Nalsar Hyderabad, NLU Jodhpur, JGLS Sonepat and NLSIU Bangalore, which represented India at the world rounds of the 56th Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot, made the country proud with two teams breaking into the last sixteen (one finishing as quarterfinalist), seven speakers finishing in the top 100 oralists and three teams winning top memorandum awards.
The team from Nalsar comprising of Varun Baliga Sanya Samtani, Preeti Kolluri and Raji Gururaj finished as a quarter-finalist.
Varun Baliga was adjudged as the 3rd best oralist. This is the second best performance by an Indian in the individual rankings at the competition, behind Raag Yadava’s second spot in 2013 world rounds where NLSIU emerged as the winners.
Baliga’s teammate Sanya Samtani was adjudged as the 16th best oralist.
Varun commented: “The quality of the judging at the international rounds was phenomenal, as were the competing teams. It was a pleasure arguing in each and every round. Jessup gave us the opportunity to contribute to the wider international law community.”
Ankeeta Parhi, Pranita Mehta, Sagnik Das and Kruti Venkatesh represented NLU Jodhpur at the tier 1 moot and were awarded the 3rd Best Combined Memorials out of 600+ teams worldwide.
They also reached the octo-finals of the competition. Speakers Sagnik Das and Vinayak Panikkar won the 52nd and 85th best oralist award respectively (under MPL rules for Jessup and Vis Vienna, only the top 60 speakers are awarded honourable mention points).
The other two Indian teams from JGLS and NLSIU, however, were unable to reach the advanced rounds.
JGLS speakers Samhith Malladi and Mohanakrishna Chandrasekaran finished as the 58th and 64th best oralist respectively while Vanshaj Jain of NLSIU stood at the 80th spot.
JGLS (14th spot) & NALSAR (16th) were the other two Indian representatives in the memorial standings.
Update: NUJS Kolkata was runners up at the Leiden Sarin Air Law Moot Court Competition, 2015 in Beijing, China. Rest of the story to follow soon.
Correction: NLSIU was runners up at the Asia Pacific Rounds of ELSA WTO Moot and gets 5 points for that. Also, we missed adding 10 points for their hon’ble mention at Vis Vienna.
The table has been updated accordingly.
NLU Jodhpur and NLSIU maintain their 1st and 2nd spot respectively while NUJS takes the third spot from NLU Delhi. NALSAR has made a leap from the 9th position to the 5th position after gaining 50 points at Jessup.
At A Glance: Law School Wise
| Law School | Award | Score |
|---|---|---|
| NALSAR Hyderabad | Jessup (Quarterfinalist + 2 HM Best Oralist [16th & 3rd best] + HM Best Memorial) T1 | 20+10+10+10=50 |
| NLU Jodhpur | Jessup (Octofinalists + 1 HM Best Oralist + HM Best Memorial) T1 [+85th best oralist, no points] | 15+10+10=35 |
| JGLS Sonepat | Jessup (1 HM Best Oralist - 58th + HM Best Memorial) T1 [+ 64th best oralist, no points] | 10+10=20 |
| NLSIU Bangalore | [Jessup (HM Best Oralist - 80th) T1] | 0 |
| NUJS Kolkata | Leiden Sarin (Runners Up) T5 | 5 |
Mooting Premier League (MPL) 6 rankings
