Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 32



N. R. Mad


o in
Pr g


3rd to 4th December, 2016


Organized by :


in association with



The Second Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition and Law Students
Conference, 2016-17 is being organized by Lloyd Law College under technical support
from MILAT-Menon Institute of Legal Advocacy, Trivandrum and SILF-Society of Indian
Law Firms at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.

For the year 2016-17, there will be two stages of the competition. The Indian Round and the
SAARC Round for India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal
and Maldives.

The Indian Round will be held from 3rd to 4th December, 2016 at Lloyd Law College,
Greater Noida. The two Best Law Student Awardees (one male & one female) will be
chosen from the top Five teams selected at the Indian Round, by an empowered Jury, to
receive a fellowship of roughly $ 50,000/- from Penn State School of Law to pursue LL.M
from Penn State University Law School, United States. The Fellowship will be awarded
only to students graduating in 2017. Colleges / Universities sponsoring teams are advised
to note this provision while selecting their teams.

The SAARC Round will be held from 10th to 12th February, 2017 at Lloyd Law College,
Greater Noida. A conference of law students participating in the Moot Contest from
SAARC countries will also be held on 12th February, 2017 at Lloyd Law College. The idea
is to provide a forum for interaction among the law students of South Asian Region for
advancing excellence in legal education and professional development. Understanding
the legal system of each others' country will be mutually beneficial in the context of
professional development, trade in legal services and law reform. The topic for the 2017
law student conference is “Justice to Indigenous People”.

Naming the Competition and the Conference

The reform brought about in Indian legal education by the pioneering efforts of Prof. N.R.
Madhava Menon during the last three decades through the Five Year Integrated B.A.LL.B.
programme under the National Law School experiment is the inspiration for Lloyd Law
College sponsoring the Mooting Competition and Conference in his name. On retirement
from active service, he continues to contribute to the cause of legal education and
professional development through the Menon Institute of Legal Advocacy Training
(MILAT) and M.K. Nambyar Academy for Continuing Legal Education.

Lloyd Law College is proud to be associated with MILAT and SILF in launching the
Mooting event for the benefit of law students of South Asian countries.

About Lloyd Law College

Lloyd Law College was established under the genesis of Satilila Charitable Society (SCS)
in the year 2003. The college is affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut
and the affiliation is approved by the Bar Council of India. It imparts two professional
degree programmes, namely, Five Year Integrated B.A.,LL.B. and the three year LL.B.
course. Lloyd Law College is located in Knowledge Park – II, Greater Noida, India. The
campus is spread over five acres of lush green area, with excellent infrastructure, moot
court rooms, fully-air conditioned classrooms with smart-boards and a state of the art
library. Highly qualified, dedicated and experienced faculty is one of the strengths of Lloyd
Law College. In the year 2014, Lloyd Law College organized the National Round of 'The
Louis M. Brown and Forrest S. Mosten International Client Consultation Competition’, as
well as the 30th Bar Council of India Trust All India Inter-University Moot Court
Competition. The college also organized the 'International Client Consultation
Competition' (National Round) -2013 in Association with Forum of South Asian Clinical
Law Teachers.

Message from President, Lloyd Law College

I am extremely happy to note that Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida has achieved a
coveted position in the legal education scenario since its inception. Lloyd Law College has
become one of the first preferences for Law study.

Our vision being to produce quality lawyers with great human values has been achieved to
a larger extent with our students joining the profession as practicing lawyers, by securing
placement in reputed law firms in India and abroad and also by their selection as judges by
clearing the Judicial Services Examination. We give great importance to professional skill
developments such as moot courts, debates, seminars etc. with full participation from the
students in hosting such competitions in our law college as well as encouraging them to
participate in competitions in India and abroad. I am happy to learn that our students have
secured prizes in prestigious competitions organized by reputed institutions and
organizations. Our college along with Menon Institute of Legal Advocacy and Training

(MILAT) and Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) is organizing the Second Prof. N.R.
Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition and Law Students Conference, 2016-17
th th
during 10 –12 February, 2017. This Mooting Competition shall consist of an 'Indian
Round' and the 'SAARC Round', along with a 'Law Students Conference'. The Indian
rd th
Round to select representative teams from India shall be held during 3 to 4 December,

The SAARC Mooting Round of participants from SAARC Countries, i.e., India, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Maldives shall be held on 10 &
th th
12 February, 2016. The Law Students Conference shall be held on 12 February, 2017.
This competition provides a common platform for the students of different law institutions
to exchange notes and also to learn from experienced legal experts. Such interactions will
help them in advancing their career opportunities. I convey my best wishes to all the
participants for achieving success in their professional career. I am sure that with the
sincere efforts and hard work put in by the students, staff and faculty in organizing this
competition, it is going to be a grand success. I wish all the best for the success of the

Lloyd Law College can be reached at

http:/www.lloydlawcollege.com / www.lloydlawcollege.in

Report of the First Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC
Mooting Competition & Law Students
Conference, 2015-16
National Round (India) - 2015

The National Round of the First Prof. N R Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting
Competition and Law Students Conference – 2016 was held from 9th to 10th January, 2016
to select qualifying teams from India for participation in the SAARC Round. It saw
participation from 28 teams from almost all states in India representing National Law
Universities, Central & State Universities and other leading law colleges. The competition
was inaugurated by the gracious hands of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave, Judge,
Supreme Court of India in presence of Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon. The Indian Round
tested participants on various aspects of Social Justice, Right to Privacy and
constitutionality of UID Scheme. The memorandum of pleadings submitted by the teams
has been compiled into a compendium of suggestions for presentation to the Supreme
Court of India which has in its docket a petition challenging the UID Scheme.

