Call For PapersLaw School News

Gujarat National Law University publishes an interdisciplinary journal titled the GNLU Journal of Law, Development and Politics as part of the overall academic and research activity of the University. GJLDP aims to examine the inter-disciplinary aspect between Law, Development and Politics to initiate discussion and analyze the various issues that are being faced by various nations including India and propose solution for the same.

As we proceed to unveil the 9 the volume (1 & 2) issue of the Journal, we invite contribution to the journal in the form of articles, commentaries, original articles, review articles, book reviews, comments and discussion within the aim and scope of the journal.

Click HERE for more details.

law, development and politics

Law School NewsOthers

The Republic Day marks the day when the Constitution came into effect. Today, the Constitution is often used as an instrument for progressive change, or seen as an aspirational document of what the State should be. While it is both of them in limited capacities, it’s fundamental role is to pose a set of constraints–to establish separation of powers, a system of checks and balances and to constrain the scope of legislation, among other things.
The document has been remarkable in ensuring peaceful transitions of power, protection of linguistic minorities, women’s and dalits’ rights and in constraining majoritarianism. At the same time, government policy has shaped its interpretation in such a way that it has failed to effectively constrain the State from intervening in citizens’ lives. The Indian state’s long conflict with individual liberties is manifest in constitutional cases like Champakam Dorairajan (1951), Golaknath (1967), Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Privacy-9 J.), (2017) 10 SCC 1. The Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights raise some fundamental contradictions inherent in the Constitution.
These issues are not of mere academic interest. On the contrary, government intervention continues to weigh heavy on India’s growth story. There are a ‘million mutinies’ across the country, on issues such as land rights, reservation in education and jobs, the unemployment crisis, religious freedom and others whose roots lie in an unrestrained state which acted as an arbiter of privilege for one section over the other.
On this Republic Day, join us as we attempt to understand the role of the constitution in India’s history and the future that lies ahead. Seats are limited.
Program Highlights:
 A 2-day certificate course in law and public policy. The course will explore the various ways in which the constitution remains the fundamental determinant of government policy, and what implications it has had on India’s policy success and failures.
Program Date: 26-27 January
Application deadline: 16 January 2019
Venue: Mumbai & Delhi
Course Fee: Rs. 2,000/-

Selection: Since the seats are limited and the candidates will be selected on a rolling basis, those who apply earlier will have a higher chance of selection.

To apply click here
For any queries, send an mail at
Conference/Seminars/LecturesLaw School News

New Law College, Bharti Vidyapeeth University, Pune is organising 10 days’ Lecture Series on “Gender, Law and Equality: Emerging Issues” from 1st August to 11th of August, 2018. The concept of gender justice and it’s emerging dimensions are gaining in the global world. The lecture series will focus on understanding the laws, it’s procedural intricacies and judicial decisions aimed at gender justice.
The participants after completing the lecture series will be able to:
(a) Understand gender, gender concepts, and definitions relating to it.
(b) To reflect on gender and gender differences and their implications in society.
(c) To become familiar with the national and international legal framework for gender equality.
Registration Date: 24th-28th  July, 2018
Registration fees : Rs 500 to be paid in cash (College Office)
Registration for non-NLC students: The students can  download the registration form from The scanned copy of   the   registration   form   signed   by   the principal, bearing college seal should be sent on  on  or  before  28th July 2018. The registration fee Rs. 500 can be paid in cash by the students on the first day of program for which receipt will be given them.


  • Certificate will be given to the participants.
  • No conveyance will be given to the students.
  • The registration is restricted to 2 entries from each college.
The lecture series will be conducted with inputs from expertise including judges, lawyers, academicians and persons having field experience.
For further information, click HERE.
For Registration Form, click HERE.
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vijay Bishnoi J., while allowing to take the voice sample of the accused pronounced that “when the criminals are using the modern technologies to commit the crime, it is not justified to restrain the police or investigating agency to counter it”.

The accused in the present case had indiscriminately fired gunshots at the residence of two persons and for the same reason, an FIR was registered by the victims. It was also noted that immediately after the filing of the FIR victims had received phone calls pertaining to life threats. In the course of the investigation, police had arrested two persons and for that purpose, an identification test was called for, but the victim again received calls from Italy through Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP).

On arrest of the accused person, police felt that the information given on the part of the respondent may not be admissible and for that reason the police authorities had filed an application before the Additional Chief Magistrate to give directions to the respondent for submission of his voice sample which was rejected on the basis of ‘no consent” of the respondent. Courts below had rejected the application of the respondent for the collection of the voice sample.

The Hon’ble High Court, on analysing the contentions  placed in reference to the issue for recording of the voice sample of the accused, explained its stance by relying on the Supreme Court judgment of  Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 357, in which it was well settled that if an accused person is compelled to give his voice sample it is no violation of his rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and the law is silent on the same. Therefore, the Court by explaining the various aspects of this issue and allowing the criminal misc. petition stated that the police cannot be restrained from taking voice sample of respondent for establishing his involvement in the crime. [State of Rajasthan v. Vikramjeet Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 1343, dated 23-05-2018]

Law School NewsLive Blogging

Day 1 – Inauguration, Registration, and Exchange of Memorials

1:00 p.m. – Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to the 8th Edition of the Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court Competition 2018. We will be bringing you live updates from the competition everyday so remember to stay tuned to the blog and we hope you enjoy this ride with us.

1:05 p.m. – The teams have assembled for the registration. The room is buzzing with excitement and we can definitely feel the electricity.

2:05 p.m. – The following teams have registered for the competition.

  1. ILS Law College, Pune
  2. Maharshtra National Law University, Mumbai
  3. KIIT Law School, Odisha
  4. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
  5. Damodaram Sanjivavya National Law University
  6. Maharani Laxmi Bai Govt. College, School of Law, Gwalior
  7. Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirapalli
  8. LLoyd Law College, Greater Noida, U.P.
  9. NUALS, Kochi
  10. National Law University, Odisha
  11. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  12. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  13. Institute of Law, Nirma University
  14. School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur T.N.
  15. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
  16. School of Law, Christ, Bengaluru
  17. NUJS, Kolkata
  18. Law Centre – 1, Faculty of Law, Delhi University
  19. NLSIU, Bengaluru
  20. GLC, Mumbai
  21. IFIM Law College
  22. NLU, Jodhpur
  23. Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
  24. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi
  25. University of Dhaka

2:15 p.m. – The teams have been briefed on the rules and will now be breaking for lunch. We’ll be back soon with all the details of the Inaugural ceremony. Stay tuned for what promises to be a knockout.

3:35 p.m. – Welcome back. We are live at the inauguration ceremony and are graced by the presence of dignitaries from various fields. We begin this ceremony with the lighting of the lamp and the Saraswati Vandana to bring this event to a fitting start. The Chancellor, Dr. S.J. Chopra, and the director of the School of Law, Dr. Tabrez Ahmad have presented the guests with a floral welcome.

3:48 p.m. – The Director of School of Law, Dr. Tabrez Ahmad is greeting the participants, and informing them about what they should expect from the moot court competition. He sets out, very eloquently, the purpose of Energy Law and the experiences he hopes that the participants will have.

3:54 p.m. – The Chancellor, Dr. S.J. Chopra, is now addressing the dignitaries with his wise words. He is truly an inspiration to us all.

3:59 p.m. – Dr. Parag Diwan, the founding Vice-Chancellor of the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, is now addressing the participants. A distinguished academician, Dr. Parag Diwan has always been a guiding light for the university and his knowledge acts as a lighthouse to all present here.

