1:30 p.m. – We welcome all of you to the 7th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court Competition. Thank you for tuning in. The moot, one of the most prestigious in the country will soon be underway. We hope to keep you entertained throughout the moot.
2:05 p.m. – The participants have assembled in the auditorium and the registration process will soon commence.
2:20 p.m. – It’s great to see participants from almost 14 states of the country and a special shout-out to the team from Dhaka. The registration and draw of lots is now underway.
3:00 p.m. – The following teams have registered-
- Gujarat National Law University
- Symbiosis Law School, Pune
- NMIMS Law School, Mumbai
- Central University of South Bihar
- Alliance School of Law, Alliance University
- Amity Law School, Delhi, (Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University)
- Symbiosis Law School, Noida
- Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian Law College, Bengaluru
- L.Law College, Belagavi, Karnataka
- CMR Law School
- School of Excellence in Law, Chennai
- Government Law College, Ernakulam, Kerala
- National Law University, Odisha
- ILS, Pune
- Tamil Nadu National Law School
- The National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi, Kerala
- Lloyd Law College
- GLC, Mumbai
- National Law Institute University, Bhopal
- MNLU, Mumbai
- Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, DU
- Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
- Rayat and Bahra National University of Law, Punjab
- Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
- Damodram Sanjivayya National Law University, Vishakhapatnam, Andra Pradesh
- HNLU, Raipur
- Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
- Faculty of Law, University of Dhaka
The teams have now stepped out for group photos. Congratulations to all the teams for making it through the memorial selection rounds.
3:10 p.m. – With the completion of registration process, we are now ready for the briefing of rules and the researcher’s test. The researchers seem to be excited and rearing to go. We are seeing some last-minute conversations amongst the team members and some last-minute research.
4:30 p.m. – The teams have assembled back in the auditorium. We are soon beginning with the inauguration ceremony.
4:50 p.m. – We’d like to thank all the dignitaries for their esteemed presence. Our Chief Guest is Mr. Suresh Dhar, a leading advocate. Other guests include Dr. S.J. Chopra, our Chancellor; Dr. Srihari Honwad, Vice-Chancellor; Mr. Sanjiv Zutshi, Senior Director Operations; Ms. Deepa Verma, Director Institutional Affairs; Mr. Arun Dhand, Director Govt Relations, Deans from other colleges and heads of other departments. Big thanks to our sponsors as well, SCC Online, GAIL and EBC.
4:55 p.m. – The Master of Ceremonies introduces our honored guests. The events are officially underway with the lighting of the lamp and the Saraswati Vandana.
5:00 p.m. – Dr. S.J. Chopra, The Chancellor imparts some wise words to the crowd.
5:05 p.m. – The Chief Guest, Mr. Suresh Dhar, a senior lawyer in the Uttrakhand High Court, is now on the stage. He specializes in the field of anti-corruption. He shares with us his experience and is engaged in an enlightening discourse.
5:11 p.m. – Ms.Shruti Reddy, faculty convenor of Society of Law and Literature, inaugurates the 2nd UPES Energy Law Judgement Writing Competition and briefs people regarding the rules, which shall be based on the memorial of the 7th Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court Competition. We expect some great entries this year from all the aspirants.
5:15 p.m. – We end this inauguration ceremony with a vote of thanks by Mr. Arun Dhand, Director of Government Relations, who commends the efforts of the Organizing committee.
5: 17 p.m. – We break for high tea but stay tuned because right after this, we have a workshop by SCC online representatives.
6:45 p.m. – The SCC online presentation is underway. The representatives from the institution have divulged some important knowledge that will definitely help all those involved. They have given us some key points on honing our researching skills and the little gems of wisdom regarding reporting and cross-referencing.
7:28 p.m.- The end of the lecture brings about the end of first day. The participants are heading back to the hotel for dinner and we will see you tomorrow. Stay tuned for there will be a lot of exciting action waiting for us.
Day 2 : 8th April, 2017 – Preliminaries and Quarters
10:10 a.m. – Good morning and welcome back to the 2nd day of the Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court. We have an exciting day ahead of us. Stay tuned for some riveting action.
10:12 a.m. – And we are starting off today with the Judges’ Briefing. The Judges are being informed about the facts and issues of the moot proposition by the research committee. Soon, we’ll be beginning with the preliminaries.
11:05 a.m. – The judges briefing is done with. That was one long session. The judges are now moving for the group photograph.
11:30 a.m. – The preliminaries have commenced, we will be providing the real time updates from every courtroom.
Court Room No. 1: Tamil Nadu National Law School v SLS, Hyderabad: The applicant seems nervous and is trying to calm himself down but it is to no avail. The respondents are up next and are dealing with the Excellencies and supporting their arguments by the use of authorities. They are well aware of the facts and circumstances of the compromis.
The agents is mixing up his statements and is responding to questions that aren’t even put up. This might turn into a fiasco if they don’t salvage it soon. The applicant seems to be fumbling with his words which just gives the excellencies the opportunity to put them under more pressure. The excellencies have a frown on their face which probably shows that they are not very convinced by the version of facts being laid out in front of them.
