•  •  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 27-minute read

Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot - ISRO Funding Regional Rounds 2017: Live Blog!

 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in


Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot - ISRO Funding Regional Rounds 2017: Live Blog!

Hello Guys, we're the Moot Court Society of NLSIU, and we're hosting the Manfred Lachs ISRO National Funding Rounds on 1st and 2nd April, 2017. A busy day awaits the teams, we'll start posting when the first round commences at 2:00 P.M., 1st April. Follow this live blog for regular updates.

Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot Court Competition, 2017 problem can be found here.

Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot Court Competition National Funding Rounds, 2017 (Competition Schedule)

1st April

0800 Breakfast

0930 Team Registration

1130 Opening Ceremony

1230 Lunch

1400 1st Preliminary Round

1530 2nd Preliminary Round

1800 Announcement of Breaks & Draw of Lots

2000 Dinner


2nd April

0800 Breakfast

1000 Semi-Final 1

11:30 Semi Final 2

1230 Lunch

1400 Finals

1500 Prize Distribution & Closing Ceremony


11:45 AM - Watch live streaming of opening ceremony. https://www.facebook.com/nlsmcs/



Day 1

Opening Ceremony

Opening ceremony started at about 11:30 AM. It started with the keynote address by the Vice Chancellor Dr. (Prof.) Vankata Rao. After the keynote address, Professor Kumar Abhijeet spoke about particulars of the competition and thanked everyone for their contribution. Thereafter the representative of ISRO spoke about the longstanding relationship between ISRO ant the National law School. Finally, Mr. Prakshal Jain, convener of the moot court society, NLSIU wound up the ceremony after some important announcements.



Winner and Runners up Trophy




Keynote address by Vice Chancellor NLSIU, Dr. (Prof.) Vankata Rao




Address by Moot Court Society convener Prakshal Jain




Participants of the competition




Address by ISRO's representative


1st Preliminary Round




Team 1 v. Team 2


Appellant Speaker 1

2:20 PM: The speaker is confidently going through the first issue, with little questioning from the judges so far.

2:25 PM: A sudden barrage of questions follows from the judges, the speaker takes his time to think before answering

2:30 PM: The judges graciously allow the speaker a few extra minutes to wrap up his speech.

Appellant Speaker 2

2:35 PM: The speaker seems a little confused by the question posed by the judges, and is asked to continue with her contention, after trying to answer the question for a while.

2:40 PM: Speaker 2 tries to answer the questions which were posed to her co-counsel, but the judges do not seem very convinced.

Respondent Speaker 1

02:45 PM: The speaker seems more confident than the previous speakers, and clearly outlines the structure of his, and his co-counsel's arguments

02:50 PM: The respondent breezes through his speech with not too much questioning.

03:00 PM: Satisfactorily answering the judges questions, the speaker concludes his speech, without having looked at his notes even once throughout.

Respondent Speaker 2

03:07 PM: A good 7 minutes pass without any questioning from the judges. The 2nd respondent seems equally as confident and structured as her co-counsel.

03:15 PM: A flurry of questions follow towards the end of the speech. The respondent concludes.

Rebuttal (Appellants)

3:17 PM: The appellant finishes his rebuttals in under 2 minutes.

Surrebuttal (Respondents)

03:20 PM: The responded finished her rebuttals fairly quickly as well.




Team 7 v. Team 8


Appellant Speaker 1

02:15 PM: Barely a minute into the round, the judges start questioning the counsel. The counsel is handling the line of questioning sufficiently well.

Appellant Speaker 2

02:23 PM: The co-counsel starts defining space objects but is asked by the judge to move ahead and make his point.

02:27 PM: Appellant 2 has seemingly contradicted his co-counsel. The point is taken up by the judges who delve into another barrage of questions.

02:32 PM: Appellant 2, who has run out of time, is graciously permitted to make concluding remarks.

Respondent Speaker 1

02:38 PM: Respondent 1 begins with a few rebuttals. When asked if that's how he wants to start, he claims it flows with the rest of his arguments.

02:42 PM: Fairly convinced, the judges permit the speaker to move to his next argument.

02:45 PM: The respondent is asked to move to precendents.

02:48 PM: The respondent makes a distinction between the example of high seas, as cited by the appellant, and outer space.

02:50 PM: The speaker is asked to make a distinction between debris and objects of historic value. He assumes the mantle and asnwers the judges' questions satisfactorily.

