Experts & Views
Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot - ISRO National Funding Rounds 2018: Live Blog!
Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot - ISRO National Funding Rounds 2018: Live Blog!
Hello everybody,
We're the Moot Court Society (MCS) of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, and we're hosting the Manfred Lachs ISRO National Funding Rounds on the 24th and 25th March 2018. All the exciting action at the Moot will be covered by our Press and Publicity team, so be sure to follow this live blog for regular updates. We shall commence live updates with the opening ceremony, moving then to the preliminary rounds, commencing at 2:00 PM on 24th March.
The problem for the Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot, 2018 can be found here. The rules for the Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot - ISRO Funding Regional Rounds 2018 can be found at the end of this article.
For any further details, please mail us at or contact:
Sagarika Parab (+91-9607531585)
Suyash Ojha ( +91 9620251622)
Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot ISRO National Funding Rounds: Competition Schedule
23rd March, 2018
20:00- Opening Dinner
24th March, 2018
8:00- Breakfast
9:00- Team Registration
11:00- Opening Ceremony
12:30- Lunch
14:00- 1st Preliminary Round
17:00- 2nd Preliminary Round
20:00- Announcement of Breaks
20:30- Dinner
25th March, 2018
8:00- Breakfast
10:00- Semi- Finals
12:30- Lunch
14:00- Finals
18:00- Prize Distribution & Closing Ceremony
Day 1
Opening Ceremony
The Opening Ceremony commended at 11:40.
11:45- Esteemed NLSIU VC Dr. R. Venkata Rao gave the welcome address and encouraged the participants to engage with the opportunity with rigour and zeal to learn.
11:51- Honourable guest Prof. Chaka, member of Jury, professor from JNU addressed the gathering about importance fo International Law from the third world perspective and rise above eurocentrism. He appealed to law students to focus on International Law and it's interdisciplinary aspect with a critical perspective.
11:57- Dr Rao mentioned and specifically wished the best of luck to the participating teams from the twelve participating teams.
12:00- MCS Faculty Advisor Prof Kumar Abhijeet addressed the dignitaries and the 'budding space lawyers'. He discussed the tremendous contribution of International Institute of Space Law and exhorted the students to engage with this important institution. He discussed the various themes of relevance from the moot proposition with the participants.
12:05- MCS Convener Sagarika Parab delivers the vote of thanks to the administration, faculty and the participants.
12:07- MCS joint convener describes the housekeeping matters to the teams. Rules of the competition are also explained.
Preliminary Round 1
Room 1 - Team 1 v. Team 2
Applicant Speaker 1
2:04 PM - The first speaker is extremely polite and has laid down a well-structured roadmap for her arguments.
2:09 PM - There is a sudden barrage of questions from the judges, who seem unconvinced by the counsel's arguments and are demanding evidence.
2:13 PM - The speaker seems to have gotten stuck on a particularly tricky question and is stating facts on record to back her arguments.
2:16 PM - With barely two minutes left, the speaker has moved on to the second issue. The judges have pointed out a conflicting argument by the speaker.
Applicant Speaker 2
2:20 PM - The speaker is done with formalities with ease. However, the judges have pointed out facts against her. The speaker has given a convincing answer.
2:26 PM - The judges are constantly questioning the speaker but do not seem entirely satisfied with her answers.
2:31 PM - The judges are seeking clarification on what the speaker is proposing due to lack of clarity in her argument. Without looking at her notes even once, she has responded to the Bench's satisfaction.
Respondent Speaker 1
2:35 PM - The speaker makes a subtle remark at the lack of substance in the Applicant's submissions. However, she is doing a plain reading of her notes.
2:39 PM - She seems slightly nervous while answering the judges' questions and flustered at lack of authority to back her argument.
2:45 PM - The speaker ends her submission without any concrete conclusion. There is an awkward 15 seconds pause with everyone waiting for someone to say something.
Respondent Speaker 2
2:46 PM - The speaker approaches the dais confidently.
2:49 PM - The speaker is constantly referring to herself as the client and then instantly correcting herself.
2:51 PM - When the judges point out a hypocrisy in her argument and question her authority, she doesn't respond to the satisfaction of the Bench.
2:57 PM - The speaker has concluded her submissions with one minute left and steps down looked disheartened.
