Last Updated :
Amity Law School, Delhi (affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University) is all set to host the 17th edition of its National Moot Court Competition from Friday, 16th March 2018 to Sunday, 18th March 2018. Here’s ANMCC 2018 Live Blog – on Legal Bites
The teams battling it out for the top laurels this year are:
- National Law University, Odisha
- Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
- Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida
- Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University
- Aligarh Muslim University
- National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
- Faculty of Law, Manav Rachna University
- University of Rajasthan
- National Law School of India University
- Department of Law, PIMR
- ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad
- Presidency University, Bengaluru
- University of Petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun
- Symbiosis Law School, Pune
- ILS Law College
- Delhi Metropolitan Education
- NLIU, Bhopal
- Christ University, Bengaluru
- Institute of Law, Nirma University
- West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata
- JSS, Mysore
- Jammu University
- Government Law College, Mumbai
- SEL, Chennai
- UWSL, Gandhinagar
- Ramaiah University
- Jamnalal Bajaj School of Legal Studies
- National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi
The event shall officially begin on 16th March with the team registrations starting at 3 PM. Secretary-General of the 15th Lok Sabha, Padma Shri Mr. T. K. Viswanathan and Senior Advocate and Hon’ble Member of Parliament Shri Ram Jethmalani shall then grace us with their presence at the inaugural ceremony at 4 PM after which the researchers will have to gear up for the researcher’s test. On 17th March, after the prelims, the top 8 teams shall proceed to the Quarter-Finals. The Semi-Finals and the Finals shall be held on 18th March.
We promise to keep you guys posted with the latest deets here starting from 3 pm on 16th March, so stay tuned! You can also follow us on our Facebook page here.
See you on 16th folks!
Day 1- Registrations, Inauguration and Researcher’s Test
Your Bloggers for the day are Prafulla Pathak, Teerth Waraich, Rishi Raj, Kshitiz Wadhawan and Mudit Dixit.
Hi Folks! Preparations for the 17th Edition of ANMCC are in full swing. The Venue Committee has put in a lot of hard work to set things up. Registration Desks have been set up. Registrations will begin at 2:30 PM sharp. We’ll keep you updated. Have a great ANMCC!
We have started with the Registrations. Teams are lining up to get themselves registered for this prestigious event. The inauguration ceremony will begin at 4:30 PM.
The Researcher’s Test has commenced and is currently in process. It is expected to wrap up around 4:30 PM.
Chief Guests Secretary-General of the 15th Lok Sabha, Padma Shri Mr. T. K. Viswanathan and Senior Advocate and Hon’ble Member of Parliament Shri Ram Jethmalani have arrived and are being currently interviewed by Students of Amity Law School, Delhi.
In an enriching and elegant interview session, Mr. Vishwanathan expressed his opinions about the Bar Council of India and the need for reform and change and urged for a more robust framework. He says he’s positively inclined towards the participation of foreign law firms in India while talking about the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court barring foreign Law firms from practicing in India.
We’re through with the registrations and the inauguration ceremony will start in a few minutes. Registered teams are filing into the Seminar Hall.
The Inaugural Ceremony has begun with the National Anthem. The student conveners are now delivering the introductory speech.
The college choir presents a beautiful rendition of Saraswati Vandana and our revered guests light the ceremonial lamp.
Esteemed guests are being presented Tulsi plant as the memento.
Prof. (Dr.) D. K. Bandyopadhyaya delivers the welcome address. He talks about Law graduates being the Social Engineers. He wraps up his speech by quoting famous American Author Brad Bury “Do what you love, love what you do.”
Guest of Honour, Senior Advocate Shri Ram Jethmalani begins his address. He says that Lawyers must remain in contact with institutions of higher education. He speaks in reference to the audience by saying that, ‘Anyone of you can aspire to be a good orator’ and further states that the notion that the art of oratory is dead is a huge myth. Mr. Jethmalani then reveals to the audience his new subject, which is India’s destiny.