Respondent Speaker 2

02:53 PM: Calm and collected, respondent 2 breezes through the first two minutes of her speech.

03:00 PM: The counsel is answering the questions fairly well and to the satifaction of the judges without making much reference to her notes.

03:05 PM: Having run out of time, respondent 2 is asked to wrap it up in 30 seconds.

Rebuttal (Appellants)

03:07 PM: Appellant 2 is called to the podium to quickly deal with the issue of space objects, before appellant 1 takes over.

03:10 PM: The counsel quickly deals with the major issues raised by the respondents. Having run out of time, he is not allowed to continue.

Surrebuttal (Respondents)

03:13 PM: Respondent 1 quickly dealt with the rebuttals and wrapped it up before the end of his allotted time.




Team 9 v. Team 10


Appellant Speaker 1

02:15 PM: The first Counsel seems extremely polite although repititive before even approaching the crux of the first argument, insisting on the application of a certain principle despite persistent questioning from the Judges.

02:20 PM: The applicant speaker has been graciously granted two extra minutes to summarise his arguments before he yields the stand to his co- speaker.

Appellant Speaker 2

02:30 PM: The Judges continue grilling the applicant side by demading evidence for their claims against the respondent

02:40 PM: The second speaker has proceeded to the fourth submission and subsequenlty to the fifth without much questioning from the Judges.

Respondent Speaker 1

02:45 PM: The first speaker of the respondent side has taken the podium and appears to be confident and structured. He also rebuts claims from the applicant's in his first minute itself.

02:50 PM: The Counsel uses several facts from the Compris to respond to questioning and hypotheticals from the Judges.

Respondent Speaker 2

03:00 PM: The second speaker from Team 10, the respondent has begun in a calm and collected manner but it subjected to questioning from the first minute itself. The speaker remains calm and colleted and answers without referring to her notes.

03:10 PM: The speaker from the respondent breezes through 10 minutes without any questioning from the Judges.

Rebuttal (Appellants)

03:18 PM: The second speaker from the applicant's side begins with the rebuttals.

Surrebuttal (Respondents)

03:20 PM: The first speaker from the respondent's side proceeds with its rebuttals, adressing directly the nature of their rebuttals and authorities, grabbing the attentions of the Bench. This brings to an end the first round for both these teams!


The Judges gave the round to the respondents and appreciated the quality of the arguments raised.



Team 11 v. Team 12


Appellant Speaker 1

02:22 PM: The round is well underway. Having spared the speaker from questions for thr first 10 minutes they are now questioning his every line.

Appellant Speaker 2

02:27 PM: Appellant Speaker 2 has begun, defining his contentions clearly, drawing a nod from the judges.

02:36 PM: The speaker speaks mostly uninterrupted, except for the occassional question from the judges.

Respondent Speaker 1

02:44 PM: The speaker is momentarily flustered by a question from the judges and reaches for her notes to answer the same. However, the judges still seem unconvinced.

Respondent Speaker 2

02:59 PM: Respondent 2 begins his speech, facing no questioning so far.

03:05 PM: The courtroom remains largely stress-free, with the second respondent speaker barely facing any questions.

03:10 PM: Speaker two breezes through his round, having faced no questions at all in the last 10 minutes.



2nd Preliminary Round





Respondent Speaker 1

04:33 PM: The first speaker from the respondent begin with a small gaffe by saying he was from the applicant's side but resumes without fumbling in a calm and confident manner.

04:40 PM: The speaker continues to breeze through arguments with barely any intervention from the Bench.

04:47 PM: The speaker is granted one minutre to complete his arguments.

Respondent Speaker 2

05:00 PM: The second speaker faces more questioning than her counterpart, mostly related to facts of the case. In order to complete her third submission she asks permission of the Court for two minutes but is granted one minute to wrap up her arguments.

Rebuttal (Appellants)

05:03 PM: The applicant proceeds to provide no less than five points of rebuttals with regards to technicalities and authorities presented by the respondent but due to time having elapsed, she was unable to state all of them.

05:06 PM: The respondent's rebuttals are detailed and the Bench seems persuaded by the structured points brought forth. He succesfully completed his rebuttals in the given time.

05:23 PM: The Bench praised both teams and said the decision was a tough one.

The verdict was in favour of the respondent by a small margin.