4:02 p.m. – Mr. Ashish Jain, the faculty co-convener is now briefing the participants about the event as well as the past editions of the same.

4:10 p.m. – Dr. R.B.S. Rawat, Ex-Chief Forest Conservation Officer, Uttarakhand is now briefing the participants about policy making and sharing his vast experience in the field of environmental law. He appeals to the participants to protect the environmental resources that have been granted to us and the importance of international law.

4:17 p.m. – The Guest of Honor, PadmaShri Dr. Avdesh Kaushal, is now addressing the students. The founder of RLEK and a champion of environmental rights, Dr. Kaushal is a legal luminary par excellence. He addresses the students on the need for the development of Energy Law jurisprudence.

4:21 p.m. – The Chief Guest, Mr. Shekhar Dutt, Former Governor of the State of Chattisgarh, India and a Retd. IAS Officer, is now addressing the students and motivating them to reach new heights. He talks of international law and polity and the landscape of the soft law system. Mr. Dutt stresses the need for research and the need to understand the International Politics. Mr. Dutt further talks about the discussion around the creation of public policy and strengthening the legal system.

4:32 p.m. – Mr. Krishna Deo Singh, Faculty Convener MCA gives the vote of thanks to all the dignitaries. The guests are felicitated by the Director, Dr. Tabrez Ahmed.

4:40 p.m. – We are now moving for the Group Photograph followed by the High Tea. We’ll be back for the Researchers Test and the exchange of memorials.

5:30 p.m. – The researcher’s test is underway. Meanwhile, the memorial exchange and the fixtures are being conducted in the Auditorium. The researcher’s test is for a duration of one hour.

6:00 p.m.- And we are heading towards the final event for the day, which an informative session from our knowledge partners- SCC online. Our Instagram page is giving the live update at energy_moot18   Follow it guys! We’ll back tomorrow with all the live updates from the Preliminaries and Quarter Finals. Watch this space.

Day 2 – Preliminaries, Quarter Finals and Cultural Night

10:10 a.m. – Ladies and Gentlemen, we are back for the second day of the Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court Competition, 2018. We are live at the judges briefing as the research committee briefs the honorable judges about the moot problem and the intricacies of the challenges that the clients face. Meanwhile, the participants are seated in the courtroom, anxious to begin the day. We will be bringing to you all the live updates as the day goes on.

10:25 a.m. – Here are the fixtures for the first round of the preliminaries –

  1. GNLU v. CLC, Faculty of Law, Delhi University
  2. School of Law, Christ, Bengaluru  v. NLSIU, Bengaluru
  3. LLoyd Law College, Greater Noida, U.P. v. Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirapalli
  4. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi v. KIIT Bhubaneshwar
  5. RGNUL, Patiala v. School of Law, Sastra University, Thanjavur
  6. NUALS, Kochi v. NLU, Jodhpur
  7. Maharani Laxmi Bai Govt. College, School of Law, Gwalior v. ILS, Pune
  8. IFIM Law College v. MNLU, Mumbai
  9. Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, DU v. University of Dhaka
  10. DSNLU v. SLS, Pune
  11. School of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (Swing Team) v. NLU, Orissa
  12. GLC, Mumbai v. NUJS, Kolkata
  13. Nirma University v. SLS, Hyderabad

The judges briefing continues as we wait with bated breath for the rounds to begin. The judges are grilling the research committee about the moot problem. We can only imagine what the participants are in for.

11:05 p.m. – The judges are making their way to the respective courtrooms as we fasten out seat belts for what promises to be a roller coaster of a ride.

Preliminaries – Round 1

Court Room 1:
GNLU v. CLC, Faculty of Law, Delhi University

The Agent 1 from the side of appellant has approached the bench and started off by stating the brief facts of the case. The judges are questioning the authenticity of the authorities being cited by the Agent, and the response by the agent doesn’t seem to be to the satisfaction of the judges and they seem unimpressed. Agent 2 has now approached the dais and is dealing with issue no. 3. Before the Agent could set the rhythm of the argument, the bench starts with the questions. Agent is unable to answer the questions of the judges successfully and the confidence of the agent seems to be wavering. He fares a little better with the 4th issue in what can only come as a relief to the appellants.

The Agent 1 from the respondent side has started off the argument in a systematic manner. However, the things have taken a turn for the worse as the judges seem to draw the conclusion that several of the arguments of the agent are not backed by any authority and are rather baseless., The judges are for the time being not intervening much, letting the arguments flow smoothly. However, it seems that we spoke too soon. The the last issue being dealt by the Agent seems to run counter to what the agent previously stated and the judges have caught onto that.

Court Room 2:
School of Law, Christ, Bengaluru v. NLSIU, Bengaluru

The Agent 1 from the side of the Applicant has approached the podium.
Judges are putting forward questions and asking them to back their authorities with proper citations. The arguments being raised by the Agent is being contradicted at every point by the judges and this doesn’t seem to be helping the Applicants case at all. They are in a tight position which they might find difficult to maneuver out of.
Agent 1 has now started with the second issue. The tension in the room rises as the Agent is unable to save their cause. Finally, after repeated signs of time extension, Agent 2 approaches the dais. The judges are poking holes in the arguments of the Agent very systematically. The agent is trying to anchor their drowning boat but it is not proving fruitful. Let’s see what the judges think.

Respondents are at the podium after a long wait.
They also get the same treatment from the judges. The compromis is analyzed carefully and in depth by the judges. Mathematics and geography are also scrutinized thoroughly.
The 1st issue of respondents has been disregarded completely with the Judges stating that their arguments and the compromis are not in consonance with each other.
The judges are being dismissive and now the respondents are being asked to move to their other issue. Agent 2 fares relatively well and is able to substantiate the arguments and it is smooth sailing for them now. Let’s hope it ends well for them

Court Room 3:
LLoyd Law College, Greater Noida, U.P. v. Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirapalli

The applicants have started with the briefing of facts. The judges are patiently listening to the legal arguments being presented by the Agent 1. The judges are questioning the authority of the cases cited by the applicants. The Agent 2 seems confident and judges seem quite satisfied with his arguments. The counsel has been continuously referring to the compromis and all in all this is a great performance.

The Excellencies have asked the respondents to brief them with facts which favour them. The agent has been using the moot compromis and the memorial to substantiate her arguments. They have moved on to the arguments. With the lack of time, the Excellencies have asked the agent to conclude her arguments. The co-agent seems very well prepared to clear the queries of the excellencies. The co-agent has been answering the questions with poise. Due to lack of time the excellencies have asked the co-agent to wrap up with her arguments.

Both these teams are equally matched. This is an exciting contest.

Court Room 4:
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi v. KIIT Bhubaneshwar

The judges have asked the applicants to present the facts. As soon as Agent 1 started with the legal arguments the judges bombarded them with a lot of questions. The applicants have not filed a compendium which is creating a problem in proving the authorities they have cited. The judges don’t seem satisfied with the arguments and have asked the Agent to conclude her arguments. The Agent 2 is unresponsive to the questions asked by the judges.

The respondent agent has directly started with the legal arguments. The agent has not been able to provide any authority for some of their arguments and instead have referred to Dictionaries. The Excellencies are not at all convinced with the authorities they have cited.
The co-agent is giving accurate answers but is it enough to undo the damage caused by the lack of substantiation?

The excellencies have reverted to asking about the basics of international law and this will be a real challenge for the respondents.