Shri Ram Jethmalani concludes his speech talking about the current political scenario of the country while being critical of the political parties.
Chief Guest for the evening Padma Shri Mr. T. K. Viswanathan addresses the attentive audience. He talks about his book on drafting which is available in the Library of Washington. He states that the law reforms should be based on empirical data which is lacking in the nation.
Mr. Viswanathan talks about current age being the age of digital discovery. He goes on to state that there is no authority to determine how a law which had been made is working in practical life. He wraps up his speech with different concepts of Jurisprudence which have to be changed and wishes the competition a great success.
Convener of 17th ANMCC Mr. Ashutosh Hajela presents the vote of thanks. He welcomes all the participants and wishes them the best. He thanks all the faculty members & volunteers who have worked tirelessly to make the hosting of such an event possible.
Inaugural ceremony concludes. Break for High Tea.
Draw of lots has been done to decide the matchups for the preliminary rounds and memorials have been exchanged between the opposing teams.
Live reporting begins with the commencement of first preliminary round tomorrow.
Good Morning peeps! It’s a beautiful morning in Delhi. Volunteers have started arriving and have started with setting things up. Your bloggers for the day are Prafulla Pathak, Teerth Waraich, Rishi Raj, Kshitiz Wadhawan and Mudit Dixit.
Judges have arrived and briefing is underway. 1st round of Preliminary matchups will begin at 10 AM. We’ll keep you updated.
Judges and Participants have arrived in their respective courtrooms. Matchups will begin shortly.
We have started with the matchup. 1st Speaker of Petitioners approaches the dias.
1st speaker of Petitioners is summarizing the moot problem to the judges.
Speaker 1 of Petitioner seeks permission to begin with his arguments.Judges ask him to read the relevant sections aloud for them.
Judges are questioning the authority of the precedent of the Supreme Court in this particular case.
Speaker 1 of Petitioners is elaborating on all the articles in favour of his arguments which in turn are being cross questioned by the judges.
Speaker 1 of Petitioner is being cross questioned. He answers all the question to the satisfaction of the judges. Speaker 2 now approaches the dias.
The body language of the Petitioner doesn’t seem comfortable at all. Cross questioning by the judges have taken him by storm.
Speaker 2 of Petitioners has been granted 30 more seconds to sum up his arguments.
1st Speaker of the Respondents is now making his submissions. Judges are on a cross question spree they seem unsatisfied with the responses.
The Judges have asked the next respondent to begin with the arguments as the previous speaker as they don’t seem satified with the first speaker.
Judges call the arguments of the 1st Speaker of the respondent completely vague, he responds with “Much obliged”.
The 2nd Speaker of the Petitioner seems well versed with the facts of the case.
Speaker 1 of the Respondent looks flustured, seeks a moment. Time up for her, but she continues to speak and is not interrupted by the Judges.
Petitioners now move on to the prayer.
Respondent don’t seem to have the copies of the cited Jugements, judges deny to reply on the memo alone.
Judges are constantly asking 2nd Speaker of the Petitioner what relief he really wants, grilling him on the same. Asking him what his submission is, he’s caugh in a tight spot.
Speaker 1 of the Petitioners rebuts all the points put forward by the respondents. Judges don’t seem impressed.
Judges ask the Respondent to refer to a a particular section from the act to support his contention.
Speaker 1 of the Respondents begins his submissions.
Petitioner is rebutting the arguments of the Respondents. Judges ask him not to go around in the circles and ask him to a question to which he is supposed to give a brief answer.
Petitioners seem happy seeing the Respondents being grilled. Judges ask the Respondents to sum up their remaining arguments.
Most of the courtrooms are done with the first preliminary round. Teams are awaiting for the feedback session.
We have started with the Second Preliminary Round.
Speaker 1 of the Petitioner approaches the dias. Begins with his arguements.
Judges have arrived. We’ll be begining with the matcups in a while.
