Report on Moot Court Competition at Jagannath University

Submitted by:
Vijay Raibari
10 April 2024

Introduction:

I am writing to submit this report on my participation in the

Moot Court Competition held at Jagannath University from
06.04.24 to 08.04.24. This report details my experience,
including our stay at the hotel, the competition itself, and
some reflections on the overall experience.

Description of Events:

Accommodation:
Our team of three (myself, Mr. Dinesh, and Mr. Prashant)
stayed at the Grand Maple Hotel during the competition. The
hotel provided comfortable accommodations and was nearly 3.5
Km from the university.

Competition Participation:
The moot court competition format was generally same as of
usual moot competitions format, Total team strength was of 48
teams (50 were registered), Our team code was 08, Our First
Preliminary round on behalf of the Petitioner was with team
code 30 and second Preliminary round on behalf of Respondent
was with team code 33.
In our first round, I was mooter-1 (10-10 min were allotted to
each mooter) and was nervous and hesitant that makes my
communication totally unavailing. The Judges bench comprises
of a Male judge and a lady judge. The bench redirect us to the
jurisdiction page and asked following question :-

1. Why are you coming under the SLP (Art. 136)?

- We replied that since there is a substantive law of
question in the matter and High court have overlooked. So We
are under this slp.
2. What is article 134?
- Although I have learned about it but was blank at that time
and no suitable answer was given by me. (Although we have book
but the judges were expecting us to know this as general)

Then I took permission to elaborate the facts of the case; but

the bench interrupted and asked to summarize the facts and
issues in your own language.
Then I summarize the issues and facts but only the 10 minutes
were allotted to each so my time got finished in answering the
initial interrogation raised by the Judges.
I took permission to extend my time to which they said you
have 2 minutes.
I tried to explain the maintainability of SLP but they were
not satisfied (As per their expression on face.)
In initial interrogation the bench asked the substantial
aspect involved our matter to which I replied it is about
“rarest of rare” case category of the matter to which High
Court overlooked.
Then they asked reference why the matter is in above category
to which I replied that since the case involved inhumane act
of Loki and Ferry of brutal rape of Pinkul (victim).
Then I said that the further elobaration to this fact will be
deal by my co-counsel who is dealing with this issue
specifically.

Then Mooter 2, Mr. Prashant came forward and start explaining

the case (in own words) and again they exchange the similar
questions and issues within content, to which Mooter 2 replied
suitably.
Then we prayed and took the seat.
Second team start its contention their overall performance was
good and the mooter 1 explained the facts without any
hesitancy, although Mooter 2 performance was not good.

IN THE FEEDBACK, THE JUDGE SAID THAT OUR TEAM WAS NOT AWARE
ABOUT PROPER FACTS AND LAW OF THE MATTER. REST FINE.
(ALSO IT WAS INDICATED THAT OUR ENGLISH COMMUNICATION WAS NOT
IMPRESSIVE)

In second preliminary round on behalf of respondent, the Team

code 33 (hailing from Chennai) blessed with a strong English
ascent and a great coordination of knowledge with excellent
preparation given a outstanding performance (later reached til
the seminfinal)in our part we were confident and cured the
communication insufficiency, the F-Judge was said your overall
performance was excellent.
 The competition itself was both challenging and rewarding as
only few teams got the position in quarter and semi-finals out
of 48 teams. However, it was a great journey of three days.

Analysis and Reflection:

Looking back, the competition was a valuable learning

experience. Overall our performance was fine, and I specially
acknowledge Mr. Prashant and Mr. Dinesh for their invaluable
support in printing and arranging the moot files and
submitting the Hard Copies on time. Our lack of Practice
heavily cost us. However, there is always room for
improvement.

The things which we need to improve in order to perform better

next time:-

1. Minimum 10 day research is undoubtedly required to

understand and to draft.

2. 6-7 times practice is compulsorily required in order to

know what we are lacking. (my nervousness in 1 st round was
result of lack of practice)

3. Procedural aspect of the concerned court (in moot

proposition) must be clarified and discussed ( BASICS OF THE
COURT)

4. The Winning team’s Communication and their humbleness while

replying to the judges was notable.
ENGLISH FLUENCY ALONG WITH THE RESEARCH SKILL IS THE MOST
ESSENTIAL WINNING FACTOR OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

Conclusion:

Participating in the Jagannath University Moot Court

Competition provided me with valuable insights into courtroom
procedures, legal research, and the importance of teamwork. I
am grateful for the opportunity to represent my college
alongside my teammates and look forward to applying the
lessons learned in future competitions.

I, ON BEHALF OF MY TEAM MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO SPECIALLY THANKS

TO THE HON’BLE ARADHANA MAM AND ALL OTHER CONCERNED AUTHORITY
FOR PROVIDING THIS VALUABLE OPPORTUNITY. WE REGRET WE CANNOT
WIN THIS COMPETITION AND MAKE YOU PROUD BUT THIS COMPETITION
WILL BE THE GREAT GRADIENT FOR UPCOMING OPPORTUNITIES.

Thanks