Aayush Agarwal from Campus Law Centre also won the best speaker award. [[NLSIU Bangalore]] and [[NLIU Bhopal]] finished as semi-finalists in the moot, and NLIU Bhopal bagged the best memorandum award.
The moot, conceived and organised by intellectual property rights (IPR) law firm Anand and Anand, returned after a two year hiatus and was added to as a Tier 4 moot in MPL 3.
Aditya Gupta, an organizer from Anand and Anand told Legally India: “The moot was very satisfying and a grand success. The problem was based on cloud computing and trade secrecy laws. The final rounds were judged by Justice Anil Dave from the Supreme Court and Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Midha from the Delhi High Court.”
The moot team from Campus Law Centre consisted of speakers Aayush Agarwal and Tahini Bhushan, along with researcher Aditya Mathur and additional reseracher Sukhmani Singh.
Best speaker Agarwal said that the team had a brilliant experience and appreciated the judging standards. “The problem was challenging and we enjoyed researching and arguing. During the initial rounds, we had great judges who were IPR experts from the industry. You had to know your basic IPR concepts well. During the later rounds, we had judges from the High Court and Supreme Court.”
Changes in version 3.02 of the [[Mooting Premier League 2011-12 moot court competitions]]: Oxford Media Moot has been tentatively upgraded to Tier 2 World Class level and its India rounds are in Tier 3 due to the transparency, quality of judging and global participation, although it is just in its second year and only India has a national selection round. This will be frozen unless there are strong and impassioned arguments raised against.
The GH Raisoni has been retained in Tier 5 but the SP Sathe moot has been dropped following the organisers’ request to do so last year. School of Law Christ University’s moot has been included in Tier 5.
Additional question: Team MPL is considering elevating the NLIU JurisCorp moot to Tier 4 from Tier 5. While only in its second year, 22 teams participated last year and other Tier 5 moots are “those with very little Indian participation”. There is also funding from JurisCorp and substantial prize money. This moot is similar to most Tier 4 competitions such as NUJS-Herbert Smith or the Amity Moot.
However, we do not have great visibility on judging – any feedback on judges last year and whether they are of Tier 4 calibre? There is also no dedicated website and it does not yet have an established brand name or popularity.
Please leave your input in the comments.
Also read:
- [[Mooting Premier League 2011-12 moot court competitions]]: Now in version 3.02
- How they moot: Top 10 law schools under the lens; + MPL3 preview & kick-off
Comments
1) 3-year law schools should not be allowed to take part in MPL. Students here are old and mature and cannot be compared with 5-year law students who come straight from class 12.
2) I do not think any Indian moot should be ranked above a foreign moot. You are living in a dream world if you think Indian moots are even remotely world class.
3) LI should take a poll and de-recognise moots considered to have biased judging. It is well know what happens in some moots in Western and Southern India.
2) 5 year ones have mooting as part of their curriculum...for 3 years its optional.
3)
2) 5 year ones have mooting as part of their curriculum...for 3 years its optional.
3)[/quote]
Well, not all 5 years colleges have mooting as a part of curriculum. NLS doesnt have, NUJS doesnt have (not sure about NALSAR and NLUD). Further, only a few colleges have mentoring system in mooting and most of them do not.
1) 3-year law schools should not be allowed to take part in MPL. Students here are old and mature and cannot be compared with 5-year law students who come straight from class 12. [/quote]
This is amusing. Attempting to take this comment to its (il)logical conclusion, it seems we must also prevent 1st/2nd year students from having to compete against 4th/5th year students. Maybe also prohibit junior practitioners at the bar from appearing against the senior ones. Mooting serves as a platform for the academic development of students LEARNING law. What has AGE got to do with it? In any case, which 3 year law school has challenged the dominance of the 5 year law schools to merit such paranoia (ILS & GLC usually send mooting teams from their 5 year courses). Considering the lack of resources and infrastructure these colleges overcome to do well in such competitions,such attempts to undermine their achievement is shameful.
