#Signature Global Greater Noida | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

postolo · 6 years ago

Text

Live Blog: 1st “Vox Anatolis” National Moot Court Competition

So, here we see the National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam with their inaugural edition of ‘1st “Vox Anatolis” National Moot Court Competition.’ Witnessing a participation from all parts of the country, we are elated to host 25 teams this year from 1st March, 2019 to 3rd March, 2019. The first day would commence with the inaugural speech and the draw of lots followed by the Memorial exchange.

1st of March, 2019.

1625 hrs: The dignitaries have occupied the stage. The inauguration commences by witnessing a 2 minutes silence for the loss of CRPF Jawans in the Pulwana Attack.

1629 hrs: The event is graced by the presence of (Retd.) Js. B.K. Kataki and he is felicitated by the VC Prof. (Dr.) J.S. Patil. The VC is felicitated by the Faculty Advisor of the Mourt Court Committee, NLUJA, Mr. Ankur Madhia. He also felicitates the Registrar Mr. Miftauddin Ahmed.

1631 hrs: The dignitaries proceed to light the lamp. Lighting of the lamp signifies the lighting of the way from darkness to light and so do we believe.

The lamp is lit. the stage is set. The breathing is heavy. And the anticipation is at the pinnacle.

1632 hrs: Mr. Madhia addresses the crowd and expresses his pleasure on being given the chance to host such a plethora of participants. He talks about the time management in the competition and the importance of Moot Court Competitions in the life of litigation. The maiden edition of Vox Anatolis deals with the issue of citizenship faced in the North East. He hopes that the Competition comes out to be of great learning experience for all.

1637 hrs: The choir is invited to sing “Vaishnav Janato.”

1642 hrs: The beautiful bhajan comes to an end.

1642 hrs: The Vice Chancellor of NLUJAA is invited to address the gathering. He begins by addressing the issue of Indo-Pak issues present. He talks about the ‘mind game’ played by the countries and cheers for the safe return of Wing Commander Abhinandan! Victory can come by humble submission or by conquering the whole world. He emphasises on the latter. Justice shall prevail and the way the road is cut out, the mind game is very important. It is not about oration, but also a deep commitment to justice and truth. He talks about the challenges faced by the University being the sole National Law University in the North – East. He congratulated the Moot Court Committee for organizing such a competition and also talks about Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition. He wishes the teams luck and ends with his signature “Jai Hind!”

1652 hrs: Hon’ble Justice B. K. Kataki is invited to address the crowd. Js. Kataki is the present Chairman of Assam State Police Accountability Commission. He talks about his college days and mentions about his love and passion for cricket. He states that the law course was not taken up at the candidate’s choice. The idea of setting up National Law Universities in India was to create good lawyers. The jail inmates are too poor to engage a lawyer. A good lawyer serves the country, serves the people and serves the poor. There cannot be justice to all. Organizing these kinds of Moot Court Competitions is going to benefit the would-be lawyers. One must be a good listener as an advocate is a legal representative of the client. The client confides in the lawyer and hence, that is put forth to the Court of Law. Therefore, developing the art of listening is one of the prime necessities of being a good lawyer. He concludes on the note of hoping the competition to be a successful and spreads the message of the serving the society as a lawyer and thanks the University.

1705 hrs: The Convenor of the Moot Court Committee proposes the vote of thanks on behalf of the Committee and the University.

1706 hrs: The gathering proceeds for high tea.

1800 hrs: The draw of lot commences.

For the first preliminary rounds, we have:

Petitioner v. Respondent

Dhubri Law College v. School of Excellence of Law, Chennai

UPES, Dehradun v. Amity University, Kolkata

Amity University, Chattisgarh v. TNNLS, Tiruchirapalli

Royal Global Law School v. MNLU, Nagpur

Amity University, Noida v. Reva University

JIMS, Greater Noida v. CLC, Delhi

USTM v. NUJS, Kolkata

NEF, Guwahati v. SLS, Pune

Assam University v. New Law College, BVP, Pune

HNLU, Chattisgarh v. LC 1, Delhi

NALSAR, Hyderabad v. SLS, Hyderabad

Christ University, Bangalore v. Prestige University, Indore

MNLU, Mumbai v. UILS, Punjab

For the second preliminary rounds, we have:

Petitioner v. Respondent

Amity Law School, Kolkata v. Amity Law School, Noida

Reva University v. NEF, Guwahati

UILS, Punjab v. USTM

LC 1 Delhi v. NALSAR, Hyderabad

SLS, Pune v. JIMS

NUJS, Kolkata v. Christ University, Bangalore

CLC, Delhi v. Royal Global Law School, Guwahati

MNLU, Nagpur v. HNLU, Chattisgarh

TNNLS, Tiruchirapalli v. Dhubri Law College

SLS, Hyderabad v. UPES, Dehradun

New Law College, BVP, Pune v. Amity Law School, Chattisgarh

SOEL, Chennai v. Assam University

Prestige University, Indore v. MNLU, Mumbai

The first day ends with an elaborate dinner at 2000 hrs.

Day 2: 2nd of March, 2019

The judges have been briefed. The Courtrooms have been set. The memorials have been exchanged. Let the arguments begin!

Live from Courtroom Number 1: Bench- Saptarshi Das , Irfan Hasieb Teams- TC14 (Petitioner) vs TC 12 (Respondent) Time- 11:04 am The court thus, is in session as the Honourable bench has been ushered by the Court-in- Charge. The silence in the court room thus lingers while the honourable bench is in perusal of the memorials submitted before the bench.