The top Five Colleges qualified for SAARC Round are :-

1. School of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad

2. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar

3. School of Law, Christ University, Bengaluru

4. Kerala Law Academy, Trivandrum, Kerala

5. V. M. Salgaokar College of Law, Panjim, Goa

SAARC Round - 2016

The SAARC Round of the First Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting
Competition and Law Students Conference – 2016 was held from 3rd to 6th March, 2016. A
National Administrator representing each SAARC country was present to witness the
conduct of competition. 14 teams from leading universities from SAARC nations
participated in the competition. The SAARC Round tested participants on various aspects
of international law including environmental law, law relating to refugees and diplomatic
immunity. The final round was judged by 5 sitting judges of the Hon'ble High Court of

Delhi. The bench comprised of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Nath, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Najmi
Waziri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Hon'ble Mr. Justice I. S. Mehta and Hon'ble
Ms. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal. After a stimulating session of mooting before the
judges, Gujarat National Law University was adjudged the SAARC Winner. The Runner-
up team was Kerala Law Academy, Trivandrum.

SAARC Law Students Conference – 2016

The SAARC Law Students Conference was held on 5th March, 2016 at Lloyd Law College.
It was an exercise aimed at promoting research writing and presentation skills among the
law students from SAARC countries. The conference saw participation from 14 teams
from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Research papers were submitted
by the presenters on the theme 'Legal Education in SAARC Countries: Opportunities and
Challenges'. They have been compiled into a compendium of suggestions for presentation
to the respective Governments for initiating cooperation in Legal Education in the
SAARC region.

The Winners of the Best Paper Award in Law Students Conference was Kathmandu School
of Law, Nepal and the Second Best Paper winner was from University of Colombo,

ARTICLE 1: Objective of the Competition

(1) The Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition, 2016-17
aims at honing legal advocacy skills among law students of SAARC countries.

(2) The Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition, 2016-17
shall consist of an Indian Round and the SAARC Round to be held at Lloyd Law
College, Greater Noida, India.

(3) The Indian Round shall be held from 3rd to 4th December, 2016.

(4) The SAARC Round comprising of participants from SAARC Countries i.e., India,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Maldives shall be
th th
held from 10 to 12 February, 2017.

(5) Only Top Five Teams from the Indian Round shall qualify to represent India in the
SAARC Round.

ARTICLE 2: The Indian Round

rd th
(1) The Indian Round will be held at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida from 3 to 4
December, 2016 among student teams from the Top Fifty (50) Colleges / Universities
imparting the teaching of Law in India, provided that no Institution shall send more
than one team to compete in the Indian Round.

(2) The Indian Round will be limited to Forty (40) entries. It will be held in One Round
comprising of Two Stages, i.e., arguments from both sides (Petitioner / Respondent).

(3) The Forty (40) entries to the competition will be decided on the basis of first-come-first

(4) The Top Five Scoring Teams in the Indian Round will qualify for the SAARC Round
representing India.

(5) Each participating team in the Indian Round shall argue the case from both the
petitioner and the respondent sides in Two Stages respectively and in One Round Only,

wherefrom the Top Five Scoring Teams shall qualify further to the SAARC Round. No
derogation is permissible from this rule.

(6) There shall be a Committee of Judges for each Court selected from a Panel of Judges
constituted for the purpose which will include One Law Teacher, One Practising
Lawyer and One National Level Ex-Mooter.

ARTICLE 3: Team Composition and Eligibility

(1) Each team shall consist of Two Counsels and One Researcher in the Indian Round.
Each of whom:-
(i) must have been born on or after 1 January, 1987; and

(ii) on the 3rd December, 2016 is a bonafide undergraduate law student (for the year 2016-
2017 till June 2017) of the Three Year Scheme or Five Year Scheme from an institution
duly recognized by the Bar Council of India; and

(iii) has not been admitted to the practice of law in any jurisdiction.

(2) Each college or institution shall send only One Team of such eligible participants.

(3) In no case any team shall consist of more than three participants, that is, Two (2)
Mooters and One (1) Researcher. Their number cannot be increased under any

(4) The travelling expenses of the participants shall be met by their respective institution
or participants themselves.

ARTICLE 4: Registration

(1) The registration fee for the Indian Round is Rs. 3,000/-.

(2) All teams participating in the Indian Round shall register themselves through
payment of registration fee by E-Transfer available on Lloyd Law College website
and subsequent Email of (successful) transaction details/ or by Demand Draft and
subsequent Email of Soft Copy of Demand Draft, which shall be submitted along with
duly filled Registration Form to profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in .

(3) The Hard Copy of Demand Draft shall be submitted through post to the Organizing
Committee, Lloyd Law College, Plot No. 11, Knowledge Park- II Greater Noida -

201306, Delhi/NCR.

(4) The participating teams are mandatorily required to send the completed registration
form attached herewith via e-mail to profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in .

(5) No subsequent change in the team composition shall be permitted.

(6) The demand draft of Rs.3,000/- shall be drawn in favor of LLOYD LAW COLLEGE,
GREATER NOIDA, and shall be payable at GREATER NOIDA.
(7) Formal registration of the teams shall be done on 3 December, 2016 at the venue of the
competition from 08:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m.

(8) Registration forms/demand draft/E-transfer received after deadlines shall in no case be

considered for registration.

ARTICLE 5: The Moot Proposition

(1) The moot proposition for the Indian Round can be downloaded from
http://lloydlawcollege.com .

(2) All Queries and Clarifications for the moot problem shall be addressed to
profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in .

(3) No Queries and Clarifications for the moot problem shall be entertained after 15-11-
(4) Clarifications on the moot problem will be declared on http://lloydlawcollege.com
for everyone's perusal without disclosure of the identity of the teams which raised

ARTICLE 6: Memorials

(1) Each team shall submit soft copies of the Memorials to the Organizing Committee of
Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida by 25-11-2016 through e-mail to

(2) Each team shall also submit five (5) hard copies of the Memorials to the Organizing
Committee of Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida on 03-12-2016 by 10:00 a.m. IST at
the time of formal registration at the venue.

(3) Memorials must be submitted on the standard international A/4 Size Page in Font

Type: Times New Roman, Font Size: 12, Double Spacing. The Font Style of the
Footnote should also be Times New Roman, Font Size: 10 and should be singly spaced.
Quotations from sources outside of the memorial of Fifty (50) words or more in any
part of the memorial shall be block quoted (i.e., right and left indented) and must be
single spaced.