Rebuttals
2:58 PM - The speaker has four rebuttals in all. however, they seem more like clarifications on their arguments rather than rebuttals.
Surrebuttals
3:00 PM - The speaker does not seem to have covered all the rebuttals.
VERDICT: The Bench gives the round to the Applicants.
Room 2 - Team 3 v. Team 4
Applicant Speaker 1
2:07 PM - The speaker lays down a clear roadmap and expounds on the broad range of authorities to present her contention. Judges' queries were deftly responded.
2:12 PM - Judges ask questions on speaker's second contention. The speaker directs judges to the supporting facts and evidence on record.
2:13 PM - The speaker seeks an extension to respond to judges' question. The judges grant the same and are satisfied with the counsel's submission.
2:16 PM - The speaker concludes her submission after politely responding to a barrage of questions.
Applicant Speaker 2
2:17 PM - The speaker lays the roadmap for the third and fourth issues. The speaker articulately responds to some preliminary questions by the judges, justifying the authority of notable publicists' opinion.
2:20 PM - The speaker confidently responds to questions on facts on record as well as clarification.
2:26 PM - The speaker proceeds to his submission, connecting it with the questions raised by the judges.
2:32 PM - The speaker concludes his submissions and judges nod in approval.
Respondent Speaker 1
2:34 PM - The speaker lays down the background of the fact situation and proceeds to explain specific facts.
2:36 PM - The judges ask question and speaker responds very fast. He appears little nervous in the face of a barrage of questions.
2:43 PM - The speaker responds to question by directing the judges to facts. The judges grill him by pointing to alternative possibilities.
2:48 PM - Judges continue to question the counsel who makes policy arguments in his response.
2:50 PM - The speaker concludes his submission.
Respondent Speaker 2
2:53 PM - The speaker begins confidently with his clear roadmap of arguments. He moves to his first submission.
2:56 PM - The speaker deftly responds to the questions raised by the judges by making alternate arguments.
3:02 PM - The speaker concludes his submission after answering the questions of the judges convincingly. He seeks to move to his next submission
3:08 PM - The judges graciously allow an extension to the speaker. The speaker expresses inability to respond to judges' question and concludes his submissions.
Rebuttals
3:10 PM - The speaker makes pointed rebuttals of the Respondents' contentions.
Surrebuttals
3:12 PM - The speaker deviates to make substantive arguments as against being limited to the subject matter of rebuttals. The judges point this out and the speaker makes relevant amends.
VERDICT: The Bench gives the round to the Applicants.
Room 4 - Team 7 v. Team 8
Applicant Speaker 1
2:00 PM - The round is underway! The agent deftly begins with his submissions. He faces questions at regular intervals from the Bench, but seems unfazed
2:05 PM - The Bench seems a little unconvinced, and poses a barrage of questions to the agent.
2:11 PM - The Bench is unrelenting, but the agent maintains his polite and calm composure while answering the questions. He moves on to the 2nd broad submission.
2:16 PM - Without much trouble, the agent wraps up his submission, and yields to his co-agent.
Applicant Speaker 2
2:17 PM - The agent is clear and calm, and quickly lays down a roadmap for her submissions.
2:21 PM - For nearly 5 minutes, there are no questions from the Bench. The agent seems confident about her submissions.
2:23 PM - The Bench asks the agent for case laws to back up her proposition. The agent answers without skipping a beat, and moves on to her second submission.
2:28 PM - The Bench seems to have a little trouble buying the agent's second submission. A series of tricky questions come her way.
2:30 PM - The agent is still being pressed on the same point, the Bench unconvinced with her answers as well. The agent seems a little fazed and tries to get her point across.
2:33 PM - An additional 30 seconds are sought by the agent to conclude her submissions.
Respondent Speaker 1
2:37 PM - The agent clearly and assuredly articulates her roadmap, while providing a little context to the issues at hand. Even while outlining her submissions, she faces a question from the Bench.
2:42 PM - The counsel answers the Bench's questions by factual reference to the compromise. The Bench is satisfied, and she proceeds to her 2nd submission.
2:47 PM - The Bench presses the agent on her 2nd submission, asking a few clarifications. She answers, though speeding up slightly while doing so.