Court Room No. 2: School of Excellence in Law, Chennai v GNLU: Applicant side has began with the facts of the case. The applicant is being bombarded with questions. Some they answer to the absolute satisfaction of the Excellencies but in others they seem to be disappointed. We’ll see how this round progresses. The applicant is struggling with the memorial in order to answer the questions. The excellencies are motivating the agents and that seems to be working well. A new life seems to have been breathed into the agents and while they do fumble with a few queries, they are gaining ground.
The respondent starts off by submitting a 500 page compendium. The questions of treaty interpretation are put forward. The Excellencies seem unconvinced with the answers. The co-agent for the respondents is so well-prepared that he need not even look at his submissions. He satisfies the excellencies.
Court Room No.3: Law Center I, Faculty of law, Delhi University v Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian Law College:It seems like the applicants are suffering from the very start. They fail to answer basic international law questions but we are hoping the co-agent can pull up the socks. The agents is responding to the excellencies but the answers don’t seem to hold any sway. The co-agents is responding to the queries raised by the excellencies. And we have hit a snag as the agents forgets decorum for a moment and address the Excellencies with pronouns.
The respondent begins weekly perhaps forgetting court decorum for a moment. They don’t seem to be very well versed with the facts of the case and fail to cite relevant authorities. There were faults in legal arguments which the excellencies needed to rectify. This might prove problematic
Court Room No. 4: GLC Mumbai v SLS, Noida: Right off the bat, the Excellencies are ready with the questions. Seems like the applicant is in for a grilling. But he seems to be fluent and well versed with the compromis. But when it comes to the legal aspect, the applicant seems to be lagging. Let’s see how long it takes for them to move to the front foot in this legal battle.
The respondents are humble and polite. They speak with care weighing every word. They are clear with the law and facts of the case. And all in all seem to be in stellar form. Both these teams are tough and this will be a well fought battle.
Court Room No.5: Symbiosis Law School, Pune v DSNLU: Agent of the applicant seeks the permission of the Excellencies to proceed. There were some questions during the proceedings but they went past them with ease. All of the Judge’s doubts were extinguished swiftly by the agents of the applicants. Agents conveyed there contentions fully and clearly to the Excellencies. The 2nd agent took a little extra time to settle her arguments and was not able to give a suitable case law to the satisfaction of the Excellencies.
The agents of respondents are attacked with questions immediately and they failed to answer them definitely. This shook the confidence of the agents and affected their performance. While the respondent seem to be aware of the general principles of law, they seem to be losing ground when it comes to specific principles of international law.
Court Room No. 6: NLIU, Bhopal v Central University of South Bihar: Applicant was performing well but the time ran out, so with the permission of the Excellencies she asked for a little more time to wrap her arguments. The other agent of the applicants is fumbling a bit due to the pressure but manages to pull through but with some questions unanswered. Also the agents were very formal in addressing the Excellencies and were procedural in their approach which will definitely fetch them more points.
The respondent are answering the questions of the Excellencies through the interpretation of treaties and the facts of the matter. The agent is well versed with international law and is performing very well. Agent 2 took the help of various case laws to cement his contentions.
Court Room No.7:Amity Law School, Delhi, IP University v Lloyd Law College: The agents are unable to answer satisfactorily and have run out of time with some issues remaining undealt. We’ll see if this harms their chances of moving on to the quarters.
Before the respondents can even begin, the Excellencies are asking them questions which they cannot answer. The respondents response is not satisfactory which seems to confuse the Excellencies and the fact that they are contradicting their previous argument does not seem to be helping their case at all.
Court Room No.8 : ILS Pune v Campus Law Centre, Delhi University: The applicants are answering the question put before the confidently, speaking with utmost poise. The applicant is fluent and is able to deal with all the issues.
The respondent seems to be nervous in the very beginning. They are answering the Excellencies satisfactorily. The Excellencies don’t raise a lot of questions and it seems that the respondents are doing a good job satisfying them with their argument.
Court Room No.9 : GLC, Kerala v Faculty of Law, Dhaka:
The Applicant has begun with a formal stating of issues. The excellencies have started with the questions and the applicant has been pushed into a defensive mode. The time for the agent is running out, and the pressure is building up fast. Let’s see if the co-agent can pull things together but their legal knowledge seems to be lacking. Stay tuned.
The second Agent is here, and he seems far more confident and composed. This is turning into a interesting battle between the questions of the Excellencies and the Agent, and he is definitely giving a tough fight. The talisman of “Who must pay the compensation? ” seems to be haunting the applicants.
The first Agent for the Respondents has begun with an introduction. The Agent looks extremely confident and is diligently answering the questions put forth by the Excellencies, to their satisfaction. She seems in control of the proceedings. Only time will tell, if she can keep it up.
The second Agent has taken the dias and has erroneously said something that has been picked up by the Excellencies. It was a difficult situation but the speaker has made it out of that situation confidently. The Excellencies are governing the flow of the proceedings and the Agent is cornered.