Petitioner. Speaker No.1 (11:10 am) The first speaker on the behalf of the petitioner,aproches the bench with the due permission and is recused of the facts. But duly questioned over the jurisdiction of the present case. The honourable court also seeks into the jurisdiction. The agent thus is also questioned over the language of the issues raised and its modus formation. The counsel appearing seems fazed by the volley of questions and resorts towards statement of summary of arguments. The counsel delves now with the permission of the court to oblige with the first issue raised in this court. The honourable bench now questions the memorial as well and asks thus the reason for citing the judgement of the lower court to which the counsel then retorts to being similarity in the facts to which the judge thus says the court will not be bound by it.

The court has fired a number of questions over applicability of the laws mentioned namely UDHR and citizenship act to which the judge thus seems binding of both the laws. The acceptance of the same is also brought by the bench to the council. The grounds behind mentioning of Assam Accord is thus also brought to the agent to which the counsel answers vaguely.

The judge demands the compendium and thus also voices the concern of the bench upon non presentation of the same. The developmental aspect of the State of Pochinki is thus also of concern to the bench and questions now turn to applicability of the case law mentioned in the Keshavnanda Bharati v Union of India to which the counsel pleads ignorance. The Kameshki Accord is also facing a volley of questions and the signatory bodies of the same are thus also thus not seem to be accepted in the honourable court. The judge in the regard questions the

binding nature of the accord. The political attention which seems to be the go to answer is thus questioned duly in this honourable court.

Speaker No.( 11:25)

The speaker with the due permission approaches the dais and thus seeks to start in a monotonous baritone and thus is subjected now to the very question on the nature of the issue framed and the acceptance of the language mentioned duly in the memorial. The Counsel unsuccessfully tries to pursued the judge but has not been able to do it. The Bill to which the argument has been based is thus subject to authority of the facts and the questions relies on the efforts of the petitioner in the containing the porous border. The counsel falters during the same and thus is also in turn subjected to another volley of questions and the counsel remains silent. The Fourth issue upon deliberation of the bench is also brought before the court. The binding nature of the convention is brought to the questions. The counsel in turn remains silent and are clearly very much fazed. The last thirty seconds for the speaker on behalf of the petitioner and the agent tries to summarize but is facing another question to which

Respondent(11.:40) Speaker 1 With the due permission the counsel thus seeks permission to present the issues. The counsel thus is asked by the court to contend the locus standi of the submission of the petitioner. The counsel with salutations and is brought to read Article 32 and Article 226. The first case law from the side of the respondent has been cited and the question of its wider connotation is brought the judge highlighted the preparedness of the researcher. The bench asks the counsel to move on to the pivotal issues. The citizenship amendment act and its historical nature of formation thus is mentioned by the court. The difference between refuge and asylum is brought by the bench to be answered by the counsel to which the researcher aids the speaker. The court allows an extension of time and thus seems pretty satisfied up to now. The speaker seems in control and well versed with the facts as well as cases and statues cited. The counsel in the last thirty seconds seems to be speeding in turn to cover all the issues. The fundamental rights of the immigrants is thus questioned. To which the counsel answers successfully.

Speaker No.2 With the due permission the counsel thus seeks permission to present the issues, the counsel at present seeks to move to the presentation of the arguments. The counsel also thus brings to fore a book mentioning the Passport Act. The questions of the bench thus seem to be on the nature of the laws and its analogous nature to other laws and in the regard the counsel seems well versed. The counsel seeks to contend that that the respondent on this regard has powers to enact laws. The argument thus in this regard seems to be shifted towards the analogous of the case towards state of Assam and judge thus also seeks clarification of the similar governmental parties at both the state and centre. The bench rejects the exhibits because the data seems vague. The data thus is not verifiable in this regard and the counsel also seems to be pressing to make the judge accept the data. Counsel in this regard values Kamekshi Accord as law to which the bench raises an objection the counsel seems fazed by the volley of questions and the researcher is thus trying to provide answers. The rebuttal rounds thus would begin.

Rebuttal (12:25) The counsel answers that the suit is duly maintainable and thus the bench answers in affirmative. There seems to be no contention up to now over the memorial and the counsel duly continues. The counsel is using its time to clarify its own stand. The counsel contends religious bigotry and moves with the prayers. The counsel prays scraping of citizenship amendment act. The tribunals should also be set as prayed.

Sur Rebuttal (12:29) The counsel seeks to raise questions but the bench seems to take objection to it. The bench also highlights need for the counsel in this regard to stick to contentions of the petitioner. The counsel seems to be repeating the points of the bench which has been duly objected twice unto now. The counsel thus seeks to move on the prayer. The counsel prays non maintainability, constitutional nature of passport act. The counsel thus also in this regard seeks to question the authority of the court and the judge seems fazed and warns of the contempt proceedings.

Session Ends.

Court Room No: 2 Bench: Manish Das and Satyam Saikia Teams: TC 1 and TC 15 (Amity Kolkata and UPES) TC 01 (Respondent) TC 15 (Petitioner) 11:04: The Judges have approached the court room. The judges warned the TC 15 for being late.

(TC 15) Counsel 1

11:15: TC 15 approaches the dais. Counsel 1 discusses the issue 1 &2. Counsel 1 speaker is confidently speaking and putting forward her points. The Counsel 1 is continue to speak confidently without any hesitation and is showing a very good research which she has done and the amount of hard work. Counsel 1 is well aware with citizenship and the amendment act and is showing a good research on the topic. The counsel 1 is well aware with abundant number of precedent cases to support her cases. The judges are agreeing. Also counsel 1 is well aware with the principles, charters and the Indian constitution. 11:23: Five minutes left. Judge 2 ask the counsel a basic question which she tries to tackle very cleverly and is successful in her effort to answer cleverly to tackle the question. But the judge is not agreeing to her answer but still the counsel is trying her best to pursue to the judge. 11:27: 2 minutes left. The judge is explaining his question to the counsel which the counsel understood and is trying to explain her best with lots of articles of the constitution and precedent cases. But still the judge is not satisfied with the answer. This shows that the counsel is trying to repeat the same things but is unable to make her point. So the counsel is unable to convince the judges. 11:31 the counsel is permitted to take another 1 minute as the time is over. The counsel is speaking very fast and is trying to summarize all the points. The 1 minute is over and so the counsel 1 is quickly summarizing all her points.