Team 14 v. Team 15


Appellant Speaker 1

04:12 PM: The judges ask a question before the appellant even begins with his contentions.

04:24 PM: The appellant faces a flood of questions by the judges for 7 minutes on one bit of argumentation, with the judges interrupting the speaker's explanation numerous times.

04:26 PM: The speaker has run out of time, but is given 2 more minutes by the judges to conclude his submissions.

04:28 PM: The speaker requests an additional 20 seconds on the additional 30 seconds on the additonal 2 minutes he has been given. The judges ask him to wrap up or time will be deducted from his co-counsel.

Appellant Speaker 2

04:30 PM: Speaker 2 outlines his submissions first, before beginning.

04:33 PM: The appellant starts to go into an explanation of a question posed to him, before being interrupted by the judge asking him to answer either "yes or no".

04:36 PM: The speaker talks about "scammy" information being submitted

04:38 PM: The judges question the intentions behind certain statements made by the appellant's side

04:43 PM: The appellant argues with the judges about the amount of extra time he is to be given, settling on 2 minutes.

04:45 PM: The appellant says he would like to end his speech if the judges have no more questions. The judges replies that he does, but time's up.

Respondent Speaker 1

04:49 PM: The respondent says that he will follow the outline of contentions that the appellants did.

04:51 PM: A little unsureness by the speaker about the answer to a question, ending a statement with "if that makes sense".

04:55 PM: The judge asks whether the respondent's 4th argument actually goes against them.

05:02 PM: Not much questioning on the rest of the respondent's speech.

Respondent Speaker 2

05:04 PM: The speaker confidenty outlines the questions their side has to answer and her sumbissions.

05:09 PM: The judge asks a hypothetical about the language of a treaty

05:11 PM: The hypocritical nature of one of the arguments of the respondent is questioned

05:18 PM: The respondent starts on her last contention 10 seconds before the end of her additional 2 minutes

Rebuttal (Appellants)

05:21 PM: The speaker has 5 points of rebuttal on the first issue and 6 points of rebuttal on the second issue of the respondents.

Rebuttal (Respondents)

05:23 PM: The speaker wants to answer in his rebuttal, one of the questions the judges posed earlier



Team 4 v. Team 5


Appellant Speaker 1

04:18 PM: 4 minutes into the round, no questions from the judges.

04:21 PM: Appellant 1 spends a considerable amount of time explaining to the judges how he "interprets" the situation at hand.

04:23 PM: The counsel requests to pass the baton to his co-counsel. He still has 5 minutes left.

04:24 PM: The judges start probing further. They seem fairly unconvinced by the appellant's arguments but let his co-counsel take over.

Appellant Speaker 2

04:30 PM: The judge raises a pertinent question and seems a bit exasperated with the counsel's answer.

04:34 PM: The judge questions the counsel on the nationality of the author of a paper cited by him.

04:37 PM: Having run of time, the consel requests for extra time to finish his arguments and is permitted to continue.

04:39 PM: The counsel doesn't seem particularly confident of the authority he has cited.

Respondent Speaker 1

04:40 PM: The judge asks the first speaker to distinguish between a counsel and an agent.

04:45 PM: The speaker is subjected to a series of questions by the judges. He remains collected and answers them satisfactorily.

04:49 PM: The speaker is now moving on to his submissions.

Respondent Speaker 2

04:57 PM: 3 minutes in, no questions.

5:00 PM: The speaker seems unfazed by the questions thrown his way and answers them calmly.

05:08 PM: Time's up. However, the speaker is allowed to continue.

05:11 PM: Asked to return and cannot complete his submissions.

Rebuttal (Appellant)

05:12 PM: The speaker quickly wraps up his rebuttals.

Rebuttal (Respondent)

05:13 PM: The counsel states he has 6 rebuttals and delves straight into them.

05:15 PM: Having run of time, the counsel requests for extra time to finish his arguments but is not permitted to continue.

Verdict: Team 5 (Respondent) wins preliminary round 2.



Team 2 v. Team 3


Appellant Speaker 1

04:17 PM: Barely a minute into his speech, the judge questions the first speaker, however he continues confidently.

04:18 PM: The judge continues to question the first speaker on every sentence, demanding examples.

04:22 PM: The first speaker is being grilled by the judges on his case, and is faced with a barrage of questions.