The Second Agent is running out of time and the Excellencies have gotten under his skin. The speaker is well past the allotted time and still has a lot to contend. The Excellencies have allowed a last few minutes, but the speaker is tangled in the questions put forward by the Excellencies and the the extension is about to end.
Court Room No.10 : Alliance School of Law v NUALS, Kochi : The Excellencies are in total control. The applicant is finding it difficult to answer and the clock is ticking. The applicant has been pushed into a corner and the questions don’t seem to be ending anytime soon. The co-agent takes the stage to answer the questions Could he pull this together and end on a high note? Stay tuned for more.
The first agent for the respondents is done with her arguments and she has laid down a firm base for the second agent to consolidate upon. The second agent has been interrupted in her very first argument and the Excellencies seem to have picked up a flaw. Moving on with her arguments, the agent seems to be playing it cautiously and the strategy seems to be temporarily working.
And here it goes again, the Excellencies have again picked up a flaw and the speaker is being targeted with questions and the Excellencies do not seem entirely satisfied with her arguments.
Court Room No.11: SMR Law School v NMIMS Law School, Mumbai: The applicants are articulate when they put forward their arguments. They are brisk when they are responding to the queries and their use of authorities shows that their preparation is commendable. The queries of the Excellencies though seems to break through the confident exterior of the co-agent and he seems to fumble.
The respondent has taken the dias. He seems a bit inarticulate in the beginning of his submissions but soon gains eloquence. He seems very well prepared to clear the queries of the excellencies.
Court Room No.12: MNLU Mumbai v RGNUL: The grilling by the Excellencies doesn’t seem to faze the very confident agent who looks nervous and yet composed. It is remarkable in the way they are precisely stating what the excellencies want to hear. But they have sadly run out of time before they can deal with all the issues.
Court Room No.13: Rayat & Bahra, Mohali v R.L Law College Karnataka: The applicant seems to be under pressure yet the agent tries her best to answer the questions raised by the Excellencies. The Excellencies aren’t really convinced with what the applicants are stating.
The respondents are facing what seems to be an uphill climb. The Excellencies remind them of the human cost of their actions and that seems to tear their argument asunder. No proper answer seems forthcoming.
Court Room No.14: HNLU, Raipur v NLU, Odisha: The applicant begins with the utmost confidence. Mr. President asks the agent to brief the court with the facts of the case and then continue with the statements of jurisdiction. The agent is succinct and persuasive and answers the queries raised by the Excellencies with confidence. The applicant tries to smartly side-step questions that could lead to problems for them but the Excellencies seem determined to get an answer.
The respondents plead ignorance to a lot of queries and that doesn’t buy them any favors from the judges. They run out of time but that isn’t enough to stop the respondents. They are given an extension but soon that runs out too because of the constant grilling by the excellencies.
1:10 p.m.- That brings us to the end of the first prelims. That was a very interesting round, we’ll start the updates for another engaging session, in a few minutes. Stay tuned!
1:40 p.m. – Round 2 of the Preliminaries have begun. Let’s catch up with the action.
Court Room No.1 – NLU,Odisha v. School of Excellence in Law, Chennai
The Applicant is nervous but they are well versed in their arguments and that is helping them overcome their initial jitters. No questions were further put up by the excellencies during their arguments, and they seemed convinced. The moot proceedings are put on hold since the excellencies grill the teams simultaneously. The excellencies point out grounds for rebuttal to both the teams and this seems like quite a mess.
Court Room No.2 – R.L. Law College v. Tamil Nadu National Law School
The applicant started off with their argument but were interrupted by their excellency with queries which the Applicant could not satisfy at all. They were confounded by one question for a long time which weakened their argument. The applicant got no chance to speak as the excellencies grilled them continuously.
The co-agent was very nervous and was asked to relax by the excellency. Even the co-agent seems unable to satisfy the queries of the excellency and seems unprepared. The first agent steps in to answer, but the judges are still not satisfied. The respondents seem to have lost their grip on this match as they struggle to answer the questions. It might not be too late though as they are still attempting to give a good fight.
Court Room No.3 – RGNUL v. GLC, Mumbai: The applicants are well versed with the facts but seem to contradict themselves in the prayer. They confirm with their researcher and respond to the judges but the judges do not seem wholly satisfied.
The respondent find trouble as there is inconsistency between their oral and written submissions. They skips issues and forget court mannerism which might cost them points. They are unable to satisfy the courts queries.
Court Room No.4 – NMIMS Law School, Mumbai v. Faculty of Law, Law Center I: The applicant is humble and courteous before the court. They cite conventions and case laws to prove their points and that seems to work for a while until the applicant ends up contradicting themselves. The back and forth continues as every response to a query is greeted by another one. The agent answers most of the questions satisfactorily and passes on the rest to his co-agent.
The respondents are beginning now and observe all the niceties. The bench responds to the agents arguments with questions of their own, even sharing a joke or two. The respondent provides clarifications and then concludes.