Counsel 2

11:32: TC 15 counsel 2 approaches the dais. The counsel 2 is dealing with the remaining issues. Counsel 2 seems to be confident is well aware with what she is speaking and dealing. Counsel 2 is using lots of precedent to support her points. The counsel is well aware with what the local problem is so using that in her advantage. The judges ask her a very tricky and critical analysis question which the counsel 2 is trying to answer confidently. The judges were grilling the counsel 2 but the counsel is very good in terms of tackling the challenge put forward by the judge. The judges is asking tough questions which the counsel is answering confidently but is still not successful in convincing the judges. The judges became able to trap the counsel in a tough question and the counsel slowly loses her confidence and so the other teammates help her through passing the chits. The judges are not convinced. The counsel loses her confidence but her confidence comes back as she moves forward to another issue.

11:43: Five minutes left. The counsel increases her speed to explain all the issues. Judge 1 ask the counsel a very hard question which she is again trying to explain confidently but the judge 2 is again try to grill her but this time the counsel is cleverly trying to answer and is being to explain the question. The judges are convinced this time. 11:46: The TC 15 says its prayer. The judges were finally not convinced with the prayer due to some faults in the prayer.

TC 01

Counsel 1

11:48: The counsel 1 approaches the dais. The counsel 1 is speaking confidently. The issues 1 and 2 will be dealt by the counsel 1 and the last issue 3 will be dealt by counsel 2. The counsel 1 is speaking confidently and is putting forward his point confidently. The counsel makes a fact with which the judge is not convinced and then the counsel tries to tackle the question which the judge is asking. He is unable to explain and the judge is not convinced. Judge1 ask a very basic question but counsel is unable the answer in that moment. The counsel is trying their best to explain his fact with compendiums and books. But still the judges were still not convinced. The counsel is speaking confidently but he is still unable to explain his case to judges and both the judges are not convinced. 11:56: The judges ask a question to the counsel and the counsel is tries to cleverly try to tackle it but the judges is unconvinced. The counsel moves to the next issue. The judge 2 again points out a mistake to which the counsel is unable to answer any question and so has to rest an argument. 12:00: 5 Minutes left. But the judge is still grilling the counsel. The teammates through chit help the counsel. Then the counsel refers to a case in the compendium. 12:02: The counsel moves to another issue and is speaking confidently. Lots of chits are being passed. 12:03 only 2 minutes left to wrap up. So the counsel moves on to discuss the next issue. Before wrapping the judges ask the counsel a question to which the counsel put his point very cleverly to which the judges are convinced. 12:06: The time is over.

Counsel 2

12: 07: The counsel 2 arrives and starts speaking confidently. And is explaining issue 3. She seems to be well aware with the principles, Indian constitution and precedents. The counsel seems well versed and well researched. The counsel seems to be tensed but still is speaking confidently. 12:10 the judge 2 ask the counsel about a judgment to which the counsel is unable to answer anything because she is unaware of the fact in the judgment. The counsel is tensed and is slowly losing her confidence. The counsel fails to put forward his statement. And so moves forward to the next argument. The counsel is unable to answer basic set of questions asked by the judges and again moves to another argument where she again fails to convince the judges. 12:15 the counsel 2 places her prayer. To which the judges are convinced.

Rebuttals 12:16 the TC 15 approaches the dais and raises a very tricky issue in front of the petitioner on the rights of the indigenous people. 12:17 the TC 01 approaches the dais and tries to answer the tricky issue confidently and is able to convince the judges.

Courtroom Number 4. Hon’ble Bench comprising of Ms. Juri Goswami and Mr. Gaurab J Sharma. (Petitioner) Royal Global School, Guwahati v. (Respondent) Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur.

1115: The arguments commence sharp at quarter past 11. The first speaker from the Petitioner side has approached the dais and the Judge is already asking her about the prayer. The judge is trying to get her to break down the prayer and seems he seems unsatisfied with the prayer. Nevertheless, he permits her to move forth with the arguments. 1125: The Judge grills the first speaker with regard to her choice of presentation. The Petitioner does not seem very confident about the contentions. The judge says that he is in favour of the argument but the petitioner seems faltering. The time is already over but the Judge seems apprehensive of the Respondents mentioned in the Prayer. 1132: Speaker 2 of the Petitioner Side has approached the dais and now a discussion about the comparison between ‘due process of law’ and the ‘procedure established by law’ has begun before the oral submission of the petitioner. The judge questions the second speaker and the latter submit that the said query has been dealt with by the first speaker and then the judge poses a question the first speaker again. She pleads that she would get back to the question. 1139: There seems to be an issue with the date mentioned by the petitioner. The judges are seeking the source of the date mentioned and the petitioner looks confounded with the question posed. The judges allow her to proceed nevertheless. The petitioner moves forth her arguments but the judges look very dissatisfied with the submissions. Now the bench is ensued into a serious conflict between the principles of refoulment and the difference between illegal immigrant and refugees. 1157: The judges pose the question to the first speaker about the difference between due process of law and procedure established by law but it seems that she is not ready with the answer. The judges wrap up the contentions and proceed to invite the Respondents on the Dais. 1158: The first speaker from the respondent side has already approached the dais and begins by negating the petitioners and then moves forth to submit his arguments. The speaker seems very confident about his submissions and is quoting international conventions and treaties. The grilling has begun and the speaker is taking the question very gracefully. 1213: The judges are yet again in a tiff with regard to the dates mentioned. The judges are not content with the sources of the dates and the casual attitude of the speaker. 1216: The Second speaker from the Respondents has approached the dais and seems very calm and composed with the submissions. The judges pose questions but the speaker answers them with proper citations and reasoning and the judges look satisfied. 1227: The judges do not have any more questions as the submissions being made by the counsel seem very satisfactory. The time is over but the judges now start asking questions. The counsel finally pleads the prayer and then the judges’ question about the laws of the nation. The round comes to an end. 1238: The Petitioners begin with the rebuttal round. 1241: The Respondents take the dais for the sur-rebuttals. 1244: The round in Court room 4 come to an end.