| Rank | Law School | Points | Awards |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NLU Jodhpur | 214 | Henry Dunant (Best team) = 20; Surana IT (Semi Finalist) T4= 4; Stetson (Semi Finalists + Best Speaker) T3 =10+5 : Price Media(Winner + Best Memorial) T3 =20+10; Jessup (Semi finalist + Best Memo) T3=10+5; GIMC (Semi Finalist)=4; ELSA Asia Qualifiers (Winner) T5=10; Anti Trust (Org) T5; Vis East ( 2 HM Best Oralist + HM Best Claimant Memorial) T1=30; Price Media (Semi-finalists + HM Best Memorial) T2=20; Vis Vienna (Best Respondent Memo) T1=30; Jessup (Octofinalists + HM Best Oralist + HM Best Memorial) T1=35 |
| 2 | NLSIU Bangalore | 174 | Raj Anand (runners up) T4 = 8; BR Sawhney (Runners Up + Best Speaker) T4 + CLEA (Runners Up) T5 = 8 +8 + 5= 21 : Price Media (Best Speaker + Semi Finalists) T3 = 10+ 5: SLCU (Winners) T5=10; KK Luhtra (Best Speaker) T4=8; Jessup (Semi finalist) T3=5; GIMC (Best Memorial)T4=8: Amity (Winner + Best Memorial) T4=15+8; HSF (Runner’s up + Best Memorial ) T4=16; Oxford IP (Winners) T5=10; Vis East (HM Best Claimant Memorial) T1=10; Vis Vienna (Semi-finalist) T1=25; Vis Vienna (HM Best Oralist) T1=10; ELA WTO (Runners up)T5=5; |
| 3 | NUJS Kolkata | 130 | CLEA (Semi finalists) T5; BCI (Semi Finalists) T3; Stetson (Winner) T3 = 3 + 5 + 20; KK Luthra (Winners) T4=15; DMH (Runners up)=25; HSF (Organiser) T4=2; Anti Trust (Best Memorial) T5=5; Vis East (Semi-finalists + HM Best Oralist) T1=35; ELSA WTO (Best Orator) T5=5; Vis Vienna (HM Best Complainant Memo) T1=10; Leiden Sarin (Runners Up) T5=5 |
| 4 | NLU Delhi | 128 | Manfred Lachs World (Winner + Best Speaker)+ CLEA (Best Memorial) T5 = 40 + 30 + 5 : Price Media (Semi Finalists) T3 = 5; KK Luhtra (Semi Finalist) T4=4; GIMC (Winners)=15; KLA (Winners + Best Speaker)=23; Oxford IP (Semi finalist) T5=3; Franfurt Arbitration (Semi Finalist) T5=3 |
| 5 | NALSAR Hyderabad | 120 | BR Sawhney (Org)T4 = 2; Amity (Winners) T5= 10; BCI (Runners Up) T3 =10: Stetson (Semi Finalists) T3 = 5 : Price Media (Runners Up) T3 = 10; Rizwi (semi finalists+ best speaker) T5=3+5; Jessup (Runner up + Best Speaker) T3=10+10; HNMCC (Best Memorial)=5; Jessup (Quarterfinalist + 2 HM Best Oralist + HM Best Memorial) T1=50 |
| 6 | NLIU Bhopal | 100 | Raj Anand (Best team + Best memorial + Best speaker) + NLIU Juris Corp (organiser) + Amity (Best Memorial) T5 + CLEA (Winners + Best Speaker) T5 + BCI (Semi Finalists) T3= 15 + 8 + 8 + 2 + 5 +15 + 5; KK Luhtra (Semi Finalist) T4=4: Amity (Runners Up) T4=8; ULC (Best researcher) T5=5; HSF (Best Team) T4=15; Anti Trust (Winner) T5=10 |
| 7 | NLUO Cuttack | 98 | Henry Dunant (Best researcher + semi finalist) = 10 + 5 = 15; Amity (Runners Up) T5= 5; Surana IT (Runners Up+ Best Memorial) T4 = 8+ 8; KK Luhtra (Best Memorial) T4= 8; KLA (Best Memorial)=8: Amity (Semi Finalists) T4=4; ULC (Runner up + Best speaker ) T5=10; HSF (Semi-finalist + Best Speaker) T4=12; Anti Trust (Best Researcher) T5=5; G H Raisoni (Best Speaker) T5=5; Vis East (HM Best Claimant Memorial) T1=10 |
| 8 | ILS Pune | 88 | NLIU Juris Corp (Best team + Best speaker) = 15 + 8 = 23; BR Sawhney (Semi Finalist) T4 = 4; Surana Corp (Winner)=15: Amity (Semi Finalists) T4=4; HSF (Semi-finalist) T4=4; ILS Pune=10; Vis Vienna (Quarter-finalist) T1=20; Palkhiwala Tax (Runners up) T4=8 |