Court Room No.5 – NUALS, Kochi v. NLIU, Bhopal
The applicants are faced with questions of the excellencies at the very start of their argument and are trying their very best to satisfy the excellencies. Agent 1 is trying very hard to ascertain the contentions with the help of the compromis. Agent 2 is confident but the excellencies are giving her a hard time. The excellencies are interacting with the agent so as to determine the basis of their contentions. The confidence of the agent seems to be fluctuating. Case laws on various contention are demanded from them for the acceptance of the same.
The very law is being challenged by the respondents as they attempt to dissuade the court to follow the decisions made in previous cases.
Court Room No.6 – Faculty of Law, Delhi v. Amity Law School, Delhi (IP University)
The Applicants are formal while addressing the excellencies. The applicant is very calm and composed and carries the proceeding smoothly. They answer various question put forth by the judges adequately with the help of the various articles and provisions of relevant treaties. So far the applicants are performing very well. The contentions are well formed by the applicants and are communicated properly to the excellencies. The applicants are checking all the right boxes regarding the matter.
The respondents start off at a blistering pace providing no opening to the excellencies. But the dynamics shift soon as they are caught in a torrent of questioning which they fail to get out of. This seems like a well balanced fight and any team could take this.
Court Room No.7 – Campus Law Center, DU v. Alliance School of Law: As the researcher attempts to prompt the team into action, we see an onslaught of questions against the applicants. While they are courteous, they seem to be struggling against the queries.
The respondents seems to be losing their composure when faced with a barrage of questions. It feels as if the excellencies are prodding them along and almost arguing for them. The questions raised seem to take them off balance but the respondent is soldiering on valiantly.
Court Room No.8 – LLoyd Law College v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune: The applicant begins their argument by citing case laws which garners admiration from the judges who seem to be agreeing with them. The snag arises when the judges ask a question that completely bewilders them.
The respondent starts out strong and continues on with that momentum. The excellencies seem convinced by the argument and all the queries are being answered to their satisfaction.
Court Room No.9 – Central University of South Bihar v. ILS, Pune: The applicant begins their argument by citing case laws which garners admiration from the judges who seem to be agreeing with them. The snag arises when the judges ask and question that completely bewilders them.
The Applicant has begun with a brief statement of facts and the bone of contentions. The Excellencies are putting up some very interesting questions and the agent for the applicants is giving precise and well thought answers. The questions are now pouring down upon the Applicants and they seem to be in a defensive position. The time is running out and the agent is still tangled in the queries of the Excellencies. The speaker has used up all of her time and has been allowed an extension of 1 minute to deal with their last issue.
The respondents begins their arguments in a very confident manner. The excellencies interrupt the speaker with questions to which the speaker answers confidently and to the satisfaction of the excellencies. Suddenly the tables are turned and the excellencies are stuck on a query which the respondent is unable to address. However, the agent’s confidence is remarkable and is constantly thinking on their feet. The excellencies are coming up with very well thought of queries which require a rather logical explanation accompanied by the relevant legal principles. The arguments are getting interesting. Even though the time limit is over, the excellencies have allowed an extension to address their reservations.
Court Room No.10 – DSNLU v. GLC, Kerala: The Applicant seem to be trying very hard to stay composed, but is pressurised due to the continuous interruptions by the Excellencies. The Agent seems to have gotten himself tangled up into his own arguments and the Excellencies have taken hold of the proceedings. The applicants are definitely on a back foot and the clock is ticking.
The respondents are in a time crunch and the agent is still left with one issue. The excellencies do not seem satisfied and the respondent is unable to come up with any satisfactory arguments. The second agent has come to the stand and has begun with his issue of maintainability upon which the excellencies have turned the tables on him and he is left with no response. As a result the respondents have been forced to move to their next issue.
Court Room No.11 – SLS,Noida v. MNLU: Since the beginning of the submissions, the applicant seems nervous. Their way of putting forth the submissions is rather dilatory. But the lack of grilling from the Excellencies is helping them gain their confidence. But as soon as the first question is put forth, nervousness took over the applicant which is predominant in the way they are presenting their argument.
The respondent has started their submission in a very clear and precise manner. They seem to be agitated while being grilled by the excellencies but they pull through.
Court Room No.12 – Bishop Cotton Women Christian Law College v. SMR Law School: The applicant seeks the permission of the Excellencies to begin. The approach adopted by the applicant is aggressive though it is not backed by substance. The queries raised are not satisfactorily responded to and it seems like it will be difficult for the applicants to turn this into a success.
The respondents seem to lack the requisite knowledge at first but then the co-agent brings steadiness to a rocky ship. They speak eloquently for a while but end up contradicting themselves.The respondents seem to lack the requisite knowledge at first but then the co-agent brings steadiness to a rocky ship. They speak eloquently for a while but end up contradicting themselves.
Court Room No.13 – GNLU v. HNLU, Raipur
Applicant takes the dias with utmost confidence. The Applicant is very formal and well mannered. Excellencies keep asking the Applicant questions but the Applicant answers them with utmost confidence and is able satisfy them. Excellencies are impressed and comment on one of the answers given by the agent with a, “very good” ! The agent was eloquent, she finished her arguments within the given time slot.