2:51 PM - The agent seeks an extension of 30 seconds to wrap up her submission. She implores the Bench to see the plight of her country. She yields to her co-agent.
Respondent Speaker 2
2:53 PM - The agent begins on a strong note, lucid in her submissions.
2:59 PM - She makes her submissions with effective use of the compromis and the clarifications. The Bench seems to have no problem with her submissions so far.
3:03 PM - The Bench changes track on the questions they previously asked, and asks the agent to convince them on a different point.
3:07 PM - The judges alternately keep adding on to each other's questions, before even giving the agent time to answer. She is temporarily waylayed by them.
3:08 PM - The Bench poses a scientific fact to the agent, and asks her to answer the questions in that regard. The Bench feels that she has not understood their questions.
3:12 PM - The Bench suo moto extends the agent's time, imploring the agent to hurry up.
Rebuttals
3:15 PM - The agent has 3 rebuttals to submit, and seems to be in a hurry while bringing them forward.
3:18 PM - The Bench points out a factual inconsistency with the 3rd rebuttal, and asks the agent to read up a little more.
Surrebuttals
3:19 PM - The agent provides her surrebuttals quickly, with reference to the compromis, and clarifying on the basis of facts.
VERDICT: The Bench gives the round to the Applicants.
Room 5 - Team 9 v. Team 10
Applicant Speaker 1
2:05 PM - The speaker moves on to the second submission, with no questioning from the judges so far.
2:09 PM - The judges have begun to question the counsel, who politely responds.
Applicant Speaker 2
2:16 PM - Barely a minute into her speech, the judge questions the speaker.
2:21 PM - The speaker is now being constantly questioned by the judges. They appear to be entirely unconvinced by her responses.
2:27 PM - The second speaker moves on to her last contention and quickly wraps it up.
2:31 PM - The judge asks one final question but clearly disagrees with the speaker's response.
Respondent Speaker 1
2:34 PM - The respondent lays down a well-structured roadmap for her arguments.
2:38 PM - The respondent confidently answers the questions posed by the judges.
2:43 PM - The judges graciously allow the speaker a few extra minutes to wrap up her speech.
Respondent Speaker 2
2:50 PM - The respondent breezes through his speech with not too much questioning.
2:55 PM - The judge asks the respondent to provide a case to substantiate his argument. The respondent immediately provides the same.
3:05 PM - The speaker requests for four extra minutes to complete his contention but is provided only one by the judges.
Rebuttals
3:09 PM - The applicants have two rebuttals in all.
Surrebuttals
3:11 PM - The speaker for the respondents confidently counter all the points put forth by the applicant side.
VERDICT: The Bench gives the round to the Applicants.
Room 6 - Team 11 v. Team 1
Applicant Speaker 1
4:00 PM - The Agent begins with "Good Morning" at 4 in the afternoon. He proceeds to lay down the structure of his submissions.
4:03 PM - The judges ask the Agent to move to his arguments instead of giving an extremely detailed fact summary.
4:10 PM - The judges seem to be convinced by the authorities submitted. However, they state that the point made by the Agent was not in contention at all.
4:14 PM - As the Agent has run out of time, the Judges graciously grant him an additional 30 secs to summarize his remaining arguments.
Applicant Speaker 2
4:15 PM - The Agent grabs the attention of the Bench by the ease with which she presents her arguments.
4:20 PM - The judge points out the flaw in an argument by presenting a hypothetical situation.
4:24 PM - She is barraged by questions and is able to answer a few before she is further grilled by the judges. The judges ask for authority and seem satisfied by the same.
4:30 PM - After the judges point out a difference in facts in a case cited by the Agent, she deftly responds to their satisfaction.
Respondent Speaker 1
4:32 PM - The first speaker, though after starting confidently, has seemed to have lost a part of it due to the constant grilling by the judges.
4:35 PM - The judges are questioning the obligations and duties of the respondents; however, the Agent refers the bench to a relevant provision. The judges refuse to accept it.
4:40 PM - The judges seek a clarification from the Agent who seems confused for a few seconds, but eventually gets back on track.
4:42 PM - When asked a question, the Agent passes on the responsibility to her Co-Agent. The judges do not seem to appreciate this but allow her to proceed.
4:47 PM - The constant and intense grilling by the judges, both on facts as well as law, is handled well by the Agent.