Court Room 5:
RGNUL, Patiala v. School of Law, Sastra University, Thanjavur

Agent 1 of the applicants seeks the permission of the excellencies to proceed.
Agent 1 has started to explain the finer points of their arguments with assertion. The judges tried to waver the confidence of the agent however it seems that the agent was prepared for that as those arrows from the side of excellence were dealt eloquently with by the Agent. The court is well involved in the orals now, listening intently to the arguments being presented by the agent.
Agent seems to be well prepared as the question which was asked by the judges was dealt with ease by the Agent. However, judges are not fully satisfied with the agent’s explanation and have now started to grill the Agent on that particular point.

Agent II from the respondent side seems to be prepared to clear the way and give light to their arguments, however, its all in vain. The Agents are unable to wade through the never ending questions of the judges. Let’s see how the judges view their performance.

Court Room 6:
NUALS, Kochi v. NLU, Jodhpur

The applicant seeks permission from the judge to approach the bench and begins with his oral arguments, however, the Agent seems nervous and is fumbling. The judges are getting impatient and ask the Agent to wrap up their arguments within 10 minutes and then the agent of the applicant seeks permission to proceed. The judges start to grill the Agents on various issues mercilessly and the Agent is taking various defenses but the Judges seem unconvinced.

The respondent after seeking the permission of the judges to approach the bench has started with the issues and the respondent seems very confident and very clear with the issues and judges also seem very impressed and are intently hearing the arguments. The judges have now started grilling the agent on various legal issues. The atmosphere in this courtroom is rather quiet, with a question here and there from the judges and no other drama.

We cannot tell which way this contest will tilt. Stay tuned.

Court Room 7:
Maharani Laxmi Bai Govt. College, School of Law, Gwalior v. ILS, Pune

The Agent no. 1 for the applicant has approached the dais and in a confident and articulate manner began his arguments. Agent no. 1 is done with his arguments and it’s time for Agent no. 2 to begin with the arguments. The bench is letting the proceedings, run in a very smooth manner, with minimal intervention. This would definitely come as a sign of relief for the respondents who will shortly take the stand. The applicants have rested their case. It was a good performance by both the counsels, only time will tell, if the bench agrees with us. Stay tuned.

Agent No. 1 for the respondents approaches the dais to present their case. A very fine display of confidence and reasoned, argumentative skills. That was the smoothest flow of argument, probably, ever and well within the allotted time.
Agent 2 for the respondents begins with his arguments. The judges are having a hard time here, the agent is a very soft-spoken guy. Well, he better get his pitch up or it may cost his team. The respondents are done with their case and the applicants have been called upon for rebuttals.

Court Room 8:
IFIM Law College v. MNLU, Mumbai

The judges are in total control of the proceedings from the word go. Agent No. 1 for the applicant is in a very tight spot and the clock is ticking. She has run out of time and the judges have a lot of unanswered questions.She somehow survived this extremely inquisitive bench, let’s see if her co-agent can do any better.
The bench is back at it, and the council is in a bit of a spot right now. Well, well, well, the applicants have had to rest their case due to paucity of time. The applicants would definitely be feeling that they could have done better.

The respondents shall now present their case. Agent No. 1 for the respondents is in the line of fire, and the bench is  mulling over the arguments. The agent is clearly struggling in keeping up with his line of arguments. The allotted time and the allowed extra time is over and the questions don’t seem to end. Agent 1 would be happy with the effort that he put in. It was a valiant one.

Agent 2 is called upon to argue the rest of the respondent’s case. She began her arguments in a poised and calm manner. The judges have let off with a barrage of questions and the trend continues. And yet again, the agent had to go past the allowed extra time to complete her argument. This bench has proven to be a tough one for both the teams, but then, a moot is all about satisfying the bench, let’s see which of the two teams did a better job.

Court Room 9:
Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, DU v. University of Dhaka, Bangladesh

We have started with the matchup. 1st Agent from the side of the appellant has approached the dais. As soon as she cited the relevant authorities for her arguments the Judges began with their questions.
Judges are grilling the 1st Agent mercilessly but to the Agent’s credit, she has managed to keep her cool and answered to the satisfaction of the judges.
As soon as Agent 2 approaches the dais, the judges start questioning him on the procedural legality of the grounds and principals on which their arguments are based. The agents looks confident and the judges seem impressed
Judges are now on a spree of cross-questioning, the Agent is now wavering in his demeanor and seems to be caught in the web of questions.
It has been 10 minutes since the expiration of time period yet, judges are questioning him on his each and every statement. Researcher of Appellant is trying to help out his team member but it looks like he is failing miserably because for every one answer of speaker judges have two new questions ready for him.

1st speaker of Respondents has approached the Dais. He seems to be lacking confidence but judges seem impressed that he has all the copies of cited judgments.The speaker is under volley of questions by the judges and tries to answer all of them to the satisfaction of judges.

Agent 2 of respondent has now approached the Dais. Judges are asking the Agent several legal questions from the very start of the orals. Judges do not look satisfied with her answers but nevertheless, let her continue. Agent is putting forward her arguments supported by numerous case laws and conventions and is backing it up with help of a fact sheet.
Judges seem impressed by her thorough knowledge of the compromis and case laws but continue to grill her mercilessly, not even giving her time to speak or complete her answers.
The judges seem to be on a rampage as they raise question after question not even waiting for the answers. The respondent manages to respond to most of the questions sufficiently.

Court Room 10:
DSNLU v. SLS, Pune

Judges have arrived and the round begins!
Agent 1 states the facts and follows it up by addressing the issues. The Agent has lost track of the argument and has dug a hole so deep that she is unable to get out.

Agent 2, on the other hand, is quite assertive and speaks with a bold voice filled with confidence, however, that confidence starts to waver when the Agent is unable to answer the questions of the judges and in fact ends up countering his own arguments.

Agent 1 of the respondent started out with a lot of composure and confidence but after the questions of the judges, he seems a little lack-luster. However, the Agent pushes through and gains back his composure after hopefully has managed to convince the judges on the issues.
Agent 2 is passionate with her oral arguments. The judges try to divert her by their questions but she is sticking to her issues. She is well versed with the facts of the case and using them as a shield for the queries of the judges.

All of these matches are going to go down the wire with no one team emerging as the clear winner. We can’t wait to see what round 2 holds.

Court Room 11:
School of Law, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (Swing Team) v. NLU, Orissa
Judges started firing questions at Agent 1 right away. Some questions were answered to the satisfaction of the judges, some were not. The questions of judges are deceptively clever to confuse the speaker.
Agent 2 addresses the remaining issues. Judges are relentless with their questions but Agent 2 is managing the onslaught with vigor. The arguments of Agent 2 were good and delivered in an articulate manner but he was continuously addressing the judges erroneously.

Agent 1 from the respondent approaches the bench. She speaks in a composed manner and is making fine points. Now the judges starts asking questions of all sorts. The speaker is trying her best to answer these questions in a manner that the curiosity of the judges be satiated. In the final minutes she submits her issues and their justification.
Agent 2 follows through by elaborating the issues and countering the allegations of the applicants. Also she is answering the questions of the judges in an unwavering manner. The judges grant the second agent an extension to allow her to finish her argument. This is too close to call

Court Room 12:
GLC, Mumbai v. NUJS, Kolkata

The Agent for the Applicant side starts with briefing the facts and deals with the issues ably leaving no room for doubt. The judges, however, seem to find certain loopholes in her arguments and are now firing questions at her, which she manages to handle deftly for the moment. Agent 1 continues with her argument but is again under pressure of the Judges’ questions which she tries to answer to the best of her ability.
Agent 2 has now taken the floor and continues with their contentions. The Bench has turned quite inquisitive and the Applicant side appears tense. The Respondent side seem to be taking notes at the speed of light to rebut the Applicant’s arguments.
The Agent continues her arguments against the ticking clock. The questioning seems to have taken a toll on Agent 2’s composure although her arguments appear to have clarity of thought. Agent 2 has exceeded her time but the Judges appear interested to hear her out and allow an extension. The Applicants finally rest their case. Let’s see how the Respondents shape their arguments against the Applicants’ case.