| 9 | RMLNLU Lucknow | 77 | Henry Dunant (runners up + Best Memorial) + Raj Anand (semi finalist) = 10 + 10 + 4 = 24; Surana IT (Semi Finalist + Best Speaker) T4= 4+8; Rizwi (semi finalists+ best researcher) T5=3+5; GIMC (best researcher) T4 = 8; Anti Trust (Runner Up) T5=5; Red Cross Best Memorial=20 |
| 10 | JGLS | 58 | Jessup (Winner) T3; Anti Trust (Best Speaker + Semi Finalists) T5=8; Franfurt Arbitration (Winners) T5=10; Jessup (1 HM Best Oralist + HM Best Memorial) T1=20 |
| 11 | Symbiosis Pune | 56 | Raj Anand (semi finalist) + Juris Corp (Best researcher) = 4 + 8 = 12; Surana IT (Organizer) T4= 2; G H Raisoni (Best Researcher) T5=5; Vis East (Semi-finalists) T1=25; Palkhiwala Tax (Semi Finalist + Best Researcher) T4=12 |
| 12 | HNLU Raipur | 44 | NLIU Juris Corp (Runners up) = 8; BR Sawhney (Winners) T4 = 15; HNMCC (org)=1; Surana Corp (Best Speaker + Best Memorial)=4+8; Palkhiwala Tax (Best Speaker) T4=8 |
| 13 | RGNUL Patiala | 41 | BR Sawhney (Best Memorial) T4; Stetson (Runners Up) T3 = 8 + 10; Palkhiwala Tax (Winners + Best memo) T4=23 |
| 14 | ILNU Ahmedabad | 38 | BR Sawhney (Semi Finalist) T4 = 4 ; BCI (Winner + Best Speaker) T3 =20+10= 30; Surana Corp (Semi finalist)=4 |
| 15 | GNLU Gandhinagar | 32 | Stetson (Best Memorial) T3; GIMC (org)=2; G H Raisoni (Runner Up + Best Memorial) T5=10; Vis East (HM Best Claimant Memorial) T1=10 |
| 16 | NUSRL Ranchi | 29 | NLIU Juris Corp (Best memorial) = 8 SLCU (Semi Finalist + Best Memorial + Best Speaker) T5=3+5+5; KLA (Runners Up) =8 |
| 17 | School of Law, Sashtra University | 27 | Surana IT (Winners) T4 = 15; HNMCC (Winners)=10; Palkhiwala Tax (Org) T4=2 |
| 18 | CNLU Patna | 26 | Amity (Best Researcher) T5 + CLEA (Organizer) = 5+1: DMH (Best Memorial)=20 |
| 19 | Symbiosis Law School, Noida | 24 | HNMCC (Runner up)=5; KLA (Semi Finalist)=4; Surana Corp (Semi finalist)=4: Amity (Best Researcher) T4=8; ULC (Semi finalist) T5 |
| 20 | CLC Delhi Univ | 20 | KK Luthra (Runners up): Amity (Best Speaker) T4=8; Palkhiwala Tax (Semi Finalist) T4=4 |
| 21 | NUALS Kochi | 18 | Amity (Semi Finalist + Best Speaker) T5 = 3+5 = 8; Rizwi (winners) T5=10 |
| 22 | GLC Mumbai | 18 | Amity (Semi Finalist) T5 = 3; DMH (Semi Finalists )=15 |
| 23 | KLA | 17 | Henry Dunant (Best speaker + semi finalist) = 10 + 5 = 15; KLA (organizer)=2 |
| 24 | CMR Law School | 15 | SLCU (Runners Up) T5=5; ULC (Winner) T5=10 |
| 25 | M S Ramaiah College, Bangalore | 12 | Surana Corp (Runner up + Best Speaker)=8+4 |
| 26 | UPES Dehradun | 8 | HNMCC (Best Speaker + Semi Finalist) |
| 27 | Amity Delhi | 8 | Amity (Org) T4; Anti Trust (Semi finalist) T5=3; G H Raisoni (Semi finalist) T5=3 |
| 28 | School of Law, Galgotia University | 5 | Rizwi (runners Up) T5 |
| 29 | Christ Univ, Bangalore | 5 | SLCU (Organizer) T5; KLA (Semi Finalist)=4 |
| 30 | JSS law College, Mysore | 5 | Surana Corp (Organizer); ULC (Semi finalist) T5=3 |
| 31 | Faculty of Law, Allahabad Univ | 5 | ULC (Best memorial ) T5 |
| 32 | ULC Bangalore | 4 | HNMCC (Semi Finalist); ULC (Org) T5=1 |
| 33 | BILS Bangalore | 3 | CLEA (Semi finalists) T5 |
| 34 | AIL Mohali | 3 | SLCU (Semi Finalist) T5=3 |
| 35 | Pravin Gandhi, Mumbai | 3 | G H Raisoni (Semi finalist) T5 |