The Co-agent take the dias. He puts forward his arguments before the bench with flair. He took the base of various principles in order to substantiate his arguments and managed to satisfy the judges on the various questions raised by them.
The respondents begin and straightaway there seems to be a dispute regarding the statement of jurisdiction which is handled quite well by the respondents. The respondents are very soft spoken and this ends up being a bit problematic due to them being inaudible. The judges raise queries which are answered politely. The Excellencies don’t really seem to agree with what is put before them but due to paucity of time, they raise no further objections.
Court Room No.14 – SLS Hyderabad v.Rayat Bahara, Mohali
The Applicant takes the podium.The deference of the applicant to the court has engaged the judges and also the respondents. They have a smooth flow,which makes everyone believe that they are making some strong points. The Excellencies are posing questions towards the agent, but the agent without getting suppressed is answering all the questions with utmost patience. The Co-agent begins. The judges are trying to corner him and the agent is confused. Agent 1 comes to his rescue and the Excellencies allow agent 1 to answer on his behalf. Co-agent seemed for extension of time and he was granted the same. The Co-agent somehow managed to end his speech on a positive note.
The respondents plead ignorance to a lot of queries and that doesn’t buy them any favors from the judges. They run out of time but that isn’t enough to stop the respondents. They are given an extension but soon that runs out too because of the constant grilling by the excellencies.
3:30 p.m. – With that exciting session, we come to an end of the prelims. Now we will be breaking for lunch. Will be right back with the results of the preliminaries and the Quarters. Watch this space for more!
5:41 p.m. – Good evening guys, we are back with the prelims result. There will be eight teams which will qualify for the Quarter Finals.
This is the result-
- NMIMS Law School, Mumbai
- Faculty of Law, Dhaka
- Symbiosis Law School, Pune
- Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
- GNLU
- NUALS, Kochi
- MNLU
- ILS, Pune
We will start with the quarter finals by 6:00 p.m. Stay tuned for the live updates.
Quarter-Finals 1 – NMIMIS Law School, Mumbai v. ILS Pune: Agent 1 for the Applicant has begun on a very confident note and is in total control of the proceedings. There was a minor hiccup here, when the President and the excellencies came up with a question relating to the definition of the river, but the agent was able to answer the query.
The President has just raised a query as to a conclusive authority to crystallize state responsibility, but the extension is over. The Board has just allowed another minute to conclude the arguments. The first Agent has laid down a firm base for the second agent to come in and cement their position in this contest.
The second Agent has begun her arguments on a very confident note, but the first query from the board seems to have surprised her. The agent is facing problem in arguing for the two applicant states and the same has been pointed out by the Excellencies.
The agent makes ample use of their compendium and has been able to satisfy most of the queries of Mr. President and the Excellencies. One final query, but since the allotted time is up, Mr. President has just allowed an extension of 3 minute and the agent is about to conclude her arguments. And that is a wrap from the side of the applicants as they recite their prayer.
The Agent for the respondents has entered the battlefield all guns blazing and has, from the word go, began citing authorities in numbers. The Excellencies have broken the flow of agent one, with a couple of successive queries. The agent seems to have been put off their game and is being pushed into a defensive mode. The agent is doing exceptionally well to handle the overload of queries.
The flow of the proceedings has slowed down and the Excellencies are dictating the proceedings. The agent has exhausted the allotted time and the extension but has been granted a final extension of 2 minutes to sum up all of her arguments.
Quarter Finals 2 – Faculty of Law, Dhaka v. MNLU, Mumbai: The Agent 1 of the applicant in a very systematic manner first briefed about the facts of the case to the excellencies. The Agent then went on to answer the questions of the Judges, in a cool and calm manner. However, the Agent 1 has been unable to form a response to one of the questions, which the excellencies are bringing up again and again.
Agent 2 has been able to explain the issues that they will be dealing with in a satisfactory manner. However, they are unable to justify their Prayer and one of the gaping hole in their argument is their inability to prove liability of the respondents.
Right at the very beginning, Agent 1 from the side of the Respondent seems to be unsure with her arguments. Therefore, giving a chance to the Excellencies to grill her extensively. The team tries to recover from the blow by passing off the chits. Agent 1 has lost their calm and is unable to answer the queries of the Excellencies.
Without much ado, the Excellencies ask Agent 2 to begin, there seems to be a contradiction in the arguments presented by the Agents. The excellencies refer to the argument made by the Agent 2 as far-fetched.
Quarter Finals 3 – NUALS, Kochi v. Symbiosis Law School, Pune: The clock is ticking right about now and the participants are eagerly waiting for the judges to start the round. Agent 1 representing the Applicants begins by establishing the Statement of Jurisdiction. The judges tried to trap them on the issue of jurisdiction. The speaker did find her way out but it wasn’t without a loss. The Agent is very well prepared and confident with sound speaking skills. Agent 1 with a calmness in her voice manages to persuade the Excellencies to agree to her contentions. In between when the Excellencies are trying to corner the agent,the researcher is furiously passing on chits to the agent right now. The allotted time as well as the extension has elapsed but the Excellencies aren’t satisfied again granting the agent extension of time. The agent utilizes the time at hand in the most optimal manner and provides the Excellencies with a crisp summary. Finally after repeated extensions the speaker concludes.