Court Room No.- 5 Teams: -TC 18 (Amity Noida) Vs TC 2 (Reva) Bench: – Mr. Ashok Kumar Das Mr. Ujjal Pathak PETITONER COUNSEL 1 11:25-The judges briefed the both sides the procedure of presentation of their arguments stressing upon clarity and conciseness of the arguments the counsel from the side of the petitioner has approached the bench and started off by taking the permission to state the brief facts of the case. The judges have been intently listening to the arguments being presented by the petitioners. The Counsel 1 of the petitioner side has proceeded to stating the facts of the case. Judges interjected the Counsel 1 of pioneer regarding the maintainability and jurisdiction of the case. The counsel from the portioner side moved on to state the reason for the same. The Counsel moves on to summarize her arguments. The judges questioned the counsel over the issues being referred and addressed. The Counsel summarised her arguments and asked the counsel to move on to the next argument. The Counsel starts with the issues assertively and has also answered the preliminary questions of the judges satisfactorily. The Counsel proceeds with the arguments. The Judges warned the counsel over the discrepancies in the memorial of the Petitioner. After that counsel proceeds with her issue and the judges asks the counsel to sum up the arguments 11: 37-The Counsel 2 proceeds with asking the judges for permission and proceeds to present her arguments. Counsel proceeds to present the other arguments. She proceeds confidently and the judges are intently listening to her. The judges are asking question in between the arguments but called that article 21 being used in their arguments could be a double-edged sword where both sides could get hampered. The Counsel proceeds with her arguments but Judges mention discrepancy regarding the absence of proper prayer in the memorial and states to them to be specific in their prayer. The Counsel is baffled but proceeds with her augments. The Judge interjects to advise the counsel to not go beyond what is mentioned in the statements of fact and also questioned them over applicability of the basic structure of the constitution in the current case asking them to elaborate their case with citations and sufficient case laws focusing upon the ratio decidendi due to plausibility of time. The Counsel wraps up their arguments and proceeds with the Prayer but there was clear absence of court etiquettes RESPONDANT COUNSEL 1 11:52-Counsel 1 of the Respondents has started off with the issues of the case and mention that the burden of proof is upon them to prove their issue. The judges asked the counsel to not get nervous and the counsel patiently proceeds with her arguments. The judges have been grilling the Counsel with regard to whether the case has been filed under a Writ petition or a PIL to which the counsel from the respondent side couldn’t present the bench a satisfactory

answer. Meanwhile, passing of chits ensues between the counsel and the researcher. Counsel is questioned over the basic structure of the constitution. The Counsel is answering the questions of the Judges and is citing authorities to substantiate her answer. The Judges has taken steps to elaborate on the present facts and circumstances of the case along with the relevant laws with respect to the same. The judges asked the counsel to move on with the next issue in hand where the counsel mentions a convention but the judges interject seeking clarity whether or not the state is signatory to that convention. The counsel tries to answer but the judges seem dissatisfied with the reply and asked the counsel to conclude her issue and sum up the arguments. COUNSEL 2 12:07-The Counsel 2 from the respondent asked the permission of the judges to present her issue. She begins contenting her issue in a calm manner. There seems to be an effort from the counsel in trying to convince the judges by playing with the facts but is stopped in between for further clarity. Counsel 2 proceeds with her arguments but however, Counsel 2 has exceeded her time, and she asks for permission to move on to the prayer for which she has been granted the same. REBUTTALS 12:10-The rebuttals have now begun and the Petitioners seem to be very adamant about the facts and issues and after pointing out the discrepancies in respondent side they sum up their rebuttals 12:12-The Respondent side is yet again questioned whether the said case is bought as a Writ or a PIL the council could not provide them with a satisfactory reply. The round ends with the rebuttals from both the sides. In the end the judges advised the petitioner to be specific in their prayer and with that the Preliminary Round I come to an end!