1st Speaker of the Petitioners looks a bit underprepared. Judges are a bit annoyed. Speaker admits that he has made a mistake and moves on to the next argument.
The Petitioner is slowly trying to get back in the game. He’s trying to answer the Judges to the best of his capability. Judges seem satisfied with his arguments.
Petitioner doesn’t seem comfortable speaking, he’s asked by the judges to take a deep breath and start again.
Speaker 1 of the Petitioner had made up a case, he claims it has come fro the report of The Trbiune (Cringe alert). Judges are trying to figure out what it is since it has not been cited.
The Judges are a bit annoyed that the Petitioners do not have the copy of the cited Judgement. 2nd Speaker of the Petitioner seeks permission to move on to the podium.
Speaker 1 of the Petitioners is under bolley of question by the Judges. He’s unable to anwer them.
2nd Speaker of the Petitioners is now answerinf the questions based on 1st Speaker’s arguments. 2nd Speaker looks well prepared and is able to tackle the questions well.
Speaker 1 of the Petitioners proceeds with his final arguement. Judges don’t seem impressed.
2nd speaker of the Petitioners is rushing through his documents and still stuttering. Judges don’t seem to be very interested.
The Judges warn the speaker if he makes another misrepresentation the bench will not take any more submission.
The Respondent seems very confident and jolly.
Judges: It’s not a laughing matter, counsel.
Respondent: I just have a smiling face.
Both the judges nod in common sarcasm.
Respondent does not seem to be making valid points, Judges don’t seem impressed.
The respondent closes his argument by quoting lines from Robert Frost’s poem, “I took the road less travelled by. To this the Judges say “You took the road nobody took and that’s the whole issue.”
Respondents are done with their arguments and now proceed on to the prayer.
1st speaker of the Respondents still addressing his big argument asks for more time, Judges seem interested and impressed and grant him few minutes more.
Time’s up for the Petitioners. Speaker is trying to speak very fast to sum up the arguments and after 1 minute extra time the judges cut her off.
Rebuttals have started. Petitioner is trying to destroy all the arguments laid down by the Respondents.
Rebuttals have begun. The Speaker keeps referring the Judges as Ma’am.
Matchups have been concluded in most of the Courtrooms. Feedback session is in process.
Quarter Finals are scheduled to begin at 4 PM. We’ll update you shortly.
Hi guys! The results have been declared and the teams that have stormed into the Quarters are:-
In no particular order
1. SEL, Chennai
2. NLU, Odisha
3. NUALS, Kochi
4. Ramaiah University
5. NLIU, Bhopal
6. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
7. NUJS, Kolkata
8. GLC, Mumbai
A huge congratulations to all the teams. We wish them the best!
Quarter Finals will begin shortly, we’ll keep you updated.
1st Speaker of Petitioners starts with his submissions.
Judges have arrived. Speaker 1 of Petitioners seeks permission to approach the dais.
1st speaker of the Petitioners is not able to answer the question put forth by the Judges. Judges don’t seem satisfied.
1st speaker of the Petitioners confidently answers all the questions and moves on to the next issue.
Petitioner sums up his first issue and moves on to the next issue.
Speaker 1 of Petitioners seems a bit tense as Judges have opened a barrage of questions for him. Judges don’t seem satisfied with his answers.
All points made by the Petitioner are going in vein. The judges are playing good cop, bad cop with the Petitioner. Judges say their questions have not been answered.
2nd Speaker of the Petitioners is now presenting his arguments. It seems that he’s trying to dodge the questions of the Judges.
The Petitioner is constantly being put on spot and all his attempts of proceeding to the next issue are being ignored.
The Petitioner is trying to dodge Judge’s questions. The Judges’ repeatedly ask what reliefs he seeks from the court.
The Judges are trying to trick the Petitioner by twisting the matter. The Petitioner sticks to firm ground.
1st Speaker of the Respondents now steps onto the the podiums and begins with his summissions.
Petitioner seems to be contradicting himself. The Judges seem a bit disappointed, they suggest the Petitioner to re-read the argument.