Agent 2 takes the dias. The second agent too is well versed with every point involved. However,pertinent queries were posed by the Excellencies and they were all answered well by the Appellant.
Agent 1 representing the respondents takes the podium. The composed speaker begins by clarifying to the bench the stand of the respondents on the Statement of Jurisdiction. The Excellencies while enjoying their sip of tea start to put the agent in a tight spot with their questions. The impressive part is how rarely the speaker seems to be referring to the memo.Mr. President shakes his head in despair when the agent answers one of his question. The agent is partially able to convince the judges regarding her issues. Agent 2 approaches the podium. The agent seems to be a confident speaker, with slight nervous stutters here and there. The loopholes in the Applicant’s arguments are pointed out by the bench. Co-Agent is trying her best with utmost confidence and logic in her speech to persuade the Excellencies but they just keep coming up with another set of questions for the Co-agent.
Quarter Finals 4 – SLS, Hyderabad v. GNLU: Agent 1 of the applicant speaks with conviction. The agent is requested to argue the contentions to which the agent obliges. The excellencies are grilling the agent heavily, it seems like their metaphorical boat is in need of heavy repair. They are not letting the agent catch his breathe. Though the agent made a good point in the argument, the argument as a whole was not satisfactory for the judges. The agent is taking a heavy beating.
Agent 2 of the applicant started out with a great opening but the excellencies are gradually puncturing holes in his arguments which is affecting his performance. The agent is shaken to his core and is now unable to answer even simple questions. The bench shared a good laugh with the agent on the point that the NGO cannot be bribed due to lack of money. The said issue is rejected completely. The excellencies are not stopping and are continuing to rip apart the applicant’s issues. An extra minute is given to the agent to wrap up his contentions. Let’s see how the respondent’s fare.
Agent 1 of the respondent presents her 1st issue to the excellencies who do not agree to the submissions of the agent. She is ambushed by questions. The excellencies term the respondent as a bully nation. The excellencies are continuing to be hard on the agent. The agent is not able to satisfy the questions of the excellencies completely. The topic of NGO comes up again and its alliance with either country is an amusing topic. The agent is citing various precedents in a way to cement her contention.
Agent 2 of the respondent is faring well compared to their colleague initially. The question of the excellencies is answered through a case law and it seems that they are satisfied by the answer. There is a question regarding negligence on the part of Rivendell. The agent is still somehow maintaining his composure.
Though to conclude it is clear that the excellencies are the only one who are winning this round.
7:30 p.m.- The Acoustic Evening, organised by MCA, in association with IZHAAR filled with band performances, and an entertaining dance performance by the dance group Paradigm is underway. Going by the crowd’s enthusiasm, they seem to be having a good time. We’ll soon post the pictures.
8:00 p.m. – The participants have moved on for Gala Dinner, time for some good food.
9:30 p.m. – The following teams have qualified for the semi-finals –
- SLS, Pune
- GNLU
- NMIMS Law School, Mumbai
- MNLU
Congratulations to all the teams that advanced. Tune in tomorrow for live updates of the semis and the finals as we bring an end to this great event. We hope to see you there. Thank you.
Day 3 – Semi-Finals, Finals and Valedictory Ceremony
9:45 a.m. – Good morning. We welcome you to the final day of the 7th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International “Energy Law” Moot Court Competition. We will be underway with the judges briefing soon and will then move on to the Semi-Finals. It’s going to be an exciting day. Stay tuned.
10:05 a.m. – We have begun with the Judges Briefing, the research committee is informing the esteemed panel regarding the relevant legal conventions and articles pertaining to the Compromis. This helps in hammering out a fixed set of legal issues that the judges can focus on.
10:20 a.m. – We are beginning with the semi-finals. Keep watching this space for all the live action.
Semi-Final 1 – NMIMS Law School, Mumbai v. MNLU, Mumbai: Here it goes. It’s down to four teams now and the first Semi final is on. The agent for the applicants has begun with a formal stating of issues and a brief explanation of his structure of arguments. This is going very well for the Applicant as so far there have been no interruptions by the Excellencies.
It seems the Excellencies just needed a little warm up. This has been a complete turn around, unlike the initial few minutes, it is the excellencies who are in total control of the flow of the proceedings, and it’s raining questions. The Agent for the applicant is doing exceptionally well to satisfy the Board, but it seems he is in a time crunch. With less than 10 minutes left, he still needs to cover 2 parts of his 3 fold argument scheme. Time Over, and the speaker still needs to deal with one more argument. The Excellencies have allowed an extension of 2 minutes. The mannerism here is exceptional and the quality of arguments has definitely laid a strong base for the second Agent for the Applicants.
The second Agent for the Applicant has taken up the reigns and perfectly compliments the contentions raised by the first agent. She begins in the same way as her Co-Agent, with a brief explanation of her argument scheme.
What just happened? The speaker has just said something fundamentally flawed regarding International Law(probably erroneously) and the Excellencies don’t seem pleased.