The Agent for the Respondent side takes over the floor, she appears quite confident and manages to convince the Judges with her answers to their queries. Agent 1’s arguments are factually sound and she seems to know what she’s dealing with. But wait, this is getting interesting. The Bench is grilling Agent 1 and she appears to be faltering, her team members try to help her out by passing chits. The Judges do not appear convinced, seems like Agent 1 could not cross that hurdle smoothly.
Agent 1 passes on the torch to Agent 2 and Agent 2 continues with their contentions in a composed manner. However, Agent 2 does not appear as energetic as her predecessor and the tension in the room seems to have stilled. Agent 2 does not lose her composure even in the face of questions being fired at her. The time has come to an end but the Respondents are taking time to wrap up. The Respondents finally rest their case. This is going to be a tough one to decide.

Court Room 13:
Nirma University v. SLS, Hyderabad

It seems that the judges were prepared to grill the applicants from the word go. Though the applicant is soft- spoken but he confidently answered the questions asked by the judges substantiating with some cases. However, the co-agent of the applicant seems to be nervous and the judges have taken advantage of this fact and are now bombarding the agent with questions.The co-agent seems to be lacking preparation and is unable to answer the questions of the judges and does not seem to be well-versed with the facts. The arguments seems to be slowly getting away from the hands of the applicant as Judges continue to grill them mercilessly.

The judges seem to grill the respondent from the very start just as they did the applicant. The respondent seems to struggle with the questions asked by the Excellencies. However, the co-agent seems to be confident with the arguments and is fairly answering the questions but the real struggle is to satisfy the Excellencies. The grilling has continued till the end, be it the respondent or the applicant.

That brings us to the close of the first preliminary round. We’ll be back with the fixtures for the second round along with all the live updates.

Preliminaries Round 2

Court Room 1
SLS Hyderabad v SOL, Christ, Banglore

The agent no. 1 from Applicant has come up and she is giving a short brief of facts related to the case simultaneously referring to similar cases to prove her argument and the judges are not interrupting as of yet. By the end of the arguments of Agent 1 however, the judges seem to have drawn the conclusion that the Agent is not clear with the law. She has dealt with issue no 1 and 2, now agent no. 2 has resumed the proceedings and is going to deal with issue no. 3 and 4. As Agent No. 2 falters in the very beginning against unrelenting judges, it seems that she has her work cut out if she wants to impress the judges. Let’s see if the Respondent perform any better.

The agent no. 1 from the respondent side has approached the dais and stating the fact briefly in order to set the base for her arguments. She explains her arguments succinctly and persuasively. Now the agent no. 2 has come up to deal with the issue no. 3 and issue no. 4, and he easily manages to convince the judges with his brilliantly structured arguments not leaving a lot of room for interrogation.

Court Room 2
NUJS, Kolkata v GNLU

The agent 1 approaches to the podium. Right off the bat, the Bench starts with a deep research. Agent 1 manages to answer beautifully, blending the facts of the case with proper cases.
However they have not adhered to the time limit and, let’s hope it doesn’t cost them a lot.The agent 1 now is in a trouble with the question put forward to her. She is not able to satisfy the judges as all her approaches and efforts of making the argument are going into vain.
Retrieving her confidence and putting forward her arguments she steps down from the podium.
Agent 2 approaches the podium and is already put forward with a question before even she starts with her arguments.
The agent is also smoothly tackling with the questions put forward and is satisfying the judges. The agent 2 very skillfully has managed not to invite a lot of cross-questioning.

The respondent approaches the podium. The agent 1 starts with their contentions, affirming it with the help of case laws. It seems to be going smoothly for the Agent, however, when they start with the other contentions, the Agent has contradicted themselves, in turn resulting in a barrage of questions.
However, Agent 1 manages to navigate well and is dealing with the other contentions seemingly well.
Agent 2 takes the podium in a very diffident manner and has been advised by the Judges to calm themselves down and then proceed. The advice has worked for the Agent as he is able to successfully answer the three questions being posed to him. Although the questions never seem to end, the Agent has fared quite better than what was expected out of him in the beginning.

Court Room 3
NLU, Odhisa v GGSIPU

The applicant seems to be under pressure from the very beginning, yet the agent 1 tries her best to answer the questions raised by the Excellencies. The agent 1 has cited conventions and case laws to prove her points and that seems to work and the excellencies seem pretty satisfied. The agent-2 begins her arguments in a very confident manner. The excellencies interrupt the agent-2 with questions to which she answers confidently and to the satisfaction of the excellencies. But now the agent-2 is only repeating her arguments and is stuck in the rut unable to take the applicants arguments forward.

The respondent Agent 2 seems confused since the beginning of her arguments, Which has led to continuous interrogation by the excellencies. The agent 2 is not able to understand the questions put up by the excellencies and seeks permission to conclude her arguments. The performance by the Agent 2 is quite disheartening and a total let down. Let’s see if the judges agree with us.

Court Room 4
SLS Pune v Llyod Law College

The Agent 1 of the applicant has begun in a systematic manner. The excellencies have started with a lot of questions. There has been continuous passing of the chits and Agent 1 is seeking help from them to answer the excellencies. The excellencies don’t seem convinced with the answers. Agent 1 continued with his arguments. One of the excellencies just said that he is bored with the arguments. Agent 2 is pretty confident and starts out and ends confidently.

Agent 1 for the Respondent has begun on a very confident note and is in total control of the proceedings. Agent 1 is well versed with the facts and the arguments. The excellencies didn’t get a chance to question the Agent 1 at any point.
But the tables have turned as soon as Agent 2 starts with his arguments. He is being bombarded with a lot of questions. The excellencies are discussing a lot amongst themselves. Agent 2 is facing the brunt of the attack and let’s see if they crumble under the pressure. This is quite an interesting contest.

Court Room 5
University of Dhaka v NUALS, Kochi

The agent 1 from the side of the applicant seems to be nervous in the very beginning. The excellence have started with the questions and the applicant has been pushed into defensive mode.
The agent tries to smartly side-step questions that could lead to problems for them but the Excellencies seem determined to get an answer.
The session is getting more interesting as the agent is bombarded by the judges. This intense back and forth is amazing to look at.
The applicant side is actively participating, with the co-agent and the researcher, helping the agent in salvaging this situation. The second agent has been interrupted right at the beginning of her first argument and the judges are punching holes in the arguments of the Agent and she is being trapped in her own arguments. Let’s see if the respondents fare any better.

The Respondents are next and they start off their argument by submitting a huge compendium. Agent 1 deals with the excellencies in an able manner and supporting his argument by using facts. The excellencies are in total control, however, Agent 1 from respondent’s side seems very well prepared to clear the queries of the excellencies.The agent is well versed with his arguments which somehow prevented him from grilling. The agent answered most of the questions satisfactorily and passes on the rest to his co-agent who performed equally well.