4:50 PM - With barely 30 seconds left, the Agent moves to her last argument. However, the Bench graciously grants an extension to summarize her arguments.
Respondent Speaker 2
4:51 PM - The Agent lays down the structure of her arguments which is appreciated by the Bench due to the clarity provided.
4:54 PM - The Bench is seeking clarification whether a certain legislation is against the Respondents. The Agent politely denies it.
4:56 PM - The judges point out that the Agent has not presented a correct picture of the situation by only stating half a provision and consciously omitting the rest. The Agent attempts to justify her position.
4:59 PM - The judges ask the Agent to repeat a definition. She does so and links it with the current scenario.
5:00 PM - The judges state that the argument made by the Agent actually goes against them. To this, the Agent attempts to guide the judges through the entire fact scenario, with barely 30 seconds left.
5:04 PM - After taking an additional three minutes, the Agent attempts to bring up a new issue to which the judges remind her that the time is up and request her to summarize.
Rebuttals
5:06 PM - The Agent has a detailed rebuttal for each argument made by the Respondents and the Bench seems persuaded by the structured points brought forth. However, he is unable to present all the rebuttals.
Surrebuttals
5:08 PM - The Agent presents only one argument as she believes that it rebuts all the rebuttals.
VERDICT: The Bench praised both teams and said the decision was a tough one. The verdict was in favour of the Applicant.
Preliminary Round 2
Room 1 - Team 4 v. Team 5
Applicant Speaker 1
6:04- The agent started begins by laying down a comprehensive roadmap. Judges seek clarification with regard to facts.
6:10- He is clearly explaining his contentions while there is no intervention by judges.
6:18- The agent seeks extension after being asked a barrage of questions. The judges graciously grant it.
Applicant Speaker 2
6:19- The agent begins his speech by smilingly wishing the bench. He lays down a comprehensive roadmap.
6:23- The agent mentions important authorities and confidently responds to the judges' query about the uncertainity on specific point of law.
6:27- The agent continues to make his submissions swiftly, without being asked any questions by the judges.
6:35- The agent concludes his submission and the judges seem to be convinced.
Respondent Speaker 1
6:36- The speaker starts by laying a roadmap and starts speaking very fast. The judges seem to be confused at this model of speech memorization.
6:41- The judges question the legal authority of the contention. The agent quickly responds with justification.
6:47- The agent adeptly makes a passionate submission. The judge asks a detailed query. The agent seems to be nervous and responds with a comparable case law.
6:51- The agent confidently summarizes his submissions.
Respondent Speaker 2
6:54- The agent clearly explains the roadmap for his arguments. He is not interrrupted by the judges in his first submission.
6:59- The judges ask a barrage of questions and the agent directs them to the compromis.
7:04- The judges are looking through the memorial while the agent concludes the submission without being asked any questions.
7:06- Finally, the judge asks a question which the agent convincingly answers.
7:09- The agent concludes his arguments and says his prayer.
Rebuttal Applicant Agent 1
7:10- The agent makes a comprehensive rebuttal referring to various significant submissions of respondents
Surrebuttal Respondent Agent 1
7:12- The agaent confidents responds to the rebuttal made by applicants.
VERDICT: The judges unanimously gave the round to the Applicants
Room 4 - Team 10 v. Team 11
Applicant Speaker 1
18:11- After the first five minutes which were free from questioning, the judges now begin to challenge the very basis of the applicant's arguement.
18:22- The judge advises the applicant to research thoroughly.
18:26- The applicant requests for extra time to summarize but is stopped short by a barrage of questions from the judges.
18:28- The applicant proceeds with her second submission and concludes in 30 seconds.
Applicant Speaker 2
18:28- The judges ask the applicant for definitions of the terms he is using in his argument. The judges are far from satisfied with the definition he gives and are now asking a series of follow-up questions.
18:33- The judge clarifies the facts of the case for the applicant and questions his interpretation of the same.
18:36- The counsel is asked to refer to a particular article and the judge reads the same aloud. This is followed by many questions, none of which the applicant seems to be answering correctly.
18:39- The judges state that the applicant's statements are incorrect.
18:41- The judge claims to be bothered by a section of the applicant's memorial and attention is drawn to a particular footnote in the memorial.
