[[NUJS Kolkata]] won the [[Oxford International Media Law Moot- India Competition]] after defeating [[NLSIU Bangalore]] in the finals, taking both colleges to third and fourth in the Mooting Premier League second season.
The win gave [[NUJS Kolkata]] fifteen points in the [[MPL 2 season standings]], jumping to third place in the rankings.
However, Sahana Manjesh ensured [[NLSIU Bangalore]] took home a total of 16 points after winning the best speaker award, bringing the Bangalore college to fourth place in the MPL 2.
[[HNLU Raipur]] and [[NLU Jodhpur]] were the semifinalists in the competition, with NLU Jodhpur also winning the Best Memorial award.
All four teams have bagged tickets to UK university Oxford in March 2011 for the Monroe Price International Media Law Moot Court Competition.
The NUJS Kolkata team consisted of Ashish Alexander, Vinayak Mehrotra and Shruti Hiremath, while NLS Bangalore team was represented by Geetha Hariharan, Sahana Manjesh and Niharika Rao.
Alexander said: “The Moot was a great experience overall. This was the first mooting experience for both me and my co-speaker Vinayak. The judges gave exceptional feedback after all the rounds. The organisation of the Moot was also very good.
“The problem was based on media law and it was a lot of fun. The good thing was that the legal framework in the problem was very fluid and that allowed us to open our imagination and come up with new arguments which we thoroughly enjoyed.”
This was the first time India rounds were held to select the top four teams to representing the country at the prestigious media law moot at Oxford University. A total of 22 Indian teams participated in the moot that was organised in association with [[NLU Delhi]] and [[NUJS Kolkata]].
Oxford D Phil student and Nalsar Hyderabad alumnus Anup Surendranath helped organise the moot in India in his role as Oxford’s India coordinator for the programme in comparative media law and policy. He said that last year Oxford was very impressed with the quality of teams that came from India so they had decided to create a national Indian selection round and to create excitement about media law.
Following the moot a two-day seminar on media regulation took place. Surendranath added that in future years, although not next year, he wanted the moot to become a regional South Asian moot including also including India’s other neighbours.
The final round of the competition was judged by Justice Gita Mittal, Justice Valmiki J. Mehta, Harish Salve, Covington Burling managing partner Jonathan Blake and Trilegal co-founding partner Rahul Matthan. The competition also saw the participation of a wide variety of judges which included Raman Jit Singh Chima, a policy analyst with Google and foreign scholars Josep Carbonell and Wolfgang Schulz.
Professor Monroe E. Price, after whom the moot is named, also attended. Google, AZB & Partners, Star TV and Shell were co-sponsors of the competition.
Legend: T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 (total points won in each tier); Pos (Position); W (Wins); R/u (Runner-ups); S/F- Semifinalist; B S (Best speaker); B M/R (Best Memorial/Researcher); HM (Honorable Mention & other equivalent awards); Pts (Points) For more information please refer to the [[MPL 2 rulebook]].
i said NLIU will hit rock bottom once the main moots come out. Anyway their international pool doesn't even need to be mentioned. Bunch of amateur nooby novices.
Anonymous guest16 Dec 2010, 02:26
+0-0
What the Oxford Media Law Moot demonstrates is the close connection between good judging on the one hand, and merit prevailing on the other. Once again it is shown that where the judging is of high quality, Nalsar, otherwise so dominant on the national moot scene, fails entirely. Nowhere was this more clearly evident than in the Stetson South Rounds, where terrible judging ensured that "passing materials to the bench" was what finally allowed an average Nalsar team to win the competition.
Surana&Surana should really take a cue from the brilliant manner in which Oxford Media Law has been organised, especially with respect to the judging. Look at the four teams representing India at Stetson this year, and look at the four teams representing India at Oxford, and the point will immediately become clear.
Anonymous guest16 Dec 2010, 02:36
+0-0
I think the criticism above by 'Mr. Anonymous' in the second comment is fallacious. I believe that Mr. Anonymous is an alumnus/student at NLSIU who cannot stand the fact that NALSAR (slated to topple NLSIU as the best law college in the country) topped the mooting premier league last year. Mr. Anonymous, the following instances show that your comments do not have any basis whatsoever:
1. Semi-finals at the Philip C. Jessup International Moot in 2009-2010. I do not think that any law student has the locus to question the quality of judging at this prestigious moot - arguably the 'World Cup' of mooting. Just in case someone does question it, I would suggest that he do not moot again.