Courtroom No. 6

Courtroom No. 7

Bench : Partho Biswas and and Bendanta Kaushik Teams :- PETITIONERS: T- 20 RESPONDENT: T – 06 11:07- The bench secured the seats. The teams were not there in the court room. 11:17- The petitioners reached the courtroom, the respondents were still not there. 11:21- The respondents arrived and got themselves seated, placing their research materials which created some hustle in front of the bench, while the petitioners were already seated. PETITIONERS Council 1 11 :24 The Round began with both the teams greeting the bench. Council 1 greeted the bench respectfully, and began with the Statement of Jurisdiction, on which no questions were raised. Without taking much time in the Statement of Facts, the council 1 began with AA1. The first issue was challenging the maintainability. He briefed both the issues and took some 3 minutes in the same, which nullified the time saved in the Statement of Facts. The council was calm confident and expressive. But was using the words like basically and was speaking as the first person , using acronyms like “I won’t”, and asked the Hon’ble bench “ Are you with me, Your Lordship”, while bringing their attention to moot proposition. which made the proceedings quite informal which is against the court etiquettes. In order to bring in emotions to the speech he also opened a question to the government. 11: 38 A question was raised after his speaking time got over. The bench asked the question on the writ, to which the council, which was rightly answered by him. The speech was more emotional and less law based. The council argued really well on the basis of logic though. The Hon’ble bench used the same logic against him and raised a counter question which was again very emotionally and logically answered by him. The Hon’ble bench then raised a question on the validity of Art 29 and UDHR, in which the former relation was answered well by him and the second answer he delegated to council 2 Council 2 11: 46: The council 2 greeted the bench and began with the 2 nd half of the 2 nd issue. She was calm and confident. She brought forward different national , international and local legislations. Her arguments were a perfect combination of law and logic. During the same time the researcher of the respondent’s team was using her mobile for with she was rightly pointed out. Her body language was respectful and inferred her confidence in her contentions. She was pausing and bringing passion in her speech exactly at the right places.

While concluding her speech he diverted her way of arguments from “legal and logical” to “emotionally and morally right”. She spoke about rights, duties and saving lives. At 11:57 she concluded her arguments. After the prayer she faced her first question which she answered in a very calm way again. Her answers made it further evident that she, if not anything, completely believes on the righteousness of the side she was arguing upon and thus the bench raised a question on the moral grounds which was again answered by her, and the same answer was cut by the bench in the middle by another question, but without breaking the flow she respectfully answered that as well. She answered the questions raised on law, logic, morals and assumptions and the bench seemed satisfied with her answers. RESPONDENTS Council 1 12:05 Council 1 apologised for the delay in arriving with the court before beginning her contentions. She began with the issues raised. She had rightly dissected her arguments, and she tended to prove it part by part. Despite of the use of the right language, the speech of the council sounded monotonous and under-confident. Mostly because she was relying on her speech placed on the podium which was quite evident. She did not seem connected to the arguments she was raising somehow. 20:15 Bench asked her the first question which she delegated to her co-council. The bench did not looked very happy with the delegation. The second question by the Hon’ble bench was also not answered very confidently. The Hon’ble bench asked her to refer to the amendment which she read, and then explained her contentions on the basis of the same. 12:19 Her speaking time got over. The bench then asked questions on the Citizenship Act, on which the entire contention was based but the team did not have the act due to which the bench explained the act to the council, and then the council spontaneously came up with the other questions. Failing to answer the counter questions raised by the bench, the council again delegated the questions to the co-council. Council 2 12:22 The Council 2 after seeking permission from the bench approached the podium. She began with explaining the scheme of the issue. She began with confidence but then began flustering. She summed up the second issue in 5 minutes and at 12: 27 began with the 3 rd Issue, She did not make any efforts in being subtle while reading her speech placed on the podium. 12: 29 She summed up her issues. The bench questioned her and claimed that the petitioner has established their case very well, and asked her to counter the same. She based her questions on law to which the bench overpowered by raising another question on logic. Even while answering the questions of the bench the council was continuously reading her speech which sounded very mechanical. The bench succeeded in making her lose her calm and her

speech began to become aggressive , which was an addition to the flustering. She failed to answer the questions of the bench and council left them dissatisfied by answering with silence, inferring her unawareness and lack of preparation. REBUTTALS Petitioners 12:37 : Council 2 from side petitioner came for rebuttals. She contented the arguments of the petitioners. She relied her counter arguments on the moot proposition, case laws , legislations and statues. Respondents 12:41 :Council 1 from side respondent came for rebutters. She questioned the validity of Assam Accord from the petitioners. She summed her arguments up in one minute to which the dissatisfied bench asked her another question which was answered by her, but the satisfaction of the bench remained the same.

Courtroom No.- 8 2 judge bench Teams- TC 21 and TC 5 Petitioner- TC 21 Speaker 1- issue 1, 12 minutes of the Hon’ble Court a. Jurisdiction called for as part of PIL in the SC. However the speaker failed to name the Judge who had introduced the concept of PIL in India, which bemused the judges. b.She was not well versed with the Statement of Jurisdiction and was questioned pertinently on why a PIL must be filed, to which there was mere silence. c. The speaker went too fast with the Statement of Facts, as was put forward by one of the judges in her general statements. d. In the first argument dealing with maintainability, the speaker clearly highlighted the definition of " indigenous people" and referred to the definition substantiated by the UNHRC, which was well appreciated by the judge. e. The second argument, centered around Article 14 and the premise of "Equality Before Law" invoked an analogy of how religion is used as a piecemeal reform to do away with these guaranteed rights, to which the judge bought the argument. f. The question of Article 32 being the cornerstone of alternate remedy brought in a barrage of questions from the judge, to which the speaker made wise use of the compendium in her defense. The speaker was well informed about the applicability of each of the writs in the legal and the societal context, and thus managed to establish the idea of maintainability before passing on the dais to her co- counsel. g. The first speaker had a balanced approach to the dais, having addressed the bench as it ought to be, calmly seeking the permission to proceed with an argument every time as well as with the way she kept her cool when questions were directed towards her.

