The Boys Did Really Well !!

It is official now. IIT Law School will step forward to bring more laurels to the school. The team of Rutwik K.Rao, Vighnesh Kamat and researcher Bibhunanda Mishra stormed into finals of the Oxford University India Moot Court Competition on Constitutional Law 2013-14 organised by The Oxford University Society India alumni group. They have bagged 'the Best Memorial award' as well.

Vighnesh Kamat and Rutwik Rao share their experience very candidly with the blog. Here is the interview..

Blog: First and foremost, many many congratulations to you for this tremendous success and we all thank you for bring great pride to RG. 

                                      

Vighnesh: Thank you.                      Rutwik: Thank you very much.

Blog: How do you feel about your success in the Oxford University India Moot Court Competition 2013-14?

    Vighnesh: It is only when you participate in such competitions; you realize the level of talent outside and appreciate the learning experience gained in IIT.      

    
"I am glad to have reached the Finals; we attribute all of this success to our professors."

    Blog:  What were the teams you were up against?

Vighnesh: We were against Christ College, Bangalore and Jindal Law School in the prelims. We went against Christ College, Bangalore in the quarters, and NLSIU, Bangalore in the semis. We were pitted against Faculty of law, Delhi University in the finals.

  Blog: Which team in the competition was most fierce in their arguments? 
      How did you tackle them? How were the Judges during their interventions?

 Rutwik: Of all the rounds and teams we faced, I think the team from Christ College Bangalore in our quarter finals was the best. A good opponent brings out the best in you, they say. They brought out the best in our team too. That I think was also my personal best so far. The judge in that round really appreciated both team’s arguments and he would smile in acknowledgement, every time we came up with a creative argument. Arguing in the quarter final round tested us to the limit and we stood the test. Great fun!!

We came across OP Jindal Law School in our prelims, one of their speakers spoke really well, and later after the round I could not resist asking her about her “performance”. She told me she memorized everything. Kamat and I were pretty surprised and kinda impressed by her ability to remember so much.

"We operate very differently, Kamat and I. We are more spontaneous. We are extempore speakers. We think on our feet and this helped us when the judge posed all sorts of questions." 

 Since we hadn’t memorized anything, there was nothing to forget! 

    Blog:  According to you, what was the most challenging part of the Competition?

Vighnesh: The whole schedule was very hectic such that we had the qualifying rounds till the afternoon and then the quarter rounds at 7 pm. It was not the rounds but the wait which drained us throughout the day. 

"Maintaining tenacity under such circumstances was the most challenging part."

Blog:  How was your final Round Competition against University of Delhi? What strategy did you adopt while approaching the finals?

Rutwik: The Moot problem was beautifully drafted, I must say. There was ample scope for some brilliant arguments from both the sides and it was based on the Judicial Appointment Panel, which also happens to be the burning issue in the nation with the introduction of the Judicial Appointment Commission Bill, 2013.

"The only strategy we had in mind, which I think served us well was to stick to the facts, the law point and make submissions backed by relevant authority."

We were the appellants in the final round. The problem involved Art.124 (2) and its interpretation, and the amendment thereto, along with the introduction of Article 124A to the Constitution by way of an amendment under Art. 368.

The issues were whether the SC had the power to invalidate the amendment to the Constitution which complies with Art. 368, since the Union of India appealed the order by the SC which struck down the amendment as being unconstitutional by invoking the Basic Structure Doctrine.

On a preliminary reading, the respondent’s side appears to be stronger since there is judicial precedent in favor of the Collegium system and prima facie the amendment appears to be hit by basic structure doctrine laid down in Keshvananda Bharti case.  

While making the arguments on behalf of the Union of India (Appellant), we took a practical approach and as tempting as it was, we decided not to challenge the basic structure doctrine. Given the judicial precedence in its favor and challenging it would prove to be a futile exercise.

This was strategic since the respondents side assumed that we would challenge Kesavananda Bharti case which we did not. Instead we admitted to the Basic Structure Doctrine and set out to establish that the said amendment did not violate the basic structure and since it was in compliance with Art 368, it could not be invalidated.   

"So yeah, we thought out of the box and worked our way within the doctrine."

This approach helped us come up with some really brilliant arguments and we turned our handicap into our strength.

    Blog: Any major takeaways of the prelims that helped you in the advanced                   rounds of the competition?

Vighnesh: We learnt from the questions which were being asked to us as well as the rebuttals in the prelims and we incorporated those answers in our arguments in the subsequent rounds, so that such questions don't arise and are answered beforehand. In this way the opponents are also thwarted because their contentions have already been answered by us.

    Blog: What advice will you give to the other mooters?

Rutwik: My advice based on my limited exposure to Mooting would be to focus more on the facts, the law point and logic. Base your arguments on the same and back them up with authority. I believe reliance should be placed on judgments more than articles and critics opinions. Critic’s opinions are just that, “opinions”. They are not authorities which are binding or even persuasive. A lot of teams we came across in the Oxford Constitution Moot placed reliance on news articles, books and biographies and statements of retired judges etc. None of which is of much consequence in the court of law.

Also, one must understand the importance of thinking on your feet when it comes to mooting. Be open minded, good arguments will come. Take rebuttals seriously, it’s your last chance to leave an impression on the judge’s mind and improve upon any mistakes you may have made earlier.

Petitioners/Appellants must stick to facts and law points and the Respondents/Defendants must counter the arguments put forth by the Petitioners/Appellants.  

"After all, it’s an argument and not a presentation. Your focus must not be on finishing your speech in front of the judge. Instead your goal must be to satisfy any and all questions the judge might have for you."

Pick your team well. When you work with likeminded people, you’re half way through.

Remain calm. You’ll see things clearer. Specially the speakers.

"Finally, when it comes to mooting, there is no single strategy which works, you’ve got to evolve your own strategy; that will come with practice."

       Blog: And finally, describe your entire moot court competition experience in       one sentence.

Rutwik: It’s a thrilling experience, I highly recommend mooting for everyone, you’ll get a glimpse into what it feels like to be a lawyer. Researching, strategizing and finally arguing, the entire process gives you a high, its addictive I think.

Vighnesh: “The boys did really well.” (Both Laughs!!)

     Blog: Thank you very much for talking with the IIT Law Blog. Your experience will be helpful for us all. We wish you best of luck and great success ahead.

Rutwik: Thank you!!

Vighnesh: Thanks!