|
| MOOT COMPETITION 2012 |
| |
| Administrator’s Address: #19, 3rd Cross, C.S.I Compound, Mission Road, Bangalore- 560027
|
| Tel |
: |
+91 80 22121898 |
| Student Representatives |
Ramya Jawahar – 09945321105
Keerthana S –
09620182610 |
| Fax |
: |
+91 80 22485542 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
| BISHOP COTTON WOMEN’S CHRISTIAN LAW COLLEGE 1ST NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2012 |
Date of the Competition: 22nd – 24th February, 2012
Venue: Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian Law College, 3d Cross,
C.S.I Compound, Mission Road, Bangalore-560027 |
 |
|
RULES & REGULATIONS:
- Definitions:
- Administrator means the host institution
- Competition means the 1st Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian Law College Moot Court Competition.
- Problem means the problem of the Competition as released by the Administrator.
- Memorandum means the Written Submissions made by each team, according to these rules. Memorandum includes Memorandum for the Petitioner and that of the Respondent.
- Preliminary round means the first round.
- Advanced rounds mean the Quarter- Final Round, Semi- Final Round or Final Round of the Competition.
- Registration Number means the Unique Number/ Alphabet allotted to each Team on the first day of the Competition.
- Registration Form is the Form issued by the Administrator.
- Participation:
- All law schools, faculties of law and other institutions recognized by the Bar Council of India, offering a law degree are eligible to participate in the Competition. Only one team is allowed to participate from each law school/ faculties of law/ other institutions.
- Only students [presently pursuing a LLB. Course 3 years / 5 years] are eligible to participate.
- Team members should be bona fide students of the institutions they are representing.
- The Administrator shall make any inquiries on the same at any time during the Competition. Teams must carry their college identity card.
- A team must consist of a minimum of 02 members and maximum of 03 members – 2 Speakers and 1 Researcher. Any two members of the team may be enlisted/ registered as Speakers. Only registered/ enlisted Speakers shall be permitted to plead in the oral rounds. However, only in the event of unavoidable circumstances, the Researcher will be, subject to the discretion of the administrator be permitted to plead in the oral rounds.
- Clarifications to the Problem:
- Requests for clarification should be limited to matters having legal significance to the moot court problem. The e-mail for clarification must include a short explanation of the expected legal significance from it. Any request that does not contain such an explanation may be ignored.
- Clarifications should be sent by registered teams to the e-mail address moot2012@bcwclc.com with subject title as ‘ PROBLEM CLARIFICATION’
- Registration:
- Each team must register itself by sending a duly filled Registration Form along with the required crossed Demand Draft of Rs. 1500/- drawn in favor of
BISHOP COTTON WOMEN’S CHIRSTIAN LAW COLLEGE, BANGALORE
- Once registered, the concerned registration fee would neither be refunded now waived.
- All updates will be communicated to the contact person as mentioned in the registration form. It is the responsibility of the contact person to distribute and communicate any contingent updates to the team.
- Sending registration forms via e-mail address is highly recommended as the competition shall be limited to the first 20 teams to register. Registration will close at 11.59pm on the 6th of February, 2012. A notification will be sent to respective colleges as to whether they are among the first 20 teams.
- On confirmation of registration and participation by the Administrator, further details of the official schedule and accommodation shall be provided
- Memorandum:
- Each team must prepare a written memorandum in support of the Petitioner/ Appellant’s position and the Respondent’s position. Eight hard copies, four in favor of the Petitioner/ Appellant and four in favor of the Respondent. The Memoranda must reach the Administrator no later than the 19th of February, 2011 at the following address
Bishop Cotton Women’s Christian Law College
#19, 3rd Cross, C.S.I Compound
Mission Road, Bangalore- 560027
- Each team must also E-mail a soft copy of their Petitioner’s/ Appellant’s and Respondent’s Memoranda in Microsoft Word 2003/ 2007 format assigning file names Petitioner/ Appellant and Respondent respectively to moot2012@bcwclc.com no later than 19th of February
- The cover shall be placed on the memorandum in the following manner:
- Petitioner / Appellant – Blue Color
- Respondent – Red Color
- All Memoranda shall be in English only.
- All memoranda must be printed on a single side, on A4 size sheets, with equal margins of at least 1 inch on all sides. The text font should be Times New Roman size 14 for Headings, Times New Roman size 12 for the Main Body with double spacing. The Footnotes shall be in single line spacing. Reproduction of all copies must be clear and in full size.