(4) The citation should be in compliance with the 20th edition of Bluebook. Speaking
footnotes or Endnotes are not allowed.

(5) No indication shall be made for identifying the Institution/College of the participant.
Each team will be awarded a CODE NUMBER and that number alone shall be marked
on the memorials.

(6) The petitioner and respondent memorials must be differentiated by 'Blue Cover' and
'Red Cover' respectively.

(7) Memorials for both sides should contain the following:

(a) Title Page

(b) Table of Contents

(c) Index of Authorities

(d) Statement of Jurisdiction

(e) Statement of Facts

(f) Summary of Arguments/Pleadings

(g) Arguments Supported by the Authorities

(h) Conclusion / Prayer

The Title Page shall include:

(a) The Name of the Court

(b) The Year of the Competition

(c) The Name of the Case

(d) The Title of the Document (i.e., “Memorial for the Respondent” or “Memorial for

the Petitioner”)

(8) The memorial shall not exceed more than Thirty (30) pages. The following contents
are inclusive within the stipulated page limit:

(a) Pleadings

(b) Conclusions

(c) Annexure, if any

(d) Appendices and Footnotes

Any issue or pleading, not discussed within the above mentioned contents of the
Memorial shall not be included in any other section of the Memorial.

The following shall not be included in the limit of Thirty (30) pages set out for the

(a) Title Page

(b) Table of Contents

(c) Index of Authorities

(d) Statement of Jurisdiction

(e) Statement of Facts

(f) Issues Presented

(g) Summary of Pleadings

(9) Statement of Facts: The Statement of the Facts shall be limited to the facts as
stipulated as well as to the necessary inferences drawn from the proposition. The
Statement of the Facts must not include unsupported facts, distortions of stated facts,
argumentative statements, or legal conclusions. An excessive Statement of the Facts
shall be a 'Non- Discretionary Memorial Penalty', but such violation may be taken
into account by the judges while evaluating the written submission.

(10) Summary of Pleadings: The Summary of the Pleadings shall consist of a substantive
summary of the “Pleadings”, rather than a simple reproduction of the headings
contained in the Pleadings Section. An excessive Summary of Pleadings shall be a
Non-Discretionary Memorial Penalty, while a Summary of Pleadings which is
otherwise improper shall not be subjected to a Memorial Penalty, but such violation

may be taken into account by the judges while evaluating the written submission.

(11) The teams are to submit authorities supporting their contentions referred to in the
memorials at the time of oral presentation but at no stage are they allowed to
supplement the memorial in the form of annexure, compilation etc. which may
otherwise amount to exceeding page limit of the memorial.

ARTICLE 7: Assessment of the Memorials

(1) The memorials shall be assessed by a Committee of Judges and every memorial will be
marked out of total Hundred (100) marks and the Team Memorial will have the average
total of both the sides (Petitioner/Respondent). The Marking Criteria and the Marks
Allocated to each Category are listed below:

Evaluation Criteria
1 Knowledge of facts and law (Minimum: 10 pts; Maximum: 20 pts)
2 Proper and articulate analysis (Minimum: 10 pts; Maximum: 20 pts)
3 Extent and use of research (Minimum: 10 pts; Maximum: 20 pts)
4 Clarity & Organization (Minimum: 10 pts; Maximum: 20 pts)
5 Citation of sources (Minimum: 5 pts; Maximum: 10 pts)
6 Grammar and Style (Minimum: 5 pts; Maximum: 10 pts)

ARTICLE 8: Oral Presentations

(1) Each Oral Round shall consist of Ninety (90) minutes of oral pleadings. Each team

Petitioner/Respondent shall be allotted Forty Five (45) minutes.

(2) Two (2) members from each team shall make oral presentations during the round. Prior
to the beginning of the Oral Round, each team shall indicate to the bailiff as to how it
wishes to allocate its 45 minutes among:

(a) Its First Oralist,

(b) Its Second Oralist, and

© Rebuttal (for the Petitioner) or Sur-Rebuttal (for the Respondent).

(3) No single oralist shall plead for more than Thirty (30) minutes, including rebuttal or


Any team member may act as an oralist during any round of the competition. In
exceptional circumstances, the Bench shall have the discretion to permit a single
oralist to argue beyond Thirty (30) minutes limit.

(4) The order of the pleadings in each Round at all levels of the Competition shall be:

Petitioner 1 Petitioner 2 Respondent 1 Respondent 2

Rebuttal (Petitioner 1 or 2) Surrebuttal (Respondent 1 or 2)

(5) Each team may reserve up to Fifteen (15) minutes of rebuttal or surrebuttal. As a
gesture of courtesy to the judges, the participating teams should announce whether
they intend to reserve any time for rebuttal or surrebuttal at the beginning of their oral
arguments and how much time they intend to reserve. Failure to announce it will not
waive the right to rebuttal or surrebuttal. Only one Team member may deliver the
rebuttal or surrebuttal.

Although the team member delivering rebuttal or surrebuttal must be one of the two
team members who argued during the team's main argument, the team need not
indicate prior to rebuttal or surrebuttal which of its two eligible members will offer
rebuttal or sur rebuttal.

(6) A team's oral pleadings shall not in any way be limited to the scope of the team's
memorial. The scope of the Petitioner's rebuttal shall be limited to responding to the
Respondent's primary oral pleadings, and the scope of the Respondent's surrebuttal
shall be limited to responding to the Petitioner's rebuttal. If the Petitioner waives the
rebuttal, there shall be no surrebuttal. No legal issues which were not addressed in the
primary pleadings may be raised in the rebuttal or surrebuttal.