Speaker 2- Issue 2 and Issue 3 a. She hurried off with the second issue that the Citizenship Amendment Act is detrimental to the basic structure, without addressing the bench or taking permission from the judges to start off with her arguments. b. She made use of M.P. Jain; Indian Constitutional Law" to.establish whether the Keshavananda Bharati case could be applicable in the present case, something which the judges were skeptical about. c. She highlighted the importance of the Freedom of Conscience; and quote Article 25 of the Constitution in her regard, which answered the questions of the bench substantially.

d. The speaker was questioned on the idea of "stateless society; and whether the indigenous people, if sent back, would be accepted by their.own country. The speaker pleaded ignorance in this regard. e. She proceeded with the third argument with the consent of the judges. She was well versed with the intricacies of the Amendment proposed to the Citizenship Amendment Act, 1955, but when questioned on the differences between migrants; and refugees, there was no clear cut answer available from her or the researcher. f. The bench questioned her on what "procedure established by law" means, to which she, to the surprise of the judges, talked about notifications, Acts and statutes and ended up with inviting a series of questions. Having referred to the compendium multiple times in this 3 minute stretch to her failure, the bench requested her to proceed to the prayer. g. The counsel was not versed with her prayer and read from the moot memorial. Towards the end of the prayer, a question on the meaning of Equity was asked, to which she presented a quick retort. h. There was a general lack of court etiquette.

Team 2 Respondent- TC 5 Speaker 1- 15 minutes for Issues 1 and 2 a. The speaker was on point with the courtroom etiquette and substantiated his arguments within a minute, which was appreciated by the bench. His address of the 2 judge bench as Your Ladyship; was appreciated by the bench for its accuracy. b. The speaker managed to quash the idea of maintainability put forward by the Petitioners, to which not a single question was asked and there was general agreement on the part of the bench. He cited the case of Sarabnanda Sonowal vs. State of Assam, and how it was misplaced by the Petitioners as part of their arguments. c. The speaker drew the attention of the bench to the definition of "influx of immigrants" and how the idea of "aggression" does not apply to the impugned Act, which was appreciated by the bench. The speaker further talked about the applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution of Pochinki. d. The speaker envisaged the applicability of "appropriate proceedings" in the Hon’ble Court regard and noted that the Petitioners had defaulted in directly knocking the doors of the Supreme Court for alternate remedy. He highlighted the fact that there have been no questions raised on why the Petitioners did not approach the lower Court and thus, it could lead to a situation of mounting arrears in the SC. This was again held in stead by the judges. e. He was questioned on whether there are grounds apart from the pendency of proceedings" that could help the SC in directing the Petitioners to approach the Hon’ble HC instead of the SC. The speaker was silent in this regard. f. The speaker as part of his sub argument, drew a clever line of difference between aliens, legitimate foreigners; and illegitimate citizens, thus defending the contention that adequate relief shall be provided to them under the amended Act.

g. The speaker highlighted that the need of the hour is to address the needs of the refugees and talked about the UDHR talking about a detailed definition. He again differentiated the idea of naturalisation; and acquired citizenship and that was again appreciated by the bench. h. The speaker definitively highlighted that the Amendment to the Act, shall in no way be introduced at the cost of the existing citizens of Pochinki and that the Amendment needs the requisite support of the public and the Courts in the Union decision. Speaker 2- 10 minutes Issues 3 and 4 a. The speaker had a measured approach with regard to how she addressed the Bench as Your Ladyships, and cautiously proceeded with the second and the third issues. b. At the onset, the speaker talked about the idea of a Basic Structure; and then talked about how the idea of "Secularism" would not be affected by the Amendment proposed. She wittily noted that there is no straitjacket formula to determine collective wrong and right of the citizens, and that the Union decision must be given due regard. c. The speaker concluded her first argument with the contention that there has no violation of the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore futile attempts to wrap the actual facts of the case merely to attract the attention of the SC is a gimmick. d. The last argument she presented as part of her team centered around whether there were adequate right for the Ralibs and the Ghalibs. The bench questioned her as to whether the very idea of introducing an amendment on the lines of the religiously marginalised is violating the essence of Secularism, to which the Constitutional definition of secularism and the idea of protection and safeguards of the idea of the very existence of a State was provided by the speaker. e. The speaker mentioned that the communities were facing religious persecution and the Union, being concerned about the rights of the refugees, wanted to introduce this Amendment. f. She drew the attention of the bench to the case of NHRC vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, wherein a clear definition of right to life" sought to be provided, and compared the plight of the refugees to the same. As part of the Union, she remarked that the prerequisite of protection for the natural citizens as well as the refugees rests ultimately with the Government and that the judiciary must recognise the same. g. The speaker further drew the attention of the bench towards the idea of protection of international law and obligations by the State under Article 51 A, which was well appreciated by the judges. She substantiated that the State is bound to follow international procedural law and thus the Amendment was sought to help the refugees to seek protection. h. The speaker lastly highlighted the importance of Article 33(1) of the UDHR and how the Union is duty bound to preserve the much vaunted safety of the refugees. She was questioned by the Bench on whether international provisions could be sought by the SC to pass a direction, to which she referred to the judgment passed in the landmark case of Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan. She put the forward the Principle of Non Refoulment before the Bench, which was appreciated. i. The speaker was well versed with the contents of the Prayer and was able to establish her issues with confidence and ease.

Rebuttals Team 1- 3 minutes a. The rebuttal mainly centred around highlighting the typographical flaws of the Respondent. b. The idea of "national security" and public order was floated by the speaker. c. She highlighted that such a blatant amendment is against the procedure established by law. Team 2- 4 minutes a. The speaker highlighted that the citations for 4 of the cases provided in the memorandum on behalf of the Petitioners was flawed. b. He further contended that alternative remedy did not qualify if the case hadn’t been filtered through the HC. c. The issue of Union discretion and the best interests of the public had been negated by the Petitioners is what he argued upon. d. The speaker argued that the case of Sarabnanda Sonowal v. Union of India; was a case which was misconstured and talked about the fact that the judgment of the case had been subsquently over turned.