| 36 | Lloyd Law College | 2 | BCI (Organizer) T3 = 2 |
| 37 | Amity Noida | 1 | Amity (Org) T5 = 1 |
| 38 | Rizwi Law College | 1 | Rizwi (Org) T5 |
| 39 | G H Raisoni | 1 | G H Raisoni (Organizer) T5 |
Comments
The first years have been permitted to do very few moots but haven't done too badly at those, they weren't bad in the Intro moot either (thanks to the mentors). They have time to learn, and hopefully some of the seniors will guide them along in this.
It is the third years who really need to pull their weight along.
Further, qualifying for Jessup, Stetson and Oxford Media; while doing well at BCI alongwith a couple of smaller moots isn't really the definition of 'rotten'. This, especially so when we don't even go to more than half the moots in the country. Look up, things aren't half as bad as you make them to be.
Maybe I didn't articulate it that well, but I did not just mean mooting. I believe (as do others who I urge to speak up) that the 1st and 2nd years (again not all, but most) in general do not match up to the high standards we and the other batches have set. Maybe, it's down to poor selection procedures. But, the fact remains that comparatively, we HAVE been getting rubbish for the past 2 years. I know there'll be clamors of the need to post it online but I don't feel the need to cheer and motivate theses batches with false-truths. I'd rather reveal to them what is expected of them and spur them on.
So, yeah. They have been rotten in general. Maybe they can improve (and I want them to) but they'll need to slog it out.
Also, I think NUJS and NLU-D are where we should be. They've actually won moots and have performed much better than we have. We should be where they are. And add the Jessup to it! :P
Kudos to those two colleges though. They get the jobs as well.
Faizan's a politician through and through. He responds not to logic but pressure, not common sense but publicity or the possibility of bad publicity. So, as alums, please put some pressure on him to support mooting a little more. At least pay for our air fares? Give us attendance for moots?
Dearth of funding is neither a good nor complete explanation- I regret to say this- for a season worth of mediocre performance. At the domestic front, all we could manage to win was the Amity Moot which, to use cricket terminology, is like Australia winning a test series against the touring Bangladesh team.
As condescending as it may sound, the present crop is really not living up to the standards of the spectacular performance put up the batches of '11 to '13 in the first three editions of MPL.
Your time is over! Get on with your jobs and we'll manage just fine. :)
Don't think my last comment contained any suggestions. Let us analyze your comment and see what I would have sounded, if I wanted to leave any tips for you:
1. Do not make tangential observations. It always helps to read something twice before jumping on to any premature conclusions.
2. Work on your subtle-offensive tone (Its a good skill to have in the profession). Your hit-miss ratio heavily leans in favor of the latter component. ["God, I hope you are an enthusiastic first or second year who is still learning the ways of law school."]