ARTICLE 9: Marking Criteria for the Oral Presentations

(1) The judges would assign marks to each individual speaker out of Fifty (50) marks. The
team score would be the aggregate of the total marks for oral presentations of the 2
speakers out of Hundred (100) marks. The following shall be the Marking Criteria and
the Marks allocated to each category:

Oral Presentation Evaluation Criteria
Excellent Very Good Good Adequate Poor
1. Knowledge of law (30) 27-30 pts. 24-27 pts. 21-24 pts. 19-21 pts. 15-19 pts.
2. Application of Law to facts (25) 23-25 pts. 21-23 pts. 19-21 pts. 16-19 pts. 15-16 pts.
3. Ingenuity and Ability to Answer Questions (30) 27-30 pts. 24-27 pts. 21-24 pts. 19-21 pts. 15-19pts.
4. Style, Poise, Courtesy and Demeanour (10) 09-10 pts. 08-09 pts. 07-08 pts. 05-07 pts. 04-05 pts.
5. Time Management and Organisation (5) 05 pts. 04 pts. 03 pts. 03 pts. 01 pt.

ARTICLE 10: Dispute

Any dispute about the Moot Court Competition shall be referred to the Dispute
Resolution Committee, comprising of the Chairperson, Member Secretary, and the
two Members before the end of the competition. In all matters of complaints or
disputes, the decision of the Dispute Resolution Committee shall be final.

ARTICLE 11: Code of Conduct

(1) The language for the Moot Court Competition shall be English.

(2) All participants are expected to maintain the decorum in the Court during the
competition and are expected to conduct themselves in a manner befitting the legal

(3) Scouting: Speakers, a reserve or persons affiliated with the team, will not be permitted
to hear the arguments in any court room in which the team is not one of the contesting
teams whilst the team is still in the competition.

ARTICLE 12: Awards for Indian Round

(1) The Top Five Scoring teams in the Indian Round shall qualify for participation in the
SAARC Round of the Second N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition
and Law Students Conference 2016-17 which is the SAARC Round to be held among
SAARC countries from 10th to 12th February, 2017 at Lloyd Law College, Greater
Noida, India.

(2) The Top Five Scoring Teams shall be awarded certificates of qualification to the
SAARC Round.

(3) The two Best Law Student Awardees will be chosen from the top five teams selected at
the Indian Round of the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting

Competition. From the top five teams so selected, an empowered jury (constituted
under an MOU between SILF-MILAT and Penn State University Law School) will
select two (one female and one male) students provided they are the final year law
students. The law schools participating are to note that though they are free to
choose their teams from any of the LL.B. classes, only those who are completing LL.B.
Degree in 2017 and finding a place in the top five teams in the Indian Round of the
Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition will be shortlisted
for the consideration by Jury to select the Best Law Student of the Year Award to
receive the fellowship of $50000 from Penn State School of Law to pursue LLM from
Penn State University Law School, United States. (For the purpose of clarification, it
is to be noted that oralists alone will be considered for the selection of the Best Law
students Award and Fellowship. No researcher from the top five teams will be included
in the list of shortlisted candidates for the selection of Best Law students Award and
Fellowship. The top five teams' oralists should remain as oralists in the SAARC Round
-2017. No deviation from this rule shall be permitted).

(4) There will be Best Memorial Award and Second Best Memorial Award.

ARTICLE 13: Accommodation

The team of Three (3) participants shall be provided accommodation by Lloyd Law
College for the duration of the competition only. However, the interested students are

required to inform the Organizing Committee, through their Registration Form, so as

to enable the Committee to make necessary arrangements.

ARTICLE 14: General Section

(1) The duration of each court shall not exceed one hour and thirty minutes.

(2) Depending upon the number of participating teams, the competition may be held in
two or more stages - however it shall comprise only one round i.e. Elimination Round.

(3) The number of qualifying teams for the SAARC Round may be increased or decreased
(not less than Five in any case) subject to the number of participating teams.

(4) Team numbers and the side to be represented (petitioner/respondent) shall be decided
by draw of lots at different Stages during the competition. The scheme of competition
thus drawn out shall be notified to the participating teams.

(5) The organizers reserve the right to make any necessary alterations in respect to the side
to be taken by the competing teams, in case it becomes absolutely necessary due to
withdrawal of any team/teams at the last minute, or if the competing teams had no
opportunity to argue the other side of the problem.

(6) Each team is expected to be ready with written briefs and oral arguments to argue from
either side of the case. The court will follow its own procedure within the accepted
norms and judicial practice, and in case of doubt or dispute in the matter of procedure
or facts, the decision of the Presiding Member of the Committee of Judges of each
Court shall be final.



(1) The present Annexure on Disqualifications and Penalties forms an integral part of the
Official Rules of the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Competition,
2016-17 (Indian Round).

(2) The aim of the Annexure on Disqualifications and Penalties is to ensure a fair and
objective contest in the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Competition,
2016-17 (Indian Round) by providing guidelines for ensuring compliance with the
relevant provisions of the Official Rules.

ARTICLE A2: Unfair Means, Intimidation and Misconduct

(1) Cheating or using of unfair means of any kind is strictly prohibited and if indulged in,
shall result in disqualification of the team.

(2) Intimidation in any form is prohibited and if indulged in, shall result in disqualification
of the team.

(3) Misconduct, whether behavioral or otherwise, is not allowed and if indulged in, shall
result in disqualification of the team.

ARTICLE A3: Court Manners (Oral Arguments)

(1) Any form of communication between the Bar Table and any person other than those on
the Bench is prohibited, and if indulged in, will result in a penalty point.

(2) Submission of any written material other than the memorials and any other documents
related to the proposition in hand to the Bench prior to, during or after oral arguments,
is not allowed and if indulged in, will result in a penalty point.

(3) Failure to deliver an oral argument shall be considered in entirety, a disqualification.

(4) It shall be the discretion of the Organizing Committee to decide on any violation of the
provisions of Articles 6, 7 or 8 of the Rules and Regulations during the rounds and
whether that violation entails a penalty point. If a participating team, member of the
Bench or the time keeper wishes to claim a violation of Articles 6, 7 or 8, the Bench
shall inform the Organizing Committee of the claim made and shall not consider it as a
part of their deliberations unless directed to do so by the Organizing Committee.

