Welcome to the City of Nawabs, Lucknow!
The prestigious Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow, is thrilled to host the 5th National Moot Court Competition, 2024, in collaboration with our esteemed Knowledge and Media Partner, SCC OnLine and SCC Times. Over the next three days, the vibrant campus will witness an intense showcase of legal acumen, spirited advocacy, and intellectual brilliance.
This year, we are excited to welcome 29 teams from law schools across India, ready to demonstrate their advocacy skills as they tackle a compelling moot problem rooted in Constitutional Law. The participants will navigate intricate legal issues, presenting their well-researched arguments before panels of distinguished judges, including esteemed academicians and experienced legal practitioners.
This event is more than just a competition—it’s an opportunity for learning, professional growth, and building invaluable networks. Stay tuned to this live blog as we bring you the latest developments, insightful arguments, and memorable moments from the competition.
Let the courtroom battles ignite!
15th November, 2024 (Day-1)
9:00 AM | Registration | Juris Hall
The event began with registration, marking the start of an exhilarating gathering. The Organizing Committee greeted participants with warmth, fostering a positive and encouraging atmosphere. As registration concluded, it was evident that students from across India had united, poised to ensure the competition’s success.
Registration Desk
9:30 AM | Breakfast and Networking Begins | Administrative Building
Good morning from Lucknow University! The 5th National Moot Court Competition 2024 is alive with excitement as participants gather for breakfast. This hour is the perfect opportunity for students to connect with peers, faculty, and esteemed guests, setting the stage for a memorable day.
Breakfast and Gathering
9:45 AM: The Head and Dean have just arrived, receiving a warm welcome from everyone gathered here.
Head and Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow
10:00 AM: We’re honored to welcome Adv. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate at Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, as our esteemed Guest of Honor!
Adv. Shailendra Kumar Singh (Guest of Honor) on the left
10:15 AM: Prof. (Dr.) Amar Pal Singh, Vice Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, has arrived as the Chief Guest for the 5th National Moot Court Competition!
Prof. (Dr.) Amar Pal Singh
10:30 AM | Inauguration Ceremony | Juris Hall
The inaugural has begun, and the guests have taken the dais.
Inauguration Ceremony
10:35 AM: The Chief Guest has lit the ceremonial lamp, marking the official start of the event.
Deep Prajvalan
10:40: Dr. Radheshyam Prasad, Faculty Coordinator of the Moot Court Association at Lucknow University, warmly welcomed participants from law schools across the nation. With genuine enthusiasm, he shared, ‘Atithi Satkar Bina har ardaas adhoori hoti hai, Atithi hi wo fariste hain jinke aane se aas poori hoti hai,’ emphasizing the importance of welcoming our guests wholeheartedly.
Dr. Radheshyam Prasad, Faculty Coordinator, LUMA
10:50 AM: Prof. (Dr.) Banshi Dhar Singh, Head and Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow, welcomed the participants, saying, ‘It’s not about winning, but about learning and honing mooting skills.’
Welcome Address by Head and Dean
10:55 AM: Chief Guest Prof. (Dr.) Amar Pal Singh, Vice Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, delivered a welcoming address at the inaugural ceremony. He remarked, ‘If God is everywhere, so is the law. Law, as a prescriptive science, guides norms and behavioral patterns.
Welcome Address by Chief Guest
11:10 AM: The next to address the gathering is the Guest of Honor, Adv. Shailendra Kumar Singh.
11:20 AM: The Guest of Honor, Adv. Shailendra Kumar Singh, is addressing the gathering. He emphasized, ‘Colleges and professors are judged by the demeanor and etiquette of their participants.’ Fashion doesn’t suit lawyers; it’s the presentation that leaves an impact on the judges.
Welcome Adress by Guest of Honor
11:25 AM: The Guest of Honor, Adv. Shailendra Kumar Singh, also stated, ‘Inefficiency and ineffectiveness should never defeat the administration of justice.’
11:30 AM: The gathering is listening carefully as the Guest of Honor, Adv. Shailendra Kumar Singh, shares his insightful thoughts.