- Memoranda which do not fit into the prescribed instruction set under this rule shall be penalized according to the provisions provided therein.
- The Memorandum must contain the following parts only:
- Cover Page / Cause Title;
- Table of Contents;
- Table of Abbreviations;
- Index of Authorities;
- Statement of Jurisdiction;
- Questions Presented;
- Statement of Facts;
- Summary of Pleadings;
- Pleadings / Arguments Advanced;
- Prayer.
- Each Memorandum should not exceed more than 30 pages. The Pleadings/ Arguments Advanced section should not exceed more than 15 pages
- Preliminary Round:
- Each team shall argue twice in the Preliminary Round, once for Petitioner / Appellant and once for the Respondent.
- In the Preliminary Round, each round will be judged by a Bench comprising of 2 Judges.
- Oral Arguments: Each Preliminary Round shall consist of 30 minutes of arguments. The arguments shall be in English. Each team shall allocate its 30 minutes between the 2 speakers. Each speaker must be allocated a minimum 15 minutes. The 30 minutes shall include rebuttal and sur-rebuttal with only one speaker from each side respectively speaking.
- There will be two components in calculating the score of a Team. One shall be the Oral Component and other shall be the Memorandum Component.
- The total marks scored by a Team in the Preliminary Round will be a total of two rounds, i.e. Marks scored as Petitioner / Appellant added to marks scored as Respondent.
- The details breakup of the marking criteria under as follows-
- Interpretation and Application of Law – 20 Marks
- Advocacy Skills and Court Manners – 20 Marks
- Answers to Judge’s Questions – 20 Marks
- Interpretation and Use of Facts – 20 Marks
- Memorandum Marks
- Teams with two wins in the Preliminary Rounds will go the Quarter Final Rounds. Where there are more than 8 teams with 2 wins each, the scores of the teams will be considered. If the tie shall persist then the total Memorial marks of the team will be added to their score and the Team with higher marks will progress to the Quarter Final. If the tie persists then such a tie will be broken by the Administrator in discussion with the respective judges.
- Quarter – Finals:
- The Quarter Finals are a knock out round.
- The rules that apply to the Preliminary Rounds apply to the Quarter Finals as well.
- The marking criteria of this round are the same as that of the Preliminary Rounds.
- Semi – Final:
- The Semi – Finals are a knock out round. The 4 winning teams from the Quarter – Final Round shall qualify for the Semi – Final Round.
- Oral Arguments: Each Semi – Final Round shall consist of 90 minutes of arguments. The Petitioner shall be allocated a total time of 45 minutes and the Respondent shall be allocated a total time of 45 minutes. The arguments shall be in English.
- Each speaker must be allocated a minimum of 20 minutes not including the time for rebuttal / sur-rebuttal. The rebuttal / sur-rebuttal must be by one speaker only. Sur-rebuttal shall be allowed according to the discretion of the Judges only and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
- The marking criteria in the Semi – Final Round is as follows:
- Interpretation and Application of Law – 20 Marks
- Advocacy Skills and Court Manners – 20 Marks
- Answers to Judge’s Questions – 20 Marks
- Interpretation and Use of Facts and Appreciation of Memoranda – 20 Marks
- Overall Impact – 20 Marks
- Finals :
- The winning Teams from the Semi – Final Round will advance to the Final Round.
- The Oral Arguments as well as the marking criteria shall be the same as mentioned in the Semi – Finals.
- Team Anonymity & Penalties:
- If the Memorandum is not prepared as per the instructions contemplated in Rule 5 there will be a deduction of 2 marks from the total marks of 20 reserved for each Memorandum. If the Memorandum does not reach the Administrator before the stipulated time for submission of Memorandum then there will be a deduction of 2 marks for each day of delay.
- Scouting is not permitted. If any Team is found indulging in the same, that Team will be disqualified.
- Teams shall not reveal the name of their institutions, names of the participants anywhere in the Memorandum or in the course of the Oral Arguments. On the first day of the Competition, Teams will be allotted a Registration Number. A team shall be identified only by the Registration Number.
- Awards:
- The winner of the Final Round will be declared the “Winning Team” and awarded a cash prize of Rs.10,000/ - and the winning trophy.
- First Runner-up will be awarded a cash prize of Rs. 6,000/-
- The team with the Best Memorandum shall receive an Award of Rs. 4,000/-
- The “Best Speaker” prize shall be determined on the basis of the points secured in the Oral Component in the Preliminary Rounds. Only those speakers who have argued both the sides in the Preliminary Round will be eligible for the “Best Speaker” Award.