PS - Why don't you send out your valuable advice to Moot Court Organizers who invite such colleges in the first place. Maybe you find someone suffering from the same disorder to endorse your views.
After a while, it doesn't matter.
We have slowed down a little bit in the last month but please bear with us for a while, LI will hopefully be back to its usually more exciting scheduling in a little bit.
Best
Kian
Also, if number of teams is the point, then KLA Moot should be in tier 3 as around 50 teams participate in it every year!!!
"Degrading of Bar Council of India Moot, before last year, BCI was having most challenging format of mooting in India, it was put in world class, but last year judging quality, problem quality was really pathetic, so it can not be treated equal to DM Harish moot which has improved a lot in terms of reputation and participation in last three years. Participation of foreign teams in DM Harish is really good and challenging. I request you to upgrade it to World Class (Tier 4)because it is the only Indian moot where judging quality and participation matches world class level and its definetely better than the national rounds of stetson and jessup which are in same tier."
Fifteen teams participated in the moot. Apologies for the excluding this in the story.
Cheers,
Prashanth
in all fairness u should include Luthra, MM Singhvi, GIMC and Herbert Smith in tier 3 as well if you're putting Oxford India there. Luthra & Singhvi have double the participation that Oxford India has, have been there for 10 yrs. each of them are known for their judging, transparency, etc. as well..Plus they have had international participation last couple of years...
GNLU, although quite new has decent international participation,plus they fly in judges from WTO and from across the country.
Herbert Smith has exceptional judging..They spend more on flying in judges from all over than on the actual organization, which is not a bad thing..
You're putting Oxford India in the same league as BCIT and DM Harish.
BCIT is there because, well its BCIT! Always been a challenge, and most colleges send their most seasoned mooters for it. DM Harish has quality international participation that equals the Oxford world rounds. Check out both websites. If any moot deserves an upgrade, it's probably this one...
Although Stetson and Jessup India rounds have faced their share of criticism for bad judging,they're still elims for moots that have tremendous global presence, and over 80 countries conduct national rounds before the world rounds. India is the only country that has national qualifiers for Oxford.
Oxford India had 22 teams last year, from which 4 qualify to go to Oxford. Stetson,Jessup both have 50+ teams (north and south rounds combined) from which 4 qualify for each. So the they're definitely a greater challenge..
Without meaning any ill-will towards the Oxford moot, it seems way too early to put it in the same league. Either that, or consider upgrading other moots that deserve it...
Luthra abd Singhvi might have double the participation but the point it to maintain the quality of judging the Oxofrd organising committee restricts the number of team.
Herbert Smith has good judging but if you compare the profile of the judges of Hrbert Smith and Oxford you will find the difference. Luthra and GIMC have decent judges Luthra is almost same like every decent moot. GIMC is little better but especially during the advance rounds. Singhvi well trial court judges judge so well lets not compaare. Also what we need to see is that this is just a qualifying round and not the final rounds still the best judges from India and abroad are called for judging a qualification round. If we compare the judging and transperance with any other qualifying round be it Stetson or Jessup or Henry Dunant or Manfread the quality of organising, jdging ect is way better.
Last time some people had some problem with the problem but this year the problem framed is also fantastic. In Oxford people who really know Media Law and International Law come to judge very round from Prelims to Finals (in finals also there were atleast 3 people who knew about it, which is very rare in moots in India when you call judges and Senior Advocated for finals) whereas in other moot either the prelims are bad (well finals always invariably is as the judges and advocates know nothing) That was not a case in Oxford. In Stetson there were around 40 teams in Oxford there were around 29 in international rounds and this after considering that afct that Oxford is in its 5th year and Stetson in 16th.
After a long time there is a moot in India which has everything perfect so whats wrong with upgrading it and keeping it with DMH which is one of the best in India (though just comparing the judging quality which almost everyone has problem with in every Indian moot Oxofrd will be ahead)
Cheers,
Prashanth
Thanks for the inputs.
