, while the Judges completely agreed, as Round 2 comes to a close.

Court Room 3

TC 06 (Applicants) vs TC 14 (Respondents)

Speaker 1 (Applicants)- 3:22

The first speaker seeks permission to approach the podium. As the permission is granted she begins her arguments. She presents the bench with the compendium of documents that they have made. She speaks slowly but confidently, taking her time to explain each arguments. At this point the bench interjects and poses a question. The agent calmly answers which seem to satisfy the bench. After the agent makes few more of her arguments the bench tries to test the speaker by asking more questions. Again, the agent seems to be able to answer the queries easily. The bench seems mostly satisfied with the answers. The way that the agent speaks shows the organised nature of her arguments. Even constant enquiry by the bench does not make her falter. She goes on to mention some international conventions and cases and then concludes her part of the arguments.

Speaker 2 (Applicants)

The speaker informs the bench that he will be dealing with the third and fourth issues. The Speaker continues to show the same confidence and composure shown by the first speaker. He quotes some reports and cases which leads to a round of questioning. He answers the questions with the help of the compendium. As the questions of the bench are being answered by the agent, the researcher is passing notes to the agent on behalf of the team to help him through the queries. The speaker also cites certain statutory provisions of foreign countries concerned with the present case which seems to satisfy the bench. The agent concludes the submission of the applicants with the prayer for relief.

Speaker 1 (Respondents) - 3:55 PM

The bench takes their time to go through some of the documents and then asks the agent to move on with the arguments. Soon after the agent began her argument, the bench interjects and asks a question. As the speaker is answering the question, the bench, unable to fully comprehend the respondents arguments, requests the agent to explain again. The agent complies and cites the opinions of renowned jurists. These opinions are strengthened with the help of case laws mentioned in their compendium.

The agent seems to maintain a good pace and continues to wade through the barrage of questions posed by the bench. The time has run out and multiple extensions are granted to the agent. In the time given, the speaker talks about the absence of any harm to environment because of any activity on their part and then passes the podium to her co-agent.

Speaker 2 (Respondents)

The second speaker will be dealing with the issues three and four. The bench has not lost any of their fervour from the last speaker and immediately start posing questions to the agent. For the first few minutes the agent rightly answers the queries but she seems to be lacking the same conviction for her last few answers. The speaker seems to be trying to get her composure back and to some extent she has succeeded. There is a to and fro of questions from the bench and answers from the speaker. In the dying seconds of her speech the speaker seems to fumble a bit but she quickly moves on to the prayer.

Rebuttals: 4:31 PM

Two  minutes are given to each team for their rebuttals. The appellants go through the arguments presented by the respondents one by one and presents the bench with some documents to help with their rebuttals. The respondents side has a very quick rebuttal and do not utilise all of their time. The round comes to a close.

Court Room 4

Speaker 1 (Applicant):3.25

Speaker 1 begins the proceedings of round 2 by seeking permission to approach the dias. She starts her speech by identifying issues.The speaker admits that there exists no treaty or authority by which Aressia exercises control over the island. Mark Twain has wisely said that ignorance and confidence can make a man successful. Going for success, the agent confidently ignores the queries of the judges. Unfortunately for her, the judges realise that she has dodged their questions.  This realisation has led to a string of questions regarding the second issue. The speaker is racing against time to convince the unsatisfied judges.

Speaker 2(Applicant):3.34

The last speaker representing the Applicants, is off to a steady start with her graceful mannerisms. She begins her speech with strong accusations levelled against the respondents. Further, she claims that the underlying reason for the pollution is the release of Sulphur Dioxide. However, she has not provided any link between the pollution and the respondents. The judges have recognised this and question her on the same. The agent relies strongly on assumptions and the absence of legal backing to her assertions has not gone down well with the bench. They request the speaker to move on to the next issue.

Blaming the respondents of causing acid rains, the agent talks about the responsibility of nations to protect the environment. On being asked about the exception to this principle, the speaker’s ignorance is clear from the stuttering and stammering. She is constantly being swayed by the tricky analogies posed by the judges. However, she rebuilds her shaky confidence to comeback with a solid response and conclude her well reasoned arguments. Due to paucity of time, the judges deny her the opportunity to submit the prayer for relief on behalf of the applicants.

Speaker 1(Respondent):


The Agent on behalf of the respondents begins the case for respondents with the division of issues between the first and second speaker.  The speaker traces the laws of acquisition from the rules of Roman Law, to substantiate the respondent's valid claim. Further, the agent contends that maps cannot be held as proof of legal demarcation of territory. However, the judges point to the fact that the impugned rules of Roman Law are outdated and draw assumptions from the fact proposition to question the claim of the Respondents. This is unfortunately met, with  silence and the odd stammer. The judges’ suggestion of adjournment, the annoyed rolling of the eye and the volley of questions hint at the fact that the bench does not seem to be particularly satisfied with the first speaker's argument. Due to paucity of time, the speaker fails to complete her arguments..

Speaker 2(Respondent):


The Agent claims that the State has a sovereign right to exploit the resources of the island. This argument is convincingly crafted using the principles of the Stockholm declaration. The speaker moves on to talk about the usage of technology to ensure the protection of the environment. He builds various analogies to justify his argument, however the judges rebut him on the legal points. The Speaker adamantly sticks to his arguments by citing certain reports, yet he fails to vouch for their authenticity. Racing against time, he moves very fast with the arguments, which results in the misunderstanding of the question posed by the Bench. The ending has left the judges confused, as the agent fails to beat the clock.


The Applicants begin the round of rebuttal. They level ugly accusations such as misrepresenting and manipulation of facts by the respondent. She reminds the bench of the fact that the respondents have failed to provide substantial evidence.

The respondents are really playing a team game here. Speaker 2 begins the rebuttal session but fails to get her argument across, so speaker 1 requests the bench and steps in. With this, Round 2 ends.

Court Room - 1

(3:25 PM- 4:34 PM)

TC 15 (Applicant) v. TC 38 (Respondent)  

Speaker 1 (Applicant) 3:25 PM:

The first speaker starts by introducing herself and the briefly explains the arguments that will be dealt by her and her co-agent. She seems confident and starts with her arguments and provides the bench with relevant judgments to support her argument. The speaker is asked by the judge to clarify her stand as an agent and ask whether a sovereign nation is allowed to annex other country. The speaker engages the judge artfully by tying the explanation with her arguments.

The speaker mentions a provision of UNDHR report to support her argument. The speaker’s argument mentions cultural environment, the judge interjects and ask whether the speaker is aware of the difference between the natural and cultural environment. The speaker handles the question confidently, and mentions the provisions of the relevant UN Convention. The judges seem to be wary if the agent is trying to mislead the bench, but the speaker clarifies her stand and seeks apology for the same.

Speaker also engages in the provision of Vienna convention, the judge keeps interrupting her by defining the terms used by the her and she successfully deals with such interjections.

She explains the nature of the land of Boressia, which is fragile and should be protected, the construction of military base is straightaway wrong. It leads to destruction of marine life and hampers the environment as a whole. The speaker contends the nonexistence of any sovereign right of any nation on Boressia, and violation of the environment laws needs to be looked into.

The speaker seeks for 30 seconds extra time and is given the same. The speaker concludes her arguments.

Speaker 2 (Applicant) 03:40 PM: the speaker mentions the contentions he would be dealing with d, the speaker takes the calm path and contends maintaining his composure. The speaker deals with the Transboundary harm and says that there exists a violation of environment law. The speaker loses his initial temp and fumbles in certain patches of his speech. The bench asks for clarification of the facts given in the moot problem.

The bench seems to be dissatisfied with the arguments given by the agent apparent by the slight nod and frown on their faces. The bench asks the agent to clarify the assumptions of the agent. He tries to explain the economy of Aressia as he is running short of time he tries to sum up with his fist contention. The agent moves to the fourth submission of the applicants. The agent once again explains the former three arguments of the applicants.

The speaker asks the panel to refer to the memo, he is well aware of the submissions which is quite apparent. The judge asks the speaker to explain different liabilities- strict and absolute liability. The bench does not stop here and asks the agent to give an example of the same, rather the case which established such liability. The speaker gives the definition of Public sector industries given in Boranda municipal law and tries to clear his stand. The financial aid of Boressia is a major issue in the instant case. Due to paucity of time the speaker is stopped midway and is requested to summarize.

Speaker 1 (Respondent) 03:55 PM: The agent starts his opening statement but is interrupted by the bench and asked to proceed towards his arguments. He starts by justifying the claim of Boressia on Borsi island. He ties his argument with relevant cases and asks to read the same from the memo of the respondents. The persuasive value of the judgments is noted by the judges. The judge asks about using maps to establish sovereignty, but the agent provides various arguments to establish the biases and non-reliability of the maps for territorial and sovereignty issues.

The respondent flusters and this pushes the bench to ask question and the inability to answer.

The judges discuss between themselves about the arguments of the respondent and there is an air of unease and nervousness. The counsel asks whether there are any queries regarding the first issue, the bench answers in negative. The speaker moves to his second argument.

The speaker pleads for extension of time to sum up his argument. The exploration and building of military base is well planned and it has been made sure that there is no harm to the marine life. Hence, military base does no lead to a grave impact on the environment, the first speaker ends his speech with this note.

Speaker 2 (Respondent) 4:12 PM: the agent explains the meaning of transboundary harm. Their contention is that the claims of Boressia is not valid, as it is not clear that the harm in Aressia is caused by emissions of Boranda. The judges ask why was it not notified to the country of Aressia about the emissions in Boranda, environment being a world issue needs support of all the countries.

The speaker tries to answer the question but fails to satisfy the bench. The issue is the link between the environment of one country and the industrial activity of thee other country. The NGO report of Aressia is not convincing enough.

The State of Necessity as a valid defence under various cases is stated by the agent. She tries to link the facts of such cases with the instant case. The economic concern of the land of Boranda required the country to act instantly and come up with a solution. The economic interest was grave and the repercussions would have been immensely horrifying had the exploration not started. The judge asks for a convention provisions regarding the same issue, the counsel pleads unawareness. The speaker is aware of the arguments and continues to speak confidently’ the speaker makes a smooth transition to her fourth argument.

The test of proximity and foreseeability exists to solve the current issue; the farmer suicides were not foreseeable. The judges ask whether he counsel is aware of the Rio declaration. The speaker answers that the Rio declaration is a soft law. also, the customary laws are applied all over the world, hence the applicant stands no chance. The counsel ends on an abrupt note as she is unable to get a time extension.


Applicants- 4:27 PM:

The first speaker of the applicants counters 4-5 issues of the respondents; she pleads that the SO2 emissions are high enough as has been conceded by the respondents. The speaker counters the respondents on different aspect of their arguments. They have come under Art.43 of the ICJ and is against the Art.79 of the statute. Some other issues are also questioned which are given by the respondents in their written pleadings.

Respondents 4:29 PM:

The first speaker of the respondents begins by highlighting the farmer suicides and environment concerns, he contends that suicides might be due to some other reason other than the SO2 emissions by Boranda. He says the military base argument is highly assumptive. The historic right needs to be answered with the question of sovereignty, which was not answered by the applicants.

Both the parties are able to counter each other substantially and leaves the judges in the dilemma as to who merits a better score.

Court Room 15

03:15 PM - 4:50 PM

TC 30 (Applicants) v. TC 13 (Respondents)

Speaker 01 (Applicants) 03:15 PM:

The speaker approaches the dais and is immediately questioned as to whether the bench has the jurisdiction over the case, speaker remains mum. The speaker starts dryly reading the arguments from the memorandum without even looking at the esteemed bench. The judges question a statement in the memorandum presented by the applicants to which the speaker has no response. The speaker seems unsure of herself and of her own memorandum and the judges further ask her the definitions of the words used by her and she finds it necessary to go through her memorandum. The judges further question the speaker and after remaining silent for a few minutes she resumes speaking. It is necessary to note that only five minutes are left and the speaker has not been able to put forward her arguments. The judges permit the speaker to go on with her arguments. With two minutes left and the speaker has not yet completed her first argument. She seems to be in a really tough spot. The court clerk rings the bell to indicate end of allotted time and speaker one returns. It seems as though the judges are not in the mood to let anything slide today.

Speaker 02 (Applicants):

The speaker starts with the second argument and immediately gets interrupted by the judges. The speaker is finding it hard to answer the questions raised by the judges and asks for further clarification of the questions. The judge, in an attempt to determine whether the team has their basics down, asks the speaker to define international law. Again the question of jurisdiction of ICJ is put forward by the judges. In a moment of nervousness, she asks the judges to refer to a part of the memorandum that is inconsistent with the question, and this is duly pointed out by the judges. There is a mistake in documents. The judges point out the flaw in the arguments of the speaker. The judges seem dissatisfied by her arguments. The judges question her about Article 21 of the Indian Constitution but to no avail. We hope she doesn’t lose heart; the performance of the opposing team is yet to be seen.