04:23 PM: However, the speaker is not flustered and proceeds to calmly answer the judge's questions.

04:25 PM: The judges are still not convinced and question the intentions behind the appellant's case.

04:29 PM: Keen to understand the appellant's definition of 'State practice', the judge's continue to question the speaker on every sentence.

04:30 PM: The speaker can barely get a word in while the judges strongly dispute and question his case, drawing out instances of violation.

Appellant Speaker 2

04:36 PM: The second speaker from the applicant side begins her case by outlining the relevant cases.

04:37 PM: The judges nod as the speaker clearly outlines the questions she will be addressing, but seem unhappy at the documents she is relying on.

04:38 PM: The judges are questioning the intentions of her side, and the speaker seems slightly flustered, but continues confidently again in a minute.

04:41 PM: Slightly bothered by the judge's questions, the speaker seeks permission to re- outline her separate issues.

04:46 PM: One of the judges questions the speaker on the definition of a 'space object' and appears entirely unconvinced by her response.

Respondent Speaker 1

04:52 PM: The first speaker for the respondent, begins calmly and faces no questions so far.

04:54 PM: The speaker answers the judge's first question to their satisfaction.

05:02 PM: The bench refers a document to the speaker, questioning his submission. He concedes, but says that it shall not affect any of his further submissions.

05:04 PM: The judges nod appreciatively at the argumentation put forth by the first speaker for the respondent side.

05:07 PM: The speaker asks for an additional twenty seconds to complete his arguments which is graciously granted by the bench.

Respondent Speaker 2

05:11 PM: Three minutes into his speech, the speaker has not yet faced a single question from the bench.

05:12 PM: The speaker is now being constantly questioned by the bench on his case.

05:15 PM: The judges are questioning the intentions and duties of the respondents, however, unpeturbed the respondent refers the bench to a relevant provision.

05:22 PM: The second speaker for the respondent now appears slightly hassled as the judges question his reasoning repeatedly.

05:23 PM: The judges pose a three- pronged question to the speaker, which he proceeds to answer systematically and with sufficent evidence to support his case.

05:28 PM: There is a play on words as the bench disagrees with the speaker on the implication of a certain phrase in the fact sheet and its implications on the case.

Rebuttals (Appellants)

05:31 PM: With just a two minute allotment for rebuttals, the speaker for the appellant side immediately delves in to countering the submissions of the respondents.

Rebuttals (Respondents)

5:34 PM: The speaker for the respondents now takes the podium to offer his rebuttals. He confidently counters all the points put forth by the applicant side.

VERDICT: Team 3 is declared the winner of this round.


Because of a tie in Room 3, a re-round is being conducted by the judges for the teams in that room.


Preliminary Extra Round


Team 8 v. Team 9


Appellant Speaker 1

06:47 PM: The much anticipated round has begun, with the judges finally setting on having a two judge bench.

06:48 PM: The first speaker from the side of the applicant has begun, first outlining his time allocation.

06:51 PM: Within a minute, the bench has begun to question the speaker. However, he continues without getting flustered.

06:55 PM: The speaker is being grilled by the judge on the example provided by him which the judges found problematic.

06:56 PM: There seems to be some confusion between the speakers and the bench, regarding the difference between the terms "use" and "exploitation".

06:59 PM: The judges are constantly pressing the speaker on the rationale behind the examples they have chosen.

07:01 PM: Having sufficiently addressed the judges' questions, the speaker has now moved onto his next submission.

07:05 PM: The first speaker for the applicant requested the bench for extra time to summarise his submissions and was graciously granted one minute for the same.

Appellant Speaker 2

07:09 PM: The bench is questioning the second speaker on the possible biases of the sources relied upon by him.

07:13 PM: The second speaker is being questioned at almost every sentence by the bench, but is continuing to answer them confidently.

07:17 PM: Faced with a paucity of time, the speaker has requested the bench if he may continue with with his next submmission.

07:19 PM: The second speaker for the applicant concluded confidently, maintaining his prayer in full before the bench.

Respondant Speaker 1

07:22 PM: The respondent's side has also not been spared and the first speaker has to face a number of questions within a minute of his beginning his speech.

07:26 PM: Having satisfied the bench's queries, the speaker has requested permission to move onto his next submission.

07:29 PM: The bench is asking the speaker to briefly recount the facts of the cases used by them as well as their relevance.