Participants in the Inaugural Ceremony
11:40 AM | Felicitation Ceremony | Juris Hall
11:41 AM: The Head and Dean, Prof. (Dr.) Banshi Dhar Singh, felicitated the Chief Guest, Prof. (Dr.) Amar Pal Singh, with great respect and appreciation.
Head and Dean felicitating The Chief Guest
11:42 AM: Dr. Radheshyam Prasad, Faculty Coordinator of the Lucknow University Moot Court Association, felicitated the Guest of Honor, Adv. Shailendra Kumar Singh, with great respect and appreciation.
Felicitating Guest of Honor
11:43 AM: The Faculty Co-coordinator, Dr. Chandra Sen Pratap Singh, felicitated the Head and Dean, Prof. (Dr.) Banshi Dhar Singh, with honor and respect.
Felicitation of Head and Dean
11:44 AM: Student Convenor Srijan Pandey felicitated the Faculty Coordinator, Dr. Radheshyam Prasad, with gratitude and respect.
Felicitation of Faculty Coordinator
11:45 AM: Student Co-convener felicitated the Faculty Co-Coordinator, with appreciation and respect.
Felicitation of Faculty Co-Coordinator
11:50 AM | Revelation of Trophies and Awards | Juris Hall
The moment everyone was waiting for arrived as the trophies and awards were revealed. The shining trophies stood as a symbol of achievement, ready to be awarded to the deserving winners. This exciting moment raised the anticipation for the competition ahead.
Trophies and Awards
11:55 AM | Vote of Thanks and Conclusion of Inaugural Ceremony | Juris Hall
The inaugural ceremony concluded with a heartfelt vote of thanks. The Faculty Coordinator, Dr. Radheshyam Prasad, expressed gratitude to all the distinguished guests, participants, and everyone present for their valuable contribution to the event. With sincere appreciation for their support, the ceremony officially came to a close, marking the beginning of an exciting and enriching competition ahead.
12:00 P.M. | Memorial Exchange for Prelims Rounds | Juris Hall
The 5th National Moot Court Competition at Lucknow University is in full swing as teams gather today for the crucial memorial exchange, setting the stage for the intense preliminary rounds scheduled for tomorrow. Participants are exchanging their meticulously prepared memorials, marking the start of their journey in this year’s competition, which focuses on Constitutional Law and the reservation system. It was also announced that TC 14 will be ex-parte for Round 1 and TC 12 will be ex-parte for Round 2.
Draw of lots and Memorial Exchange
12:30 PM | Researcher Test | Juris Hall
After the inaugural ceremony and memorial exchange, researchers gathered in Juris Hall for the Researcher Test, an important part of the 5th National Moot Court Competition. The test focused on the theme of reservation in Constitutional Law and consisted of objective questions to check participants’ knowledge and ability to quickly recall key legal principles.
With one hour to complete the test, researchers answered a series of questions, showing their understanding of this important area of law. This test is a key step in helping participants prepare to support their teams in tomorrow’s preliminary rounds, where they will apply what they’ve learned.
Researcher Test
12:35 PM: During the Researcher Test, officials conducted a thorough inspection to ensure a smooth and fair process for all participants.
Inspection during Researcher Test
12: 45 PM: The countdown for the Researcher Test began, with just minutes remaining as participants prepared to showcase their knowledge.
Countdown for Researcher Test
1:15 PM: The deposition of the Researcher Test has been completed, marking an important step in the preparation for the upcoming rounds of the competition.
Researcher Test Submission
1:30 PM: After the Researcher Test, a discussion was held where participants talked about their experiences and shared their thoughts to better understand the competition’s topics.
Post Research Test Discussion
2:00 PM | Lunch Break and Conclusion of Day 1 | Juris Hall
With the lunch break now underway, participants and guests can relax and recharge before resuming the exciting events of the day. Day 1 of the 5th National Moot Court Competition concludes, setting the stage for the upcoming rounds tomorrow.
Lunch
2:15 PM: The Organizing Team assembled with happy faces.
Organizing Team LUMA
This marks the end of day 1, Stay tuned for future updates!