ARTICLE A4: Submission and Formatting of the Memorials

Delay in the submission of the memorials, use of incorrect font or font size, use of font
of inconsistent size, or improper line spacing, failure to include all parts of the
memorial, or inclusion of an unremunerated part, substantive legal argument outside
of approved sections of memorial, improperly formatted index of authorities,
excessive length, failure to include necessary information on the memorial cover,
inclusion of any identifying mark, character or text in the memorial shall result in
imposition of penalties.

ARTICLE A5: Dress Code

Strict adherence to the Dress Code is required. The teams are required to be properly
attired for the rounds. The participants are required to wear 'Black Trousers / Skirts' and
'White Shirt', 'Black Blazers' and ' Black Neck Tie'.

ARTICLE A6: Non-compliance with the Rules of the Organizing Committee

(1) The participants are required to comply with the rules formulated by the Organizing
Committee at all times during the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC
Competition, 2016-17 (Indian Round).

(2) Total points collected by a team shall be reduced by the penalty points imposed for the
violation of rules specified by the Organizing Committee for each round in which the

violation took place.

(3) Each penalty point shall be imposed for each violation. One penalty point imposed
shall reduce one mark from the score of the team. However, the total number of penalty
points awarded against one team shall not surpass 10 points.

(4) If the number of penalties increases from Ten (10) in numbers, the team can be
debarred from the competition. An opportunity of being heard by the Organizing
Committee can be offered to the team on request. The Committee shall decide whether
to debar that particular team from further participation in the competition or reduce the
marks from the total score obtained by that team.

IMPORTANT DATES FOR INDIAN ROUND (3th & 4th December, 2016)
Date of Announcement of Competition 05 September, 2016

Last Date for Registration by E-Transfer & Uploading Demand Draft 22nd October, 2016


Release of Moot Problem for Indian Round 07 October, 2016
Last Date for Clarification on Moot Problem 15 November, 2016
Submission of Memorials (SOFT COPY) for Indian Round 25 November, 2016

Submission of Memorials (5 HARD COPIES) 03rd December, 2016

Indian Round I 03 December, 2016
Indian Round II 04 December, 2016


Saturday, 3rd December, 2016

Registration of Participants 09:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

Group Photo 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Inauguration 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Briefing of Judges 12:30 p.m. to 01:00 p.m.

Draw of Lots & Exchange of Memorials for Indian Round I (1 stage) 12:30 p.m. to 01:00 p.m.

Lunch 01:00 p.m. to 02:00 p.m.

Indian Round I, 1st stage 02:00 p.m. to 03:30 p.m.

Draw of Lots & Exchange of Memorials for Indian Round I (2 stage) 02:30 p.m.
Indian Round I, 2 stage 04:00 p.m. to 05:30 p.m.

Draw of Lots & Exchange of Memorials of Indian Round II 05:30 p.m.

st nd th
(both 1 stage & 2 stage) to be conducted on 4 December, 2016
Sunday, 4 December, 2016
Briefing of Judges 09:00 a.m. to 09:30 a.m.

Indian Round II, 1st stage 09:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Tea Break 11:00 a.m. to 11:20 a.m.

Indian Round II, 2nd stage 11:30 a.m. to 01:00 p.m.

Lunch 01:00 p.m. to 02:00 p.m.

Valediction 02:30 p.m. to 04:30 p.m.

Chief Patron
Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon
Hony. SAARC Mooting Administrator Co - Chairperson
Prof. (Dr.) S. Sivakumar, Mr. Manohar Thairani
Member, Law Commission of India / President
Honorary Secretary, MILAT Lloyd Law College

Dr. Lalit Bhasin Mr. R. Venkataramani
President Senior Advocate /
SILF / The Bar Association of India Former Member, Law Commission of India

Dr. Lisa P. Lukose, Associate Professor
GGSIP University, New Delhi

Chief Coordinator
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Khan +91-8800621117 hod@lloydedu.in
Head of Department, Lloyd Law College

Mr. Ahsan Rashid +91-9650154942 ahsan@lloydlawcollege.in
Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College

Ms. Chhaya Bhardwaj +91-9024088900 chhaya@lloydlawcollege.in

Assistant Professor, Lloyd Law College

Ms. Meena A. Mathew +91-9910215202 mmathew@lloydedu.in

Assistant Registrar, Lloyd Law College


1. Mr. R. Venkataramani Chairperson

Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

2. Prof. (Dr.) Manjula Batra Member

Professor, Faculty of Law
Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

3. Prof. (Dr.) G. Kameshwari Member

Professor, College of Law and Governance
Mody University, Rajasthan

4. Ms. Anju Jain Member


5. Administrator - India Secretary

SAARC Mooting Competition


1. Dr. Md. Salim General Coordinator

2. Mr. Anil Thakur Coordinator (Accommodation)

3. Mr. Piyush Sharma Coordinator (Media)

4. Ms. Manju Khilery Coordinator (Hospitality)

5. Mr. Amit Srivastav Coordinator (Travel)

6. Mr. Ankit Rai Coordinator (Protocol)

7. Major V. G. Menon Coordinator (Administration)

8. Mr. Ratish Mallick Coordinator (Finance)

1. Ms. Pragha Paramita Saha 2. Mr. Kumar Deepraj 3. Ms. Nidhi Jha
4. Mr. Gaurav Patel 5. Mr. Aman Shekhar 6. Ms. Nikitha Ross
7. Mr. Mohit Dad 8. Ms. Nitasha Ailawadi 9. Ms. Pooja Kumari
10. Ms. Shreyashi Dubey 11. Ms. TanujaVairamani 12. Ms. N. Monica
13. Mr. Aman Kumar

Moot Proposition for Indian Round
This Moot Proposition has been formulated under the guidance of Mr. R. Venkataramani:
Senior Advocate Supreme Court of India & Former Member Law Commission of India, by
Mr. M. P. Ram Mohan: Associate Professor, Teri University for the National Round of
Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition, 2016-17. This Moot
Proposition has been formulated solely for the purpose of SAARC Mooting competition
furthering the academic exercise.