Courtroom Number 9

TC-22—(Petitioner) v. TC-11 (Respondent) 11:09- The judges enter and are greeted by the participants and the court clerks. They take their seat and go through the written submissions 11:15-The Speaker 1 behalf of the petitioner approached the dais and asked to address the statement of facts. Speaker 1 was straight away questioned by the judge based on the very maintainability of the case, which was instantly answered based on the contents of Art. 32 and its provisions regarding the maintainability of the PIL. Also, Speaker1 backed the arguments by referring the very famous case i.e., Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerela. There was also a quick fire discussion between one of the judge and Speaker 1 regarding the very definition of Secularism and its relevance with Art. 14 of the constitution. Speaker 1 was also asked about the legality of an MOU or Accord which was proven later and was found binding. The maintainability was accepted by the judge on the grounds of violation of rights as well as locus standi in the case. 11:22-The issue 2 focused on citizenship and rights of refugees. The main contentions of the speaker focused on the rights of the citizens whereas was straight away negated by the judge on the basis of doctrine of proportionality. Which was further argued by the speaker on the basis of several cases and precedents that talked about citizenship and rights of the citizen. Also, the rights of the foreigners in a country were discussed based on its restriction to only Art. 21 and 22. There was also a validation of how the Kamishki Accord was a straight violation of three clauses of the constitution.

11:31-Speaker 2 approached the dais and told the judges that he shall be reserving 13 minutes of the honorable court’s time. Speaker 3 dealt with the 3 rd issue that was based on the refugee rights. The referential value of international law on the domestic laws was also contended and was finally negated by the honorable judge. The main contentions of the issue were based on 3 premises and that being external aggression, cultural identities and economic distress which were properly explained by the speaker with its relevance as well as modern day examples. Although the arguments were presumptuous in nature but held a great referential value in the eyes of the bench. The arguments were also backed by the Doctrine of public rights prevailing over private rights. This argument left the judges impressed. Speaker 2 summed up his arguments within the valid time frame contending the impugned act and rights of the indigenous people. Speaker 2 ended the arguments with the prayer.

11:41-Speaker 1 on behalf of the respondent approached the dais and informed the judges that he shall be reserving 11 minutes of the honorable court’s time and moved on, challenging the very maintainability of the case which was overruled by the judge. It was backed by the fact that there is always an alternative remedy in such cases, which was backed by the judge stating the conventions and judicial precedents in the Union of India since 1971. The main questions of the judges were based upon the duties of the Union under Art. 355 and has the union been able to fulfill the necessary duties under this Article. The contentions were based on the core of the Citizenship Amendment Bill and the crisis in Assam that it has led to and that being in contradiction to the preamble and the secular structure of it. The Kamishki Accord’s justification was also considered to be justified as the demographic structure of the state for so many years has been constantly changing. The speaker 1 thus concluded justifying the secularism and its relevance on their behalf. 11:55-Speaker 2 approached the dais and dealt with the issue 3 that had refugee rights in it. Speaker 2 seemed frivolous and stressed upon the definition of refugee according to the Africa treaty that Pochinki is a signatory to. Speaker 2 was well versed with the facts of the case and stressed upon that to justify his arguments. The lack of cases in the written submission wasn’t considered as a problem as the facts with a lesser no. of cases were self sufficient. Also, the counsel tried to negate the arguments of the petitioner; by how there has been no ruckus and lack of opportunity in employment after the influx of refugees and backed his arguments by the central government reports. The counsel was also asked about prioritizing between welfare state and rights of the citizen to which he proved as to how welfare of the state was more important. Speaker summed up with the prayer and left the dais. 12:10-Rebuttals were short and only a single contention was raised by the side of the petitioner based on certain laws being unconstitutional related to refugees and the core of the Kamishki Accord being justified which was answered by the respondents based on precedents and reports of Indian government sites and the need of the hour to change such rules that are unconstitutional.

Court room-11 Judges- Mrs Ankita Paul

T.C (APPLICANT) 24 V. T.C 10 (RESPONDENT) SPEAKER-01 (APPLICANTS) 11.12- team no 10 not only being late did not ask for permission for entering court room as well, which was reprimanded by the judges for the same. 11.17- the applicant seeks permission to approach the dais. The applicant 1 has begun presenting the case. The judges ask for summarising the case facts. 11.20- The applicants presents the arguments with a confident and a very calm tone, the environment has been set, the case facts established and the context of the case presented. the orals went smoothly for the applicant largely due to his skill in dealing with the case arguments and the tone apt for the sombre context of the case. The applicant impeccably blends the arguments presented along with the language of the law being dealt in the instant case but that does not seems to satisfy the judges and they questions the applicant on a seeming point which assumes the moral responsibility on the sides of the applicants. The judges not satisfied with the answer of the applicant’s points out the flaw in the legal acumen of applicant with their superior knowledge and understanding of the law. Despite the kink, the applicant 01 continues with the arguments in a gentlemanly and a humble manner. As the applicant addresses the more complex part of the present case, he present the case with the similar demeanour to that of the initial stages. The judges’ questions the ambiguous linking between the case presented and the arguments advanced. despite of exceeding his allotted time, the judges gave him an extra minute for carrying out his arguments. The applicant again exceeds the allotted time in order to finish his case. 11.42- the co-counsel has been left with very little time and starts his presentation in a hurried tone, the judges question the co-counsel on his misinterpretation of law, but he seems to have satisfied the judges with his answer. The co-counsel continues his case in a sense of hurriedness but with an air of confidence as well. Alas! Due to the paucity of time, the co-counsel tries to close his arguments but gets grilled by the judges because of his carelessness in dealing with his closing, the judges presents him with a hard hitting questions which he tries to answer, the co-counsel in his last ditch attempts valiantly tries answering the question but the judges gets better of him, the team 24 exceeds their time. The judges playing it fair and kind awards the defendants with extra time similar to that of the applicants without penalising them for the same. Team-10 11.52- the counsel of the defendants approaches the dais, the very opening statement has been questioned by the judges due to the callousness of the statement made, the counsel despite of being nervous, bravely puts forwards the arguments. Unfortunately the mistake only cascades into a spiral of difficult questions put forward to the defendant. The judges’ presents very valid and practical questions to the defendants which led the counsel to being grilled on the moral grounds of the arguments presented. The question put forward are getting harder and merciless by the moment and the counter presented is only making it worse for the counsel. The judges gives permission to the researcher to answer due to the incomplete replies of the counsel at the same