DAY 2: 16th November 2024 (Saturday)
8:00 AM | Fixtures for Preliminary Round 1 and 2 | LUMA Office
The organizing team has released the fixtures for Preliminary Round 1 and 2, marking the start of an exciting phase in the competition.
Round 1
Round 2
8:45 AM | Briefing of the Court Officials | Faculty of Law
The organizing team conducted a detailed briefing for the court officials, ensuring clarity on roles, responsibilities, and procedures to maintain the smooth functioning of the rounds ahead.
9:00 AM | Breakfast | Administrative Building
Day 2 of the 5th National Moot Court Competition starts with Judges and participants enjoying a hearty breakfast and gearing up for the intense preliminary rounds ahead.
09:30 AM | Briefing with Judges | Faculty of Law
The judges are being briefed on the competition guidelines in LT 01, setting the tone for the preliminary rounds about to begin.
10:00 AM | Participants’ Briefing in Progress | Faculty of Law
Participants are being briefed on the rules and procedures for the preliminary rounds, ensuring a fair and organized competition ahead.
10:15 AM | Final Checks by Disciplinary Committee
The disciplinary committee is conducting final inspections around the courtrooms to ensure a smooth and seamless start to the preliminary rounds.
10:20 AM: The judges leave for the respective court rooms.
10:21 AM: The court managers getting the teams familiarized with the rules and regulations one last time before the ball gets rolling!
10:25 AM: 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.
Best of luck to all!
10:30 AM | Preliminaries | Faculty of Law
Round 1 begins!
10:35 AM | Court Room 1 | TC-01 vs TC-19
In Courtroom 1, Counsel 1 from the petitioner’s side seeks permission to approach the dais and begins with the statement of jurisdiction under Order 55 Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules. The judges immediately engage with sharp questions, grilling the counsel on why no cases other than Manu Lal were cited to support the argument. They further pointed out the lack of page references while citing cases, urging more precision in the presentation.
10:40 AM | Court Room 2 | TC-02 vs TC-26
In Courtroom 2, the judges are asking tough questions, making the petitioner’s counsel visibly nervous.
10:45 AM: Despite the pressure, the petitioner’s counsel is regaining courage and confidently presenting arguments on the RRE Act.
10:50 AM | Court Room 5 | TC-05 vs TC-20
Courtroom 5 is filled with an attentive audience as the respondent’s counsel discusses the Champakam Dorairajan case, along with the SC and ST Acts. The judges ask the counsel to cite relevant newspaper sources for the economic criteria and literacy rate of SC and ST communities.
10:50 AM | Court Room 7 | TC-07 vs TC-25
In Courtroom 7, Counsel 1 from the respondent side is presenting the statements of facts. The judges question why the RRE Act reduces the reservation for SC, ST, and OBC to 50%. They further grilled the counsel, stating, ‘You represent the government, and your objective should be social welfare.
11:00 AM | Court Room 10 | TC-10 vs TC-22
In Courtroom 10, with a three-judge bench, the prayer on behalf of Petitioner 1 is being heard. The judges immediately grilled the counsel, pointing out that the prayers are contradictory to the contentions, causing visible concern among the entire petitioner team. Judges further questioned, ‘Petitioner 1 and Petitioner 2 have different grievances; why are you seeking relief on behalf of Petitioner 2?’
11:05 AM: In Courtroom 10, the sadness was not only visible on the petitioner team but also on the respondent team. They were unable to present their contentions as they did not have a copy of their memorial with them.
11:15 AM | Court Room 12 | TC-10 vs TC-22
In Courtroom 12, Counsel 1 from the respondent side appears frustrated, struggling to form the contentions. The judges kindly ask him to calm down and take his time. They also request a copy of the judgment in the Jarnail Singh case for reference.
11:25 AM | Court Room 14 | TC-14 Appeared as Ex-Parte
TC 14 appeared as an ex parte case, and the judges took this opportunity to teach the counsel the basics of court ethics. They also explained the evaluation criteria that judges use to assess the arguments and performance of the participants.