Time is running out and the Agent still has a contention to make.
It seemed though she would not be able to make it but somehow she was able to cover all the issues. The Applicants rise for their prayer and it’s a wrap for them.
The respondents are up next and the Excellencies have asked the Agent for the respondent to skip the pleasantries so as to conserve time for the arguments.
The respondent team is showing great team work and presence of mind. The Agent seemed to have been cornered by the Excellencies but the Researcher helped the Agent out of the crunch. There is a constant flow of chits from the researcher to the speaker.
The Agent is facing an onslaught of questions from the Board, and the Researcher is here to rescue. The speaker was able to finish her arguments, well within the allotted time (something that happens very rarely). The Researcher has been the Dark Knight of this team, time and again, throughout this competition.
The second agent has taken the dais and he has gotten straight down to business from the word go. The arguments are flowing smoothly and the extensive citation of authorities has definitely wooed the Excellencies. This is the longest perfect run by any speaker today.
Good times don’t last long and here we see another example of the same. The Excellencies have broken the flow of arguments. The agent is facing problems in satisfying the board due to lack of authority emphasizing logical over law.
The difference between good research and exceptional research is clearly visible here. The respondents would be fairly content with their performance today, they began on a strong note and ended on the same.
The Applicants begin with their rebuttals. They point out the various instances that the respondent mentioned in their oral submissions, and they are going on to elaborate reasons as to why the applicants believe that the respondents contentions were fallacious. They supplement their arguments with use of treaties and customary International law.
Semi Finals 2 – SLS, Pune v. GNLU:
Agent 1, is on the podium. The agent is precise and has in a procedural manner explained to the excellencies how they would be going ahead with their arguments.The agent seems to be a bit confused regarding the provisions so the Excellency lends a helping hand. The Speaker is facing some intense questioning regarding general principles of international law. But the Agent is not backing down and is trying to answer each and every question confidently. Calm demeanour of Agent 1 despite the continuous cross questioning from the bench, is quite appeasing.The allotted time period is over and the agent seeks permission for extension of time -as the Agent is yet to answer the question of the Excellency, which is granted. Co-agent passes chits to Agent1 in order to help the bench understand the argument in a better manner. The extra time has also elapsed, but the Excellencies still have some questions for the agent, which the agent answers with utmost confidence. The heat is now on the co-agent.
Agent 2 takes the dias and the tension and anxiety can be seen in the very first few words of the Co-agent as she wishes the Excellencies, Good-afternoon at 11 in the morning! The second speaker follows her teammate’s scheme and lays down the structure of her arguments. The Excellency ask the agent: What is the difference between hard law and soft law in the environmental laws ? Which the Co-agent answers wrongly and Ms. President has to interrupt to make the agent aware of the difference. Anyhow, there is nothing stopping the Co-agent as she moves ahead with her contentions with confidence. The point of international customary law is discussed heavily between the Co-agent and the Excellency. The continuous cross questioning from the bench has shaken the confidence of the agent as she pleads ignorance for the questions put forward. The Excellencies ask the agent to move forward with her contentions. The Speaker seems to have lost her flow in the face of a barrage of pointed questions. However, she gathers herself and continues with her submissions.. Heated discussions follow. The bench continues to bombard the speaker with numerous questions. The Co-agent somehow manages to move ahead with her arguments.The time period has elapsed, and the Co-agent concludes by saying the prayer. This has truly been a roller coaster ride for the team applicant.
The respondents are next up with their arguments. The agent is approaching the podium and outlining her arguments. She seems quite confident as she addresses the preliminary questions of the bench. The clarity of her concepts is visibly seen in the way she is articulating and laying down her points in great detail. Agent seems to be answering all the questions posed by the bench in the most satisfactory manner. She is now moving on to her second contention. Her arguments are structured and her expression is crystal clear. The agent continues with her contentions with the last one being about the jurisdiction. The Excellencies have a smirk across their face when they tell the agent that this should have been their first argument. Anyhow, she satisfies the questions of the Excellencies fairly. The time period has elapsed. But there’s a turning point in the proceedings when listening to an answer of the agent the Excellency tells the agent that, “She has dug her own grave” ! Woah! Seems like this could be trouble.
Co-Agent approaches the dais. His approach is quite structured and his initial submissions are satisfying the Excellencies. Continuous questioning from the bench does not seem to shake the confidence of the Co-agent, as they smoothly maneuver the heavy questioning. Managing the time well the Co-agent concludes with their submissions in the most precise manner.
12:15 p.m.- And that brings us to the end of an amazing semi-finals. The teams brought a level of sophistication to the Competition and it was great to witness such a knowledgeable session. Stay tuned, we’ll be back with the Final results!
12: 35 p.m. – The judges for the semi-finals are being felicitated, meanwhile the judges for the finals are being briefed.
12:37 p.m. – The much awaited finals are underway. The teams that have qualified are Symbiosis, Pune and NMIMS Law School, Mumbai. Stay tuned for the live updates, this is going to be one exciting match.