07:33 PM: The first speaker for the respondent has finally moved to his last submission as his time nearly comes to an end.

07:34 PM: He requested and was granted one minute of extra time so as to satisfactorily summarise and conclude his submissions.

Respondent Speaker 2

07:39 PM: Although the judges have asked a number of questions to the second speaker, she has been able to progress with her submissions quite rapidly.

07:41 PM: Having suficently satisfied the queries of the judges, the second speaker has now moved on to her next submission, without any further questioning on the same.

07:44 PM: The bench is now questioning the respondents' second speaker on their defintion of 'space object'.

07:48 PM: The bench openly disagrees with the speaker on the grounds of their obligations in the midst of an intense discussion based on technicalities.

07:50 PM: As the speaker nears the end of her time, the bench grants her extra time so as to answer the questions posed to her.

Rebuttal (Appellants)

07:51 PM: The applicant speaker has stepped up confidently to address his rebuttals, not having much time for the same.

07:53 PM: Facing a paucity of time, the speaker has been granted thirty seconds of extra time to conclude.

Surrebuttal (Respondents)

07:55 PM: The speaker for the respondents has now stepped up to address rebuttals and is doing so by numbering his rebuttals and addressing them individually.

With that the preliminary rounds of the Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot - ISRO Funding Regional Rounds 2017 has concluded. Results to be announced shortly

9:11 P.M - Results of the Preliminary Rounds are as follows (In no particular order)

National Law School of India University [NLSIU]
National Academy of Legal Studies and Research [NALSAR]
National Law University Odisha [NLU-O]
Jindal Global Law School [JGLS]

See you tommrow for the Semi-Finals and the Finals!


Day 2

Semi-finals (Round 1)

Court Room 1


Team 13 v. Team 10

Applicant Speaker 1

10:30 AM: The first speaker for appellant’s side looks confident. His start is good and judges look satisfied with the structure laid down for his and co-council’s speeches.


10:35 AM: Judges accept the first submission of the appellants and give permission to the first speaker form the appellant’s side to move to his second submission. Speaker seems to be getting a hold of his submissions and has been doing fairly good.

10:40 AM: There haven’t been a single question till now by the judges. It seems that all submissions are going in free flow!


10:43 AM: Judges ask first question after almost fifteen minutes have already gone in the round. While some questions were for clarification on the submissions, others were with regard to the authority for submission.

10:45 AM: Judges ask question with respect to interpretation of authorities relied on by the appellants. They also go forward to asking council about law not relied upon by him. Speaker seems to be struggling on the issue.

10:48 AM: Although bad on time management, first speaker is done with his submission and lays down his closing statement before wrapping up.

Applicant Speaker 2

10:49 AM: Second speaker from the applicant’s side starts with stating her outline. She swiftly goes through the first few minutes without any questioning from the judges.

11:00 AM The second speaker from the applicant's side has confidently proceeded with the team's submissions with not much intervention from the Bench.

11:03 AM The Bench continues questioning on integral issues even after the speaker has completed her submissions and elapsed her time.

11:07 AM The Bench while not satisfied with all the answers allows the speaker to proceed to her prayer which she states confidently.

Respondent Speaker 1

11:10 AM The speaker begins in a confident manner, beginning with laying out the time allocation and structure for their side. He also lays down for the benefit of the Bench and the other team some contentious points which he suggests the applicants to address in their rebuttal speech.

11: 17 AM The speaker is grilled regarding the fact scenario and subtle contradictions in his defense. The speaker remains unflustered and effectively uses the compris to answer these queries. The speaker wraps up his first submission but the Bench continues with the questioning.

11: 19 AM The speaker divides his reponse to the Bench's questioning by dividing it into 2 parts - question of law and fact. He refutes the example raised by the applicant and providing a more recent example. He also explains why one of the most important principles used by the applicant should be disregarded in this case.

11: 22 AM The Judges persist in their questioning and gratiously allow the speaker extra time to explain the parameters of judgement of a case the respondent has heavily relied on.

11: 27 AM The speaker is now confidently addressing the second submission without referring to his notes.

11: 28 AM One of the Judges asks the timekeeper for the time and quite reluctantly grants the speaker 30 seconds to wrap up his arguments.

Respondent Speaker 2


11: 31 AM The second speaker from the respondent's side begins in a calm and confident manner. She outlines her structure and appears to be very well versed with the facts.