Court Room 6
MNLU, Mumbai v MLB, Gwalior

The round starts on a low note as the applicants seem to be low on energy. The agent 1 seems rather unprepared and not well-versed with the facts of the case and the laws pertaining to it. The judges act as the guiding light to the agent, helping him navigate through the issues of his case. But it seems that the Judges are done being nice, and have now started grilling him extensively.
Agent 2 has started with vigor, but it doesn’t help their situation as such because the Judges seem unimpressed.

Agent 1 of the respondents approached the bench with confidence. However, the confidence of the Agent was shaken as the judges pointed out an error in their prayer. A total turnaround in the attitude of Agent 1 is noticed as now he seems nervous. Agent 2 is unable to rescue their sinking ship.

Court Room 7
NLU, Jodhpur v IFIM Law college

Agent 1 for the applicant begins with her submissions in a calm and composed manner. She is swiftly moving through her structure of arguments and comfortably answering the questions put forth by the bench. Agent 1 has summed up her arguments within the allotted time and here comes Agent 2 to address the remaining issues. A fine display of argumentative skills. Well within the allotted time, covering all the bases and satisfying the questions of the bench as and when asked. It’s time for the respondents to take the dais and present their case before the bench.

Agent 1 for the respondents begins with her submission and she is done with her arguments with minimal intervention from the bench. Agent 2 takes the dais to substantiate the remaining issues. It was a confident display of argumentative skills by both the agents and they were able to put forth their case well within the permissible time limits. The applicants are called upon to submit their rebuttals.

The round is too close to call. Anyone’s match.

Court Room 8
ILS, Pune v RGNUL, Patiala

Agent 1 for the applicant takes the dais and begins with his arguments. The bench has come out all guns blazing and Agent no. 1’s confidence is taking quite a hit. The clock is ticking and agent 1 is not even done with his first issue. Time over, the agent did a decent enough job, pulling things ?together at the end and resting his issues on a satisfactory note.
Agent 2 has been called upon to address the remaining issues raised by the applicants. Agent 2 is doing a good job, the bench is not taking it easy on any of the agents. They have questions and these questions are hampering the flow of arguments.

Agent 1 for the respondents begins with her submissions. The bench has posed a question to which the agent seems to have no satisfactory answer. Excellencies have allowed the researcher to research the said question while the agent continues with her other submissions. The bench is not very satisfied with the submissions being made by the respondents. Time is running out and Agent 1 is in a bit of a spot right now.
Finally, agent 1 is done with her submissions and agent 2 takes the dais to deal with remain issues. Agent 2 starts her submissions on a confident note, addressing the questions raised by bench. Agent 2 is very categorically enunciating her arguments and the counter-arguments to the questions posed by the bench. And the trend continues, the permissible time limit is over and agent 2 is not yet done with her submissions. Agent 2 is asked to quickly sums up her submissions and the applicants have been called upon for rebuttals.

Court Room 9
SOL, Sastra University v DSNLU

We have started with the matchup.
1st Agent of Appellant has approached the dais and briefs judges with the facts. On being questioned, Agent 1 is unable to answer the questions. Disappointed, judges grant her permission to carry on. The Agent looks a bit unprepared.
The Agent is slowly trying to get back in the game. She is substantiating her arguments with relevant case laws. But the judges are getting to her with their unending questions and the Agent seems to lose her composure and confidence.
Unable to answer the questions, speaker seeks an apology and sums up her arguments.
Agent 2 of Appellant has now approached the dais. The demeanor of the Agent is quite nervous and she seems diffident. Cross questioning of the judges have taken her by surprise it seems. Speaker does not seem to be making valid points and the judges don’t seem impressed.
Speaker humbly submits her prayer and move back to her position.

Agent 1 for the Respondents has approached the dais. Agent 1 seeks permission to directly address the issues in question and her confident demeanor has given the Respondents a smooth start which we hope is maintained throughout their round.
Agent 2 has now approached the dais and has maintained the flow of their orals by giving a powerful argument and further substantiating it with case laws.
I think we jumped to the conclusion too soon as while dealing with the other issue, the Agent 2 stumbles. She looks confused and nervous and unable to answer the questions being posed by the judges.

Anything can happen folks. This competition is just getting exciting.

Court Room 10
DSNLU v. SLS, Pune

Agent 1 takes her position at the podium with the permission of the bench. A question is raised regarding sovereignty which the agent answered adequately. The issues were raised with justification attached to them by the agent. There were some questions left unanswered in the air but the arguments were fairly appropriate.
Agent 2 is submitting the issues and the judges are asking questions regarding the basis of these issues. Agent is answering these questions to the best of her ability. Agent is warned once to not to assume facts and use them to support her claim. One of the issues of the agent was not substantiated properly. Judges are asking questions mercilessly. Agent is boxed into a corner and there seems to be no way out.

Agent 1  for the respondent speaks with assertion. The judges ask her deceptively clever questions but she manages to answer them successfully.
Agent 2 approaches the bench. The agent seems confident. The answer given by the agent to the question by the bench backfires a little and causes harm to the credibility of the respondent. The agent fumbles a bit after being continuously questioned by the judges. He starts citing case laws now to support his claim. It looks like the harm is already done as the judges continue grilling him with questions.

Court Room 11
TNNLS v GLC, Mumbai:

Agent 1 has started with her contentions from the Applicant’s side after a brief overview of facts. She appears nervous. The Hon’ble Bench is interrogating her vigorously, let’s see how Agent 1 fares in the face of adversity. This is getting quite interesting. Chits are being passed continuously by her team members to help her out of this tight spot. The Judges seem to be enjoying the grilling. Agent 1 has finally moved on to their next contention, but the Judges are on a roll. Agent 1 pleads ignorance to their query but tries her best to regain her flow but the clock is ticking to an end. Agent 1 has to stop midway and passes the mantle to Agent 2.
Agent 2 tries her best to bring the ball back to court. The Bench has turned quite inquisitorial and Agent 2 is struggling to keep up. There’s a light moment in the room when the Judges ask Agent 2 if she’s the Vatican to be able to do anything and get away with it. The Respondents seem to be enjoying the Applicants’ grilling but let’s see what end they come to in a while. The time is up and the Applicants rest their case.

Agent 1 has taken the floor from the Respondents’ side and appears confident. The Bench continues its interrogation but Agent 1 manages to convince the judges all through maintaining her composure. However, the Judges are not one to back down but the Researcher steps in to save the situation. Agent 1 continues on to their next issue, but the Judges have put her in a tight spot again which she again manages to evade successfully.
Agent 2 takes the mantle from her but starts off with wrong facts on International Law and lands herself in a tight spot. The Judges hand her submission back to her on grounds of ignorance by the Respondents and asks her to continue with her issue. Agent 2‘s composure has taken a toll and she appears flustered. She tries her best to maintain the standards set by her predecessor and successfully manages to regain her flow. Chits are being passed at a furious rate by her team members and the tension in the room is high. It’s the Applicants’ turn to enjoy the show, and this has taken an interesting turn of events. Agent 1 has run out of time and has to hurry to wrap up their arguments. The Respondents finally rest their case.
Despite their slightly fizzled out end, the Respondents have definitely given the Applicants a run for their money.

Court Room 12:
NLSIU, Banglore v Nirma University

Agent 1 starts submitting various issues and arguments to the bench. The bench is occasionally raising queries. She is citing various international law principles to substantiate her claims. She maintains her calm while answering questions from the bench.
Agent 2 speaks with less confidence compared to the other agent but affirms the claims of the other agent and her own with principles and case laws. She is passionate about her claims and conveys these claims firmly. She uses the judges’ questions to further her claim to the case. The agent is thorough with her research is using the memorial, moot problem & compendium intensively.