People's forum for Nuclear Justice v. Union of India

People's forum for Nuclear Justice v. Suppliers and Vendors

Moot Proposition

(1) India has a long history of successful civilian nuclear energy programme, with as many
as close to 20 domestic nuclear power plants in operation across many states. Nuclear
Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), a central government owned and
operated company is the sole legal entity authorised under the Atomic Energy Act,
1962 to undertake nuclear energy activities. Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
(AERB) is an independent regulatory body that reviews and enforces safety of
NPCIL's nuclear power plant operations and also all radiation related activities in
India. AERB regulates through several safety and operational codes/guidelines/rules
that all nuclear and radiation facilities are bound to abide by. Over the years, India has
had to ramp up its energy production in order to sustain its economic growth and meet
the electricity demands of its growing population. Owing to these, many states in the
country supported by Central Government are ramping up its energy production to
sustain the economic growth as well lifestyle changes of its people. The Central
Government also believes that nuclear energy would help meet India's obligations to
reduce carbon emissions.

Vihara is a large state in India and is known to be one of India's most progressive states
with a variety of heavy industries. The liberal economic policies adopted by the State
have also led to a lot of foreign investment in major infrastructural projects across the

Moot Proposition for National Round

State. Owing to the expansion of various power consuming industries, and even
service sectors, increase in population and of changes in the public's lifestyle, Vihara
was having troubles in meeting the high electricity demand on rational basis. Vihara
started facing a situation of acute power shortage which also witnessed several hours of
power cuts. This led to new investments and initiatives being gradually shifted to other
states and a corresponding loss of jobs and effect on economic activities and revenue
losses. There was also a direct decline in agricultural production. All of these factors
gradually resulted in diverse forms of social unrest and demand for urgent
governmental interventions to provide alternatives to the crisis in the power sector.
Vihara also did not have benefit of other sources of energy production viz. hydro-
electric or coal.

(3) In order to deal with the above multifarious problems and to improve the power
situation in the State of Vihara, Central and State Governments jointly agreed to setup a
large nuclear energy park hosting several reactors. As the power requirement was
substantial and owing to domestic capacity constraints, NPCIL was tasked to import
high capacity foreign nuclear reactors. The cost-benefit studies as well as other
possible impacts were also analysed.

(4) After much due diligence, NPCIL decided to import nuclear reactors made by the
Stratton Nuclear Company located in the Republic of Oakmont. Oakmont is a highly
advanced industrial country internationally known for its nuclear technology and
technical capabilities. The Republic of Oakmont owned 51% shares of the Stratton
Nuclear Company. Under the domestic law of Oakmont, in such circumstances the
Government of Oakmont can be subjected to liability, provided, such liability can be
invoked only if any nuclear incident occurs within the Republic of Oakmont. After
long negotiations, India and Oakmont governments signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to import 4 reactors of 1500MW each to be setup at the nuclear park in
Vihara. The reactors that have been imported have also been certified by Oakmont's
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and there are few similar reactors that are in
operation in Oakmont.

Moot Proposition for National Round

(5) Since the nuclear project requires lot of water for cooling, a sea side project site was
chosen. Additional water resources around viz., huge rain fed lakes, were also
identified. The area chosen was surrounded by fertile lands, in the periphery of 10
Kms. However, this distance was treated to be a safe buffer zone. The site was
evaluated by the site selection committee of AERB and found to be the most suitable
from all angles. The project was thereafter formally announced.

(6) Once the nuclear energy project was announced, there were many protests by local
communities. They feared loss of livelihood due to resettlement and most importantly
local community feared that radiation and high outlet water temperature from nuclear
power plant would destroy their crops and fish-stocks. Some public hearings were
conducted. Officers with considerable technical expertise endeavoured to allay the
apprehensions of the people. Both the Central and State Governments pressed into
service all efforts to convince the agitating public that the project was absolutely safe,
and that the reactors which have been imported were of advanced category with an
impressive track record of safety. Further, it was made clear that all the relevant laws
including Atomic Energy Act, 1962; The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010
and all safety compliances mandated by the AERB and other regulatory bodies in India
and international technical bodies would be scrupulously enforced while setting up of
the project. Moreover, AERB would regularly audit and review the progress of the
construction according to the laid down procedures.

Several official publications were circulated, quoting both technical and other
information. For instance, the following political statements made in the past, in other
countries were cited:

(7) “The exploitation of atom's energy has become a realistic requirement, and is
preconditioned by interests of the human civilization progress. West German
chancellor Helmot Kohl told a national television audience, abandoning nuclear
power could spell the end of the Federal Republic as an industrialized nation. Energy
secretary Peter Walker of the United Kingdom said, if we care about the standard of
living of generations yet to come, we must meet the challenge of the nuclear age and
not retreat into the irresponsible course of leaving our children and grandchildren a
world in deep and probably irreversible decline.”

Moot Proposition for National Round

(8) India has also ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), an
international nuclear liability convention. India maintains that its domestic law is in
full compliance with CSC model law. During the project negotiation, the Government
of Oakmont however raised concerns about the possible expansive interpretation with
respect to The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (CNLD Act)especially
Section 17 relating to supplier's liability and Section 46. The concerns were also raised
by the vendors of Stratton Nuclear Company such as Gaul & Co and Mongari
Technicals stating that the news reports from India suggest that as vendors (the sub-
suppliers of equipment to the main Supplier) of Stratton Nuclear Company they will
also be covered under the liability Act. India held out that the Civil Liability for
Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 conformed to the internationally accepted nuclear liability
principles and that there could be no lesser regime, different from one obtaining at the
international level. It was thus able to politically and commercially convince
Oakmont and Oakmont based companies to commence their operations. Following
this both the Government of India and the Government of Oakmont committed to
follow the prevailing law of India with respect to the project. A formal understanding
to this effect was also reduced to writing, endorsing the contract between NPCIL and
Stratton Nuclear Power Company. It was understood this declaration between the two
countries will be part of the contract referred to above. However, it was stipulated that,
any action on the part of government of India to indirectly render the Republic of
Oakmont liable to any nuclear incident, for any reason whatsoever,may be resisted by
the Republic of Oakmont. It could also initiate appropriate legal action against any
such measure by government of India.