3. You exhibit a fairly dogmatic disposition through your choice of phrases used. This is another thing which makes me believe that you have not spent much time at NALSAR. Word of advice: "Be more tolerant, if not respectful, towards others' opinions." (A fairly important virtue that you imbibe at NALSAR).
I didn't wish to sound preachy at all. But it is really disheartening to hear a NALSARian sounding so immature.
Just go away. We'll be acing it with or without your or any alumni's 'assistance'. So indeed, why waste your time?
Seeing that you are less articulate and more thick headed, there is 'indeed' (Note: Google the query-'using indeed in a sentence'. Might help you with drafting better memos, cover letters or SOPs) no point in continuing this conversation anymore.
One last query though, are you by any remote chance a member of this year's NALSAR mooting squad?
Best wishes! I am sure you'll do well without needing anyone's assistance.
Self-criticism is important for any institution, but I think that your remarks about the present 1st and 2nd years as well as the administration are disproportionate. While I understand that every cohort of students would want to do well for the institution, the emphasis should be on nurturing and mentoring the next set rather than dissing them on a public forum. From my own experience of teaching the current 1st and 2nd years, they have shown a fairly good level of cognitive and comprehension skills which can be developed further. They certainly have the potential to excel in such competitions over the next few years.
As for the specific emphasis on mooting, it would be a mistake the judge the overall strength of the institution by looking at this activity alone. The present 1st, 2nd and 3rd years have been spending a lot more time inside the classroom and are being put through a more rigorous system of writing term papers than what has happened in the past. In fact, many alumni as well as present 4th and 5th year students have readily admitted that project-writing (with the exception of a few courses) was a joke under the previous regimes. In that sense, our insistence on better compliance with course-work requirements such as attendance and timely submission of term papers is probably a change for the better rather than a 'institutional barrier to mooting'.
Funding for student activities is a bit constrained because the school's overall finances are also very tight. Support from the state government is limited and is in fact at it's lowest since the inception of NALSAR. Furthermore, there has been a rapid expansion in the number of moots that are organised and hence there is certainly a scarcity problem in this respect. It is a bit uncharitable to make ad hominem remarks about the present Vice-Chancellor who is operating under a very different environment when compared to Prof. Ranbir Singh's tenure at NALSAR between 1998 and 2008. Ideally, it would be better if there was more funding for moots, but we also have to learn to work with the existing limitations.
Now, I understand that the state govt isn't supporting us and RS was sketchy with his finances. No one's asking for stipends, only that the air fare at least be covered. Why can't studets fund this? Because it would only entrench the perception of mooting as an elitist activity, making it unaffordable for many students. Alright, the state government isn't funding us - why can't the adminsitration use its clout to reach out to wealthy and interested private sector sponsors. Approach law firms, senior counsels etc to set up a trust that would fund NALSAR moot teams. I don't see why this is especially difficult.
As an aside, I also don't see why FM needs to be defended in any manner. He's been running a pretty unwieldly ship for a while now. Student apathy is no excuse for mismanagement on the part of the administration. Sample this - the clinics are a mess and a joke, not taken seriously by either the teachers or the students; the Moderation Committee is a bigger joke with suspect questions making it past the system; a LOT of the younger faculty cancel classes as per their whims and fancies with no repercussions whatsoever from the administration; the current Academic Dean denies qualified and interested contemporary academics the opportunity to teach a course at NALSAR notwithstanding palpable student interest on what are, at best, sketchy grounds; the current Academic Dean has sacrificed all notions of objective and transparent decision-making for a while now, leaving a massive trust deficit in her wake; the Vice-Chancellor has started an MBA programme that has left students bitter and jobless and undermined the Uni's credibility; he now wants to start a 3 year LLB programme w/o any consultation whatsoever.