Completely agree with you on the point of promoting moots that have maintained high judging standards. Instead of going back to status quo on Oxford, we are planning to promote four worthy Tier 4 moots to Tier 3 (solely on the ground of very good judging) in the next version of MPL 3 moots:
1- NUJS Herbert Smith Moot
2- K K Luthra Criminal Law Moot
3- NLS Arbitration Moot
4- GNLU International Moot (GIMC)
+
We are also seriously considering the promotion of D.M. Harish from Tier 3 to Tier 2.
We've always received positive reviews on judging from all the aforesaid moots. And judging is indeed the most important criteria for classifying moots based on tiers, apart from the general factors like popularity, participation, etc.
If this is done, we'll also look to promote a few deserving Tier 5 moots to Tier 4.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Prashanth
i think u r frm GNLU thats why promoting GIMC moot
I dont know why the ICC Trial Moot is in Tier II, Its the only moot being recognized by ICC as International Criminal Law moot. I agree only 20 teams participate, but to be in 20 teams, you have to be in top 2 of your country and also top 20 of the world. As far as Indian teams are concerned, 5-6 teams go through assignment where it is decided that who will be two teams to represent India.
It is only trial moot, and in most of the part of the world, Europe and US, there are regional rounds. I think it can be promoted to Tier I. Last time we did fairly well, but the recognition was not enough, with the maturity, it must be promoted.
The NLIU Juris Corp Moot has fairly good judging.. the judges in the prelims include some of their alumni, associates from top law firms, litigating lawyers and academics from various Indian universities... the finals are judged by sitting or ex-judges... overall the moot was worth going to...
I've heard from some friends (unofficially) that the moot is set to offer the highest prize money among any moot in India... I agree with #10 and the Legally India team that the NLIU-Juris Corp Moot deserves to be upgraded.. surely the moot that has the highest prize money will see good competition (even if not the best) and does not deserve to be in the lowest tier..
Though the article says that the School of Law, Christ University Moot has been included in Tier 5, you wiki-MPL page does not reflect the same:
http://www.legallyindia.com/wiki/Mooting_Premier_League_2011-12_moot_court_competitions please check.
I don't understand why should KLA not be elevated whish is so old, while elevating Luthra whish is 7 yrs. old or GIMC just 3 yrs. old.
The memorials were marked in most outrageous manner with literally illogical marks allotted (p.s. I was not the participant, but have received this feedback from more than 1 teams, ofcourse they didnt make semis, but its nt the grunt, rather I have seen the proof) and more so ever, can any of the organising committee person reply here that how the results were decided when the last rounds were not even finished ???
Seems 'the long haul' has brought in newcomers, who believe more in lobbying then having a fair competition !!!
it's never the grunt...is it?? :)
a. ask the participants where they were made to wait when the other rounds were going on...
b. not questioning at all the judges, or the quality of moot.. i m just surprised over the way it seemed so obviously rigged !!!
There is no need to elevate D.M. Harish to Tier 2; if it is so done what about BCIT Moot, the most prestigious moot of India.
Also, there are 'n' number of moots which should be elevated from their respective tiers if D M Harish gets into Tier 2. It would be wrong decision surely. BCI, then also deserves to be in Tier 2 and then KLA Moot, as some person asked, should also be in Tier3. Also, GIMC then should be in tier 2 considering foreign participation and good judging. Isn't it so.
I would rather advise to maintain status quo.
Thanks!!!
Are you seriously trying to say GIMC and DMH is equal, it means Oxford and Jessup World rounds are equal.
DM Harish deserves the asked respect, and is entitled to be promoted.
Merely, one well conducted DMH (last year) should not be elevated only on that ground. I can't understand what is wrong with BCI that you are finding with BCI elevation, mere one bad conduct should not raise qustions on its prestige. ITS THE BEST MOOT OF INDIA!!!
ALSO, IF dmh IS PROMOTED, N NMBER OF MOOTS THEN SHOULD BE PROMOTED FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE TIERS.