Speaker 01 (Respondents) 03:34 PM:

The speaker starts well but this joy is short lived as the judges start questioning him. The speaker answers the question well. He seems to be aware of the facts he is using and in a know-it-all moment perhaps suited only to Hermione Granger states the exact page number of the source he is referring to off the top of his head. He has, thus far, not referred to his memorandum. The judges ask further questions that he seems to be answering quite well. The judges seem satisfied with the answers of the speaker. The speaker cites a case in his favour which is accepted by the judges as an authority but they question whether it really is applicable on the case at hand. The speaker still has five minutes left and he hasn’t been able to finish his arguments as of now. Notes are being passed by the researcher, which are being ignored by the speaker. The speaker is again referring to another case but it doesn’t satisfy the judges. The speaker remains calm in the face of the judges’ barrage, a brave soldier in the face of an advancing enemy army. The time extension provided to him ends but he is continues going through his memorandum. The court clerk shows the ‘time over’ sign for the third time and the judges ask the speaker to conclude. The rapid fire questioning carries on. The speaker is finding it hard to answer the questions being raised now. The judges ask the speaker to leave which the speaker does, though quite reluctantly.

Speaker 02 (Respondents):

The speaker starts by stating the arguments she is going to make. The judges, again, ask to be addressed as ‘your ladyships’ with a smile on their faces, The speaker agrees to do so readily, although as she speaks the change in salutation seems to be affecting her presentation of argument. Notes are passed by the researcher, that are ignored brutally like a Facebook friend request from a relative. The question-answer session somehow digresses to the Nagasaki bombing. The speaker is taking her time to go through her documents and further pleads ignorance about the matter. In an attempt to cover the entirety of her case, the speaker seeks permission to move to the second argument. The court clerk presents the ‘time over’ sign which is summarily ignored by the speaker. On being questioned the speaker tries to satisfy the judges with her answer but the lack of conviction is plain on the faces of the judges.

Rebuttal 4:45 PM:

The speaker starts reading from her memorandum, which has already been rejected expressly by the judges. She is asked to rebut the arguments of the respondents which she finds herself unable to do and leaves the dais.  Even, the speaker on behalf of the respondent seems to have not heard the arguments of the other side properly and he apologizes for the same. The judges seem thoroughly unimpressed by the proceedings in this round.


Court Room 6

3:20 PM - 4:50 PM

TC-28  (Applicants) v. TC-11 (Respondents)

Speaker 1 (Applicants) 3:20 PM:

The agent approaches the dais with the permission of the honourable bench. Speaker is directed by the bench to state five facts in favour of their stance in the case. The speaker obliges with this direction, and then goes on to state the legal issues as identified by them in this matter. The speaker begins with her first argument, and opens by defining a term. The bench questions the source of the definition, which the speaker promptly provides. She thereafter goes on to infer the legal consequences of the definition, and how they can be interpreted to support their case. Speaker does so on the basis of an assumption, but this is immediately censured by the bench, citing the legal invalidity of assumptions. The bench further delves into the intricacies of the wordings of the argument to raise a pertinent point, to which the speaker ultimately has to concede. Before the speaker can transition to her second argument, she is further questioned about legal precedents material to their claim. The bench invokes a doctrine, but the speaker refutes its applicability; however, when asked to substantiate her assertion, she falters, and gives frantic glances to her researcher. The researcher passes a note with the name of a relevant case law, however, the judges pejoratively point out how it is missing from the compendium. The judges seem miffed, and ask the speaker to skip to the second argument. The bench again interjects before the speaker makes an utterance, and question her locus to file a case to begin with, brining the very maintainability of the case into question. At this point, the researcher passes another chit to the speaker, but the contents of it bring no respite. The judges seem thoroughly unimpressed, and begin questioning her about about legal theory and philosophy. The speaker attempts to parry with the questions, but the judges remain impassive. Speaker proceeds, alluding to several pieces of legal literature. The judges juxtapose her arguments with real world examples, specifically, of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of the Republic of India. The speaker makes an arguendo, but this is not missed by the bench. The speaker goes on to make several arguments regarding the ecological tenability, or lack thereof, of the material facts. However, the bench has become restive, and dismiss the speaker.

Speaker 2 (Applicant)

The second speaker approaches the roster with the permission of the bench. He begins the with a statement of facts, and there seems to be disagreement between the speaker and the bench on the interpretation of the facts, but this is soon resolved. The bench interjects on a point of facts, preempting a potential argument arriving out of that point, but is interrupted by the agent. This is not well received by the bench, and the agent apologises. The agent gives a half-baked answer, citing a particular legal instrument. The bench asks the agent to define the particular instrument, which the agent does. The agent presents a certain legal authority as being binding on the court. This point is dissected by the bench, and the bench seems cross. One after the other, authorities cited by the speaker are shot down. The court clerk indicates the the speaker has run out of the alloted time, and the speaker seeks extension, which is duly granted. The speaker is further questioned on the adjudicating body of a case cited by the speaker. He is unable to do so, and the bench disregards the entire argument. The bench upbraids the speaker for not directly addressing the questions, and is dismissed by the court.

Speaker 1 (Respondents) 04:01 PM:

The agent approaches the dais, and introduces herself as the agent representing the Republic of Boressia and the Republic of Boranda. The speaker presents the structure of the arguments of the respondents, and begins with her arguments. She argues for the island of Borris to be classified under a certain status, as per a certain doctrine of international law. However, its applicability is questioned by the bench. The bench enquires about the source of the said doctrine. The speaker answers in historical terms, but fails to provide any legal backing. In an etiquette faux pas, she refers to the judges as Their Lordships. The judges shoot a volley of questions regarding etiquette of the International Court of Justice, to all of which she pleads ignorance. The speaker cites an American article, but comes under fire from the bench for lack of credentials, and lack of research on the credentials. The speaker then cites a case of the Supreme Court of the United States, but is unable to provide the same in her compendium, or cite with confidence the adjudicating body. She thereafter refers to European legal theory, which draws flak from the judges. They ask the speaker to allude to international law, not lex loci specific to limited areas.

The bench also advises the speaker to cite authorities with complete research, and to not throw around names with supercilious air. In her next argument, the speaker is pinned by the bench on her choice of words, but the speaker is unable to grasp her fault. To make it apparent, the bench draws an analogy to the the dispute regarding the islands in the South China Sea, to which the agent gives an unwitting answer, inadvertently diluting her own case. The speaker tries to recover by make a distinction between the illustration presented and the facts of the present case, but the judges seem thoroughly unimpressed. The speaker exhausts her time limit, and asks for an extension, which is granted. The speaker cites some frivolous authorities, which lead the judges to question her if there exists any prescribed order of pieces of evidence. The speaker states that there is one, and that it is derived from judicial precedents. However, the expressions of the judges indicate that this answer is incorrect. The speaker is soon dismissed.

Speaker 2 (Respondents)

The speaker is subject to the same question, regarding the difference between a ‘counsel’ and an ‘agent’, which the speaker, though still referring to himself as ‘counsel’, correctly answers to some extent. At the very inception, the agent is questioned regarding a question of law, of the proper adjudicating etiquette in case of a particular conflict, the agent answers that is the the discretion of the court. The bench chuckles, and the agent improvises with a slapdash answer, a technique not novel to HNLU students, in fact one could almost say we invented it. The agent is then asked to produce the facts. The agent seems to make tall claims that do not logically follow from the facts, and this is highlighted by the bench. The bench then asks the agent about the difference between an assumption and an inference, which though he answers correctly, he fails to apply in the follow-up question. The bench reproaches the speaker for making fact-based arguments, not law-based, and disregards the entire argument.

The irony of the situation peaks when an agent relying so heavily on fact-based arguments states incorrect facts. The correct facts are provided by the bench, and the speaker goes on to make his argument. However, the bench remarks the the argument is inherently fallacious, as is is merely tangential to the matter before the court, saying it is ‘like flogging a dead horse’. The agent then tries to shift the liability onto one of the parties represented by him, trying to absolve the other party. However, the judges are bewildered. The court clerk flashes the message indicating that the speaker’s time is over, but the judges are intrigued by the trailing end of the agent’s sentence. He is goes on to speak copiously about the final issue, but the judges simply nod in disapproval.

Rebuttals 04:41 PM:

The agent of the Union of Aressia approaches the dais with vigour to enunciate a point-by-point rebuttal. He states a several facts, however, the judges are unable to discern how they are rebuttals to their adversary’s oral arguments. The agent for the respondents, or, the counsel for Boressia, then takes the dais to parry with a question he was unable to answer earlier, and makes use of vociferous rhetoric. The judges simply smirk in amusement, and the speaker resumes his seat. And so, another round comes to an end.

Court Room 05

3:16 PM - 5:10 PM

Applicant (TC 33) v. Respondent (TC 39)

Speaker 01 (Applicant) 3:18 PM :

The speaker launches into his speech and is immediately interjected by the bench, getting startled and as a result his composure and etiquettes falter. He meticulously looks through his memorandum and several page flips and bouts of awkward silence later, the bench, probably out of the paucity of time and the kindness of their hearts, ask him to move to his issues.

Seemingly gathering his wits, the speaker launches headfirst into the scheme of his arguments and explains the issues that he would be dealing with but this is short lived. The questions being posed to him successfully throw his momentum off. It is all downhill from here. The judges expressly point his folly of not answering the questions satisfactorily, if at all. They repeat their questions and even dilute them to a great extent but the answers offered by the speaker are hardly able to hold a candle to the answers that the bench seek. He is asked to substantiate if the Myth of Aressia is legally admissible or not. The speaker constantly refers to his notes but to no avail, his co-agents’ faces pale every time a new question is posed, the judges are taking no prisoners today!. He is given several time extensions but alas the judges are impassive as ever.

Speaker 02 (Applicant):

At the onset, the speaker  is asked whether she is a counsel or an agent for the Applicant the moment she introduces herself. The Speaker is much more confident and composed in her manner of arguments, quite obviously the MVP of her team! She dexterously moves about her argument, glancing at her notes just enough but not too much, not letting her etiquette slip. She confidently answers the first wave of questions posed to her and manages to get an appreciative nod by the bench. She goes ent on to meticulously deal with the rest of her issues and uses the extensions allotted to her to her advantage. Her co-agents breathing easier watch her sail through her speech, constantly wear encouraging smiles. Meanwhile the respondents listen with rapt attention, making several notes to incorporate in their argument. The speaker is then asked to recite the prayer.

Speaker 01 (Respondent) 4:04 PM:

The speaker begins by quickly explaining the scheme of his arguments and the time distribution and the time allotted for rebuttals. He is soft spoken and assertive and for the same reasons manages to persuade the judges with his arguments. He eases into his argument in a rather structured manner and is thus rather coherent and hardly fumbles. He is asked of the international repercussions of the actions of the Respondent, the question is a twofold one. He breaks down the question and answers point by point and  is quick on his wits by managing to bring back all his answers back ultimately to the contents of his speech. He makes several references to the written submissions and manages to engage the bench actively. A lot of back and forth ensues. But even the mighty fall! He is chided by the bench on evading a question and is asked to be articulate on the same. The bench stresses on the question of the endangered and rare flora and fauna and ask the speaker to elaborate the respondent’s stand on the same. The question sparks an onslaught of questions and the speaker continuously tries to answer the same. He is asked to explain several facts and follow up questions of law are posed. He carefully listens to the elaborations offered by the bench and is asked again to substantiate certain points in his written submissions. The speaker calmly answers the volley of questions and is then asked to conclude his speech.

Speaker 02 (Respondent):

The speaker confidently begins to provide traction to the issues held up by the respondent, as a result of which, the Applicant team begin to scribble furiously for rebuttals later. The judges question him on several technical basis. However, he is confident enough to sail through his speech for the first few minutes of his speech but then a poignant question pertaining to the death of the farmers is posed and the bench criticizes the Respondent’s stand and another question pertaining to the use of fossil fuel is posed to the respondent. The answer is finally accepted by the bench on the basis of necessity. He is then asked to recite the prayer.

Rebuttals 5:00 PM:

The applicants rebut the claim of the respondent by making it known to the bench that there in fact exists a report. The Respondent present a better articulated version wherein they rebut certain points of the Applicant by providing sound reason as evident by the nods of the bench. The rest was merely a bout of the blame game, where they constantly shifted the blame for several things on the Applicants.


Court Room - 2

(3:25pm- 4:57 pm)

TC 01 (Applicant) v. TC 03 (Respondent)  

Speaker 1 (Applicant) 03:27 PM:

The speaker states the issues and moves to the pleadings. The speaker is a little nervous and is fumbling but the judges seem content with the points she is giving.

The Judges ask their first question regarding the military set up by Borresia. Then the next question was fired that the idols can be found anywhere as earlier the island was submerged in the sea.To answer that question the speaker took one minute but after that judges asked researcher to search about that. Then the speaker continued about the mythology of island and Arresia. But the question asked by the judges that is it just the matter of cultural claim.