11:30 AM | Court Room 04 | TC-04 vs TC-27
Respondent 1 presents the contentions, arguing that reservation for ST/SC based on economic criteria is unconstitutional, as there is no rational nexus in this case (State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh). The counsel asserts that poverty cannot be used as a valid criterion for classification and that economic advancement does not guarantee social advancement, making the policy violative of Article 14.”
11:45 AM: Participants have gathered and are all set to tackle Preliminary Round 2. The teams are gearing up to showcase their legal skills as the next round of the competition kicks off!
We cannot tell which way this contest will tilt. Stay tuned!
12:00 PM | Round 2 Begins
12:15 PM | Court Room 03 | TC-18 vs TC-10
The counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to approach the dais and begins addressing Issue 1 on the subclassification of SC and ST based on economic criteria. The judges probe deeper, asking the counsel to explain the difference between substantive equality and procedural equality. Stumped by the question, the counsel remains silent.
12:20 PM: A court official signals that only 2 minutes remain, adding urgency to the arguments being presented.
12:30 PM | Court Room 06 | TC-21 vs TC-01
Counsel 2 from the petitioner’s side presents strong arguments, capturing the judges’ careful attention. Addressing the issue of quota reallocation, the counsel falters when asked to refer to the bare act of the Constitution of India. The judges, visibly astonished, remark, ‘You are the holder of law, yet you don’t have the bare act with you.
12:30 PM | Court Room 08 | TC-23 vs TC-13
Petitioner Counsel 1 presents their arguments, prompting Justice B.R. Gavai to emphasize the need for the state to develop a policy to identify and exclude the ‘creamy layer’ from the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST).
12:35 PM: Counsel 2 takes the dais, but as soon as he presents his contention, the judges grill him, questioning why the reservation system should be shifted to more deserving individuals as per the constitutional mandate.
12:40 PM: During the proceedings, a judge requested the counsel to address him as ‘Sir’ instead of ‘Lordship,’ emphasizing the need to move away from colonial-era practices.
12:45 PM | Court Room 11 | TC-26 vs TC-07
Counsel 1 from the respondent side presents a compelling argument supporting the reduction of the reservation quota, stating that government policies align with the Constituent Assembly Debates. The judges countered with a probing question: Are the Constituent Assembly Debates a primary or secondary source for constitutional interpretation?”
12:50 PM: Counsel 1, defending the government, apologizes for not being able to answer the judges’ question about whether the Constituent Assembly Debates are a primary or secondary source for interpreting the Constitution.
12:55 PM: The counsel from the petitioner side takes rebuttal, but the respondent quickly follows with a strong sur-rebuttal, presenting well-argued points in defense of their stance.
12:55 PM: Its time up!
1:00 PM | Court Room 14 | TC-12 Appeared as Ex-Parte
TC 12 appeared as ex parte, and the judges took the opportunity to guide them on essential mooting skills and proper court mannerisms, emphasizing the importance of preparation and presentation in the courtroom.
1:30 PM: The aroma of the food wafts through the air, as the participants queue up for their meals. The participants fill their plates, sit down at the tables to enjoy their meals, and engage in conversation with their teammates and fellow competitors.
02:30 PM | Felicitation of the Judges | Faculty of Law
Prof. (Dr.) Banshi Dhar Singh, Head and Dean, along with the Faculty Coordinator, Dr. Radheshyam Prasad, and Faculty Co-Coordinator, Dr. Chandrasen Pratap Singh, graciously addressed and felicitated the judges of the preliminary rounds. They expressed heartfelt gratitude for the judges’ valuable time and insightful feedback, which added immense value to the competition.
03:15 PM | Preliminary Round Results: Quarter-Finalists Announced
The results for the preliminary rounds are in! The following teams have successfully advanced to the quarter-finals:
TC 24,
TC 05,
TC 07,
TC 18,
TC 27,
TC 12,
TC 15, and
TC 17.
Congratulations to all the teams for their impressive performances, and best of luck as they move forward into the next stage of the competition!
03:20 PM | Memorial Exchange for Quarters | Faculty of Law
The draw of lots for the quarter-final round has been completed, and teams are now preparing for the memorial exchange. Each team will swap their meticulously prepared memorials to ensure fairness as they get ready for the high-stakes rounds ahead. The competition is heating up as the top teams move closer to the grand finale!
