ConVERSE – Winners [NLSIU], 6th Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot

TheLegalBug congratulates Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Divyanshu Agrawal and Ayushi Sutaria, the team of NLSIU Bangalore for winning the 6th Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot, 2014.

The following interview was conducted by Harneet Kaur, Co-Founder TheLegalBug

Harneet (H)– Giving such a remarkable performance in the well known and prestigious moot is commendable. Here comes the conventional question- How does it feel?
Divyanshu- It is a wonderful feeling obviously. More significantly, the quality of our opponents in the finals and the really helpful attitude of the organisation committee contributed to making the competition a wonderful experience overall.

H– What was the subject area of the moot?
Ayushi- The moot dealt with competition law and international trade law.

H- The questions of law in a moot problem are the quality determining yardstick for any moot court competition. How would you judge yours? Kindly detail.
Anil- It has perhaps become common to see moot problems that are based on modified versions of the facts and issues involved in a recent major decision. However, that was not the case with this moot. Consequently, we ended up researching quite broadly, to ensure that we hadn’t missed out essential arguments for any issue. I think that this approach of the problem-setter also gave us the scope to attempt a wider range of arguments than would have been the case otherwise – for instance, with respect to the issue concerning the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission, our arguments spanned not just competition law, but also other areas of law such as arbitration law and constitutional law.

H- How do you think the integrities of a moot are helpful for students of law, of course other than the quasi-real perspective it gives you about the procedure?
Divyanshu- I think the most important aspect of a moot is that it allows law students to research extensively on a dispute (similar to what may arise in reality), a situation which is rarely mirrored in any other activity in law school – curricular or otherwise. At times, in addition, it also deals with an area of law (like in this moot) which is not covered in the general law school curriculum.

Extensive research, I believe, leads to the kind of argumentation and understanding of that issue which is unimaginable otherwise.

Finally, other than mere procedure, the idea of presenting those arguments in front of a bench is thrilling and hones the verbal communication skills of a lawyer which is necessary for all career paths.

H- It seems that the competition was fierce. How was your overall experience?
Ayushi- The competition had witnessed participation from a large number of teams, to the extent that the organisers had to have an additional memorial-based qualification round prior to the oral rounds itself. The preparation stage was a bit hectic for us as we were able to start our preparation with only a limited amount of time left. Balancing the moot with our existing commitments was also quite a challenge, and I am glad that as a team, we managed to do that. The oral rounds were an interesting experience as we encountered a variety of arguments and argumentation styles, forcing us to constantly adapt our approach. Overall, as a team, we had a lot of fun.

H- Court etiquettes, the manner in which the judges and the issues are addressed and your pattern- all matters a lot. What in the speech of your team’s oralists you think was different to cling on the judge’s mind?
Anil- I think there were two things that we were consciously focussing on both during our preparation and during the rounds themselves. First, given the complex nature of many areas of competition law and international trade law, we wanted our arguments to be especially clear to the judges. Hence, at the cost of taking up some of the limited speaking time that we had, we took care to invite the judges’ attention to, and explain, the basic legal provisions involved before delving into our arguments.

Second, in a deliberate attempt to remain responsive to the benches we would face in the different rounds, we had memorised only the gist of our arguments, so that we could present them more naturally, in an uncomplicated manner, during the orals.

H- Arguing in finals is the dream of every oralist. How was your experience of the finals?
Divyanshu- The finals were a great experience. A packed auditorium increased the pressure slightly. It was befitting that the best prepared team that we faced was in the finals and we would like to congratulate NALSAR on their amazing performance. As the judges on the bench were High Court judges, they were relatively passive in terms of asking questions. Personally, I believe that a student’s preparation is better reflected in a round if a lot of questions are posed to him/her. Nevertheless, it is the primary responsibility of a counsel to persuade any kind of judge. In all, it was a great end to the competition.

H- Did you have some kind of strategists or mentor guiding your preparation in the moot or some guidance from seniors who had been to the same moot before?  What is the policy of your university’s moot society when it comes to preparing newbies for mooting?
Ayushi- We did not have an official strategist or a mentor. However, the inputs from seniors (those present in college as well as alumni) were invaluable and we are truly grateful to them for helping us at short notice.

Since none of us are newbies when it came to mooting, we aren’t personally aware enough to comment on the specific policy of this year. But I can definitely say that our Moot Court is committed towards equipping novice mooters with the relevant skills, through measures such as an exclusive moot for novices, workshops and talks, the facilitation of practice rounds, etc.

H- What was your team mantra when it comes to preparing for the competition?
Ayushi- To be honest, we were working under severe constraints of time. Hence, we knew that we would have to be intensely focussed during our preparation period, and I think we did manage to stick to that plan.

We simply wanted to give our best to the moot, not just for the sake of performing at the competition, but also because we knew we could learn something new and different through the process.

H- How was the judging in the preliminary and the final rounds? How well did it satisy the oralist’s hunger for appropriate and substantial questions, on which the team had been working for long?
Divyanshu- Most of the judges that we faced in the preliminary and post-break rounds were well-prepared. It was apparent that they had been very well briefed. We were asked good questions both on facts and on law. At times, however, we felt that the judges were not as comfortable with innovative arguments or different interpretations of the facts. This can, however, perhaps be attributed to the field of competition law and the nascent nature of its jurisprudence.  

H- A lot depends on the memorial when it comes to speaking. How well do you think this statement is justified in case your team’s perspective?
Anil- I would wholeheartedly agree with that statement. Even if the judges only peruse the memorial for a few seconds before your round begins, the memorial firmly sets down the first impression of the quality of your submissions. Moreover, if a speaker largely follows the structure of arguments used in the memorial, I think the bench will find it somewhat easier to understand the submissions. I think that on both these counts, our memorial, which had scored the second highest marks in the competition, was an advantage during the oral rounds.

H- Some experience and advice that you would like share with budding mooters?
Anil- Personally, I think that mooting can often come across as an activity where the rewards are not proportional to the effort that you put in. There are many other activities that a law student can engage in where the dedication required is less. However, I think that this perception shatters the moment you realise that the reward of mooting cannot be measured primarily in terms of how well you did at the competition. As I believe my teammates have already mentioned, mooting enables you with powerful knowledge and skills, irrespective of how you perform at the competition itself. Understanding this can perhaps make the demands of mooting a lot less burdensome.