Speaker is having some difficulty in answering the question and then she submitted that Borsi Island belongs to Arresia and then she moves to her next contention i.e. construction of military base violate international environmental law.

For justifying her stand she asks for extension of time and then she states how a military set is harmful for the environment. The bench proceeds to ask a tricky question whether the applicant would be fine with the presence of the Borrasian military if the military base is shown to not harm the environment. Surprisingly, she agrees to the same and concludes her argument.

Speaker 2 (Applicant) 3:49 PM

The next speaker asked the permission to move to the dais and the she stated her issues. Then she started defending her point by the Article 2 of the Protocol. But judge asked her that is boranada is the signatory of the said protocol and if not then how this will be binding on the Boranada. She said Boranada is not a signatory of such protocol but  art 2 is customary rule that’s why it will be binding on them. So the judges asked the basis of th fact stated that art 2 of the protocol is a customary rule. the speaker was silent at that question then after sometime started her next argument. Then the question was raised regarding the emission of Sulphur Dioxide by Borranda and how it affected the applicant. Then she prayed that the respondent should stop the use of fossil fuels and shift it to somewhere else from the transboundary. But it was questioned that if they will stop that activity it will affect the economy of the Boranada. She gave an unsatisfactory answer then she moved to her next contention and she asked for extra time.

She said no state have a right to practice any exercise which will harm another state. By using that statement she contended that borrasia and boranda is liable for  the compensation. The question was asked by the bench that how much compensation they want? So for that i chit was passed by the researcher and they asked for very less compensation even judges smiled.

After other justifications she moved to the prayer.


Speaker 1 (Respondent) 4:09 PM

The speaker asked permission to move to the dais and the she submitted the compendium to the proposition and the judges. She started with stating the statement of jurisdiction. After that she contended that the borsi land belongs to Borresia. Then she gave a reference of the case New Jersey v. New York, and she contended that borresia has rightfully claimed Borsi island.

The she said that Shalanka was in the west of the Arresia island and the Borsi island is in the east of the arresia. Then she said that the territorial jurisdiction of ansy state is till 12 nautical miles and Borsi land is in the high seas i.e. out of the jurisdiction of Arresia. By by saying that she supported her contention. Then various questions were asked by the the judges regarding that . then she asked for the permission to answer those questions later and then she moved to her next contention.

She said that Borresia is not violating any international env. Law by military base unit as they will take some precautionary care. Later on the judges pointed out that the speaker is going out of the facts and said that this whole setup will harm environment. It was asked that how will the respondent compensate for that. Some other questions were asked by the judges and the speaker has gone through some difficulty in answering those  questions and she tried to neglect them. Then it was again asked that what precautions will be taken by them and have they done any environmental assessment.The speaker remains silent, and fails to answer the questions posed by the bench. She then moves to the conclusion and prayer.

Speaker 2 (Respondent) 4:29pm

The speaker addresses the remaining issues. After hearing the issues, the judges fire some questions and then they point out statements in the memo which are contradictory to the arguments of the speaker.

The speaker confused the capital of Wahali with capital of India and this argument was rejected by the judges.

The speaker seems to face problems in understanding the Judges argument, and it is really hard for judges to make any connection between Ahali and Delhi. The speaker states some statistics which do not have any connection with the given problem. After the time is over the judges ask some question but the answers of the speaker seem to be unsatisfactory.



(Applicant) 4: 50 PM

The first speaker rebutts the contentions of the respondents. The judges ask if the speaker has the answer to the questions which were raised in the first speech of the applicant. She states the historical and cultural claim claims.

(Respondent) 4:54 PM:

The second speaker summarizes the previous arguments of her team.

Game Over.


Prelims 2

Courtroom No. 9

3:15 pm- 4:30 pm

Applicant (TC 09) v. Respondent (TC 17)

Speaker 1 (Applicant) 3:24 pm:

The speaker is very polite and organized with her contentions but going by her expressions, she looks lost, avoiding eye contact with the bench. She repeatedly fidgets with her notes during her arguments. The judges seem to be uninterested while she reads out her issues. The speaker addresses the judges to have a glance at the compendium and explains her arguments slowly. She fumbles with her words and often pauses while speaking. The speaker makes many mistakes regarding the page numbers of the compendium. There’s a notable lack of excitement  which makes the whole scenario of the courtroom very dull. The speaker wraps up her arguments while we shake our snoring reporter out from her slumber.

Speaker 2 (Applicants):

The speaker begins after seeking permission from the judges. She picks up from the 3rd contention. The speaker has a soft voice and speaks very gracefully, and is very expressive with her mannerisms. Maintains a steady eye contact with the judges and seems very confident with her issues. She supports her points with relevant articles and principles, and the judges can’t help but look impressed. The speaker is well versed with her facts and barely glances at her notes. Within short span of time the speaker has covered a significant portion of her arguments, with 7 minutes left on the clock. There’s a slight disturbance from the other speakers but she doesn’t seem to be affected. WIth ample time in hand she wraps up efficiently, summarizing all the points like scene from a movie.

Speaker 1 (Respondents) 3:49 pm:

The speaker starts off too fast albeit very fluent in his approach. He gives off a strong and confident vibe, holding steady eye contact with the judges and puts forward his facts properly without as much as a glance at the sheets in front of him. The change in his tones with the issues in his case is a positive trait, welcomed by the judges as is evident from their amused expressions. The speaker support his points by providing case laws and various example. He handles the queries gracefully and lets no canons loose. Wrapping up, he states his arguments with ease, stressing on the ones which need attention of the judges and leaves seemingly content, much like Kohli after a century.

Speaker 2 (Respondents):

The speaker asks the judges’ permission to start his arguments with a bright smile, one which would make for a great pepsodent commercial. The speaker has a heavy voice and talks curtly, with elaborate hand gestures. The speaker defines various terms in his argument citing articles and examples from past for instance 2012s tsunami. His gaze is firmly focused on the judges, as if analysing their every movement, and guides his speech accordingly. He gently asks for the permission of the bench to move further with his contentions, which is allowed. We don’t know about the judges, but his confidence sure has our reporter floored (the answer to ‘why do women swoon’ is right here people). He implores the judges to glance at the fact sheet for one last time before ending his arguments with a quick summary.

Rebuttal (Applicant) 4:20 pm:

The speaker from the applicants’ side starts by replying to queries by the respondents, point by point. She seems a little unorganized and lost with her facts and soon runs out of time, before covering all the bases. Sadly, no homerun for her today.

Rebuttal (Respondent)

The speaker starts by first retaliating to the rebuttals provided by the applicants. Continuing his speech in an organized manner, he elicits nods from the judges while winding up his address.

Prelims 2:

Courtroom no. : 10

3:10 pm- 4:40 pm

Applicant (TC 35)   v. Respondent (TC 40)

Speaker 1 (Applicant) 3:10 PM:


The speaker’s mannerisms depict not only his confidence but also the clarity of his thoughts. Emphasizing on every word, his eloquence is quite dramatic. His speech is well structured and his initial submissions are accepted by bench undisputed (The quiet before the storm) and we would say we totally called it because as soon as he moves to his next contention, it looks like the judges have opened the pandora’s box of questions. The bench continues to disagree with the speaker’s reasoning and ask the speaker to elaborate on the sources of law. Meanwhile, the judges scolded the respondents for not following the court’s mannerisms. The appellant goes on reading the written submission and is not well versed with the basic laws of the environmental law.

Speaker 2 (Applicant)

The speaker from the very start is fumbling with his words, breaking in nervous sweats. The speaker seems to be doubtful about few pleadings in the beginning. A notable glitch was the speaker referring to a specific article to be present in the compendium which wasn’t really there.  The speaker’s fast pace makes it difficult for the court to comprehend his statements (I would blame it on the sugar rush after that dessert for lunch). Even after the bench asks him to slow down, it doesn’t make a difference. He seems nervous as he struggles with questions about his stance. The bench even assures that they will not be running away. The only prayer made was one by the bench, pleading the speaker to be slower.

Speaker 1 (Respondent) 3:53 PM:

The speaker begins on the confident and self assured note only to be met with a valley of questions from the judges (if only life was THAT simple!).. His demeanor is slightly shaken post the questions, but he answers them all to the satisfaction of the bench, topping all the charts in one go. In a light hearted moment amidst the intense debating on the issue of shalanka island, when asked to procure a copy of this legislation he is citing, the speaker simply claims “it is there in the footnotes” on which the bench asked him the purpose of compendium.

Speaker 2 (Respondent)

The speaker narrates the facts with ease. He begins with contentions, and cites authorities to back arguments he put forth.The speaker is facing some intense questioning regarding general principles in the international environmental law. But the speaker is not backing down much like a knight, trying to answer each and every question smartly and by providing scientific evidences of the same. The speaker is questioned by the judges incessantly but he manages to maintain his composure. He refers to the various cited authorities and attempts to argue there applicability to the facts of the case. The bench doesn’t seem to be convinced entirely by his arguments and highlight a bunch of issues which the respondent still needs to address. His time running out, the judges grant him the much needed time extension and the speaker is able to defend his arguments before he finally rests his case.


4:29 PM

Speaker from the applicant’s side  starts by stating rebuttals to arguments on respondent, point by point. He seems a little unorganised as he sets about his address and time runs out before he can complete his rebuttal speech.

Rebuttals (Respondent)

Speaker from the respondents’ side starts by first listing the rebuttals provided by applicant and then proceeds to refute them one by one. Going about his speech in an organised way, he elicits nods from the judges while winding up the address.


SPEAKER 1 3.25 P.M

Proceedings are underway as the first speaker on behalf of the Respondents takes the dais; the Applicants have withdrawn from the competition and the Respondents are delivering their arguments ex-parte.

The speaker makes a calm and composed start, and he takes in his stride the questioning of the judges. He cites a precedent that amply substantiates the Respondents’ claim. The speaker parries the next few questions with disarming politeness and proceeds with his contentions, making use of the team’s compendium for reference.

The judges grill the speaker on his confusion regarding the exact paragraph of a case cited by him but he pleads ignorance and all is forgiven. Having explained the case satisfactorily, he concludes his first contention on the status of the disputed island. The judges press further by way of analogy, comparing India and China to the two parties in the case.

The allotted time runs out as he gets into the second contention, but the judges are more than happy to allow for additional time. The Speaker brushes off question after question with unwavering composure, including justifying the use of a case not cited in the memorial. At the very end, however, the speaker is subjected to some really tough questioning that finally throw him off guard. Although the speaker must be kicking himself on not ending an impressive performance with a flourish, he must surely pride himself on a commendable performance.


The judges inform the speaker that the additional time granted to the previous speaker will be deducted from his allotted time, but they are considerate enough to overlook it and tell the speaker to take his time.

The speaker begins his first contention regarding the  emission of sulphur dioxide by the industries of the Respondent State. The judges do not find themselves on the same page with the speaker on this issue. The judges are both quite knowledgeable about the subject of law that is being discussed and the speaker finds himself in a soup but is dogged and resolute and does not relent, and eventually argues his way out of it.

The speaker is interrogated on the matter of the absence of an Environmental Impact Assessment on the part of the Respondent State, and again they fail to find any semblance of middle ground on this issue. It is now the Respondents’ turn to hold the actions of China analogous to the actions of the Respondents, as the laws are said to be pari materia for both States. The judges reject this on the grounds of China not being the most trustworthy entities where assessment reports are concerned.


Although the applicants are no longer in the competition, the judges offer the opportunity to the respondents to rebut the arguments made by them in their memorial. It is a sad day for the principle of Audi Alteram Partem as the first speaker very swiftly makes rebuttals to the first two contentions, and is pushed by the judges to address the remaining two issues as well. Back in his icy cool cast, he takes this in his stride and does a satisfactory job of addressing the other two issues. The judges thank the speaker and with that the Respondents are done for the preliminary rounds.


TC24 (Appellants) v. TC08 (Respondents)



3:19 P.M. Speaker 1

Skipping the facts as per directions of the judges, the speaker begins his speech. He has evidently practiced his court manners well, seeking permission before every minor point and being courteous and exemplifying a seemingly model code of conduct in the court room.

The bench asks the speaker to calm down and speak slower. The speaker seems to be anxious and fidgeting and it is evidenced in his voice and speech. To make matters worse, grammatical flaw regarding his selection of words is pointed out. The judges clearly want to push the speakers to their very best in this round.

The judges seem to be working a one-two punch against the speaker. One judge poses a pertinent question, which is substantiated upon by the other. The speaker seems to have found his footing int this hostile setting and is conversing with the judges efficiently and convincingly.

Impressively, every point put forward by the speaker has been substantiated by citations, case laws, treaties and at the same time, comprehensively put forward through speech and compendium.