03:30 PM | Briefing of the Judges for Quarter-Final Round
Faculty Coordinator, Dr. Radheshyam Prasad, conducted the briefing session for the judges of the Quarter-Final Round in LT 01. The session focused on explaining the evaluation criteria and ensuring consistency in judgment, setting the stage for a fair and competitive round.
03:35 PM | Quarter-Final Rounds | Faculty of Law
COURT ROOM 1 | TC 18 vs TC 24
The quarter-finals convened in Courtroom 1 around 3:45 PM, presided over by Mr. Kaushlendra and Mr. Murtaza Hussain Khan. Before the proceedings began, the judges provided instructions, emphasizing the importance of maintaining decorum and avoiding unnecessary gestures such as standing or taking oaths during the prayer.
03:40 PM: Judges listened attentively as Petitioner 1 addressed Issue 1, citing the landmark case of Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab to support their arguments.
03:45 PM: Moving to Issue 2, which addresses the grounds for sub-classification of SC and ST, the judges inquired about the specific basis for such classification. Petitioner 1 responded that their co-counsel would address this matter later.
03: 50 PM: As Petitioner 2 approached the bench to address Issue 3, the judges immediately grilled them, questioning their locus standi for filing the petition. They sternly remarked, ‘You must at least know the reason before appearing before this Hon’ble Court.
COURT ROOM 2 | TC 05 vs TC 12
04:00 PM: Presided over by Mrs. Sonali Roy Chaudhary and Mr. Lalit Kishore Srivastava, Counsel 2 from the Petitioner’s side presented arguments referencing Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab. The counsel asserted that the Right to life extends to right to a dignified life and poverty does affects dignity under Article 21. However, reducing the quota will take away the SC/ST’s right to a dignified life and the slight progress these communities have made over the years.
04:02 PM: Mrs. Roy grilled the counsel, stating that the case was irrelevant to the contention as the facts differed significantly and did not hold strong evidentiary value.
04:15 PM: The petitioners have now risen to present their prayer as outlined in their memorial.
COURT ROOM 3 | TC 07 vs TC 27
04:25 PM: Courtroom 3 is presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Nitin Singh, with Mr. Rupam.
04:30 PM: Counsel 1 on the behalf of respondent approached the Dias. He contends that Articles 14 and 15 pertain to “classification” and do not permit “sub-classification”.
04:35 PM: Respondent 2, addressing Issue 2 as referred to on page 7, argues that the judgment in the Indra Sawhney case cannot be extended to Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST).
COURT ROOM 04 | TC 17 vs TC 15
04:40 PM: Courtroom 4 is presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Siddharth Shankar Dubey and Mr. Wali Iftikhar. Counsel 2 on the behalf of Respondent is addressing the contentions related to Issue 2.
04:42 PM: In a sharp observation, the bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Siddharth Shankar Dubey and Mr. Wali Iftikhar remarked, “If you cannot convince the judge, confuse the judge.
04:43 PM: Counsel 2 refers to page 24, paragraph 6, and elaborates on the principle of ex aequo et bono, emphasizing its relevance to the case.
04:45 PM: Judges remarked, “Social equity and economic disparity walk hand in hand,” highlighting the interplay between the two concepts.
04:50 PM: Counsel 2 refers to pages 25 and 26, discussing Articles 14, 15, and 16. The judges intervened, grilling the counsel on recent landmark judgments related to these provisions. In response, Counsel 2 cited the case of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh.
04:55 PM: The judges directed Counsel 2 to refer to the Sukanya Shanta case, emphasizing its relevance as a more recent judgment in comparison to State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh.
05:00 PM | Felicitation of the Judges | Dean Office
Prof. (Dr.) Banshi Dhar Singh, Head and Dean, along with the Faculty Coordinator, Dr. Radheshyam Prasad, and Faculty Co-Coordinator, Dr. Chandrasen Pratap Singh, graciously addressed and felicitated the judges of the quarter-final rounds. They expressed heartfelt gratitude for the judges’ valuable time and insightful feedback, which added immense value to the competition.