- The best Student Advocate, Male, will be given on the basis of the aforesaid rule and will be awarded a cash prize of Rs.5000/-
- The best Student Advocate, Female, will be given on the basis of the aforesaid rule and will be awarded a cash prize of Rs.5000/-
- Administrator’s Address: #19, 3rd Cross, C.S.I Compound, Mission Road, Bangalore- 560027
Telephone: Office- +91 80 22121898
Student Representatives:- Ramya Jawahar – 09945321105
Keerthana S – 09620182610
Fax: +991 80 22485542
Interpretation of all the rules, as well as any waiver, consent, or further decisions are at the discretion of the administrator shall be conclusive and final.
Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the Administrator may at any time before or during the Competition, amend, alter, modify or repeal these rules or any part thereof. The Administrator in the best interest of the Competition can take any decision including disqualifying teams for unethical, unprofessional conduct, etc. Nothing in these Rules shall limit the powers of the Administrator.
Changes to the Rules, if any, made will be notified to all Teams which register for the Competition. |
| |
|
MOOT PROBLEM
Dharam Vir vs. State of Neethisthan
Neethisthan is a State in the Indian Union. The Legislative Assembly of the State consists of 170 members. Social Democratic Party (SDP) and Progressive Party (PP) are the major parties in the state.
In the general election held in 2010 SDP secured 85 seats and PP secured 84 seats. SDP formed the government with the support of the only independent Member in the Assembly, Mr. Sham Manohar.
On the 08-01-2011, Sham Manohar was appointed Vice Chairman of the State Planning Board via Government order P136/2011/GAD/Pol. Dated 8-01-2011.
In the Order it is clearly stated that the Vice Chairman shall be eligible to receive all salaries allowances and other prerequisites of a Cabinet Minister. Sham Manohar assumed the charge on 15-1-2011.
In the early 1950’s, for the purpose of giving protection from disqualification for being a member of the Legislative Assembly on ground of holding an Office of Profit, the Neethisthan (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1950 was enacted.
Section 2 of the said Act provided:
“Section 2- Prevention of Disqualification for the members of the Legislative Assembly: A person shall not be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of Assembly by reason only of the fact that he hold any of-
- The office of a leader of the opposition in the Legislative Assembly and
- The office of the Chief Whip in the Assembly.”
On 02-02-2011 a complaint was made to the Governor of Neethisthan by one Dharam Vir stating that Sham Manohar is disqualified for being the Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) since he is holding the office of the Vice Chairman of the State Planning Board. The Governor sent the complaint to the Election Commission of India. The Commission sent its remarks to the effect that after giving an opportunity of being heard to Sham Manohar, the Commission is of the opinion that he disqualified for being an MLA. O 03-03-2011 at 11.00am, Governor issued a notification to the effect that Sham Manohar is disqualified for being the MLA and his seat in the Legislative Assembly becomes vacant.
In a meeting on 03-03-2011, the cabinet, approved the following amendment to Neethisthan (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1950. The new section 4 of the Act provided
“Notwithstanding any judgment or order of any Court of Tribunal or any Order of any other authority, the office of the Vice Chairman of State Planning Board of Neethisthan shall not disqualify or shall be deemed never to have disqualified the holder thereof for being chosen as, or for being, as a member of the Neethisthan Legislative Assembly.”
The new amendment was sent to the Governor as an Ordinance and on 03-03-2011 at 11.00pm the Ordinance, Section 4 was promulgated. On 04-03-2011 the Governor issued a notification for the cancelling the earlier notification of disqualification issued on 03-03-2010.
On 08-03-2011, Dharam Vir filed a petition before the High Court of Neethisthan challenging the validity of the Ordinance under Article 226 of the Constitution. On 12-10-2011 the full Bench of the Court dismissed the petition, applying the decisions of the Supreme Court in Srimati Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana [1969] INSC 292:, (1969) 3 SCC 268 and Consumer Education Research Society v. Union of India [2009] INSC 1476 (24th August 2009).
However, the certificate to file the appeal to Supreme Court was issued by the court.
On 14-11-2011. Dharam Vir filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. On behalf of the Appellant it is contended that the ordinance is unconstitutional. It is submitted that the facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts relied on the High court and that the law laid down in Srimati Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana [1969] INSC 292:, (1969) 3 SCC 268 and Consumer Education Research Society v. Union of India [2009] INSC 1476 (24th August 2009) may be reconsidered. |
 |
|
|
|