The speaker seems to flounder after some quick questions by the judges, but makes a good comeback by turning the question on it’s head by directly blaming the respondents. The judges tell the speaker to wrap up a seemingly important point to the applicants. He seems surprised but quickly moves on to wrap up his speech as he runs out of time.

Unexpectedly, the judges points out the lack of research in the memorandums and speeches of the speaker. The bench seems at the brink of irritation as it has had to sum up the speaker’s arguments for him twice during his arguments, courtesy his anxious stuttering after a string of questions from the bench went insufficiently answered.

The speaker had to run through his speech, understanding that he had taken much more time than he was allotted. In an overview, the team was not off to a impeccable start. DONE


Speaker 2 - 3:42 P.M.

Speaker calmly approaches the dias and sets up the podium with all relevant files and papers. The speaker starts off boldly, with a strong worded speech attacking the respondent’s arguments directly. A commendable point to be noted is that all arguments have been backed by international legal provisions and strong precedents.

The questions of the judges were also answered with references and citations, seemingly impressing the judges. Funnily enough, the respondent team seems to be impressed by the speaker and a hint of worry is evident on their faces.The speaker seems to be invincible- prepared for all questions thrown at him, even before they are put forth to him. All answers are referred to with citations and/or memorandum of the appellants.

The speaker displays commendable oratory skills coupled with sound knowledge of law. He has held the focus and concentration of the whole room. He has clearly set a high standard to match for the respondents by regularly posing questions and substantiating his questions with facts and laws.

The speaker has provided two separate submissions and documents while speaking, relishing the questions posed to him and using them as an opportunity to submit more and more references, probably beyond his compendium which runs into three digit number pages.

The speaker pleads for more time, even after crossing his time limit by ten minutes already. The judges, evidently impressed by arguments advanced allow a few minutes to the speaker to sum up, though telling him to go about it quickly.A rhetorical question to the speaker is answered to the satisfaction and a smile of the judge.


Speaker 1 - 4:03 P.M.

The speaker starts with a strong and persuasive style of speech, confident in her arguments. It takes some time for the judges to find the referred flag and page number. The respondents are told to submit necessary legal provisions and not give simply logical arguments.

An unanswered question is posed to the speaker several times,much to the exasperation of the judges the fourth time. An inability on the part of the judges to find the referred case in the compendium leads to the speaker herself finding and reading the referred provision.

The speaker was put forth several questions relating to the environment and her answers were nods that didn’t reveal much. She has recovered well, backing her argument with several legal provisions and citations. The judges do not wish to let go of the issue of the environment protection and regularly press the respondent to prove before the court the bona fide intention of her client.

The speaker is given several minutes over the limit, given the pertinent questioning by the judges themselves. The respondent seems happy with her performance, so does her team.

Speaker 2 - 4:19 P.M.

The speaker seems to be self-assured and starts off on a good note, only to be stopped by by the bench which seemingly found a incoherence in her speech and the speech of her teammate.

The judges seem to be having a tough time going through the paperwork and compendium of the respondent team. The bench asks for substantiation and the respondents submit a thick leaflet of papers, seemingly happy with for the reports. The happiness was short founded as the bench rules them to be insufficient for the required questions.

The speaker seems to be well versed with her scientific knowledge of pollution, descriptively using science to defend her team.

The bench seems irritated as it has to repeat questions which have gone unanswered by both the speakers of the respondent team. The speaker is put on a spot, yet circumvents the question of law again, and the bench looks visibly displeased by the answers

The bench simply asks the speaker to conclude her arguments.

It is interesting to be noted that all four speakers, of both teams significantly exceeded their allotted time.  Yet, the judges encouraged them to go on  when making their submissions, interested to hear out both the parties and judge them satisfactorily, without giving enough weightage to the time taken.


4:38 P.M.

The bench repeatedly put forward the pertinence of the same question in different forms, giving the speaker time to try and rebut satisfactorily. The speaker for applicant requests for time to rebut some points raised by the respondents, which is allowed by the Bench, but with an instruction to wrap up quickly.

No sur-rebuttals were offered by the Respondents.

Court Room 13


3.25 pm: Prelims Round 2 begins!

TC27 V. TC 12

Applicant TC 27

Speaker 1 : 3:31 pm Taking off with a firm start, the speaker introduces himself with much poise. The bench has asked him to directly jump to the arguments. Displaying clarity of thought as well as voice, he brings to the judges’ attention nuances of the moot problem. He is tactfully navigating questions and also making multi-leveled arguments to prove the idea. The speaker made a decent attempt in explaining the contention but was asked to elaborate more. He continues substantiating and repeating what was already said.

At this point, he has moved on to the second contention by putting forward his contention and flawlessly linking it with facts. Till this point, the applicant team has brought it its A-Game. With additional historical references and references to arguments in respondent memorandum, the speaker attempts to put forth the contention. The sheer effort put into research by the speaker is obvious. Having discussed the first contention at length, the speakers has run out of time but is successful in keeping the bench’s attention glued to his speech rather than court clerk’s bell. He concludes the contention and summarized what he has stated so far and seeked permission to  move towards the next point. Finally, the bench reminds the speaker that time has run out, and graciously provides him few minutes extra on request. The speaker uses this little time carefully by quickly wrapping the point and summarizing the arguments so far.

Speaker 2 : 3:49 pm : The speaker, in what seems like a very effective practice,  explains the points of relevance that would be discussed by him briefly to the bench before advancing to his arguments. The speaker is prepared and phlegmatic enough, though he occasionally needs to refer to the memorandum. The speaker breaks every point to smaller parts and shields each to a point where its clarity cannot be questioned. The previously hot bench has surprisingly been silent for a few minutes now. With half time of the speaking time in hand, the speaker very smoothly sails on.

The speaker is clearly managing to create an impact. The judge move to a different arena of questioning altogether, testing the overall soundness of arguments. The speaker manages to take this in his favour and undeniably, the bench is satisfied. As extra time is granted, the judges pose an unusually long question to the speaker, finally forcing him out of the comfort zone. The speaker is trying to still hold the control. The judge continues to put new questions. Even as the speaker concludes, the judges put questions to test the conceptual knowledge. Quite evidently, the applicants have made a strong case.

Respondent :

Speaker 1 : 4:14 pm The speaker starts on a nervous note, and the unrelenting judge directs the speaker as to where he wishes the argument must flow, and puts questions to direct the way. The argument being advanced by the respondent  a hardline argument, to which the bench questions. The speaker is attempts to prove the burden taken. The speaker in his arguments emphasises by raising his voice, which doesn’t seem to impress the bench a lot. He puts his contention in a clear block of thought, which appears to convince the bench at last. The speaker attempts to follow an alternate angle and tilt in favour of the respondent but it is shaken by the questions asked by the judge.

The time for the speaker is over, though discussed on all intended points, seems to not have created a winning case. Before concluding, the judges asked one last question which was initially tackled well, but later developed inconsistency with own argument. The bench clearly stated dissatisfaction. The bench felt displeased due to roundabout answers and lack of clarity.

Speaker 2 : 4:35pm Speaker two approaches the dais politely and lays down the points led so far, and puts forward the speech skeleton. The speaker seems nervous and looks rushing with the words. Barely two minutes at the podium, the bench has shooted several questions. The speaker answers the questions and seeks permission to move towards the contentions that respondents intent to put forward. The judges lost the track of the rushing arguments the speaker is making, and asked to slow and provide essentials of the points.

With just seven minutes left for the team, it doesn’t appear that they have sufficiently justified the arguments as their appears a noticeable agitation on respondent’s desk. The speaker has passed several sheets to make references to international laws and legislations, which also wasn’t very pleasant for the team as judges managed to turn tables with few questions. The judges seems muddled with the submissions of the speaker. The bench is constantly seeking clarifications. Even with full swing of questions, the speaker maintains his humbleness.  

As the stress is evidently taking a toll on the speaker, he must take a break for water. With sufficient extra time given,seeks permission to recite the prayer. The team rises as the speaker begins reciting the prayer.

Rebuttals : 4:59

The speaker approaches the podium with four points to rebut. The speaker moved to the other points with permission of the bench and was again put forth with questions. The bench looked satisfied. The team here too, runs out of time and the judges grant them with another minute.

The respondent’s speaker approaches the bench and takes two minutes reserved in explaining the questions. He is also making clear attempts to not hit any new type of questions, and look confident.

Prelims 2

Courtroom No. 7

3:15 pm-

Applicant (TC 19) v. Respondent (TC 23)

Speaker 1 (Applicants) (13 Minutes)

3:20 PM

The speaker starts with informing judges the bifurcation of time between the speakers. The speaker’s well- structured arguments catch the attention of the judges. The speaker is calm and composed and answers the first question posed by the judges satisfactorily. She keeps drawing the judges’ attention towards her written submissions and the compendium. The judges ask a couple more questions and seem convinced by the answers. The bench has a query about jurisdiction which the agent answers citing documented evidence, winning the much needed brownie points. The speaker remains calm during her whole speech, hitting boundaries left and right, even when faced with bouncers from the judges (cue fan-chant). The bench seeks a clarification regarding the issue at hand which she answers but the judges don’t seem too pleased.

Speaker 2 (Applicants) (14 Minutes)


The speaker starts by listing the issues she is going to address and immediately gets interrupted by the bench, bringing her speeding car to screeching halt. She tries to answer but the judges aren’t persuaded and keep interrupting her with follow up questions. The court moves on ultimately but the judges remain unconvinced by her answers. The bench asks a question about customary international law which she manages to answer satisfactorily. The speaker seems to be having some difficulty understanding the questions posed to her by the bench. She doesn’t answer the question and instead goes off on a completely different tangent. The speaker has moved to her last contention but still hasn’t gained momentum. The bench asks a question about the compensation being demanded by the applicants which she answers satisfactorily citing various laws and principles of law. The speaker isn’t able to match the confidence displayed by her co-agent. She fumbled with her words every now and then. The time is up and the judges want her to proceed to the prayer. She still asks for more time to finish her contentions which isn’t received well by the judges and they don’t allow extension. She ends hurriedly, speeding again, and the numbers of tickets she got is yet to be seen.

Speaker 1 (Respondents) (12 Minutes)

3:50 PM

The speaker directly proceeds to his contentions and the bench has to ask for the time breakup. What’s with kids and speeding these days honestly! He isn’t confident about the speech and is basically reading from his memo. Within two minutes he manages to commit another blunder by revealing his ignorance of the facts of the case and the contentions of the applicants. He seems to be making claims without bothering to substantiate them with facts and evidence. The judges keep seeking clarifications and he keeps contradicting himself. He isn’t familiar with the facts of the case. Moving into the last few minutes, the judges still look entirely unconvinced by his arguments. The speaker has finally picked up pace and has started to make valid contentions. Yet again the speaker is having some difficulty understanding the questions posed by the judges. The judges ask him a question about the liability to conduct studies on the island. The agent concedes to this error and moves on. He displays poor time management and has to leave out one issue due to lack of time. Experts’ Comment: exasperating farrago of distortions misrepresentation and outright lies...

Speaker 2 (Respondents) (13 Minutes)

The judges start with asking theoretical questions about international law which are answered by the speaker to the satisfaction of the judges. The speaker had a good start but seems caught off guard by further questions. She is panicking which is indicated by the increase in her pace to the point of unintelligibility. The judges constantly ask for evidence which the team fails to provide. The speaker is asked another question and she manages to get into an argument with the bench. The judges don’t seem convinced by the contentions. The judges provide alternative relief which is contested by the speaker but not effectively. They aren’t convinced by the contentions of the agent and seem rather bored. The time is up and the judges ask the speaker to proceed to the prayer. The agent manages to get confused in the prayer and ends up contradicting her own claims. The judges ask questions even after the prayer about the individual liability of the respondents.

Rebuttals (3 Minutes)

(4:28 PM)

The speaker begins with informing the bench of the time duration of her rebuttal and proceeds with listing out the submissions of the respondents and striking them down one by one. She answers the questions posed by the judges and the judges seem satisfied with her answers

Sur-rebuttals (5 Minutes)

(4:32 PM)

The agents for the respondents have divided their rebuttals among themselves. The first speaker rebuts the first rebuttal of the applicants and the judges seem convinced by it. The second speaker rebuts the next two rebuttals made by the applicants. She speaks confidently (unlike her original speech) and answers the questions composedly and calmly.

Court Room - 11

(3:15 pm -5:21 PM )

TC 26 (Applicant ) v. TC 36  (Respondent)

Speaker 1 (Applicant) 03:20 PM

Even after a sumptuous lunch, the first speaker’s soft notes prompt the bench to refer to the fans and ask him to speak louder. The speaker demonstrates his love for Shashi Tharoor, by referring to the Oxford English dictionary. The judges promptly point out his complete disregard for Black’s law dictionary.