Agent 1 of the Respondent firmly makes his points and claims. He is rejecting the arguments of applicants simultaneously. The manner of delivery of the arguments by the agent is good. There are occasional queries by the bench which are satisfied by the agent to the mark.
Agent 2 seeks the permission of the bench to argue before the bench. He begins by rejecting the claims made by the applicants. Documents are given to the judges to substantiate the claims made the agent. There seemed to be some question about inter-generational equity which was adequately answered by the agent

Court Room 13:
CLC, DU v UPES, SOL (Swing Team)

The applicant started in a systematic manner, describing the structure of their arguments and the time allotted for the same. The applicant firmly states his arguments and initially answers all the questions asked by the Excellencies. However, in the latter part, he seems to struggle with the questions asked. The co-agent seems to be confident with the facts, but seemed to struggle at the end of his argument.

The respondent with a slow pace began with the arguments, however he later faced the questions asked by the Excellencies. Seems like the co agent was extremely well versed with the facts but however not well versed with the arguments and the laws supporting the arguments which was somewhat case for the appellant as well. After what seemed like an eternity of question, the judges finally allowed the respondents to move onto the prayer.

The second round of the preliminaries has come to an end. We’ll be back with the results soon.

3:50 p.m. – The judges are being felicitated as we move on towards the quarter-finals. Here’s a list of all the teams that qualified and who they will be facing –

  1. Nirma University v. NLU, Odisha
  2. TNNLS, Tiruchirapalli v. MNLU
  3. NLU, Jodhpur v. Lloyd Law School
  4. Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi University v. RGNUL, Punjab

Court Room 1 – Nirma University v. NLU, Odisha

Agent No. 1 for the applicant begins his submissions with poise and confidence. The Excellencies have broken the flow of arguments and are dictating the proceedings. The agent has just contented a fact that did not please the bench. Agent 1, played it extremely well, the bench had some unanswered concerns and he was able to satisfy the same.
Agent no. 2 comes forth to present the remaining submissions. The bench is not convinced with the submissions being made, as in their view the burden of proof has not yet been discharged and the argument cannot be taken to be conclusive. Agent 2 has shown immense composure under pressure. The applicants have rested their case and it’s time for the respondents to present their submissions.

Agent 1 for the respondents begins her submissions and the excellencies are on it from the word go. They are bombarding questions and agent 1 for the respondent is skillfully dealing with the queries. A few fundamental questions related to Public International Law, to check the Agent’s legal acumen. Agent 1, has used up all of her time and is forced to summarize her arguments within 2 minutes.
Agent 2 approaches the dice and explains the line and structure of her arguments, that she is going to submit before the excellencies. She begins with her submissions. Keeping up with the good performance of Agent 1, Agent 2 looks confident and has everything under control. The Excellencies have increased the pressure and Agent 2 is in a tough spot, right now. Well, that is some splendid argumentative skill, being displayed here.
The Respondents conclude their submissions and rest their case with their prayer.

Court Room 2 – TNNLS, Tiruchirapalli v. MNL

Agent 1 steps up to the podium to address the bench. She starts with the facts of the case which are followed by the contentions. The excellencies do not give any time to the participants and start asking questions right away to test the preparation of the agent. The judges do not seem to be satisfied by the answers provided by the agent. The confidence of the agent crumbles completely and it seems that she does not have any satisfactory answers. The proceeding moves to the 2nd issue. The agent fails to regain her confidence & composure. We move to issue 3. Agent again tries to find her rhythm and she partially succeeds. It does not look very hopeful.
Agent 2 comes to the stand and is ambushed by questions regarding jurisdiction which the agent fails to establish. It seems that the team is mildly unprepared. The agent is unable to convince the bench of the party’s issues. The performance of agent 2 though better than that of the co-agent is still a bit lacking. The judges are merciless with their questions which too is hampering the composure and poise of the agent. In the end the agent was doing well but it all crumbled when she wasn’t able to answer a simple question like “What is ‘opinio juris’?”

As the respondents take the dais it is clear that the judges are not sparing anyone from their questions. Again the bench asks of jurisdiction through which the agent 1 of respondent has approached the bench. Agent 1 is holding on somehow from the relentless questioning of judges. He is citing various case laws and the judges are asking the facts and circumstances in those case laws to get a better understanding of the contentions made by the agent. It seems an answer was given which was to the satisfaction of the bench. Agent is still trying to hold his ground and convice the court of his issues by citing various principles. The agent is throwing allegations towards the applicants.
Agent 2 takes the podium and begins with their remaining contentions. He appears a little nervous though and manages to answer the questions fired at him by their Excellencies confidently if not correctly. However he starts to falter in the face of further interrogation and the Bench has successfully managed to put him in a tight spot. The Applicants seem to be jotting down notes at top speed for rebuttals, let’s see what they have up their sleeve. Meanwhile, Agent 2 is listing out case laws in order to wriggle out of this situation. Agent 2 starts with his final submission but the Bench seems to have a lot of inquiries in relation to his arguments. However, the questioning does not dampen Agent 2’s spirit and composure and he continues with his contentions. The clock is ticking to an end and the Respondents finally rest their case.

Court Room 3 – NLU, Jodhpur v. Lloyd Law School

Agent 1 from the Applicants’ side has taken the floor and begins with a brief statement of facts and moves on to her issues. She appears confident and clear about her arguments. Her contentions appear well researched and she continues uninterrupted. But that’s not to continue for long because their Excellencies have started putting forth their queries. However Agent 1 handles the situation well and their Excellencies appear satisfied. She’s quick to substantiate her arguments with the documents being submitted by her to their Excellencies. Agent 1 began to falter in answering a query but soon regained her flow. Maintaining time well she passes on the onus to Agent 2 who continues with their third issue.
Agent 2 also appears bold and confident and maintains the standards set by her predecessor. She’s well versed with judicial decisions on various cases and preachings of jurists. Though she appears nervous when faced with grilling by their Excellencies, she manages to hold her own. There seems to be a difference of opinion between Agent 2 and their Excellencies which is soon resolved and Agent 2 moves on to their last issue. Agent 2 comes to an end of her submission. The Applicants have enunciated their arguments and supported their inferences with numerous authorities. It is going to be a tough task to match up to the same. Let’s see if the Respondents can come up with a fitting reply.

The agent 1 of the respondent has started. She has been answering all the questions which have been put up by the excellencies and they seem pretty much convinced with the answers. Despite the continuous cross-questioning from the bench, Agent-1 has been able to answer all of them.
Agent-2 is going to elaborate upon the last 3 issues. She seems well prepared with her arguments. As soon as the excellencies started with their queries, Agent-2 became a little confused. The excellencies have now started to ask specific questions relating to the facts of the case.
The judges don’t seem very interested in the rebuttals of the teams.

Court Room 4 – Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi University v. RGNUL, Punjab

The agent 1 of the applicants has begun by introducing the issues. The excellencies are patiently listening to the arguments. But that was only for a while and now the judges have started to ask a lot of questions. The excellencies have asked the Agent 1 to corroborate his arguments with authority but he is unable to do so. Due to the paucity of time the excellencies have asked the Agent 1 to move on to the next issue. He could not finish his arguments within the allotted time and has requested for an extension.
Before the agent 2 could start arguing the excellencies have questioned him about the jurisdiction, which he is unable to answer. The excellencies ask the agent 2 to state cases or any authority which can substantiate one of his arguments, but he is unaware of any such authority. The excellencies ask the agent-2 to move onto the last issue since they are not able to answer accurately.