18:46- Time is now over and the judge tells the applicant to conclude in the next 30 seconds.
Respondent Speaker 1
18:47- The first respondent speaker politely and confidently begins to present his 3 claims before the bench.
18:49- The first sentence itself is questioned by the judge and the respondent is unable to answer. He proceeds with his argument but is continuously interrupted by the judges' questions.
18:53- The judge claims that it is difficult for him to accept the respondant's understanding of the concepts involved in the issue.
18:55- The speaker moves on to his second submission but barely gets through his first sentnece before he is again faced by a series of questions.
18:59- The judge sighs in exasperation and begins to explain the definitions and differences between certain terms used in the respondent's speech.
19:01- Time is over but 2 more minutes are granted to the respondent by the judges.
19:04- An additional 30 seconds are granted to the respondent in order to complete his answer. He is now asked to quickly conclude.
Respondent Speaker 2
19:05- The agent for the respondent calmly begins to lay down a roadmap of her arguments.
19:07- The judge nods in approval as she correctly answers the first question posed to her.
19:11- The respondent requests for a moment to gather her thoughts before responding to a question.
19:17- The respondent proceeds to her final submission.
19:22- The respondent calmly and fluently responds to all questions posed by the bench although the judges do not appear to be convinced by these responses.
19:26- The respondent is asked to conclude her submissions.
Rebuttal (Applicants)
19:28- The applicant finishes his rebuttals in under three minutes.
Rebuttal (Respondents)
19:31- The judges nod appreciativiely at the rebuttals put forth by the respondents.
VERDICT: The judges gave the round to the Respondents (Team 2)
Room 5 - Team 2 v. Team 3
Applicant Speaker 1
18:03- The speaker has started by giving a brief overview of what her submissions would be.
18:06- Clearly, the overview is not so brief after all, as it has been 3 minutes.
18:06- Astoundingly, the first speaker has already finished her statement and left the dais, in an Usain Bolt- esque unreal total time of 3 minutes.
18:06- The judges have let her go without asking a question probably because of her short and crisp summary of arguments.
Applicant Speaker 2
18:07- The second speaker states that her job is to talk about the two remaining submissions.
18:08- The judges have asked their first question. (Finally) They also told the speaker that she was stating the name of a statute incorrectly.
18:11- There seems to be a confusion. The speaker seems to be unable to convince the judges of the applicability of a certain law.
18:14- In a first, the judge seems to have taken the job of citing paragraphs from the compromis himself. He seems rather unconvinced with the speaker's arguments.
18:15- The judges have launched a barrage of questions. the speaker seems to be engaging with them effectively.
18:19- The judges have explicitly asked the speaker to provide them with an international case law validating her argument. She has very cleverly dodged this question.
18:21- The speaker has reached the concluding phase of her arguments but the judges have resumed their questions.
18:23- The speaker seems unable to tell the judges the name of the treaty she is quoting.
Respondent Speaker 1
18:24- The speaker has started with an aura of confidence and poise. She has effectively laid a roadmap of her submissions.
18:26- The speaker has started out by attempting to disprove the contentions of the appellant using two different approaches which she has explained in an extremely lucid manner.
18:31- The speaker’s arguments seem to be coherent and extremely effective as there seem to be no questions coming forth from the judges.
18:34- The speaker's submissions have a really well defined structure and her manner is as appropriate as can be. The judges are probably as much in awe as the blogger.
18:35- The speaker has concluded her arguments and left the dais without a single question or clarification solicited by the judges.
18:36- The speaker has been recalled from her seat to the dais by the judges. They have asked her two questions which she has answered satisfactorily.
Respondent Speaker 2
18:37- The second speaker finally gets his chance. He, similar to the first speaker, has impeccable manner and poise.
18:38- The judges have asked a few questions and the speaker seems at a loss for a few moments before resuming.
18:40- The speaker has now stated the "strongest argument the appellants could make, but didn’t make". He seems to have preempted all possible arguments.
18:43- The judges are listening to the speaker's arguments very intently and he seems to satisfy all concerns raised by them through questions.
18:45- The judges have now asked the speaker the credentials of the scholars he has cited. He seems to have all the answers they need.
18:48- While the speaker continues his arguments, there seems to be some commotion on the appelants' side.