The speaker is quick to admit to too many things. The Bench asked him to forget the fictional stories and focus on the law.The speaker fails to detail which issues he’ll be dealing with, thereby confusing all, including his researcher it seems. While his court manners are like butter, his incessant hand movements are reminiscent of the local grocer when he is uproariously refusing to give you a discount.

It seems as if the speaker is testing the knowledge of the judge by asking hypothetical questions and pausing as if waiting for an answer. The judges seem perplexed and the counsel smoothly moves on to the 2nd argument, meanwhile the Bench is struggling to hear his submissions.

The cases provided might have impressed the judges if could’ve heard it. The discussion, instead of focusing on environmental law has moved on to military exercises conducted by some country and proceeds on an exasperating farrago of arguments which prompts the bench to ask him to wrap up, the speaker smartly concluded his statement within a second, so much so that the bench still looked at him expectantly while he goes ahead to take his seat.

Speaker 2 (Applicant) 03:46 PM:  

After a long debate over whether to wear his blazer or not, the speaker approached the dias with his coat on, in keeping his court manners, thankfully. Jamshedji Tata would be proud with the amount of emphasis this speaker is laying on the iron and steel industry. Further, the speaker seemed to be confused as to what to address the bench as, revolving between ‘excellency’, ‘lordships’ and even ‘ladyship’, even though the bench is all male.

Major emphasis is being placed on NGO reports by Aressis, which the judges promptly disregard by demanding a more independent survey. They are visibly disappointed when he fails to substantiate any further.At this point, he is not sure what he is speaking and why, and starts extensively referring to his notes while the researcher keeps sending chits. The transboundary aspect of the dispute is utterly disregarded and the Bench points out that the appellant is contradicting his own arguments and asks him to come back to his problem. Being flustered, the speaker momentarily lapses into vernacular, and is chided by the bench.

The lack of confidence is evident by the tremor in his voice and hands, and ‘Boronda’ becomes ‘Rwanda’ for a long time before the judges correct him. Thee judges refuse to grant any extra time. The speaker has assumed a time extension from the complicit silence of the bench and has moved on to submit one more issue. The speaker claims compensation but refuses point blank to detail why, even after repeated requests from the bench to assist them. It feels as if the flow of information is from the bench to the speaker, since the judges are speaking far more than the speaker is. Finally when the speaker answers a question directly, one of the judges sigh and mutters ‘finally, that’s what i’m asking’.

The speaker bandies about random incoherent words.The prayer is concluded in one sentence, while the judges scramble to make sense of his last argument. It seems after this ordeal, the Bench needs a 2 min break.


Speaker 1 (Respondent) 4:16 PM:

After a much needed break, the speaker stands true to the lunch he had by beginning with aplomb. But he soon comes to a screeching halt when the bench asks him to detail 5 key facts in his favour, not even comprehending the question. When asked why the counsel refers to himself as ‘agent’, the counsel answers that the researcher would be providing that answer, and further substantiates that the judges are called ‘excellency’ as they are ‘excellent judges’. Before the bench can recover, the speaker pompously claims that everything that happened long ago is a myth. In response to the bench’s question as to what the respondents communicated to the applicants upon discovering the island, he details ‘yeah, we have your property’.

The judges repeatedly point out that it is only the laws that are pari materia, not the entire countries themselves, the speaker is still detailing the achievements of the missiles made by India and how that should have helped them to discover the island first. The bench is trying its best to bring the speaker to the point, but he refuses to do so. The court manners of the speaker has begun to bother his teammates since the chits sent by the hapless researcher are flying off the podium due to his frantic hand movements. At a point  fails to comprehend that the judges are reprimanding him.

The discussion has moved into a tangent of UK domestic law, power of the Queen and sovereignty of China over South China Sea decided by the Chinese ‘administration’, while the judges are rubbing their temples. The bench takes some time to compose themselves. At the end, it is no surprise that the speaker’s requests for more time to detail his submissions, is met with a resounding ‘no’ from the bench.

Speaker 2 (Respondent)  4:48 PM

The speaker begins with a jaunty step and flowery hand movements. When asked to be precise, he responds testily with ‘that’s what I’m doing’. To his credit, the speaker concludes his first contention in record time and is promptly stopped by the bench who requests him to either clarify his stance or concede the point. By now, the speaker’s voice has dropped to levels not audible to the human ear, the bench has to repeatedly ask him to speak up. He fails to justify the relevance of stating any of the domestic laws and obligations stated. When asked by the bench to summarize his stance, the speaker moves on to his last contention. The Bench is visibly tired of correcting the speakers, while the other respondents are for some reason hanging their head. He isn't allowed to state is prayer, the bench eagerly stating that they can get it from their memo.


Applicant- 5:11 PM

The bench poses some questions and the rebuttals made in a concise and structured manner and the bench is impressed with the clarity of arguments.

Respondent- 5:13 PM

As soon as the 1st speaker takes the dias, the judges sternly remind him to stick to the time limit. His refusal to answer questions just because the time was up eans him a laugh from the bench.


Courtroom 1

7:10 pm-

Applicant (TC 40) v. Respondent (TC 06)

Speaker 1 (Applicants) (14 Minutes)

7:10 PM

The speaker starts after seeking permission from the bench, but gets interrupted soon with the  judges asking him to explain the jurisdiction of ICJ in the present case. The agent answers citing several international instruments, satisfying the judges. The speaker is persuasive and effortlessly clarifies the queries not letting the flow of his speech break. The judges ask a question about the relevance of mythology in this case. He answers and a rather long discourse on the legal reliability of the mythological epics ensues. The judges express their skepticism about the speaker’s contentions. He tries to answer but the bench interrupts again calling him out on the repetition and circular reasoning of his arguments. The speaker seeks permission to move to his next contention but the judges state that they aren’t convinced by his contention. He proceeds anyway (contempt of court?) The speaker starts his second contention by citing cases and statutes and immediately opens a window for the judges to shoot questions at him.. The time has been up for 5 minutes now but no one seems to care. The bench points out the dubiousness of the speaker’s contentions and he starts fumbling. He regains his composure, winding up his arguments.

Speaker 2 (Applicants) (14 Minutes)

7:31 PM

The judges start by enquiring about the facts relevant to the issues on which the speaker is going to argue. He seems a bit confused about the facts and starts his speech very slowly and doubtfully. He informs the judges on the issues he is going to argue upon and is immediately bombarded with questions about the issues. He seems to have nothing to say. His speech is punctuated by uhs and ums (We miss the days people used actual words!) He isn’t sure about his contentions and constantly refers to the notes being frequently passed to him by his researcher (The real OG!). The judges aren’t giving away whether they are satisfied with the contentions or not. We wouldn’t want to play poker with them. Overall, the mood of the courtroom is quite dry (very unlike the lush flora and fauna of Shalanka). The judges have a query about the standard determining level of pollution. The speaker tries to answer but the judges still have some reservations and keep following up with questions. The speaker is speaking quite softly and we strongly suspect that the doubts are arising due to his inaudibility! The speakers tries to mislead the bench by citing something from the fact sheet which isn’t actually there. The judges prove to be smarter than he expected (heh-heh). His co-agents get reprimanded for continuously passing him notes (PR committee nods in agreement; even our reporter got distracted!) The judges pose another question which he is unable to answer and his co-agents decide to disregard the bench’s objection to the notes and pass another note (Cue: dramatic uproar). The speaker moves to the prayer and the judges have another question waiting to ambush him. His teammate stands up yet again to pass notes but this time the judges end the discourse before he can reach the dais.

Speaker 1 (Respondents) (14 Minutes)

7:50 PM

The speaker with greetings to the bench and proceeds with the issues raised by her. She is also speaking very softly and fumbling slightly. The judges ask questions and seem persuaded by her answers. The speaker continues with her contentions and keeps getting interrupted by the judges’ queries. The judges have a skeptic expression on their faces and are also struggling to hear her contentions as her voice keeps falling to levels where only a bat can hear her. Her teammates also start passing her notes and an annoyed expression on the judges’ face can be observed. Take notes kids: passing chits in classroom is fun and all but maybe don’t overdo it in a moot! The speaker seemingly tries to drag on her contention even repeating herself in the process. The bench has probably got tired with this and directs her to proceed to her next issue. No one likes to be stuck in a loop after all. It would have been advisable not to drag on her first issue as enough time is not left while the judges seem to have several reservations regarding the issue. The judges ask for evidence supporting her claims but she seems to have difficulty understanding their question and tries to deflect their attention towards her next contention slyly. The judges insist of getting their question answered calling her out on her inconsistency. She has given three different versions of the facts in the last three minutes (This creativity deserves an award!). The speaker sums her arguments up and invites her co-agent to the dais.

Speaker 2 (Respondents) (14 Minutes)

8:13 PM

The agent starts his contentions confidently. In the very first minute, three questions have been asked. The speaker tries to answer them to the satisfaction of the bench, making things up but gets caught in the act! The judges chide him but aren’t too harsh. The speaker doesn’t lose his cool and continues as if he had never been interrupted. As the speaker dives deeper in his contents, several questions regarding the relevant law and facts are asked. The judges are scrutinising every bit of his speech keenly. They ask a question about the scientific backing to his claims and he answers almost effortlessly and brings their attention back to his contention by referring to the compendium. Though he isn’t able to answer all the questions satisfactorily, he doesn’t get intimidated by the questions and remains calm throughout the speech. The time is up but the court allows him extra time. The bench asks a seemingly difficult question and an ominous silence is observed for full ten seconds (it’s killing me!). The speaker suddenly seems to realize that he is supposed to answer the question and tries to answer buts starts fumbling. He seems unsure about the respondents’ stance on the issue. The speaker ultimately manages to convince the bench and moves on to the prayer.

Rebuttals (2 Minutes)

8:34 PM

The bench directs the applicants to limit their submissions to arguments advanced by the respondents. The speaker lists the arguments advanced by the respondents and rebuts them one by one. The judges nod and don’t express any reservations over the speaker’s submission, not that they are content, but it has been a long day so gimme a break!


8:35 PM (2 Minutes)

The agent for the respondents answers the first rebuttal by reiterating her original contentions and the bench seems satisfied. The speaker answers the next two rebuttals and elicits a nod from the judges.

The session ends with PR committee sighing into our keyboards while all we can think about is the chicken.

TC26 (Applicant) v TC27 (Respondent)



The court is in motion. The first speaker for the applicants approaches the dais and gets the courtesies, introductions and time and issue splits out of the way.

In defense of the Applicants’ claim over the disputed island, the speaker begins with a conceptualization of “epic”, and supports it with a landmark judgement in this particular subject matter, he is confident in his approach and references the team compendium while arguing, however the judges are yet to intervene.

The judges’ first interjection is to do with the issue of Sovereignty, and the speaker responds with the mythological reference, upon which the judges probe him further as to its historical legitimacy. The judge in question presses further and the speaker remains insistent on his line of argument. He then further contends that the Respondents’ claim is weaker than that of the Applicants.

Once again, the discussion reverts to the epic and its legitimacy, as the judges ask the speaker if finding the Sovereignty of a nation on a land on the basis of mythology. As the speaker remains insistent on basing his claim primarily on this basis, the proceedings move on from this issue without any real closure.

On the issue of the military base being established, the speaker seems to be more interested in legal arguments as he invokes cases and principles of International Law. The judge inquires as to why an alternative solution to this problem wasn’t pursued and why the ICJ has been involved in the case. The speaker, whose poise and mannerisms were untested throughout, answers this satisfactorily and concludes his speech.

SPEAKER 2 7.28

The speaker begins with issue of emission of sulphur dioxide by industries of the Respondent State. He takes the judges through the requirement of ‘Transboundary Pollution’ and explains to them why these are all satisfied in the present case. The judges refuse to accept the reports that are exhibited in substantiating these contentions.

The speaker resorts to a case law that shows that the report cannot be challenged on the basis of the source or authors of these reports. The judge now asks the speaker why the Court can ask a State to compromise their industrialization for the convenience of the Applicant State. The speaker promptly finds provisions of International Law to satisfy the question.

The discussion moves on to the subject of EIAs, and the scope and purpose of such an assessment. The judges ask him why is it contended that the Respondent State has not fulfilled its obligation. The judges are unsatisfied with his reply and instead ask the speaker if the Court has the power to enforce the remedies that are sought, and the answer by the Speaker is accepted by the Bench.

Moving on to the last issue at hand, the speaker now seeks to justify the compensation that the Applicants are praying for from the Court. He clarifies that the compensation is not quantified as such by the Applicants, and the question raised before the court is whether it is to be granted or not. The team rises as he recites the prayer, and the Applicants conclude their case.



The equitable bench awards the Respondents 9 extra minutes as the same amount was used by the Applicants during their arguments.

The speaker opens his arguments with the claim that the disputed island was Terra Nullius at the time of discovery. He argues that the epic is fictional and therefore there is no legitimacy to the claim made on such basis, however he wastes time by asserting that every epic has an element of fiction, provoking some mild probing by the judges.