Judges are pointing out the errors in the memorial of the Petitioners while grilling them on the same.
Speaker 1 of the Respondents is putting forth his argument. The Judges seem impressed as they listen intently without any interruption.
Petitioners are done with the Prayer. 1st Speaker of Respondents now moves on to the dias and begins with the arguments.
The Judges are going pretty easy on the respondents. The speaker asks for the permission to move further with the issue.
Speaker 2 of Respondents is confidently answering the questions put forth by the Judges. The seem to be buying his arguments.
The Judges do not seem satisfied with the answers. The Respondent is cosntantly apologizing.
Speaker 2 of Petitioner is now putting forth his arguments. The Judges don’t seem to be buying his arguments.
The Judges asked for a Judgement from the speaker which she did not have with her, she requested the judges if she could get the Judgement after her submissions to which the Judges agreed.
The Petitioners are done with rebuttals. Respondents’ speaker now moves to the dais for surrebuttals.
Sur-rebuttals are over. Teams now await the feedback session.
2nd Speaker of Respondent ask for extension of time to which the Judges readily agree. She’s done with her arguments. Petitioners’ speaker moves to the podium for rebuttals.
We’re done with the Semi Finals. Results are awaited, we’ll update you shortly.
We’re back with the results and the teams that have broken into the semis are:-
(In no particular order)
1. SEL, Chennai
2. NUJS, Kolkata
3. GLC, Mumbai
4. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
A hearty congratulations to the teams, we wish them the best for tomorrow.
We’ll meet you tomorrow at 9 AM. Have a good night, folks!
Day 3- Semi Finals, Finals and Valedictory Ceremony
Good morning folks! Your bloggers for today are Prafulla Pathak, Teerth Waraich, Rishi Raj, Kshitiz Wadhawan and Mudit Dixit.
We’re all excited for Semis and Finals. Teams have started arriving and have started with their preparations and mock sessions for today. Semifinals are scheduled to begin at 11:00 AM, we’ll update you shortly.
The esteemed Judges have started arriving and the orientation process is underway.
Hi Guys! The matchups are about to begin. We are obliged to have Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. K. Chawla and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Deepa Sharma, Judges Delhi High Court in Courtroom 1 and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Harishankar & Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha Palli, Judges Delhi High Court in Courtroom 2.
SEL, Chennai is up against GLC, Mumbai in Courtroom 1 and NUJS, Kolkata is up against Symbiosis, Pune in Courtroom 2.
1st Speaker of Petitioners has started with her arguments. She’s putting forth her arguments precisely.
Speaker 1 of the Petitioners seems visibly nervous. Judges ask her to take some time and relax a bit.
Speaker 1 of Petitioners seeks permission to move on to her next issue. The Judges tell her that she can proceed to the next issue without asking for permission next time.
The Judges seem a bit intrigued by the arguments put forth by the speaker. They look impressed by the proficiency he’s handling the questions.
Harishankar J. questions the speaker on application of a law retrospectively. He answers efficiently and seeks permission to proceed further.
The Judges feel that the petitioner is beating around the bush and not addressing the main issues. Commentaries are now being passed to the Judges to satisfy their apprehensions on a cited case.
Speaker 1 of the Petitioners has now moved on to her second issue. Judges have opened a barrage of questions.
Speaker seems a bit nervous and is not able to comprehend the questions put forward by he Judges.
There’s an inaccuracy with the numbering on the copies of Memo submitted to the bench, which seems to bother the Judges a bit.
Judges are very subtly destroying the Petitioners arguments, but the Speaker seems handle the questions well. Smooth confident and impressive.
The Judges suggest the Speaker not to read the memo but be spontaneous while answering the questions. Speaker apologizes and moves on with the argument.
The Hon’ble Bench states that there’s a rationale and not a bargain behind every provision and the petitioner needs to focus on the rationale in order to fortify her arguments instead of chasing the tail
Speaker 2 of Petitioners wraps up his arguments. Speaker 1 of Respondents moves on to the podium.