18:50- Seeing that only two minutes are left, the speaker has visibly increased his speaking speed. But it does look like he will finish all he has to say.
18:53- One judge asks the other whether he has any questions. They have agreed to ask a few questions.
18:55- The QA session continues with the judges asking the speaker to cite relevant articles supporting his submissions. They refuse to accept any other authority he cites.
Applicant Rebuttal
18:56- She begins by rebutting the submissions made by respondent speaker 1. She refers to the cases mentioned by the respondents and moves on to show how those cases are not applicable to the facts in the current case.
18:58- The judges ask her the sources of law binding on the present court. She is able to satisfactorily answer this question.
Respondent Rebuttal
18:59- The speaker states that the appellants' rebuttal does not stand because they have incorrectly interpeted the respondents' submissions.
19:01- The speaker also talks about the question on the binding sources of law which were mentioned by the appellant.
VERDICT: The Court has given the verdict in the favour of the respondent.
Day 2
Semi-finals (Round 1)
GNLU v. NLSIU 
10:00 - The Judges have arrived, and both the teams seem confident but slightly nervous. They are just two steps away from the coveted trophy!
Applicant Speaker 1
10:06 - And the battle begins. The Agent is extremely well mannered and has laid down the structure very clearly. Her effective presentation, with a great voice modulation, has the attention of the Bench from the very start.
10:09 - It has been 7 minutes, and there have been no questions so far. The judges are listening intently and nodding, accepting the Agent's first argument with no contention so far.
10:12 - The Agent has run out of time but the Bench has graciously granted her extra time to answer a question posed by them. Using her answer, the judge has posed another question. However, the Agent has confidently answered all the questions and finished her submissions.
Applicant Speaker 2
10:17 - The Agent is as confident as the first Agent. He has started with stating his outline clearly. He swiftly goes through the first few minutes without any interruption from the Judges.
10:21 - The judges believe that this argument was not required, however, the Agent has clarified about its necessity. The judges seem convinced by his argument.
10:25 - The Agent has attempted to establish that the fault would not have occurred but for the Respondent's mistake. The judges have raised no objection to the same.
10:28 - The Agent is very observant and paused when he sensed a question from the Bench. This time he was right. Further, he has placed the burden of proof on the Respondent's while denying any obligation on his client.
10:29 - While referring to a provision, the Agent has asked permission to view his notes. This is appreciated by the Bench as he did not attempt to answer with insufficient knowledge. However, they seem amused by an interpretation made by the Agent.
10:33 - The Agent has used the extra time granted by the Bench efficiently, and has direclty gotten to the point. He has concluded well within the extension time.
Respondent Speaker 1
10:38 - The questions have started within 2 minutes of the Agent's submissions. However, she is confidently answering all of the questions, while simultaneously referring the Bench to the relevant provisions.
10:41 - The Bench seems fairly convinced by her arguments, and have allowed her to proceed.
10:43 - The Agent seems unflustered and is calmly answering all the contentions raised by the Bench. She has wrapped up her first submission but the grilling continues.
10:45 - The Agent is making a great attempt at defending her position and justifying their stance, while also placing the responsibility on the Applicants. (who are furiously scribbling their possible rebuttals)
10:47 - The Agent is backing her arguments with the most recent authorities, which is accepted by the Bench. She is also rebutting the arguments raised by the Applicants, while establishing her own.
10:49 - The Bench is asking whether there was any other route that could have been taken by the Respondents. The Agent has skilfully linked this to her next argument and denied the same.
10:51 - The Agent has asked for an extra minute to answer the questions posed by the Bench. The Bench, well-versed with the facts and law, are continuously throwing questions at her. However, she remains composed and politely answers all.
Respondent Speaker 2
10:55 - The second Agent picks up from where the previous Agent left, and continues to confidently lay down the structure of her arguments.
10:58 - The Agent seems to be well-versed with the facts and is continuing without any interruption from the Bench. She has not referred to her notes even once, and even knows the relevant provisions word-by-word.
11:01 - The Bench is seeking authority for her arguments, and seem convinced by the ones provided. They are also seeking clarifications on what is being asserted, which the Agent has clarified calmly. However, she requests submission to move to her next submission if she is unable to convince the Bench.