He shakes this off and proceeds with his argument, that the evidence advanced by the Applicants is not sufficient to which the judges ask him to convince them about the Respondents’ claim first. The discussion moves on to the issue of the intent to occupy the disputed island. He settles any doubt on the part of the judges with ease, and upon being asked about the geographical proximity of either state to the island, he makes the twofold argument that neither is this lucidly provided in the facts, nor is it a very relevant factor.

The judges now press the speaker on the issue of necessity for the Respondent State to occupy the island and the speaker illustrates the strategic importance of the island to the State, and also contends in arguendo that the necessity is not a requirement as per International Law.

Moving on to his next issue regarding the military base, the speaker passes the burden of proof of such a claim on to the Applicants and also contends how setting up such bases had in fact helped an endangered species, via a case law that leaves the judges in disbelief, but one that they have to accept in any case.

He once again resorts to the same shift of burden of proof to the Applicants and also shows how they have made no real effort to assess the prospective damage that can be caused, barring an NGO report which he dubs as ‘speculative’. He further makes the contention that Environmental obligations are not as strictly obligatory as obligations on the subjects of Human Rights. He concludes and invites his co-agent to address the remaining issues.


The second speaker proceeds with his contentions with uncanny composure and straightaway addresses flaws in the Applicants’ contentions. He argues uninterrupted regarding the emissions of sulphur dioxides and the judges finally break his flow to test his knowledge on the facts of the case.

The speaker tries to sow doubt and uncertainty regarding the pollution caused in the Applicant state but the judges do not buy this and grill him on this question. Again, the judges do not buy this and accuse the Respondents of attempting to feign ignorance and demands him to show evidence of them performing their obligations.

The discussion still persists as to whether the source of increase in pollution in Aressia was really the fault of the Respondent State. The judges seem unhappy with the notion advanced that the air pollution could have been caused by a multiplicity of factors, and the speaker’s reference to their compendium go unheeded. However the speaker is unfazed and states that the report on which the Applicants’ claim stands is a government-aided report that does not stand as conclusive evidence.

Upon being asked on their fulfillment of due diligence regarding their environmental obligations, the speaker invokes a principle of International Law that is not accepted by the judges as being a satisfactory response to the question raised. The speaker respectfully disagrees, and is now asked by the judge as to why ‘Strict Liability’ is not applicable in such a case, and he responds with characteristic poise as to why it is inapplicable in International Law unless in the most extreme circumstances, a categorization under which the pollution in the present case does not come under.

As for the reports that have emerged regarding the pollution by the industries, the speaker shifts the burden of proof onto the opposition, much like his co-agent. He therefore rejects the idea that any compensation is due.


The applicant speaker makes his first rebuttal on the issue of burden of proof of proving the damage that might be caused by the actions of the Respondents by saying that the NGO report on the same is more than sufficient. He also shows how the CBD is binding on all its signatories and therefore the ‘protection’ of species is an obligation that is to be imposed on the Respondents. He concludes by stating that there is no hard and fast rule as to how evidence is to be taken by the Court, contrary to the claims of the applicants.

The respondent speaker begins by rebutting the sufficiency of the NGO report, once again casting the tag of ‘speculative’ on it. He also shrugs off the necessity of an EIA to be conducted and states how the process of industrialization is universal and no country can go through it without causing at least some environmental harm. As for the standard of evidence, the speaker brings up a case law which establishes a clear standard, one which he contends the applicants have failed to fulfill.

Court Room 11

7:10 PM - 8:35 PM

TC 02(Applicants) vs TC 39(Respondents)

Speaker 1 (Applicants) 7:10 PM:

As soon as the agent begins his speech, he is bombarded with a barrage of questions. He is trying his best to confidently answer all of them but the judges are relentless, much like the sun in Raipur summers. He has cleverly managed to avoid some of the questions of the bench. The agent moves on to elaborate on his next issue but the bench quickly interjects and points out a mistake in the argument. The agent tries to defend himself but is forced to concede. The heat of the competition seems to be getting to the speaker. He has started fumbling. He takes a breath and composes himself. The bench does not look convinced.Time is out already, however, the bench agrees to an extension. The bench asks the agent to make his strongest submission.  The speaker tries to dodge the questions from the bench, but miserably fails. The bench refuses to grant another extension. It is up to the co-agent now to reverse the fate of the team.

Speaker 2 (Applicants):

As soon as the second speaker begins her arguments, the bench hits her with a volley of questions. This speaker seems to be able to handle the pressure well. She does not lose her composure and continues to answer the questions posed to her. But, the bench is not ready to let the speaker get off so easily, there is a rapid fire of questions from the side of the judges. The agent cites some cases to substantiate her arguments but the bench is not convinced. She makes an attempt to dodge but this isn’t the Matrix and she isn’t Neo. The agent continues with her arguments and cites some cases but time is running out. An extension is given. The agent tries her best to conclude her arguments. Kudos to the speaker who has managed to do it so smoothly!

Speaker 1(Respondents) 7: 48:

The bench has not lost its initial fervour. The bench takes objection to one of the claims raised by the speaker. The bench presses the speaker for documents to substantiate her claim, which the speaker, is unable to. The judges let off the speaker with a warning misleading the court.

The bench has started bombarding the speaker with questions, while the speaker is able to answer some, he has to plead ignorance twice. The speaker cites a document to substantiate his argument, but the bench seems unconvinced. The speakers manage to procure the document this time though, and the judges seem finally convinced. The agent, again, pleads ignorance to a recent case pertinent to the moot proposition.

Speaker 2(Respondents):

At the very outset, the bench questions the accuracy of the facts presented by the agent. The speaker’s poised countenance seems to fall off as the bench has begun an intensive round of questioning. Fortunately for his team, he quickly regains his initial composure and pace and continues with the second limb of his argument. The judges fire questions at the speaker and some of his answers draw nods from the judges. Spoken too early? He pleads ignorance to one of the questions posed. The agents are not allowed to move on to the subsequent arguments before convincing the judges of the current argument. The agent seeks an apology for mishearing the question posed by the bench. A thirty second extension is granted for the prayer for relief.

Rebuttals 8:23 PM:

The appellants are alloted a minute and the respondents, thirty seconds for the rebuttals. Both the teams are advised to make their rebuttal quick. The appellants manage to rebut the respondent’s statements and conclude their rebuttals, just in time. Due to paucity of time the respondents only speak for a brief while. The round concludes.

Quarter finals

Courtroom - 12

(7:15 PM-9 PM)

TC 15 (Applicant) v. TC 18 (Respondent)

Speaker 01 (Applicants) 7:29 PM:

After two gruelling and exhausting rounds of mooting, the speaker starts with her submissions, and enumerating the division of her time. She is precise and confident. She is at ease and is smooth while providing the bench with the arguments on behalf of the Union of Aressia.

Clarification 34 is referred, she asks the bench to refer the memorandum. G8 resolution is also argued. Art.25 of the UN charter is binding seems to be the strong arguments of the applicants. The title of Aressia on Borsi Island is correct and she continues to explain the same. Judges interject by asking the agent to clarify the mythological reference of the instant case.

The bench asks the agent to clarify the argument of sovereignty .

The speaker beautifully answers the mythological question posed by the bench. She gives examples of Shakespearean  plays like those of Julius Caesar and Henry VIII and further referring to the historical Indus Valley Civilisation.

The judge seems displeased with the claim of Aressia on Borsi island, the judges give the example of cambodia following Indian gods, and question that would that lead to India occupying that territory. The agent asks in negative and talks about the cultural nexus off the country and mentions that the UNDHR provisions pertaining to cultural faith are justiciable and strict. The counsel tells about some of the cases dealt by ICJ , she mentions North China sea dispute, she claims, history, art and culture has been considered as a relevant argument to claim sovereignty.

The speaker seems to be well aware of facts, she is very confident. She tackles the question in a manner that is commendable.

She moves to her second contention, and mentions that there are numerous violations by the respondents of treaties that have been ratified by them. A reference to Agenda 21 is made, the judge stops her and expresses his doubts whether this court has jurisdiction or not.

The agent seeks for extension of 5 seconds. The recent international treaties are claimed, the judges do not buy this argument and tell that those are not binding and have just a persuasive value. The  counsel says that they have violated the environment obligations and environment being a global issue, the respondents are liable. The counsel tries to state the facts to claim the illegal construction of the military base on fragile environment. The speaker seems to satisfy the judges and hence takes their leave.

Speaker 02 (Applicants) 7:48 PM:

The speaker starts with the third contention of the applicants, the loss of the land of Aressia is enumerated, the farmer suicides, the smog cover leading to problematic situations.

The judge brings to light the issue of SO2 emissions, hey say that boranda must also be facing the same pollution issues. The agent answers by saying that the facts are silent on this issue and this being valid is accepted by the bench.

The speaker states it is imperative to state in the instant case and bring forth the violations of the respondents viz. the transboundary harms - loss of crops, lives, and the smog cover. The judge seeks clarification if the crop failure is the sole reason of loss of lives. The agent here requests the bench to refer to the facts which clearly state that this has happened due to failure of cotton crops. The report of Club of aressia, states that the smog cover and other pollution is solely due to the industrial works in the land of boranda. The judges doubt the reliability of this report. The timeline of the development of economy is stated, the developed economy continues to cause transboundary harm. It is suggested that as a developed economy, they could have exploited other options instead of coal mining. Hydro electric projects could have been established, but boranda opted for an easy option. The agent now pleads to allow the agent to move to the fourth contention of the applicants. They claim damages for the expenses incurred by the applicants in clearing the smog.

The relevant International law is referred to claim compensation and for holding Boressia and Boranda liable. The agent asks for non repetition of such acts and seeks compensation and also satisfaction under Article 37 as monetary compensation can’t suffice the loss of lives.

The agent at last recites the prayer but is interrupted by the bench, they ask the late response of Aressia to the emissions, almost after completion of 45% of work. The agent enumerates the steps, the diplomatic negotiations between the parties given under para 14 of the memo. The speaker ends his arguments.

Speaker 01 (Respondents) 8:08 PM:

The respondent greets the bench, and starts by explaining his stand as an agent. Also, he explains the distribution of the timing among the two speakers. He says that he is representing Boressia and not Boranda, which is surprising. The sovereignty must be given to the land of Boressia and not Aressia, the case is not concerned with the world and hence no international laws can be applied. The actual manifestation of sovereignty is necessary, this being not present in the instant case and hence there was no occupation as such.

The respondents ask the bench to refer to some of the cases mentioned in the memorandum. The historical context of the case is irrelevant according to the respondents.the location of the borsi island is not conclusive in nature, the location in the map shows the former existence of the island. This helps him claim that the ignorance of Aressia in identifying the island leads us to conclude that there can’t be any claim on the island by Aressia.

The judges ask the respondents if they have the title of Boressia on the island. The frontier land dispute is stated to connect his arguments, the bench seems dissatisfied with the arguments. The agent answers the questions in a best possible way, he understands the question and tries to persuade the bench to accept his arguments.

The judges ask clarification on the establishment of military base, it is one of the ways in which sovereignty is established. The agent seems to loses his calmness, and pleads the bench to state his arguments first and deal with the questions subsequently. The judges ask the agent why was there no former act taken up to realize the marine life protection, they say that there is no action taken up to preserve the environment. The agent clarifies this by stating that there is no such grave harm to the environment and marine life. The agent seeks extension of time, which is granted.

The agent is asked to read out the facts of the case and elucidate the arguments of the respondents. He states that no conclusive proof exists which demonstrates that harm has been cause to the applicant state and says that precautionary steps have been taken up by the respondents. The judge keeps asking about the non- existence of any kind of steps taken up by the respondents to protect the environment of the country. The counsel says that they would take the precautionary actions, the judges chide the respondent and say that precaution is not taken after but before harm. The statement of the judges is a cause of elation for the opposing team and a grin appears on th face of the judges as well. The agent repeats his contentions and reaffirms the claim of Boressia.

Speaker 02 (Respondents) - 8:28 PM:

The second speaker, says that he is representing both Boranda and Boressia and proceed with his contentions. The argument of excessive SO2 emissions is claimed to be untenable and non justiciable. The,bench requests that the air quality reports and reports of the World Health Organisation be presented and make reference to its contents.

The speaker contends that the report is not binding and is a mere guideline, and hence they are not liable. He smoothly to his first contention. But much to his chagrin, he is interjected by one of the judges. The agent answers the question by claiming the non-existence of a link between emissions and suicides and pollution. He states the burning of residue in Aressia might be one of the reasons.  The ACPRI reports, the club of aressia , does not explain whether this is the actual reason behind the merciful condition of the aressia. The judges ask for more examples of SO2 emissions,other than fossils and burning of crops, the counsel pleads his inability to do so.

The bench seems to be stuck on the absence of any precautionary steps undertaken by the respondents. The agent states precaution principles, before any construction there should be an assessment of the impact of such an act.