11: 35 AM The speaker continues uninterrupted by the Bench. She points out the lack of evidence and corroborated facts provided by the applicant's side.

11: 38 AM The speaker seeks permission to proceed to her second submission but is questioned with regard to interpretation of a treaty pertinent to her first submission.

11: 40 AM The speaker finally proceeds with her second submission. She continues to confidently explain her arguments without referring to her notes.

11: 44 AM The speaker seeks permission for an extra 30 seconds but is questioned with regards to a word in the treaty she has relied on. As she proceeds to answer such query, backing it with no less than 3 facts, the judge stops her and asks her another question on very similar lines seeming unsatisified with her response. The speaker promptly answers both questions without getting flustered.

11: 47 AM The speaker asks for 2 more minutes but is granted only 1 more minute by the Bench to wrap up her submissons.


Rebuttals (Applicant)

11: 49 AM The first speaker from the applicant's side proceeds confidently, stating he will provide 5 rebuttals to the case put forth by the agents of the respondent.

11: 51 AM The speaker is graciously granted 30 seconds to wrap up his rebuttals. He is stopped by one of the Judges who claims that his last rebuttal has already been sufficiently argued form their side.

Rebuttals (Respondent)

11: 54 AM The speaker refutes the arguments of the applicant on scientific grounds.

11: 56 AM The speaker is graciously granted 30 more seconds by the Bench to wrap up.


Respondents were declared winners of this round.

Semi-finals (Round 2)

Court Room 1

Team 8 v. Team 16

Applicant Speaker 1  

12: 53 PM The first speaker from the applicant's side approaches the questioning of the Bench with patience and confidence. Having saitisfactorily answered them, he is granted permission to begin with the second submission.

12: 55 PM The speaker asks if the Bench needs a brief explanation of a certain principle which slightly amuses them and the speaker is directed to proceed with the presumption that the Bench is well aware of it.

1:00 PM The speaker seeks permission to move to his next submission but is posed further questions by the Bench which he is able to answer promptly.

1:01 PM The speaker is at this point is questioned regarding application of the aforementioned principle, which he explains in detail backing it with authorities and suggesting that ruling in favour of the other party would be detrimental.

1:03 PM The speaker is graciously granted 30 seconds to complete his argument. The Bench seems satisfied with the speaker's points and responses.

Applicant Speaker 2

1:04 PM The second speaker begins confidently to further the case presented by his first speaker. The questioning begins even before he can outline his first submission.

1:06 PM The speaker is questioned by the Bench on procedural points which he promptly addresses. He is granted permission to proceed with his first submission.

1: 08 PM The speaker is questioned on certain standards laid down in a case cited by said speaker. He appears to be well versed with the facts of the case and its relevance to the situation at hand but may have failed to convince the entire Bench with his response.

1:10 PM The speaker premptively states what the respondent's argument on this issue would be before he proceeds with his submission. He effectively cites authorities to substantiate his points, to the satisfaction of the Bench.

1:14 PM The speaker has moved on to his next submission which he backs with several facts from the compris. He confidently continues without any referrence to his notes. The speaker is only questioned once with regards to this issue wherein he is asked to suggest what the opposite party should have done instead.

1:18 PM The speaker seeks 10 more seconds to complete his submissions which he is graciously granted. His time elapses but the questioning continues. He maitains the prayer and thanks the Bench.

Respondent Speaker 1

1:22 PM The speaker is confident and directs the Bench multiple times through her compedium.

1:24 PM She effectively refutes one of the claim of the opposite side by pointing out certain facts.

1:26 PM The speaker has moved on to her second submission. She is questioned regarding her usage of authorities. She continues to request the Bench to refer to certain portions of her side's compedium and memo.

1:30 PM The speaker is questioned as to why she is harping on a certain issue and what material difference her point makes to the case. The grilling continues in a manner that she is unable to reply without having another question being thrown at her. She passes to the Bench documentary evidence and continues to respond to the various questions using scientific knowledge and its impact when in outer space.

1:32 PM The speaker has been permitted to proceed with her second submission. She is graciously granted two extra minutes to complete her arguments. She is further granted 10 seconds to summarise her last submission, wherein she continues to direct the Bench to particular sections of her memo.

1:38 PM Despite the speaker's time having elapsed, the questioning continues and the Bench asks for certain justification with regards to feasibility, rights and obligations of the respondent.

