PROGRAMME, RULES & MOOT COMPROMIS

Organized by :

LLOYD LAW COLLEGEGREATER NOIDA (U.P.)

SECOND PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON

SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION &

LAW STUDENTS CONFERENCE, 2016-17(SAARC ROUND)

th th10 to 12 February, 2017

Justitia i e sL b rta

nM

e

a

o

v

n

a

S

h

A

d

A

a

R

M

C

.

R

M

.

o

o

N

t

.

f

i

o

n

g

r

P

Inaugural Address by Chief Guest Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasti Chelameswar

Judge, Supreme Court of India

Valedictory Address by Chief Guest

Judge, Supreme Court of IndiaHon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition & Law Students Conference, 2016-17

th th(10 to 12 February, 2017)

Guest of Honour Valedictory Function

Judge, Supreme Court of Srilanka

Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T. Chithrasiri

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Judge, Supreme Court of India, lighting the lamp at the Inaugural Function of Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2016-17 (Indian Round) on

3rd December, 2016

INTRODUCTIONThe 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) at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.

There are two stages of the competition: The Indian Round and the SAARC round. Each country can select/nominate two teams to represent

rdtheir country in the SAARC Round. The Indian Round was held on 3 and th4 of December 2016. The SAARC Round will be held for India, Pakistan,

Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal and Maldives from th th10 to 12 February, 2017 at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida.

A conference of law students from SAARC countries will also be held th thalong with the SAARC Mooting Competition on 11 and 12 February,

2017 at Lloyd Law College. The idea of the conference is to provide a forum for interaction among the law students of South Asian Region for 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 Law Students Conference is “Justice to Indigenous People”.

1

2

NAMING THE MOOTING COMPETITIONThe 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 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), which he presides. Lloyd Law College is proud to be associated with MILAT in organizing the Mooting event for the benefit of law students of South Asian Region.

ABOUT SAARCLAWSouth Asian Association for Regional Co-operation in Law, SAARCLAW, is an association of the legal communities of the SAARC countries comprising judges, lawyers, academicians, law teachers, public officers and a host of other law-related persons, duly registered with the SAARC Secretariat at Kathmandu and awarded the status of a Regional Apex Body of SAARC. It owes its origin to the desire of the members of the legal community to establish an association within the SAARC region to bring together the legal communities within the region for closer co-operation, developing understanding, promoting exchange of ideas and dissemination of information and to use and develop law as a source and an instrument towards social change for development as well as for building co-operation among the peoples of the region. SAARCLAW was established in

thColombo on 24 October 1991, when the then President of Sri Lanka, His Excellency Ranasinghe Premadasa inaugurated the Association in the presence of a large gathering of the legal community. SAARCLAW have persistently worked towards the achievement of its objectives of bringing together the legal communities within the region for closer co-operation, development of understanding, promotion of exchange of ideas and dissemination of information, and to use and

3

develop law as a source and an instrument towards social change for development as well as for building co-operation among the peoples of the region.

VISIONHarmonization of laws and policies for the closer Cooperation and Collaboration towards Economic, Technological, Social and Cultural Development in South Asia.

MISSION* To create hub of the legal fraternity in the South Asian region. * To harmonize laws and policies in South Asia. * To exchange information, ideas, progressive judgments in order to bring economic, technological, social and cultural development in South Asia. * To enhance trust in South Asia for prosperity and strong SAARC region.

VALUESSAARCLAW believes that connectivity through law can bring Prosperity, Peace and Cooperation in South Asia.

ABOUT LLOYD LAW COLLEGELloyd Law College was established under the aegis of Satlila Charitable Society (SCS) in the year 2003. The college is affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and the college 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. 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

thConsultation Competition', as well as the '30 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.

4

REPORT OF THE FIRST PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION & LAW STUDENTS

CONFERENCE, 2015-16

The Indian Round of the First Prof. N R Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting th thCompetition and Law Students Conference, 2015-16 was held from 9 to 10 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.