(9) As the construction of the first reactor project started, taking advantage of the local
unrest, many non-governmental organisations and anti-nuclear groups became part of
the protests criticising both the project and also the existing liability law. One of these
organisations is the People's Forum for Nuclear Justice (PFNJ) which is led by activist
Mr. AdiAvaran. PFNJ is an anti-nuclear organisation that was established under Indian
law with the purpose of shutting down the nuclear park in Vihara. PFNJ occasionally
had financial support from local religious groups such as Churches etc., for provision
of food and water to the protesting people. PFNJ argued that the under construction
nuclear power plant has many technical flaws and should be converted to a thermal
Moot Proposition for National Round

power plant. AdiAvaran studied renewable energy in Gerstria, a highly industrialised
country in Ursala Bloc (a group of developed countries) known for its Green Party
and shutting down nuclear energy programmes. Gerstrian Government also supports
a world-wide ban on all nuclear programmes including nuclear power programmes
as well. He cited the statement of the Foreign Minister of Austria when he addressed
the 1986 IAEA meeting:

“For us the lessons from Chernobyl are clear. The faustian bargain of nuclear energy
has been lost. It is high time to leave the path pursued in the use of nuclear energy to
the post, to develop new alternative and clean sources of energy supply and, during
the transition period, devote all efforts to ensure maximum safety. This is the price to
pay to enable life to continue on this planet.”

(10) India being a developing country with massive power requirements, the expansion of
nuclear energy programme in India has not been taken well by Gerstia. AdiAvaran
during his several speeches spoke praising Gerstria as a “wonderland of renewable
energy” where there existed “peace, jobs and prosperity without the constant threat of
nuclear energy going wrong”. Thus there was this indirect influence from across the

(11) Many times, Vihara had to use police force to deal with agitations and also take legal
measures to quell the civil unrest. This also included filing of criminal cases against
the activists and also the arrest of Mr. AdiAvaran under sedition charges. This led to a
cross section of the communities doubting the government's commitment in
engaging with the public on informed and objective basis while establishing a project
of this massive scale. In the past, the State Government had made statements to the
effect that it believed that the local public had been provoked by the well-funded
NGOs and anti-nuclear groups to slow down India's economic progress thereby
affecting India's anti-poverty programmes and employment opportunities for its
lakhs of youths. National sovereignty issue began to be raised in different ways and

(12) One of the major issues with the protesting NGOs and anti-nuclear groups was the
safety of the project. Citing examples of two or three accidents in advanced countries
in the recent past, protesters are arguing that the project is demonstrably risky and
Moot Proposition for National Round

accidents can happen on a high probability. They challenged the claims regarding
technology advances made after the Chernobyl incident. They are supported by few
political parties as well. Demands regarding higher quantum of compensation, in the
event of a nuclear incident, were also being raised, particularly addressing the issue
with respect to, the supplier's liabilities under the 2010 Act.

(13) In the midst of the debates and protests, the construction of the first plant was
completed in 2008, strictly as per the procedures and technical standards laid down
by the AERB. After full technical evaluation AERB recommended commencement
of the operation of the plant. The technical experts from the Republic of Oakmont
also carried out an inspection. Accordingly, the plant in Vihara was successfully
synchronised and connected to the grid for electricity supply in 2009. After 5 years of
successful operation, the 6th year witnessed two freak or rare weather related
occurrences. Vihara suffered due to lack of adequate rainfall in the previous year.
The temperature in the summer months in the 6th year rose to several degrees above
the highest ever recorded temperature. This heat was beyond human endurance.
Several industrial units using furnaces, were shut down, amidst reports of signs of
accidents. It was also mooted that the nuclear installations may thus need special
supervision and watch. But soon, when the monsoons commenced there was
incessant rain for about two months. This led to breaches of the lakes near by the
plant and a virtual inundation of nuclear park. This inundation lasted for more than 2
weeks and there was no scope for any anticipatory action. The plant and its
operations were to be intermittently suspended but internal sources revealed that
there could be serious concerns. Even while the deluge was waning, the Vihara
nuclear plant suffered a major accident. All the back-up emergency systems failed,
and the accident was rated as level 6 at the International Nuclear Events Scale of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It was speculated that the extreme
heat hither too unrecorded, followed by the deluge, had apparently led to the
unforeseen effects, and that the systems could also not be revived owing to the lack of
availability of external assistance supports, as the deluge had affected many aid

Moot Proposition for National Round

(14) As per the procedure, AERB notified the accident as a major accident. several
hundred people in the villages in and around Vihara Plant were said to be exposed to
high levels of radiation requiring specialised treatments. Large scale resettlement of
villagers was also undertaken. Radiation plumes have also been noticed in
neighboring states causing major environmental and health concerns. The extent of
damage and radiation effect, required urgent study. NPCIL being the operator of the
plant paid the statutory mandated compensation of 1500 crores under Section 6 of the
2010 Act. NPCIL and AERB have constituted their own technical teams to do a
complete investigation of the accident.

In the meanwhile, the Government of India constituted an independent fact finding

technical committee consisting of one expert from IAEA, Director of Indian Institute
of Technology, Director of Indian Institute of Science, Secretary of Department of
Science and Technology, Government of India and Director of All India Institute of
Medial Sciences to study the technical reasons of the accident and its medical, health
and other consequences. The report of the committee unanimously opined and

(I) That Considering the gravity of the accident,the central government and the
Government of vihara should make provisions to pay higher amount of
compensation, without being bound by the statutory limits, as the damage could be
grave.(the instance of Bhopal Gas Leak case was cited).

(ii) The Operator viz,NPICL,was exonerated of any operational fault or negligence

within the scope of section 5 of the Act of 2010.

(iii) The equipment supplied by Suppliers and their vendors were faulty having latent
defects within the meaning of Section 17 (b) of the Act. The investigation found the
cause of accident was related to busting of coolant channels, and non-working of
sensitive leak detection systems and accident warning instruments. The report
concluded that these important safety instruments were found to be technically
defective,and that no blame could be laid on external factors,such as weather factors.