Agent 1 from the Respondents’ side starts with a briefing of Statutes referred to in their contentions. She seems calm and composed and is quickly listing off authorities. However there is a distinct lack of energy in Agent 1’s submissions after this, maybe the tiring day is wearing her off, or maybe it’s the judges relentless questions. When faced with questions from their Excellencies, Agent 1 appears flustered and their Excellencies don’t seem so convinced. She continues her arguments in furtherance of her contention but is again interrupted by their Excellencies’ queries again which she’s unable to answer and shifts the responsibility of the same to Agent 2. What seemed to be a strong start for Agent 1 proved to end very weakly.
Agent 2 takes the podium and begins with their remaining contentions. He appears a little nervous though and manages to answer the questions fired at him by their Excellencies confidently if not correctly. However he starts to falter in the face of further interrogation, the Bench has successfully managed to put him in a tight spot. The Applicants seem to be jotting down notes at top speed for rebuttals, let’s see what they have up their sleeve. Meanwhile, Agent 2 is listing out case laws in order to wriggle out of this situation. Agent 2 starts with his final submission but the Bench seems to have a lot of inquiries in relation to his arguments. However, the questioning does not dampen Agent 2’s spirit and composure and he continues with his contentions. The clock is ticking to an end and the Respondents finally rest their case.

And this brings us to an end of the Quarter-Finals. Watch this space for the results of the next rounds and what the semi-finals hold.

6:40 p.m. – As we wait for the results of the quarter-finals, the participants are entertained by the cultural night full of dance, music and comedy. We will return shortly with the results.

7:40 p.m. – An we are back. After riveting performances by Vultus, Sankriti, and Izhaar among many other, the night seems to be saturated with excitement.

It is now time for the results of the quarter finals. Here are the teams that have advanced.

  1. NLU, Odisha
  2. MNLU, Mumbai
  3. NLU, Jodhpur
  4. RGNUL, Patiala

We’ll be back tomorrow with all the updates from the semi-finals and the finals. Watch this space for all the live action.

Day 3 – Semi-finals, Finals and Valedictory

9:45 a.m. – And we are back with live action from Day 3 of the Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court Competition. The judges for the semi-finals have arrived and the judges briefing is underway. Meanwhile the semi-finalists wait with bated breaths for the rounds to begin. They are so close to the glory, they can almost taste it.

10:50 a.m. – Ladies and Gentlemen, it is now time for the semi final. The best teams in the competition have moved ahead and will be battling it out for the trophy and the laurels that come along with it. Here are the fixtures for this round.

Court Room 1 – MNLU v.  RGNUL:

Agent-1 has started on a good note. He has been answering all the questions with confidence. However we see a bump in the road as the agent-1 just contradicted his own argument which has created a confusion in the minds of the excellencies. Agent-1 however manages to maneuver successfully as he gives a beautiful answer to a question posed by the excellencies that what he would have done if he was in respondent’s place.
The allotted time period is over and the agent seeks permission for extension of time but the excellencies didn’t allow him to speak further. The Agent is dejected as he is unable to conclude his arguments. Let’s hope this does not cost him a lot.
Agent-2 of the applicants has started her oral arguments in a systematic manner, describing the structure and manner in which she will be dealing with the issues. The excellencies have asked her to first discuss the technicalities of the issues and then touch upon the legal aspect of the issues. Agent-2 seems petrified with the kind of questions the excellencies have asked her,. There is continuous passing of chits from her team members, but it doesn’t seem to help her at all. Mr. President seems the most disappointed with her answers. The excellencies now ask her about the kind of relief the applicants want from the bench. Moving onto the 2nd issue the excellencies ask her to answer the important questions first and not straightaway move ahead with the next issue. The excellencies have asked the researcher to answer one of the questions. While stating their prayer, it seems that the excellencies are praying on behalf of the applicants.

The agent-1 of the respondent has started on a confident note. The bench while enjoying their cup of tea, have started grilling the agent-1. The excellencies say that the respondents are claiming their title over the disputed territory, but nothing has concrete has been established that shows the respondents have sovereignty over the territory. Mr. President compared this situation to the situation of Pakistan claiming their title over Kashmir.
The bench seems satisfied with the arguments put up by the agent-1. The agent-1 seeks permission for extension of time but is denied the same.
The agent-2 seems energetic and confident. Despite of the continuous cross questions she is giving all the answers accurately. The excellencies are continuing to be hard on the agent-2 but she is answering in a calm and composed manner. She is continuously referring to the moot compromis to substantiate her answers. Due to the paucity of time the excellencies ask agent-2 to elaborate upon the reliefs the respondents want to seek.

Court Room 2 – NLU Jodhpur v. NLU, Odisha

Agent 1 for the applicants begins her submissions before this learned 3 judge bench. She is swiftly moving through her arguments and simultaneously satisfying the queries put forth by the learned bench.
Well, the learned excellencies have raised a concern and the agent is finding it difficult to satisfy the bench. The bench, not being entirely satisfied have reserved the issue to be heard at a later stage.
This has been an outstanding performance by Agent 1, and it is to see whether her co agent can finish off on the same lines.
Agent 2 begins her submissions with the usual pleasantries and a brief introduction of her scheme of submissions. She looks calm and composed and is confidently answering the questions put forth by the bench.
Well, well, well, the agent has just made a blunder. She just challenged the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, being an applicant. Well, quite a few bumps and mistakes on the part of the agent, but in toto, this was a commendable effort by the Applicants. It’s time for the Respondents to present their case now.

Agent 1 for the respondent begins her submissions in a confident and poised manner. The learned bench is very categorically pointing out the lacunae in her arguments. The learned bench is posing some extremely intelligible queries before Agent 1. She has so far been able to satisfy the bench on all such counts. However, where Agent 1 is struggling with is time management.
Well, in totality the Agent did a pretty good job and now it’s time to see if her Co-agent can take it forth to finish off the event at a strong footing.
Agent 2, without wasting any time, begins her submissions. Agent 2 has no idea what hit her, the bombarding of questions has thrown her off of her entire scheme of arguments. This Learned Bench is turning out to be the winner among the competing teams, without actually competing. The Applicants and the Respondents were called upon to submit their rebuttals and address the issues reserved by the learned bench.
An extremely informative and educational session. Both the teams were faced by an extremely learned bench and the quality of mooting seen in this round was top notch. Whichever of the two teams takes it away from here, what must be highlighted is that this has been a learning experience for all of us.

And that brings us to end of the semi-final. What an exhilarating contest. We’ll be back with the results of the semi-finals soon.

12:50 p.m. – The judges for the quarter-finals are being felicitated by the Director, School of Law, Dr. Tabrez Ahmed. As the finals draw ever nearer, the excitement is palpable. The results will be announced soon.

1:20 p.m. – The following teams have advanced to the finals.

  1. NLU, Jodhpur
  2. RGNUL, Patiala

We are live with the final round that you can view on –

We will be updating you with the action as it happens.