11:06 - The Agent is answering the question in two parts - one based on law, and one on facts. She has also drawn a real-life analogy to prove her point. The judges are impressed by the same. However, they seem to be playing good cop-bad cop, with one accepting the same and two refuting it.
11:09 - The Agent has distinguished the situation in her country with others, and has justified the reason behind their acts. The Applicant's seem a little tensed and sighing in distress (or is it a sigh of relief?)
Rebuttals (Applicant)
11:11 - The Agent has raised four points of rebuttals, quoting the Respondents and pointing out their conflicting statements. 
Surrebuttals (Respondent)
11:13 - The Agent has proceeded to respond to all the rebuttals in the order they were raised, and has finished well within time.
VERDICT- The judges decided in favour of GNLU.
SEMI FINAL 2 : NIRMA V. NUJS
The second semi final of the moot is being held as you read at the Moot Court Hall at NLS.
APPELLANT SPEAKER 1
11:51 AFter a very confident start, the speaker has provided a roadmap. The speaker divided submissions for convenience of court
11:53 the speaker has moved on to making his first submission and is explaining all his points in a well structured manner using various tests.
11:56 The judges seem to be listening very intently but no questions seem forthcoming.
11:57 "The speaker seems a bit flustered when the judge asks him about the manner of application of a particular case in the current dispute.
11:58 the judges seem to have more doubts regarding the interpretation of facts by the speaker and have asked him to justify his stance.
12:01 The speaker has rather smartly answered the question and moved on to his next submission in the same breath. Excellent Time management.
12:02 "The speaker is having some difficulty understanding the judges' next question and takes a moment to think before beginning his answer.
12:07 The judges seem to be stuck at a particular point and seem to be amused at the speaker's laughable attempt to defend it. 
APPELLANT SPEAKER 2
12:11 the speaker deftly takes over where speaker 1 left moving on to the second and third submissions of the appelants.
12:16 The speaker is now answering a rather pointed question asked by the judges and is trying to justify the respondents' seemingly questionable actions.
12:17 A detailed analysis of the consequences of the respondents' actions in the dispute is being provided by the speaker. She has also provided and arguendo as a failsafe for her current argument.
12:20 One judge seems rather skeptical of the speaker's submissions but the speaker doggedly continues her agruments.
12:22: The judge is asking questions one after another, but, to the credit of the speaker, she takes them all in her stride as she provides adequate answers for all of them.
12:24 The speaker is finally allowed to move to her concluding remarks after that very well coordinated set of questions from the judges.
RESPONDENT SPEAKER 1
12:27: The respondent speaker has come up to the dais and has started his submissions with an air of pehaps a little too much jocundity for a dispute.
12:28: And barely a minute into the speech he has been questioned by the judge and has beeen asked to clarify his use of a certain term.
12:29: Despite the initial sharp question, the speaker seems unfazed and continues his submissions in the same jovial voice which is a welcome change from the monotones we hear at actual courts.
12:31: The judge from ISRO is indeed very keen on using his expertise to try and test all the speakers. But the speaker has backed his submissions with some solid legal basis which he now explains to the bench.
12:32: The President now asks the speaker whether the definition he has cited is inclusive or exhaustive. The judge catches the speaker's attempt to dodge the question and the speaker is finally forced to plead ignorance. However, he now seeks to prove the smae point using an entirely separate argument.
12:34: The speaker's speech as suddenly taken on a more passionate and forceful tone. He really does want to convince the judges in the remaining five minutes.
12:36: Using the stereotypical lawyers' argument, the speaker now points out a loophole in a compromis by providing a different interpretation for two seemingly synomymous words, a rather creative way to create doubts in the minds of the judges.
12:38: The manner and poise adopted by the speaker is immaculate and ensures that he holds the utmost attention of the bench only to his submissions.
12:41: At the end of his time, the speaker humbly asks for an extra minute to finish his submissions, but witha sly smile, the judge only grants him 30 seconds forcing the speaker to increase his speaking speed. Surprisingly, he is still able to effectively and coherently finsishes his submissions.
RESPONDENT SPEAKER 2
12:42: The speaker, like all previous speakers, has started by providing a roadmap of her arguments.Her manner is formal,respectful and very appropriate for the setting.
12:44: Judges have asked their first question which the speaker has answered with a breezy air.