05:15 PM | Quarter Final Results: Semi-Finalists Revealed
The results for the quarter-finals are in!
The following teams have successfully advanced to the semi-finals:
TC 12,
TC 17,
TC 18, and
TC 07
Congratulations to all the teams for their outstanding performances, and best of luck as they head into the final stage of the competition!
05:30 PM | Semi-Final Set for Tomorrow & Memorial Exchange Complete
The memorial exchange for the semi-finals has been completed, and the stage is set for tomorrow’s highly anticipated round. After an exciting Day 2, all eyes are now on the semi-finals as teams prepare for the final challenges of the competition!
05:45 PM: The organizing team is now leaving the faculty, their faces lit up with broad smiles, reflecting the success of a well-executed Day 2.
Stay tuned for the grand finale tomorrow – the best is yet to come!
DAY 3: 17th November 2024 (Sunday)
As the sun rises on the final day of the National Moot Court Competition, the participants gear up to write their names in history. Who will emerge victorious? Stay with us for real-time updates, insights, and behind-the-scenes action!
9:00 AM: The Convenor and Treasurer stand side by side, united and prepared for an exciting Day 3 of the National Moot Court Competition!
09:15 AM: The participants have arrived at the Administrative Building for breakfast, fueling up for the much-anticipated Semi-Finals and Grand Finale ahead.
10:00 AM: The esteemed judges have arrived and were warmly welcomed as they gathered in the Head and Dean’s office at the Faculty of Law.
10:30 AM | Briefing with Judges | Faculty of Law
The judges are being briefed on the competition facts and guidelines in Head and Dean Office, setting the tone for the semi-final rounds about to commence.
10:45 AM | Semi-Final Rounds | Faculty of Law
11:00 AM | Court Hall – 1 | TC-07 vs TC-12
Court Hall 1 is presided over by:
- Adv. Shailendra Kumar Singh
- Adv. Shailendra Singh Rajawat
- Judge Yash Kumar Singh
11:05 AM: The proceedings have commenced, with Counsel 1 from the petitioner side seeking and receiving permission to approach the dais. Counsel 1 presented their contentions, after which Adv. Shailendra Kumar Singh posed a critical question:
“Article 14 talks about equality of laws and allows you to appear for any examination. How is your petition connected to the term ‘economic criteria,’ given that I have not used the word ‘economy’ here?”
11:10 AM: Counsel 1 from the petitioner side argues that it is well-established that Article 14 guarantees factual equality, rather than merely formal equality.
11:12 AM: Counsel 1 further contends that the observation made by the Ninth Judge Bench in the case of Indira Sawhney categorically laid down three principles concerning sub-classification.
11:15 AM: The judge questioned the counsel, asking, “When you say reasonable classification, what exactly and in a legal consonance does it mean? “
11:17 AM: Counsel 1 emphasized that reasonable classification can also align with the principle of positive discrimination, as recognized by constitutional provisions. They further argued that reasonable classification may take into account various hardships, with the broader concept of equity being inspired by practices from foreign countries, including the UK and others.
11:20 AM: Counsel 1 further cited multiple judgments to support their argument, including State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas, emphasizing the contention on page 2. They argued that Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) have been classified as separate classes due to the historical disadvantages and suffering they endured.
11:25 AM: Proceeding with the third contention, Counsel 1 argued that subclassification is not in violation of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and referred to a case cited on page 3 of their memorial to substantiate the argument. They further highlighted that it was held there is no constitutional or legal bar preventing a state from categorizing backward classes into “backward” and “more backward,” as proposed by the Mandal Commission report. Counsel 1 contended that such classification is neither in contravention of the DPSPs nor in violation of Articles 341 and 342, ensuring its alignment with constitutional provisions.
11:27 AM: The judges posed a thought-provoking question to Counsel 1, asking, “Is reservation the solution to the problem, or does it have its own adverse effects?”
The Counsel answered by citing a good argument from paragraph 9 of the fact sheet.