The judge expresses his inability to follow the arguments of the speaker. The harm undertaken by Boressia is not foreseeable and hence precautionary steps regarding the same couldn’t be adopted. The cause of action is not present as such suicides are unforeseeable, the necessity led to boressia to adopt such measures.

The judges introduce a monologue a la Mark Anthony, “Their property is the reason of your prosperity”, one of the judges remarks to the agent for the state of Boressia with this statement. The development argument seems to be futile, it is a commercial activity and not a government activity. The internal set up is not that of  PSUs.

The agent answers that even if these corporations are not government owned than the compensation should be seeked from such organisations and not the government of boranda nad Boressia. The bench seems dissatisfied, the judges say that Boranda’s economy is being misused by Boressia. According to the judges, Boressia is only concerned about their profits. The judges accuse Boressia of exploiting the poor of Boranda, with this, there is a light moment in the Courtroom as they state that Boranda is a victim at the hands of Boressia. The snooty nature of Boressia continues to be highlighted by the judges.

The counsel after being bombarded by number of questions finally moves to the prayer.


Applicant 8:53 PM:

She says that the respondent has misguided the bench. The location of the Borsi island still remains an important question she states. The judges interject by saying that the ignorance of the applicants has led to the dispossession of the territory of Borsi island. The cultural and ethnic nexus is enough for the applicants to claim the possession of the island. She says that they didn’t abandon the island. The archaeological evidences and plethora of cases have helped them establish the Aressian’s sovereignty and not that of Boressia. The judges say that aressia deserted the island, but she continues that submerging of the island is the reason for the loss of possession.

The agent says that mere discovery by Boressia is not enough to claim possession, the validation of title is through culture and not by any other means or mere discovery. It is stated that Article-2,4 talk about that conquest, and force is not the way to claim sovereignty, had this been the provision, England would have continued to be the imperialist. It is asserted that they didn’t abandon the use of fossil fuels, despite the economy running successfully after tsunami. The extreme step by Boressia is invalid. To claim damages, one needs to mitigate the losses, the judges state. Aressia didn’t take any step to mitigate the losses, directly approaching the ICJ is not the ultimate measure.

Respondent 9:10 PM:

The respondent agent for the purpose of rebuttals, starts with his counter arguments. He contends that the archaeological reports relied upon by the applicants are not substantive and no title of occupation has been conferred by the applicants. To buttress their contentions, he states that the Principle of Conquest relied upon by the applicants, does not possess credibility  and should not be relied upon.

Finally, the judges praised both the teams and gave a crisp feedback to each of them and commended the teams for their praiseworthy efforts.






Semi Finals:

Court Room - 6

11:10 AM - 12:45 PM

TC - 15 (Applicant) v. TC - 26 (Respondent)

Applicants (11:12 AM )

Speaker 1

With the permission of the bench, the agent on behalf of the applicant, Union of Aressia, approaches the dais. She presents the structure of her arguments, and the points she will be addressing. The bench asks her about the nomenclature attached to the parties to the case, and the speaker deftly answers the question. She begins with her argument, with a point-by-point statement of facts, directs the judges with aplomb to the relevant pages of her memorial. She raises a particular set of facts as bolstering her case, however, the judges question the value of the same in the eyes of the court. She responds with precedents that demonstrate its persuasive value, and the judges seem satisfied. She contests for the island in question, the ownership of which is disputed, the Borsi Island, to be treated under a particular legal category. The basis of this argument is questioned by the bench, and the speaker substantiates her assertion with a legal doctrine.

She then goes on to cite a judicial precedent from another international authority to elucidate her conception of territorial sovereignty, and the judges ask the speaker to present the facts of the case, to adjudge whether the facts hold parity with the present case for the precedent to be considered. Not wanting to spend her counted seconds on stating facts, she asks the judges to turn to the relevant pages of her written submissions. The speaker goes on to cite several international treaties and conventions that she claims buttress the claims of her client, deftly handling questions posed by the bench.The court clerk signals that the alloted time is over, and the speaker seeks a minute’s extension, which is granted. She tries to complete her argument, but the bench interjects, censuring her for making such strong, uncompromising claims on the basis of such feeble evidence. The speaker cites a specific provision of an international legal treaty, which impresses the bench, since they seem to be ignorant about it, but the judges then ask her to juxtapose the said provision with another legal document. The speaker pleads ignorance

Speaker 2

The agent seeks permission to approach the dais, which the bench refuses in a moment of lightness. However, this jocund remarks mortifies the speaker, and he pleads ignorance to the rationale behind the particular etiquette. He is explained the reason by the bench, and the judges are coyly smiling.

The agent begins with a statement of facts, but is interrupted by the judges, who say that they are already versed with the facts that are being stated. Instead, they ask him to produce evidence on the basis of which he is drawing the inferences which form the basis of his argument, and call it ‘hypothetical’ and ‘lacking a scientific basis’.

The sumptuous, carbohydrate-laden breakfast seems to be having its effect on the judges’ concentration. The geographical location of present day nations pari materia to those in the moot problem assumes significance and the nitty gritties of the Indian subcontinent and its previous colonial master forms the basis for a barrage of questions.

He cites a case, and the judges question him about it, but the agent seems to not have researched in sufficient depth. He pleads ignorance, and moves on to his second argument. He cites violation of several international treaties by the respondents, and goes ahead to list them all.  However, they are all contingent upon certain scientific assumptions, which are being made on the basis of studies conducted by the principal itself, and thus, the judges question their objectivity. The speaker is passed a note for the fourth time by his co-agent, and the judges now openly direct their questions to the first speaker. The speaker is indicated that he has run out of his allotted time, and  the speaker, having failed a answer an array of questions, is asked to conclude his arguments. He recites his prayer for relief, and the judges enquire if this court has the jurisdiction to provide the relief sought, the speaker parries with the questions with half conviction, and resumes his seat.

Respondents (Time: 11:57 AM)

Speaker 1

The speaker representing the Republics of Boressia and Boranda seeks permission to approach the podium, and the judges pose the same question that was posed to his predecessor, as to whether permission can be denied. He answers that as per usually observed court procedures, it is not, and the judges just smile slyly and ask the agent to proceed. He starts with a statement of facts, and from there states the legal issues identified by them. The judges make a platitudinous remark, and the speaker is unsure how to answer.  He rephrases himself, and the speaker promptly answers the question. He refers to a case as a part of his answer, and the judges ask him to direct them to the case in their written submissions. The speaker scrambles to find the citation in his memorial, and looks to the researcher for help. The researcher extends some sheets, but the judges insist that the speaker find it in their copy, handing the same over to him. The speaker does so, and the proceeds to his next argument.

For his next argument, the speaker cites yet another case, however, when asked by the judges to direct them to it in the compendium, the agent admits that it is not in their compendium. The admissibility of it is thus questioned, and the speaker is unable to answer. He then goes on to defend his principal’s claim over the disputed island, and draws provisions of the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the laws being pari materia to the laws of Boressia, and is posed a question to by the judges. However, his answer is deemed as being tangential by the judges over and over, and ultimately, the miffed bench asks the speaker to either address the specific query. Not heeding to the fact that the speaker is already  several minutes past the time allotted to him, one of the judges goes on to characterise his question in great detail. The other judges gesture the court clerk to flash the message declaring that the allotted time is over again, and the bench finally relents and dismissed the speaker.

Speaker 2

The speaker approaches the dais, and comes under fire for stepping to it without seeking permission to do so first. He apologises, and begins with his first argument. He contends that several documents presented  by the applicant are inadmissible as evidence before this court. He directs the judges to the relevant pages of his compendium, and the judges ask him to proceed to the next argument, leaving the audience hanging in suspense. He then goes on to point out the faults in the case of the applicant, and asserts that they did not fulfill their burden, which was to prove their contentions beyond reasonable doubt. When questioned on the basis of it, he cites a quote by Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The judges smile, and state that the argument has been noted, and ask him to proceed.

The speaker then tries to evoke the sympathy of the judges by pointing out the misery of the people of his principal, and the bench censures him for it. The court clerk flashes the message that the speaker has exhausted the time allotted to him, and the judges quip that the speaker squandered his entire time on rebuttals, not making a single constructive argument. He is given an extension by the bench, and he makes an assertion, but is immediately faced with a hail of questions, all directed at the lack of any scientific corroboration to his arguments. He then seeks permission to make subsequent arguments, which is denied. He seeks permission to recite his prayer for relief, which too is denied  and the speaker is dismissed.

Rebuttals (12:35 PM)


The agent on behalf of the applicant takes the roster and begins dissecting the case of her adversary. She brings up ten points, pointing out that additional matter cannot be brought out under a certain provision of the Statute of International Court of Justice. She then disparages several points of the respondents, and on two occasions points out apparent misstatements on part of the respondents as a part of the case. She then brings forth the heavy reliance of the respondents on obiters and not on ratios.


The agent on behalf of the respondent approaches the podium, and defends his arguments against the rebuttals. He points out out several pieces presented by them are indeed admissible at the discretion of the court, which was negated by the applicant. His next rebuttal is dismissed by the bench on grounds of being archaic and irrelevant, and the speaker is dismissed.  

Court Room 1

11:10 AM - 01:00 PM

TC 06 (Applicant) v. TC 02 (Respondent)

The teams wait in anticipation of their fate, the judges are yet to arrive, the rounds are due to begin shortly. Sounds of clicking pens and shuffling of pages and hushed murmur of the teams discussing last minute strategy echoes in the expansive Courtroom.

The Court Clerk is seen arranging his stationery and the teams hand him their compendiums.

One enthused participant is anxiously tapping his foot even after being hushed by his co-agent twice. Much to her annoyance, he does it again, his anxiousness evident.

The event coordinator pops in to let the teams know that the judges are due to arrive in the next couple of minutes. The courtroom is instantly filled with silence upon the announcement and the teams sit in quiet anticipation of what the next hour or two will hold for them.

The people present in the courtroom along with the participants stand in reverence when the smiling faces of the judges appear. They make their way to the other side of the room and begin looking through the submissions by both of the teams. The teams watch silently as if they could decipher every little move of the judges and somehow know what’s about to hit them full force!

Applicants (11:13 AM):

Speaker 01

The speaker asks the permission of the bench to approach the dais. She appears to be impeccable in her etiquette, she launches into her speech by asking for permission to move straight to the issue if the honorable bench is well versed with the facts. She is allowed to move further with her submissions and she commences the same by explaining the scheme of her arguments and the time distribution of her team. The speaker has a certain panache to her way of speech, which is evident in the manner she deals with the the first wave of questions. She politely submits to her folly of not carrying a hard copy of a requisite document needed by the bench. She manages to impress the bench when she recites the provision required by the bench, earning some well deserved appreciative nods. The bench commence by asking her a pertinent question - if the Mythological Account given in the moot compromis holds traction as a valid source of law. She takes a moment before speaking, never letting her etiquette slip, and presents a well structured argument before the bench, effectively proving to a great extent that the account presented in the compromis is in fact a historical one instead of a mythological one. She uses several international judgements as authorities and cites them flawlessly before the bench, seemingly well versed with the facts as well as the legal authorities. Her co-agents exchange looks among themselves and several notes are seen being passed to the speaker.

As her time runs out, she is awarded with several minute to present the next leg of her argument.

She manages to engage the bench in active dialogue with her powerful speech and is questioned on the state of the endangered and rare species in the island, she seems thrown off her composure for a second but she take the challenge head on and answers confidently enough for the judges to look slightly impressed with her skills.

Speaker 02

He introduces himself as an agent and explains his scheme of arguments to the bench. As he begins with his submissions, the team researcher is seen handing documents to the court clerk for the perusal of the bench. Meanwhile, the speaker is ambushed with a barrage of interjections by the bench well within the first two minutes of his speech, in response, he fumbles slightly but picks himself back up quickly as his researcher floods the bench with submissions upon submissions. The Respondents’ poker face game remains strong.

The speaker drags on, as the judges mull over the submissions, he seems to have mastered the art of maintaining the correct balance of speech and reference to the written submissions. He rarely refers to his notes much like his co-agent thus impressing the bench.

He is awarded a time extension and is asked several questions pertaining to the facts of the case and several other technical questions are also handled with ease by him.

As he finishes his speech, he seeks permission from the bench to recite the prayer if the honorable bench have no further questions. He recites the prayer and takes his designated place with his team.

Respondents (11:50 AM)

Speaker 01

The speaker begins his argument by complying to the norm by introducing himself and stating the scheme of his arguments and the time distribution between him and his co-agent.

His tone however confident, appears to lack persuasion, he commits a grave mistake when one of the Judges asks him if he has read the ICJ judgement regarding the South China Sea Dispute. He tries to veer the conversation away from the same but is chided by the judges for his folly. True how they say, that the chances of getting Cold Called in Law School are significantly higher when you haven’t done the pre reading.