(iv) Immediately shut down all the Oakmont supplied nuclear reactors, and
demanded AERB to review all the operational parameters and test all equipment of its

Moot Proposition for National Round

patent and latent defects, and,

(v) Commanded safety of the public and safe operation of nuclear plant in case it is
not to be shut down was of utmost importance.

(16) NPCIL has decided not to invoke its right of recourse as it found that the supply
contract did not specify the class or kind of defects which may relate to the right of
recourse. Even though the contract was in terms of international practice, there were
certain omissions. Invoking Section 17 of the Act was thus not advised. In light of
these developments, the Peoples Forum for Nuclear Justice filed two writ petitions
before the High Court of Vihara.

(17) The first writ petition was against the Government of the India, NPCIL and Stratton
praying for a direction against the NPCIL to seek right of recourse against suppliers
and their vendors in relation to the Rs. 1500 crores already paid.

(18) The second writ petition was against Stratton and Stratton's vendors such as Gaul &
Co and Mongari Technicals seeking compensation to the tune of 5 billion US
Dollarsfor providing faulty equipment that caused the major accident resulting in
irreparable human and environmental damage. It prayed that the money be deposited
with the Central Government so the Claims Tribunal under CNLD Act can further
apportion the money.

(19) Before the High Court both NPCIL and the Central Government took the stand that
the High Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the parties to invoke section 17 of
the 2010, Act, providing for operator right of recourse. While the Central
Government is bound to act in safeguard of the interests of the citizens, it cannot
authorize NPCIL to invoke section 17 of the Act, as that would be acting outside the
scope of the law. It also contended that the suppliers have questioned the correctness
of the conclusions and the report drawn by the High Power Committee and they have
called for an enquiry by an international panel. As Stratton Nuclear Company is
partly owned by the Republic of Oakmont, the Central Government cannot act
unilaterally and disrupt the comity of nations and international relationships.

(20) The Suppliers challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that
they are not liable to be sued in the courts in India and the extent of their liability if any

Moot Proposition for National Round

can only be to the extent agreed upon in the contract in question between NPCIL,
Stratton Nuclear Company and other suppliers. They also seriously question the
technical correctness of the conclusions drawn by the High power committee,
particularly that the reactors have latent defects. Since these are matters of high
scientific and technical nature, it was contended that the High Court cannot within the
limited scope of its enquiry competence, deal with these questions.

(21) The High Court of Vihara found that section 17 of the Civil Liability for Nuclear
Damages Act, 2010, has not been challenged. On perusing the contract between the
parties, the High Court found serious limitations on the part of the NPCIL to invoke
section 17 of the Act. The High Court also opined that courts have limited role to play
in evaluating or condemning public policy decisions by Government which have
several implications. The High Court was of the view that much more than technical
factors, the nuclear incident might have been the result of unforeseen and erratic
weather events. Consequently, the High Court concurred with the Central
Government that diplomatic parleys and negotiations are the appropriate avenues
and thus dismissed the petitions. The High Court was partly persuaded in this view by
1.certain observations made by the Supreme Court in a case relating to the wisdom
of pursuing nuclear power as an energy resource. However, the High Court issued a
direction to the central Government to amend Sections 5, 6, 7 and 17 of the Act and
also to pursue the matter of higher compensation through international and other
diplomatic sources. The High Court required the Central Government to complete
the task within six months. In the meanwhile, the Central Government was directed to
set up a special task force to look into the provision of medical and other services. The
central government was under tremendous pressure both domestic as well as
international, to convince the Republic of Oakmont to share the burden of
compensation as a measure of responsibility for the acts of its agent.The central
government,was advised by its top law officer,to pursue multiple courses of action,
including negotiations with the Republic of Oakmont. The media carried this news.
The Republic of Oakmont, responded by drawing attention to the understanding
between the two countries, and questioned the wisdom of any action against it. It also
contemplated proceedings, if necessary in the International court of justice.

Moot Proposition for National Round

(22) On the application moved by the Petitioners, the High Court of Vihara granted a
certificate of fitness stating that the case involves substantial questions of law of
general importance both of domestic and international law and that the said questions
needed to be decided by the Supreme Court.

(23) The Petitioners before the High Court are aggrieved by the High Court declining to
issue appropriate directions to the Central Government and NPCIL. The Petitioners
feel that the high court should have adopted a rights based approach and consider that
several legal and governance issues are involved.

(24) The Central Government is also aggrieved by the directions issued by the High Court,
as it feels that such directions are beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court, and in
view of the reactions of the Republic of Oakmont.

(25) Both the parties have filed petitions of appeal under Art. 133 of the Constitution of
India. The Writ Petitioners have also filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution
challenging the vires of Section 5, 6, 7 and 17 of the Civil Liability for Nuclear
Damages Act, 2010 on the ground that the Act not having provided for due process of
law in relation to mandatory public hearing to be held and mandatory sharing of
information at all stages, there can be no limitation on liability. The Central
Government has responded at the threshold stage, contesting the maintainability of
the writ petition.

(26) The Supreme Court is set to hear both the appeals and the Writ Petition. Parties will
address arguments on the legality of the judgment of the High Court, the several
directions issued by it and also on the issues raised in the writ petition, including
questions of jurisdiction, maintainability, new developments in the tort liability of
multinational enterprises.

This Moot Proposition has been formulated under the guidance of Adv. R.
Venkataramani: Senior Advocate Supreme Court of India & Former Member Law
Commission of India, by Mr. M. P. Ram Mohan: Associate Professor, Teri University
for the National Round of Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting
Competition, 2016- 2017. This Moot Proposition has been formulated solely for the
purpose of SAARC Mooting competition furthering the academic exercise.
Moot Proposition for National Round



Add. : Plot No. 11, Knowledge Park - II, Greater Noida, (U.P.)
Tel : 0120-6406203, 8800621117
Website : www.lloydlawcollege.com
E-mail : profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in, contact@lloydedu.in