11:30 AM | Court Hall – 02 | TC-18 vs TC-17
The proceedings in Court Hall 2 are presided over by the following judges:
- Adv. Prashant Kumar Srivastava
- Dr. Varun Chhachhar
- Dr. Manoj Kumar
11:35 AM: Respondent 1, radiating confidence and wearing a broad smile, approached the dais to present their arguments.
11:37 AM: The judges intensely questioned the respondent, stating, “This is a violation of fundamental rights. It is a very serious matter, and you cannot encompass anything within the domain of the basic structure.
11:40 M: The judge further pressed the respondent, stating, “You must understand that sometimes, it is necessary to go beyond such boundaries to uphold justice and the rule of law.” However, the counsel presented a different perspective in response.
11:42 AM: Respondent’s counsel, expressing their point with humility, submitted that the Supreme Court of India, in various instances, has refrained from intervening in matters of policy.
11:45 AM: The judges grilled the counsel on behalf of the government, asking, “If there is no data showing that the constitutional rights or the socio-economic and political status have been uplifted, then why has the government or legislature decided to reduce the ceiling of the judiciary? It has not reduced the basic structure of the judiciary.
11:50 AM: Respondent’s counsel respectfully replied, “Indeed, Your Honour. However, there are two reasons why the government, or the respondent, has taken this action. The first is to satisfy the 50% reservation limit as per the Indira Sawhney case. The second is that there is data shown in the RRPE, which includes a survey conducted by the government of Manuland.
12:00 PM: The counsel made the third submission, stating, “Your Lordship, it is respectfully submitted that mere reservation of STs and STs in educational institutions or public employment cannot lead to the socio-economic upliftment of these communities. Reservation can be one of the tools to address these issues, but it cannot be the sole tool.
With the proceedings drawing to a close, the judge announced that the result will be declared shortly.
RESULTS ARE OUT!!
The teams advancing to the Finals are:
- TC 18 (Narvadeshwar Law College, University of Lucknow) as Petitioner
- TC 12 (Christ University, Bangalore) as Respondent
12:45 PM | Final Round | Juris Hall
Everything is set for the final round. The judges have taken their seats, and each team will be allotted 45 minutes to present their arguments.
The Juris Hall is presided over by the following esteemed judges:
- Chief Guest – Honorable Justice Mr. Subhash Vidyarthi
- Prof. (Dr.) Harish Chandra Ram
- Dr. Abhishek Kumar Tiwari
12:50 PM | Petitioner | Narvadeshwar Law College
12:51 PM: Counsel 1 from the petitioner side has taken the dais and began by iterating the summary of the facts of the case.
12:53 PM: Counsel 1 seeks permission to present issues 1 and 2, while her co-counsel will be addressing issues 3 and 4.
12:55 PM: The judges are listening attentively and calmly, with no questions raised so far.
12:57 PM: As the counsel addresses issue 1, she cites several cases, including Jarnail Singh and E.V. Chinnaiyah. She further contends that the bench in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh overruled the E.V. Chinnaiyah case.
1:00 PM: Counsel 2 is now approaching the dais to address issues 3 and 4.
1:05 PM: Counsel 2 requested the judges to refer to page 87 and contended that in the case of State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas, two criteria are outlined: reasonable nexus and intelligible differentia.
1:07 PM: Counsel 2 concludes by contending, “There is no social justice without economic prosperity, but economic prosperity without social justice is meaningless.
1:10 PM: The petitioner side has presented the following issues for seeking relief:
- Whether the subdivision of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) categories based on economic criteria is constitutionally valid?
- Whether the exclusion of the “creamy layer” from the reservation benefits is justified?
- The constitutionality of the “Reservation Reform and Economic Empowerment Act, 2024.”
- Whether the reduction in reservation quotas negatively impacts the socio-economic upliftment of SC and ST communities?
1:15 PM: The petitioner is now making the prayer, seeking relief on the raised issues.
1:20 PM | Respondent | Christ University, Bangalore
1:21 PM: The counsel from the respondent side has approached the dias and stated that she will take 28 minutes to present her arguments, while her co-counsel will take 22 minutes.
1:22 PM: The respondent counsel is addressing Issue 1 and has begun by citing the NM Thomas case to support her argument.
1:30 PM: After a lengthy and detailed argument, the judges began asking questions to the respondent counsel.