1:40 PM The Bench has now started a line of questioning on the basis of usage of a certain word in one of the integral treaties. The Judges are relentless in their questioning but the speaker continues to respond to every question without refering to her notes. She further clarified the intention of the respondents. Another Judge employs a different line of questioning.

1:43 PM The speaker stops for a sip of water and with the incessant questioning, we aren't surprised! The speaker is finally off the podium about a minute later, having been granted the permission to hand it over to her co- speaker.

Respondent Speaker 2

1:45 PM The secnd speaker has confidently begun with outlining his submissions and starting with the first one.

1:48 PM The second speaker counters an argument brought forth by the applicant's side. He backs it with scientific facts and passes on documentary evidence to the Bench, much like his first speaker.

1:50 PM The speaker is being questioned by the Bench regarding the binding nature of a certain pertinent treaty.

1:55 PM The speaker in response to a question on intentions of their side fumbles slightly but then resumes. He seeks permission to proceed with his third and final submission.

2:00 PM The Judges pose a question right when the runner raises the placard to indicate the speaker's time having elapsed. Having answered that, the speaker asks if he may rest his case and take leave but is posed one final question.

Rebuttals (Applicant)

2:01 PM The first speaker from their team approaches the podium for rebuttals and is cautioned by one of the Judges to refrain from repitition of any submissions.

2:03 PM The speaker is granted 15 seconds to wrap up his rebuttals.

Rebuttals (Respondent)

2:05 PM The first speaker form the respondent's team speaking at a quick pace, proceeds with the rebuttals. Scientific technology is used by her to rebut certain points and she recites certain speeds off the cuff. She further claims that the opposite side has misunderstood some of their arguments.

2: 07 PM The speaker is granted 10 seconds to complete her rebuttals. She references certain previous arguments that the speakers have submitted in their earlier speeches bringing her speech to an end.




Applicant Speaker 1

2:55 PM The speaker begins by confidently and politely outlining his submissions. There are no questions for the first few minutes.

3:00 PM The Bench makes a correction in the applicant's speech. There are no questions from the Bench regarding the first submission.

3:05 PM The applicant continues with his speech, with little questioning by the Bench. He answers these questions satisfactorily. 

3:08 PM The Bench says that the speaker seems to be expanding on one point quite a lot. The speaker replies in the negative. He finishes his speech on time and yields the floor to his co-counsel.

Applicant Speaker 2

3:11 PM The speaker begins by outlining his submissions, before being interrupted by the Bench regarding one of his submissions. He states that he will elaborate later on in his speech. 

3:16 PM The Bench asks whether the applicant has any case laws or opinio juris regarding his second submission. The speaker readily provides the Bench with the same.

3:24 PM The applicant breezes though his speech, with 8 minutes having passed with no questioning by the Bench on the speaker's next 2 submissions. The speaker elapses his time, and is allowed by the Bench to wrap up his last submission.

Respondent Speaker 1

3:26 PM The respondent begins by outlining his submission and goes on to counter a point made by the Applicants.

3:30 PM Justice Manfred Lachs is quoted by the speaker. There is little questioning from the Bench.

3:34 PM There is repeated questioning by the Bench on one of the points made by the respondent. He answers to their satisfaction and continues with his submissions.

3:40 PM Before moving on to his last submission, the speaker responds to one of the examples provided by the Applicants. He makes an example regarding the British colonization of India. An extra one minute is provided for the speaker to wrap up his submission.

Respondent Speaker 2

3:51 PM The first 8 minutes pass with no questioning by the Bench. 

3:54 PM The Bench puts a proposition before the respondent regarding an obligation that an article places on them. The speaker puts forward two points to answer the question.

3:57 PM The speaker is allowed extra time to finish her last submission. 

Rebuttal (Applicant)

3:59 PM The applicant has 4 points of rebuttal to the respondents' arguments. He elapses his time but is allowed to finish.

Rebuttal (Respondent)

4:03 PM The respondent makes rebuttals based both on law and fact. He has 3 points of rebuttal.


The finals have concluded, and the results and the valedictory ceremony shall commence in a few minutes.

Runners up: NALSAR

Winners of Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot National Funding Rounds, 2017: NLSIU

Best Speaker: Sharan Bhavnani, NLSIU

Click to show 3 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.