time they state dissatisfaction with the answers of the defendants, a setback for the defendant indeed! The defendant tries to bounce back by providing cases, which falls flat as the judges alleges no causal or persuasive relation between cases presented and the instant case. The courtroom is getting intense by the moment in contrast to the calm prevalent during the applicants. Questions upon question is being pilled upon the defendants and the counsel tries her best to address them, but is unable to convert their dissatisfaction into something positive for her team. The final nail in the coffin for the first speaker seems to have been struck with clear expression by the judges that the arguments of the defendant has not been convincing so far. A brave show was put up by the counsel in her closing statements but unfortunately the judges have made mincemeat of the counsel. 12.12- the co-counsel approaches the dais and attempts to take a fresh new initiative, but the judges are not in a mood to spare the rod and grills her on the arguments advanced as well as application of the law. The co-counsel tries to balance the lost initiative of a favourable start, appears to stabilise the situation with her persuasive arguments and it seems to work for the defendants, as the questions are not as merciless as they were earlier, but the relief was momentary as the judges are in no mood to cede any mistake of the applicant, the justification presented are overshadowed by the contention presented by the judges. The ball has been set and the judges are not in a mood to spare the counsel to the point where the rapporteur is running out of words to describe the situation. The judges are immensely cross at the demeanour of the co-counsel and reprimands them for their inability to clarify the ambiguous parts of the cases, and their habit of interrupting the statement made by the judges. The co-counsel unfortunately falls for the baits set up by the judges and this proved to be the lowering of the coffin whose nails were knocked home by the counsel. The judges interrupts the co-counsel in her last arguments and directs her to address the prayer, but alas! The defendant makes a mistake in reading the prayer and this might prove to be the costliest mistake. 12.30- the applicants 01 steps up for rebuttals and knocks down the flaws of the defendant with rebuttals which even the judges agree to. The applicant addresses the rebuttals with the same demeanour to that of his case presented. 12.33- the defendant approaches the dais and was sneered by the judges for their point of contention was negated upon by the co-counsel and have no locus standi in even addressing the rebuttals, but the judges tears into the rebuttals presented by the defendant and even addresses the applicant to re-address the rebuttals as the applicants were supposedly not being attentive enough. The judges directs the applicant team to address the contention on the behalf of the defendant. 12.38- the judges invites the applicants again for addressing a re-rebuttal and the applicant is in no mood to spare the axe. 12.40 The re-rebuttal is over and the judges gives a chance to the researcher of the defendant team to address the contention, the researcher expresses the team is done and with this the round-1 marks it twilight.

Court Room No: 13 Teams: MNLU Mumbai v UILS Punjab (TC-26 v TC-03)

Time: 11:20

Petitioner 1 seeks permission to approach the podium, and after an affirmative response from the bench, he proceeds forward and highlights the issues pertaining to the problem. On knowing the relevant issues, the bench asks about the facts of the case which the petitioner briefly enumerates. After this, the petitioner continues his arguments and highlights the grounds for maintainability of the issue. The bench, although satisfied with the submissions presented by the speaker regarding the first issue, state that it was pertinent for the speaker to mention the jurisdiction of the case before proceeding with the arguments, and then prompts the speaker to continue with the next issues. After highlighting the necessary arguments pertaining to the second issue, the speaker now asks permission to proceed to the third one, and the bench grants him permission to continue, and the speaker continues with his submissions, which the judges intently listen. The etiquette maintained by the speaker are impeccable and he calmly and eloquently tackles the questions that have been asked by the bench. After satisfying the queries of the judges, the speaker seeks permission for his co-counsel to approach the podium and continue forward with the issues, which the bench grants. Petitioner 2 approaches the podium, and highlights the issue that she is going to deal with, and then proceeds to give a brief summary of the issues that the first speaker dealt with. The bench asks a question pertaining to whether a case relevant to the matter has been cited by the petitioners, and the speaker answers in affirmative. The speaker, after satisfying whether the bench has any further queries, seeks permission to proceed with the prayer, and the bench states that the same will be allowed after the rebuttals have been put forth by both parties. The speaker humbly obliges. The petitioners put forth certain arguments for rebutting the submissions of the respondents, and the same was also subjected to questions by the bench. After satisfying the queries of the judges, the speaker highlighted certain other points for substantiating the lacunae present in the arguments of the respondents. Finally, after both the rebuttal rounds were concluded, the petitioner proceeded to state the prayer.

The post Live Blog: 1st “Vox Anatolis” National Moot Court Competition appeared first on SCC Blog.

Live Blog: 1st “Vox Anatolis” National Moot Court Competition published first on https://sanantoniolegal.tumblr.com/

0 notes