Court Room 1 – NLU, Jodhpur v. RGNUL, Patiala

The finals have started in full force with the auditorium packed with audience. The Agent 1 from the side of the appellant has approached the bench and has briefed the excellencies about the facts of the compromis.
The excellencies have already begun with the volley of questions as the appellant discusses the practice in both civil and common law countries. The applicant is explaining to the excellencies the concept of sovereignty and the excellencies are grilling Agent 1. The Agent is standing strong, substantiating her answers with case laws. The Agent is elaborating upon the issue of prescription but she is under constant fire from the bench. The agent has for the time being satisfactorily responded to the excellencies. And they continue on their pursuit to establish sovereignty. The agent is elaborating her response with a renowned case adjudged by Justice Schwebel and Lauterpacht.
The Agent has been allowed to move to her next submission which is issue 4 of the Compromis and it relates to compensation, the Agent has cited the classic trail smelter case.
The President of the Bench has jumped into action, seeking answers with regard to customary international law and the equidistant principle. The Agent has been able to satisfy the President and has continued with her submission, discussing the aspect of state responsibility in the present case.
The Agent 2 has taken the dais, she has started off strong. However, the excellencies are not impressed and before she can actually begin with her submissions, she is being bombarded with questions. The Agent tries to elaborate upon the principle of effective control but she is interrupted again. This is brutal as the judges dismantle the flow that the Agent is trying to create.
The Agent is now attempting to prove the Company’s several liability. But the judges have caught on to the fact that the company worked as a JVC and this might backfire.
The Excellencies have demanded precedents and the Agent has provided them deftly. The Excellencies are really taking the Agents to hell and back and the applicants are doing their best to face the fire.
What is clear here is that there seems to be a communication parallel running here with the excellencies and agents running on different lengths.
The Excellencies have categorically stated that they do not place any faith in the submissions of the Applicants and this must really be a blow to the Agents.
The Agent of the applicant carries on valiantly though, sticking to her point as she argues the non-existence of strict liability.
The Agent finally seems to have the excellencies on her side and this could be the change that they were looking for. It has to be said the second Agent is doing extremely well as she keeps her poise and calm. She has kept her wits about her as she has cited International conventions in relation to civil liability and ship pollution. The Agent is really putting on an impressive show. The Agent has deftly summarised her argument and moved on with the prayer.
This was an impressive show by an impressive team.

Agent 1 of the Respondents has approached the Dais, the agent has started strong however, she is unable to gain a footing. The excellencies are asking the Agent to substantiate her arguments and not merely quote statements.
The Agent now addresses the issue of declaration of territorial waters, substantiating her argument with the case of Island of Palmas. The agent is interrupted by the excellencies and has stumbled over her words while trying to answer the questions to the satisfaction of the excellencies. The Agent however is trying to slowly gaining control, quoting the case of Libya .v Malta while dealing with the issue of exclusive economic zone.
The excellencies question the inaction by the Respondent on aspect of establishing sovereignty. The excellencies write off the arguments presented by the Agent with regard to the lack of action. However, the Agent is not backing down easy she is trying to substantiate her arguments with the help of the compromis. The excellencies finally let the issue go as the Agent quote the case Qatar v Bahrain. It is quite impressive how the Agent was adamant with her submissions and finally was able to convince the excellencies.
The President has asked a question which has left the Agent at a loss for words. However, the Agent gains her composure and with vigor and she is trying to establish that the Respondents will not be liable for the actions of the Company conducting oil exploration. The submission by the Agent is well appreciated by the Excellencies but due to paucity of time, she is made to rush to her conclusion unable to finish off strong.

Agent 2 has now started with her submission, she is not being allowed to establish the facts and the excellencies ask her to move on to the issues directly. Agent 2 is precise and clear with her oral arguments, stating that the charges they put forward are obligations erga omnes. The excellencies have asked a question with regard to ratification of UNCLOS and how they will hold the other party liable under the UNCLOS if they have not ratified it. The Agent is now getting slightly frantic, her arguments are not being appreciated by the excellencies and they are asking her to substantiate her point with the help of precedents. This has caught the Agent in a loop as she is not able to gain any footing in this particular submission.
The agent got a bit frantic but is slowly gaining control of the flow of her arguments. The agent is discussing the principle of preferential rights with regard to artifacts. The argument is allowed to flow smoothly without any interruption by the excellencies.
The Agent is allowed to address her next issue now, and the barrage of questions have started again. The President points out that the Agent is contradicting her own statements. The argument is long forgotten now, the agent is caught in the web of words she herself made.
This final was a tough and intense one, the audience are unable to gauge who will win. Lets see what the excellencies think. The results are eagerly awaited!


3:30 p.m. – Ladies and Gentlemen, we are back with the valedictory ceremony. We are excited to know  who the winners of this competition are and what the final moments of this competition hold. We are honored to be in the presence of dignitaries such as Justice Satendra Kumar Jain (retd.), High Court of Allahabad, Mr. Mohd Naseem, Chairman and Managing Partner, Global Law & Liaison Services; Ex. Legal Counsel, ONGC and Ms. Piyushi Diwan, Renowned Author and Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court. We are also grateful to be in the presence of Institutional dignitaries such as Ms. Deepa Verma, Registrar; Mr. Arun Dhand, Director Govt. Relations; and Dr. Tabrez Ahmad, Director, SOL, UPES.

3:49 p.m. – The Director, Dr. Tabrez Ahmad welcomed the judges and addressed the participants. He thanked the moot court association for all the hard work put in by them and the participants for arriving and giving it their best shot.

3:52 p.m. The Student Convener, Ms. Yuvakshi Grover, addressed the participants as she briefed all present about the entire event through a movie dedicated specifically to this 8th edition.

3:55 p.m. Ms. Piyushi Diwan, is now addressing the participants and sharing with us stories about the late Dr. Paras Diwan. Ms. Diwan narrated stories about the life of Dr. Paras Diwan and how he acts as an inspiration for us all.

3:58 p.m. – The Honorable Justice Satendra Kumar Jain (retd.) is now addressing the students about the importance of law in our society and the growth of law as a profession. He emphasizes the need to read bare acts and the capability of lawyers to change the world. The honorable Justice has motivated us all today to achieve greater things.

4:04 p.m. – The dignitaries and judges of the final  are felicitated by Dr. Tabrez Ahmad. We thank them for taking the time out to grace us with the presence.

4:15 p.m. – Ms. Shruti Reddy, Faculty Convener of Society of Law and Literature, has announced the results of the 3rd UPES International Energy Law Writing Competition, 2018. The Winners are –
Winners – Lloyd Law College
1st Runner Up – RGNUL, Patiala
2nd Runner Up – MNLU

4:22 p.m. – Without much ado, here are the results of the 8th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court Competition, 2018. Here’s the complete list of winners.
Best Researcher – Nishtha Arora, NLU, Orissa who wins a cash prize of Rs. 10000, a trophy and books.
Best Speaker – Shreyanshi Sharma, RGNUL Patiala, who wins a cash prize of Rs. 10000, a trophy and books.
Best Memorial – Lloyd Law College, who win a cash prize of Rs. 20000, trophies and books.
1st Runner Up – RGNUL, Patiala, who win a cash prize of Rs. 30000, one year membership to SCC Online,a trophy and books.
Winners – NLU, Jodhpur who win a cash prize of Rs. 50000, one year membership to SCC Online, a trophy and books. 

4:34 p.m. – The Director of School of Law, UPES, Dr. Tabrez Ahmad felicitates the core committee of the MCA, Ms. Yuvakshi Grover, the Student Convenor; Mr. Biswaroop Mukherjee, Secretary; and Mr. Vishwas Rai, Treasurer. After a vote of thanks by Dr. Mamta Rana, Faculty Coordinator, MCA we come to an end of this exciting competition.

Thank you for taking the time to tune in and share with us in the excitement and intensity of the competition. We hope you had a fun time reading. We would like to thank, our knowledge partners, SCC Online and Eastern Book Company for all their help. Thank you for reading. On behalf of the live blogging committee, we wish you farewell. Thank you.