The agent 1 from the side of the Applicant has started the proceeding in a systematic manner. The Agent is clarifying the statement of jurisdiction as well as dealing with the principles of Trans-Boundary Harm, attempting to establish liability and responsibility.
The Agent is cementing her argument with the help of some of the classic cases in International Law, such as the Corfu Channel Case. The Agent seems to be in control of the proceedings, no intervention has yet occurred from the side of the Bench.
The Agent 1 of the Applicant attempts to prove that a dispute exists regarding Anora River, therefore it needs to be addressed. The Agent seems well versed with the facts of the compromis. The Agent alleges that the Respondent has breached Article 2, Article 11 of the Anora Treaty as well as the fact that they have breached their Upper-riparian duties. The Judges have finally interrupted the discourse of the Agent 1, there seems to be a conflict with regarding to certain facts as established by the Agent.
The Agent is unable to satisfy the court, even though they are specifically quoting certain cases as well as the compromis.
The Excellency has asked a question that strikes the very base of their argument and the Agent looks shaken. The Agent seems to be slowly regaining the command over the proceeding, as she is able to deflect the questions put forth by the bench. Agent 1 was raising a contention with regard to Appropriation, however they are not able to justify their argument and they seem to be caught in the web of their own words.
Agent 1 concludes but it does not seem to be a very satisfactory round. The argument revolved around the common heritage of mankind and yet there seemed to be a serious lack of any factual basis of contention.
Agent 2 is now on stage and they will attempt to establish a violation of the precautionary principle and preventive action. But the Agent 2 is under immense pressure, as they are unable to respond to any questions put forward by the excellencies.
But now we have a breakthrough as the Agent applies the principle of attribution and convinces the judges.
The agent seems to be circling around the questions put to her in regards to Customary international law but she seems to be unable to establish either state practice or opinio juris.
The excellencies move on to another question to which the agent is able to answer satisfactorily. Agent 2 has begun to gain ground and interest of the excellencies is piqued. The excellencies are boring holes in their argument and since no causation can be proved it seems that defense of force majeure available to the respondents will sustain.
This seems like a rocky ending for a solid start to the applicants. Let’s see how the respondents fare.
The respondents are up now and Agent 1 seems to be in tune with court courtesy and possesses good oratory skills while discussing the proceeding in a systematic manner. The Agent 1 begins with the first submission, The agent tries to give clarification, regarding a statement presented by the Applicant, however it does not seem to move the Bench. The agent now proceeds with his Argument. The Agent tries to justify the joinder of issue done by them.
The Bench tries to understand the essence of the Anora treaty, and the Agent tries to answer however, it is pointed out to be a wrong Argument by one of the Excellencies. This question has seemed to trap the Agent as he seeks help of the International grundnorm- Pacta Sunt Servanda.The same question arises as it had with the applicant regarding the ‘Equitable use’ of resources. The agent seems to be on the backfoot as he is grilled regarding treaty provisions. His responses are erroneous which further causes the judges to drill further into the argument exposing more flaws.
The agent concludes due to paucity of time and Agent 2 takes the stand.
Agent 2 tries to bring some calm into the shaky proceedings of the side of the respondent. The Agent tries to address the issue with regard to the term ‘operator’ which seems to have a domino effect, resulting in several other trapping questions. The Agent tries to be receptive towards the questions raised by the Bench, however, both the Agent as well as the Bench seem to be stuck on the technicalities rather than the facts of law. The Excellency points out a major flaw in their argument, which might prove to be fatal. The question of state responsibility is raised and is not satisfactorily answered.
The judges have almost decimated the arguments of both the applicant and respondent. But both these parties have stood up to the occasion and responded in the best way they can. This will be a close match. We will be back with the valedictory ceremony soon with the results right in tow.
3:10 p.m. – The Valedictory ceremony is underway and we will be out soon with the results. The esteemed guests include Dr. Srihari Honwad, Dr. Parag Diwan, and the chief guest, Mr. Prakash Pant, Cabinet Minister, Uttarakhand.
3:32 p.m. – We are graced with speeches by Dr. Parag Diwan, and Mr. Prakash Pant, both of whom speak with the utmost eloquence and grace the students with their words. They are felicitated by the other dignitaries.
And the results are announced. The winners are –
Best Memorial – NMIMS School of Law, Mumbai who win Rs. 20000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors EBC.
Best Speaker – Stuti Dhundia, GNLU, who wins Rs. 10,000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors.
Best Researcher – Johann Valladares ,SLS Pune who wins Rs. 10000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors.
Runner up 1 – SLS, Pune, who win Rs. 30000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors.
Winner – NMIMS School of Law, Mumbai who win Rs. 50000, trophy and books by our very gracious sponsors EBC.
With the vote of thanks delivered by Dr. Srihari Honwad, we wrap up this edition of the 7th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International Energy Law Moot Court. We thank all the teams for participating and congratulate the winners and all the finalists. A big thanks to our sponsors, GAIL India, SCC online and Eastern Book Company.
Thank you for tuning in with us. From the UPES family and the Moot Court Association, we bid you farewell.