1:32 PM: The judge grilled the respondent, stating, “Even after 75 years of independence and the implementation of reservation policies, why are the deprived still left behind while the affluent continue to receive the benefits?
1:40 PM: Counsel 2 for the respondent approached the dais to address Issues 3 and 4, stating that she will require 22 minutes for her argument.
1:41 PM: It seems that the arguments are progressing smoothly, as the judges are listening attentively with no questions so far.
1:42 PM: Counsel 2 is now addressing the final contention of Issue 3, arguing that the need for reservation in the EWS category is supported by the UNDP poverty index data.
1:50 PM: The Respondent Counsel respectfully seeks the following relief:
- Declare that the Constitution of Manuland does not permit sub-classification within the SC and ST categories solely based on economic upliftment.
- Declare that the exclusion of individuals under the social reservation policy is not justified.
- Declare that the Reservation Reform and Economic Empowerment Act (RRE Act) is unconstitutional in nature.
- Alternatively, uphold the RRE Act, 2024, recognizing the inclusion of economic criteria as a progressive step toward equitable upliftment of all disadvantaged communities.
- Pass any other order that may be deemed fit in the interest of justice, equity, and good governance, which is most humbly and respectfully requested.
1:52 PM: The Counsel Remarked, “It has been an honor to have presented before this esteemed Court. Thank you”
1:55 PM: The courtroom has witnessed an intense rebuttal and surrebuttal as both sides fiercely defend their positions on the key issues.
2:15 PM | Valedictory Ceremony | Juris Hall
2:20 PM: The ceremony began with a welcome address by Dr. Radheshyam, Chairperson of the Moot Court Association, followed by insightful words from Dr. Banshi Dhar Singh, Head and Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow. Prof. (Dr.) Harish Chandra Ram, Guest of Honour, emphasized the significance of moot courts in legal education.
2:30 PM: Honorable Justice Mr. Subhash Vidyarthi, Chief Guest, appreciated the high quality of the finalists’ arguments, expressing that it was challenging to judge such skilled teams. The ceremony concluded with acknowledgments and gratitude for all involved.
2:35 PM: Felicitation of the Guests
Dr. Banshi Dhar Singh, Head and Dean, Faculty of Law, and Dr. Radheshyam, Faculty Coordinator, extended their heartfelt gratitude to the esteemed judges, guests, and participants for making the event a success.
2:45 PM: The most awaited part of the ceremony is here. The winners are now being announced.
Best Speaker:
The title of Best Speaker was proudly conferred upon Tavishi Bisen from City Law College (TC-08).
Best Researcher:
The award for Best Researcher was presented to Ashish Nayan from Uttaranchal University (TC-01).
Best Memorial:
The Best Memorial award was conferred upon Vardhan Singh, Shashwat Dubey, and Amaan Hussain Rizvi from Aligarh Muslim University (TC-07).
Runner-Up:
The Runner-Up award was presented to Sandeep Tiwari, Shikha Upadhyay, and Ishika Mishra from Narvadeshwar Law College, University of Lucknow (TC-18). Their exceptional performance in research and advocacy earned them a prize money of ₹10,000, a trophy, and one-year subscriptions of EBC Learning.
Winner:
The Winner title was awarded to Akanksha Malick, Parvathi Harikumar, and Sana Yadav from Christ University, Bangalore (TC-12). Their outstanding performance throughout the competition earned them a prize money of ₹15,000, a trophy, and one-year subscriptions of EBC Learning.
03:00 PM: The event concluded with a heartfelt Vote of Thanks delivered by the Student Convenor, Srijan Pandey, expressing gratitude to all participants, judges, and organizers for their contributions to the success of the competition.
17.00 PM: The 5th National Moot Court Competition, 2024, has been a tremendous success, thanks to the dedication, teamwork, and passion of everyone here today.
With this, we bring the competition to a close, and we look forward to welcoming you next year with even more challenges, excitement, and memorable moments. See you at the 6th edition!
what a play of words
the beginning and the end
will keep me hooked for everything else mentioned in the middle
let’s go Lucknow ✨