Speaker 2 of the Petitioners is answering all the questions put forth by the Judges. The Judges didn’t seem convinced but it was handled pretty well by the Speaker, all facts on point. The Judges seem convinced now.
Speaker 1 of the Respondents says that the Court need not interfere in the matter, needless to say he has invited a volley of questions.
Lights out for a second, few people in the audience tried to escape but they couldn’t. Our second reporter is pretty sure that some of them managed to leave.
2nd Speaker of Respondents begins her submissions. She’s putting forth her arguments brilliantly. Smooth, confiednt and impressive. The court is now engaged.
Respondent now moves on to the next submission. The Judge is questioning extensively and the speaker is handling it well. A lot of precedents are being quoted.
Speaker 1 of Petitoners steps up for rebuttals. He rebuts the arguments passionately. The Judges seem impressed as he is well versed with the compromis.
Matchup is done with. Hon’ble Judges are now giving feedbacks.
2nd Speaker of the Respondents presents his arguments in a flare. He seems very specific in his arguments and is confidently referring the Judges to various precedents.
Respondents are done with recitation of prayer. 1st speaker of Petitioners moves to dias for rebuttals.
Finally we’re done with the Semi Finals. We’ll be back with the results in a short while.
Hi Folks! We’re back with the results. The teams breaking into the Finals are Symbiosis Law School, Pune & GLC, Mumbai. Congratulations to both the teams and we wish them the best.
Finals are scheduled to begin at 2:30 PM. Live updates will resume accordingly. Stay tuned!
We are delighted to have Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agarwal, Justice, Supreme Court of India and Justice (Retd.) Uma Nath Singh, Former Chief Justice, Meghalaya High Court as the Judges for the Final Round.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agarwal has served as the Justice of Allahbad High Court he was then appointed as the Chief Justice of Madras High Court. He sworn in as a judge of the Supreme Court of India on 17.02.2018.
Justice (Retd.) Uma Nath Singh has served as Justice of Madhya Pradesh HC, Punjab & Haryana HC and Allahbad HC. He was then transferred to Meghalaya HC and took oath as the Chief Justice. He has also worked as Central Government’s Counsel to handle Bhopal Gas leak case.
The Finals are about to begin. GLC, Mumbai and Symbiosis, Pune are up against each other. GLC, Mumbai is reperesenting the Petitioners and Symbiosis Law School is representing the Respondents.
The audience is jam packed to witness the battle between the best. 1st Speaker of the Petitioners moves to the podium.
Speaker 1 of the Petitioners has begun with the arguments. He draws attention of the Bench to the violation of fundamental rights arising out of the VDR Act of 2012.
Petitioner is relying upon the Media Reports that how records can be obtainedby paying a small sum of Rs. 500. Petitioner brings forth the inaccuracyand leak of data, other demographic and personal data was also reported to have been leaked.
The Petitioner seeks permission to move on to the next argument. The speaker guides the judges through the memorial smoothly, referring to precedents while making the submissions.
Speaker 1 of the Petitioners lays emphasis on Section 7 of the VDR Act stating there’s a sense of compulsion in order of obtaining a VDR number and is also mentioning the lacunas in the lack of infrastructure in order to maintain the confidentiality of individuals’ sensitive information.
The Petitioner seems well versed with the compromise. He is now trying to explain to the Bench that an alternative is just on paper.
speaker 1 of Petitioners is putting forth his arguments confidently. He now moves on to the violation of fundamental rights in the present case.
The Petitioner speaks of opt out policy where individuals can opt out policy where individuals can opt out any time however this violates article 19. The Speaker moves on to cite Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v Union of India and Ors.
Petitioner points out the lacunas in VDR Act including the lack of consent, no opt out policy and no scope of individual autonomy. THe speaker contends that since there’s no means of protection of this sensitive information.