Simply pointing out that Veer Singh was worse is simply not enough any more. The question we need to ask ourselves is - can we be better and are some individuals on campus holding us back? When the biggest names in Indian Constitutional Law, public policy, Intellectual Property and gender and sexuality are given shoddy replies when they express a keen interest in teaching an elective course at NALSAR, is the current Academic Dean doing her job? When repeated requests for better books, longer library timings for moot teams, opening the library earlier in December during memo submission, and an understanding of mooting as an academic activity and not some fun MUN is met with either stony silence or a yelling - why does FM get to walk away from it claiming political mileage for bringing NALSAR back from the brink? This is a man who does not understand the concept of an NLU, and in his own words thought of it as a second class Delhi University.
As students in a considerably insulated institution, there tends to be an exaggerated perception of victimization which flows from the most mundane interactions with those in positions of authority. Your observations about non-responsiveness to proposals for guest courses are only portraying part of the picture. It is difficult to make commitments in advance without having an accurate sense of the possibilities for the coming term. You must also account for the fact that names which may appear impressive to a law student or a early career academic may not really appeal to someone who has a lot more experience in the field. Such divergent points of view are part of institutional life and the better means of addressing them is patient persuasion rather than accusatory remarks. Even if there have been co-ordination gaps in the recent past, you can't overlook the fact that NALSAR has hosted nearly 40 guest courses over the last 3 academic years.
As for complaints about a casual approach to clinics and the frequent cancelling of elective/seminar classes by some teachers, I am in complete agreement with what you have said. However, the launching of newer courses such as the M.B.A. programme and the proposed 3 year LL.B. are far more complex issues. There is really no point in slugging it out on a public forum such as this. I would be happy to discuss some of these issues in person if you are interested.
With all due respect, the administration has allotted the MCC just around 18 Lakhs for funding various mooting activities. Hadn't the MCC been fund starved, we could have had teams for Commonwealth, FDI, Oxford IPR, ELSA WTO and a couple of other prestigious international moots. The scarcity of funding has made it highly untenable for most teams to even consider preparing for international moots. Not even a single International Moot gets complete reimbursement and every General Body meeting pertaining to the allocation policy ends up bitterly with teams bickering the MCC to allocate more funds or negotiate (and renegotiate) with the administration. In a scenario wherein the MCC is allocated 35 lakhs, mooting in NALSAR will see a considerable change, of-course for the better of NALSAR.
@Legit: Every regime needs its dissenters. However, it is a fallacy to make sweeping remarks through the lens of personal grievances. I understand that some motivated students might have felt shortchanged by the lack of funds for participating in moot court competitions and conferences, but one must take an aggregative view of things. As I repeatedly keep saying, even East Germany used to win Olympic medals during the Cold-war era, but that was not correlated with the overall quality of governance in that state. Similarly, the diversification of student activities over time has spread the pie and there are questions of distributive fairness which need to be considered.
It is a wonderful thing to find NLUJ doing so well across domestic and international moots. I sincerely believe that the mooting fraternity across colleges can look upto the same and in some cases feel proud as well. We at NALSAR are trying our level best as well to live upto the legacy we have inherited from the erstwhile batches. Now the issue of fund crunch is a genuine bottleneck which the college is facing and the same has had ramifications which have been felt by the ones representing the University in various National and International Moots. If we have had a past wherein sound funding has directly translated into NALSAR doing well for itself in mooting, I don't understand why does it amount to cowardice if lack of the same in the present context is being discussed by various NALSARites, which is quite a genuine concern. Every law school has its different take when it comes to mooting and different factors work out for each college. It is an impressive task on part of mooting fraternity at NLUJ to do so well in the mooting circuit in the backdrop of a not so sound funding, but that in no way is a benchmark to follow or abide by, by the remaining law schools. I don't intend to indulge in mudslinging but if it is really about being good when it comes to mooting, a couple of dry seasons in the MPL probably aren't that big a deciding factor either . After all results of MPL I & II are still afresh and so is the domination of NALSAR.
At NLUJ you get a lowly 10 thousand rupees for an international moot. Maybe money isnt the deciding factor then.