12:47: The judge has now provided an alternate interpretation of a word relavant to the speaker's submissions and has stated how it could be construed to support the appellants as well. Unfazed, the speaker now explains why sucha term should be construed in a specific manner.
12:50: Changing tack, the bench now asks the speaker if the respondent will be open to a particular form of settlement with the appellants and if not, then why.
12:51: The judge again asks the speaker to justify why the respondents had no alternatives to the actions they took. The speaker answers this by mentioning the appellants' submissions and providing a counter argument to it.
12:54: the speaker has very effectively answered all the judges' questions. The bench seems rather impressed with her answers and show their appreciation with a nod.
12:56: Cleverly using another loophole in a particular statute, the speaker provides her own interpretation and then moves on to her concluding remarks. The judges continue their nodding in approval of her arguments.
12:27: The speaker mentions what a privelege it was arguing before the court and attempts to leave the dais befor the judge grants her the privilege again by asking her one last question. She answers it successfully and leaves the judge smiling.
Rebuttal (Appellant):
13:01: The speaker questions the interpretation of terms provided by the respondent by pointing out the possible future consequences of such interpretation. He then moves on to explaining why a particular submission is not valid. He asks for another minute to complete his submissions, which the court graciously grants him.
13:02: Continuing beyond his alloted time, the speaker now proceeds to answer the question raised by the judge.
Rebuttal(Respondent)
13:02: The speaker starts forcefully with a booming voice before being cut short by the judge in the middle of his rebuttal. He then slows down and explains why his interpreation of the now much contended word is correct.
13:03: The respondent speaker also speaks beyond his alloted time due to the judges' questions. The bench now aks him to conclude with his last rebuttal. He provides yet another source to define the same word and doggedly contend that the appelants do not understand the nuances of the usage of the term.
VERDICT: The judges decided in favour of NIRMA University.
FINAL: GNLU v. NIRMA
Applicant Speaker 1
14:44- The much anticipated round has begun and the first speaker from the side of the applicant first outlines his time allocation.
14:49- The speaker calmly proceeds to his second submission.
14:55- The speaker seems unfazed by the first question thrown his way and answers calmly, to the satisfaction of the judges.
14:59- The judge finds a fallacy in the argument of the applicant but the latter explains his statement and clarifies this misunderstanding.
15:01- The round is extended by 2 minutes and the applicant speaker wraps up.
Applicant Speaker 2
15:11- Six minutes into the round, the first question is posed by the judges.
15:15- The judges notice a contradiction in the arguement of the applicant speaker but this is immediately clarified.
15:20- An additional minute is graciously granted to the speaker. Her round seems to have gone smoothly without much questioning.
Respondent Speaker 1
15:23- The speaker, like all previous speakers, has started by providing a roadmap of her arguments. Her manner is formal, respectful and very appropriate for the setting.
15:27- The speaker presents her argument fluently, .
15:33- The speaker appears to be breezing through her round, having faced no questions at all in the first 13 minutes.
15:34- The first question is posed by the bench just as the speaker concludes. She confidently answers, to the satisfaction of the judges.
Respondent Speaker 2
15:39- The speaker confidently begins his speech.
15:45- The speaker moves on to the third issue without any questioning thus far.
15:51- Amazing! The speaker faced no questions in his entire round and walks away from the dias, content with his performance.
Rebuttal (Applicants)
15:54- Time is up and the speaker speeds up. He appears to be nervous as he has much more to cover.
Rebuttal (Respondents)
15:58- The respondent claims to have 4 rebuttals in all.
15:59- The rebuttals are presented crisply and confidently, pointing out incorrect facts and violations in the argument of the applicant.
Closing Ceremony and Prize Distribution
At the end of two very exciting days, the results are finally in! GNLU is the winner of the Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot ISRO National Funding Rounds! NIRMA University was the runners- up team. Shreya Jaipuria from NLSIU, Bangalore was adjudged the 'Best Speaker' for the tournament.
That's all from us at the Moot Court Society of NLSIU for this weekend. We hope you enjoyed reading the live blog, and hope to see you check in with our live blog at our flagship moot NLSTIAM as well, this summer!
Cheers,
The Press and Publicity Team for Manfred Lachs ISRO National Funding Rounds,
National Law School of India University, Bangalore