Petitioner argues that VDR Act is a fundamental breach of privacy followed by compulsion against linking this VDR number. The chasm in infrastructure of the data collection was pointed out and even after the collection of data, there hasn’t been any benefit. Furthermore, it was provided that the vdr card provides for residents and not citizens. The petitioner contends the object of delivery of schemes has failed.
Speaker 1 of the Petitioners wraps up his arguments. 2nd Speaker moves on to the podium. He satrts with the contention for lack of protection of data and lack of infrastructure provided by the government.
The Petitioner cited the case of D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal with respect to the reliability of Media Houses.
Petitioner moves on to argue on the Article 47 of the VDR Act. The Petitioner states that Penalty isn’t enough the machinery need to be competent.
The Bench is questioning the Petitioner on the articles cited by the counsel. Petitioner points out the administrative and manegerial access by BINKS.
The Bench is questioning the Petitioner on the articles cited by the counsel. Petitioner points out the administrative and manegerial access by BINKS.
The 2nd Speaker of Petitioners wraps up his arguments. Speaker 1 of the Respondents seeks permission to move on to the podium.
1st Speaker of Respondent has started with his first contention. He contends that right to privacy is a fundamental right but has some restrictions.
Hon’ble Justice R. K. Aggarwal points out the inaccurate inference of the term ‘locus standi’ by the respondent and it doesn’t extinguish remedies guaranteed by Article 32 and 226.
Judges ask 1st Speaker of the Respondents to sum up his arguments.
2nd Speaker of the Respondent approaches the dais. Speaker moves on to emphasise that a person can abstain from giving information under VDR Act or provide alternative means of identification too.
Hon’ble Justice U. N. Singh raises questions on preventive action. Asks why must men suffer?
Speaker 2 of Respondent contends for establishment of an Additional Tribunals under IT Act for the protection of data. To this, Hon’ble Justice U. N. Singh asks “what’s the need to burden the exchequer by setting up more tribunals?”
2nd Speaker of Respondents is now trying to establish that the VDR Act is a money bill, he goes on to contend that the decision of the speaker is final.
The Respondents are done with their arguments. 1st Speaker of the Petitioners now approaches the podium for rebuttals. Again, just relevant pointers.
We are finally done with the Final Round. Teams are now waiting for their feedbacks.
We’ll soon be back with the Valedictory ceremony and the results of 17th edition of Amity National Moot Court Competition, 2018. Don’t let the excitement subside.
The valedictory ceremony today will see the likes of Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Justice Supreme Court; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh, Former Chief Justice, Meghalaya High Court and Shri Suresh Chandra, Union Law Secretary.
Prof.(Dr.) D. K. Bandyopadhyay, Chairman Amity Law Schools delievers his opening address. He expressed. He appericiated all the volunteers for their efforts in making this competition a great success. He wished all the participants the best for future endeavours.
Justice (Retd.) Uma Nath Singh, Former Chief Justice of Meghalaya HC addresses the gathering. He talks about the art of oratory. He says that producing a good law student is not an easy task, moot helps a student in debating and arguing. He wraps up his speech by quoting Radha Krishna Swamy “When a young invites, one must attend. There’s no end to excellence.”
Participants are now being presented with the Participation certificate.
Finally the mystery unfolds! The moment we all have been waiting for
And the winner is Deep breaths
Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Runners up- GLC, Mumbai
Best Memorial- Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Best Speaker- Gokul Hollani, NLIU
Best Researcher- Mahima Chauhan, WBNUJS
The Rostrum Legal advocacy award, both Male and Female were bagged by SLS, Pune.
ANMCC convener Mr. Ashutosh Hajela presents the vote of thanks and expressed his gratitude to all the Volunteers for making the event a grand success and having this months long endeavour finally come to its conclusion.
And so with this, the ANMCC 2018 has finally come to an end. We really appreciate everyone who has been tuning in and encouraging us with their kind words. We hope the participants and the judges had a great ANMC experience.
Here’s the media committee signing off. Until next year!