2. Consistently breaking at Vienna - the best commercial law moot competition in the world.
3. Winners - BCI, 2010. I am sure Mr. Anonymous does not want to criticise the BCI, given the obvious influence that the organization on Mr. Anonymous's future in the legal field.
Awaiting response from Mr. Anonymous eagerly.
Anonymous guest16 Dec 2010, 02:46
+0-0
Mr. Anonymous 3's comments show a clear lack of knowledge of mooting (not surprising, given that he appears to be from Nalsar).
1. It is a known fact that the much-vaunted Nalsar Jessup team from last year was one of the flukiest teams of all time. At Jessup, their speaker scores were outside the top 100, and their memorials failed to make it into the top 20. On the other hand, both NLS speakers were in the top 50, and had the 4th best memo. People like Mr. [...], of last year's team, are known to be below-par for a competition of such a status.
2. Please bear in mind that NLS has reached the quarter-finals of Vis, while Nalsar has never gone beyond the first break round.
In short, Nalsar relies upon bad nationals judging and a whole lot of luck to get to where they get to. At Oxford Media, there was no bad judging, and their luck finally ran out. So it goes.
Anonymous guest16 Dec 2010, 07:24
+0-0
You seem to be one of those people who don't moot often. or don't GET to ;-) Anyways.. why so bothered about how NLIU is doing ?
Anonymous guest17 Dec 2010, 04:22
+0-0
The more imp point being that dis moot might turn out to be one of the best organised moots in the country..It was impeccable organization...everything was taken care and the judges...omg...dey knew d prblem in and out...hats off nlud.
Anonymous guest17 Dec 2010, 05:41
+0-0
@3 & @4: It would take a lot of luck for NALSAR to win consistently so many national moots. I mean being lucky once or twice is understood, but consistent good luck is hard to come by. I wonder what is the secret. Maybe it is some rock/stone which is passed on by the college when a team leaves for a competition. or some lucky underwear. Well let us see if someone can enlighten on this secret on this thread. waiting eagerly.
Anonymous guest17 Dec 2010, 20:58
+0-0
HNLU is coming up really well!.....great going and congrats to the team for getting into the semi finals. and yeah!! NUJS you rock as always!! :-)
Anonymous guest19 Dec 2010, 05:43
+0-0
Your infantile remark is a give away to your philistinian existence... pity!!
Anonymous guest24 Dec 2010, 22:21
+0-0
HNLU is doin really well and will surely b in top three law schools in coming years...
Anonymous guest8 Jan 2011, 04:50
+0-0
God knows what do both NALSAR and NLSIU think of themselves...huh...they cannot digest the fact that the pillars of their ''monopoly'' over everything has been shaken by budding law universities...
Comments
Surana&Surana should really take a cue from the brilliant manner in which Oxford Media Law has been organised, especially with respect to the judging. Look at the four teams representing India at Stetson this year, and look at the four teams representing India at Oxford, and the point will immediately become clear.
1. Semi-finals at the Philip C. Jessup International Moot in 2009-2010. I do not think that any law student has the locus to question the quality of judging at this prestigious moot - arguably the 'World Cup' of mooting. Just in case someone does question it, I would suggest that he do not moot again.
2. Consistently breaking at Vienna - the best commercial law moot competition in the world.
3. Winners - BCI, 2010. I am sure Mr. Anonymous does not want to criticise the BCI, given the obvious influence that the organization on Mr. Anonymous's future in the legal field.
Awaiting response from Mr. Anonymous eagerly.
1. It is a known fact that the much-vaunted Nalsar Jessup team from last year was one of the flukiest teams of all time. At Jessup, their speaker scores were outside the top 100, and their memorials failed to make it into the top 20. On the other hand, both NLS speakers were in the top 50, and had the 4th best memo. People like Mr. [...], of last year's team, are known to be below-par for a competition of such a status.
2. Please bear in mind that NLS has reached the quarter-finals of Vis, while Nalsar has never gone beyond the first break round.
In short, Nalsar relies upon bad nationals judging and a whole lot of luck to get to where they get to. At Oxford Media, there was no bad judging, and their luck finally ran out. So it goes.
Anyways.. why so bothered about how NLIU is doing ?
It would take a lot of luck for NALSAR to win consistently so many national moots.
I mean being lucky once or twice is understood, but consistent good luck is hard to come by.
I wonder what is the secret.
Maybe it is some rock/stone which is passed on by the college when a team leaves for a competition.
or some lucky underwear.
Well let us see if someone can enlighten on this secret on this thread.
waiting eagerly.