Pro Tip to all the readers - do the Pre Reading. If you don’t, impress them with your wit; And if you are not gifted in that department, then just conjure a patronus out of thin air, easy-peasy.

It all goes slightly downhill from there on, his composure has taken a massive blow after being chided for not being thorough enough, the relevance of several authorities cited by him are questioned by the bench while he runs out of time.

The speaker looks at the bench in a silent plea to let him move further with his argument, upon which is assured by the bench that he would be provided with time extensions that will allow him to sum up his arguments.Meanwhile, the Court Clerk, is constantly waving the TIME OVER flag and sounding the bell but is being casually ignored by the court, slightly more than the present speaker, to say at least. Ouch.

He then moves further with his arguments still lacking the tone of persuasion that, even a newbie to Law School such as the Court Reporter knows is an indispensable part of any Moot.

There he goes again with the bell, Mr. Court Clerk, chill out please. Embrace your role as the proverbial fly on the wall.

Onto slightly more important people in the hierarchy of the courtroom, the speaker is yet again scolded for his unnecessary argument over factual questions and for skirting around questions posed to him by the bench and also for misleading the bench. The faces of his co-agents as pale as the haggard faces of despair.

He is allowed to sum up his arguments, the Court Clerk finally feeling that his existence is validated when the bench take note of the warning bell (finally)!

Speaker 02

Complying to the norm by dishing out an explanation of her scheme of arguments and appearing far more structured and well versed with the readings, she cites authorities effortlessly but

The speaker is questioned on several humanitarian grounds and her plea of necessity is mocked incessantly by the bench. Rightly so, Lives of the people trump the Capitalist agenda, anyday!

She impresses the bench by her efficient use of eminent legal authorities and is awarded with the nods of appreciation by the bench, the faces of her co-agents lighting up in response.

She too, much like her team, is chided for not being thorough enough with their research and as a result, she seems to pick up her tempo and answer the interjects with a newfound resolve! The expressions of her co-agents echo the silent hails of hallelujah!

Meanwhile the Applicants listen with rapt attention, continuously scribbling points for the rebuttals later.

Her resolve seems to tide her over to the final leg of her argument wherein she impresses the bench yet again  by her extensive use of authorities without referring much to her notes, which was definitely appreciated by the bench.

She puts her time extension to good use by tying up all the loose ends of her argument and making a nice bow out of it, the judges seem far more satisfied than ever, the relief that intelligent answers given by the speaker brought to their faces.

Finally, she is submits her prayer and takes her designated seat.

Rebuttals (12:43 PM):

The the applicants put their incessant scribbling during the speeches of the Respondent to good use by presenting a rather well structured argument to the bench. They seem slightly impressed by their correct (finally!) use of the several legal authorities. He also answers the interjections with much more confidence and persuasiveness this time around, seemingly redeeming himself.

The Respondents are much more coherent this time around too, however they fumble slightly but manage to present their stand better earning several nods from the judges and present the requisite authorities to the bench unlike before.

The Court Clerk was finally acknowledged after 1.5 hours. All was well.




Final Round HNMCC (2:30 pm - 4:15 pm)

TC-06 (Applicant) v. TC-26 (Respondent)

Applicant- TC 06

Speaker 1- 2:30pm

The audience seems to be glad of the AC in the Auditorium because the environment is getting heated up in here. The beginning of the finals started on a professional note with the speaker diving straight into business with a clear outline of her issues and detailing of her arguments. Very early in her submission there is a reference to the compendium which glues the attention of the bench to her, who don’t hesitate to meticulously check out the validity of the documents cited.

The submissions are in a calm manner. The speaker shows no signs of nerves, with her voice level and her arguments following the time-tested moot argument structure. The speaker followed the well established pattern of explaining the law, relating it to the facts of the present case and rounding it off by referring to documents to substantiate her claims. A stickler for convention, it seems, which the bench appreciates as evident from their encouraging nods.

The bench asks the first question after carefully taking a sample of the well rounded submissions of the speaker. She answers with equal smoothness, as if preparing for this question for months, defending her country’s claims on the island of Shalanka.

Before beginning every contention, the sub contentions are presented clearly to the bench to impress the importance of her arguments. In addition to a compendium, documents are being presented, which contrary to irritating the bench, is serving to draw them into the case. The bench seems to be satisfied with the detailed answers provided by the speaker.

There is ample emphasis on the preventive and precautionary principles along with the practical obligations of nations, including an environmental impact assessment (EIA) which brings an element of practicality into the issue. The passing of time doesn’t seem to affect the speaker, who is focused and continues in the same voice. She even states alternative submissions and refutes them effectively, signing off with a flourish. If only we too can remain so calm during our end terms.

The audience waits with bated breath as the bench starts questioning with only 2 minutes left to go. The casual reference to recent judgements seems to have impressed the bench who has no further questions and allows her to return to her seat. Now this is what a finals submission should be like. The citizens of Aressia would be proud of its agents.

Speaker 2- 2:51pm

The 2nd speaker starts off on much the same note with a suave manner and a calm demeanour. His court manners are en pointe with minimal hand movements only to emphasize his point. The bench doesn't seem to mind. The entire atmosphere seems to have cooled off with both the bench and the audience carefully listening to the submissions. It takes talent to captivate the audience, and we are interpreting the lack of yawns as a result of his charisma.

Once again, the well researched nature of the compendium and the team shines through as questions are answered immediately with no sign of a fluster, as if he’s been preparing for this his entire life. The calmness of the applicants is directly proportional to the fidgeting of the respondents, who keeps making notes and scrubbing pages with the highlighter.

The temperature starts rising again as a mistake made in the respondent’s memo is pointed out by the speaker just as casually as if he merely told the time. The respondents however have sat up, and we have pity on that highlighter.

There is ample reference to the memo and the compendium, which satisfies the bench, who by the end start taking the speaker at face value, due to the amount of confidence he inspires through his speech. The precise reference to paragraph and line numbers work in his favour as the judges are pleased at such precision and in turn, a lot of time is saved from being wasted by hapless judges trying to find their way among a sheaf of colourfully marked documents. A slight stumble is noticed however as the bench starts shifting to more practical victim-based questions, putting off the speaker who has evidently prepared more on the law points. However, it is handled beautifully as the speaker shifts to detailing the plights of the victims with a case or two handy.

The attacks on the respondents are sugar-coated and cloaked with propriety, in an extremely unemotional manner, showing the excellent court decorum maintained here. Upon being asked to state hard laws instead of persuasive agreements, the counsel immediately provides case laws, treaty obligations and rounds it off with a reference to the moot problem. Even their researcher is calm, continuously sending notes to aid the speaker, unlike the furious scribbling of the responders.

However, his time management falls short, as an important sub-contention is yet to be addressed while time runs out. The bench grants 2 mins extention, during which he continues at the same pace with no hurry, clearly enunciating his arguments and finishing well before the 2 mins are up.

Since the speaker had rarely referred to the memo in his speech, it is a surprise to see him struggle mildly with the prayer, punctuating it with ample ‘uh’s and ‘um’s. The bench however seems ultimately satisfied with the submissions.

Respondents- TC 26

Speaker 1- 3:17pm

The speaker starts off in much the same manner, detailing his issues and the structure of his submissions. The early reference to the doctrine of ‘terra nullius’ in the compromis is accepted by the bench, who seem riveted by the suspenseful pauses of the speaker right before presenting every important case.

The disputes of ownership of Shalanka Island, the validity of the maps and an ancient epic and the doctrine of continuity are addressed and properly refuted. However, with questions pouring in from the bench, the speaker seems to be slightly flustered and keeps asking permission to move on until the bench responds that they are not satisfied and would like further elaboration on this point. The answers have shifted to assertions with a marked lack of precedents, and the judges seem to have taken exception to the mention of Falkland Islands by the speaker. Unsurprisingly, this is answered with the help of their researcher by a single case, which satisfies the bench and he is finally given permission to move on. There is palpable relief in the respondents’ camp on having dodged this bullet.

The reference to the CBD, UNCLOS, and Stockholm Declaration had the bench nodding along with the speaker, who by now has regained his composure. The respondents seem to have foregone any compendium and are continuously passing documents. Our sympathies are with the court clerk.

By now, there are frequent references to documents. The speaker finishes his submissions with 5 mins to spare and asks to be excused but is held back by questions from the bench. We don’t understand why the speaker is so eager to leave, since tea break is still an hour away.

Speaker 2- 3:37pm

After fidgeting during the entire duration of the previous 3 speeches, this speaker approaches the podium with a thick sheaf of papers which he proceeds to shuffle for a good long minute during which the entire audience stares expectantly, much like watching the mandatory anti-tobacco ad before an eagerly awaited movie. The manner of speaking is extremely calming, with no hand movements. The finals are turning out to be a master class in court etiquette.

The submissions detailed in an explanatory manner leave the bench with no doubts. Seriously, we haven’t poked our friends on Facebook as much as this guy keeps poking the bench by saying ‘your Excellency’.

While the applicants focused on the facts with casual mention to cases, expanding upon request, the respondents detail the cases and expound upon the laws before moving on to the facts. The bench isn't complaining.

A supposed admission by the respondents in their memo is pointed out by the bench, which the speaker promises to address later on. A hefty amount of time is spent on the Trail Smelter arbitration, where an amusing observation made by the bench catches the attention of the audience. But the speaker seems unperturbed and calmly moves on, with a marked lack of humour. The audience has also moved back to Instagram.

The major focus seems to have shifted to discrediting the applicants only, without any major assertions backed by facts, as is promptly pointed out by the learned Bench. The speaker addresses this issue by moving on to his defences which pacifies the bench.

With 2 minutes remaining, the speaker finally moves on to his final submission. Preparations for rebuttals are going on in full swing in both camps. Yet again, a mention to the Trail Smelter arbitration costs him the remaining minute. The bench redirects his attention to the unanswered question, which the speaker answered by providing real life examples. This time, the prayer presented is extremely clear and point-based, which seems to have cemented the demands in the minds of the bench.


Applicant- 4:03pm

The first speaker returned to respectfully refute the arguments of the respondents, contention by contention, providing a hefty compendium to support their claims and reading out relevant portions accompanied by a biting rebuttal. In the absence of court decorum, we believe this might have turned ugly. However, she was politeness personified and concluded leaving the bench visibly convinced. We unbiased reporters are surreptitiously rooting for the sole lady finalist.

Respondent- 4:07pm

Again their 1st speaker took the Dias with a marked lack of composure. He seems to be excited to present the rebuttals, which makes the submission less smooth. Still, the submissions are refuted thoroughly and the speaker ends with a full minute to spare. All in all, the finals have been an extremely educating experience in the professionalism and perfection as the demanding nature of advocacy demands. And the audience is richer post this experience.




Finally, the three-day long event draws to a close. The stage was all set for the closing of the valedictory ceremony of HNMCC 2018. The Chief Guest for the closing ceremony was Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Mishra, Judge, High Court of Chhattisgarh with the Guest of Honour being Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge, High Court of Chhattisgarh. The closing ceremony began at 4:30 p.m. with the felicitation of the eminent dignitaries who graced the occasion with their presence.  Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, Prof. (Dr.) Sukh Pal Singh presented the welcome address and left the audience with some pearls of wisdom. Student Coordinator of HNMCC 2018, Mr. Mahimna Kandpal presented the official report of the event. A valedictory address was presented by the Chief Guest Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Mishra, wherein he drew from his years of experience and expertise to provide the participants and students with valuable advice.

Finally, Dr. Uttam Kumar Panda, Faculty Co-Coordinator, HNMCC 2018, announced the results of the competition as the audience broke into a cheer. The trophy for first place in the competition was awarded to SLS, Pune, along with a cash prize of Rs. 25,000/-. The runner’s up trophy was awarded to NLU, Odisha, Cuttack, along with a cash prize of Rs. 15,000/- Both the teams were presented with the coveted Winners and Runners up trophies respectively. The Best Memorial award was received by the team from NUSRL, Ranchi, along with a cash prize of    Rs. 7,500/-. The Best Researcher award, based on the researcher’s test that was conducted yesterday, was awarded to Deeksha Gupta from RMLNLU, Lucknow, along with a cash prize of Rs. 7,500/-. The Best Speaker award, based on aggregate scores from the two preliminary rounds was awarded to Akhilesh Talluria from SLS, Pune, along with a cash prize of Rs. 7500/-.

The awards have been presented to the winners amidst thunderous applause. Dr. Kaumudhi Challa, Faculty Coordinator, HNMCC 2018 delivered the vote of thanks, drawing the event to a close. It has been three days of competitive mooting with stellar performances. Several months in the making, the event was largely a labour of love, brought to fruition by the sheer efforts of the faculty and student team and the able mentorship of Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, Prof. (Dr.) Sukh Pal Singh.b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_8527.JPG



Click to show 1 comment
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.