Indian Round - 2015

The SAARC Round of the First Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting rd thCompetition and Law Students Conference, 2015-16 was held from 3 to 6 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 Round - 2016

thThe SAARC Law Students Conference was held on 5 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 Winner 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, Srilanka.

SAARC Law Students Conference – 2016

5

6

Manohar ThairaniChairperson /President, Lloyd Law College

7

RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR MOOTING COMPETITION

The Second Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition, 2016-17 will consist of Indian Round and the SAARC Round, along with a Law Students Conference to be held at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, India.The SAARC Round comprising of participants from SAARC Countries, i.e., India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Maldives will be

th thheld from 10 to 12 February, 2017.th thThe Law Students Conference will be held on 11 and 12 February, 2017 on the

topic “Justice to Indigenous People".India which has over 1400 law schools can send upto Five (5) Teams to the SAARC Round of the Competition while other countries in the region can send upto two (2) Teams.The objective of the mooting is to promote skills training and professionalism among students and to cultivate trans-national ties among the legal community for mutual benefit.

1.

2.

3.

5.

4.

ARTICLE 1: Participation and Scope

The SAARC Round of the competition will be held at Lloyd Law College from 10th thto 12 February, 2017 among student teams from various Colleges and Universities

imparting the teaching of Law in SAARC Countries, provided that no Institution shall send more than one team to compete in the SAARC Round.The SAARC Round shall be limited to Twelve (12) entries. It will be held in Four Rounds, i. e., Preliminary, Quarter-final, Semi-final and Final Round.The first round of the competition shall be the Preliminary Round and the top scoring Eight (8) Teams in the Preliminary Round will qualify for the Quarter-final Round.The second round of the competition shall be the Quarter-final Round and the top Four (4) Scoring Teams in Quarter-final Round will qualify for the Semi-final Round.The third round of the competition shall be the Semi-final Round and the top Two (2) Scoring Teams in Semi-final Round will qualify for the Final Round.The fourth round of the competition shall be the Final Round and the top scoring team in the final Round will be declared the Winner, and the second team will be the Runner-Up.There shall be a Committee of Judges in each Court. Each Court will have three judges comprising of one judicial officer/judge, one professor of law and one practicing lawyer.The Fourth and Final Round will have a Five Judges Bench comprising of Five Sitting Judges of the High Court.

1.

2.

3.

5.

4.

ARTICLE 2: Organization

6.

7.

8.

8

Each team will consist of Two Counsels and two Researchers.thEvery participant ought to be a bonafide law student as on 10 February, 2017

pursuing law under the Three Year Scheme or Five Year Scheme from an institution duly recognized by the Bar Council of India or is a bonafide law student of an institution from a SAARC Country.Each institute/college can send only One Team of such eligible participants.In no case any team shall consist of more than Four (4) participants. Their number cannot be increased under any circumstances. The traveling expenses of the participants shall be met by their respective institution or participants themselves. However, accommodation and local transport facility will be extended during the competition between Lloyd Law College and the nearest metro station.

1.2.

3.4.

ARTICLE 3: Team Composition and Eligibility

There is NO Registration fee for the SAARC Round of the Second Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition, 2016-17.The participating teams are mandatorily required to send the complete registration form attached herewith on or before 10 - 01-2017 not later than 05 : 00 p.m. via e - mail to profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in .The hard copy of registration form shall be submitted through post addressed to Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Khan, Chief Coordinator, Organizing Committee, Lloyd Law College, Plot No. 11, Knowledge Park - II, Greater Noida - 201306 (U.P.).No subsequent change in the team composition will be permitted.Registration forms received after deadlines will not be considered for registration except under justifiable circumstances as decided by the Organizing Committee.

thFormal registration of the teams shall be done on 10 February, 2017.

1.

2.

3.

4.

ARTICLE 4: Registration

5.

6.

The moot proposition for the SAARC Round can be downloaded from http://lloydlawcollege.com .All Queries and Clarifications for the moot problem shall be addressed to profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in .No Queries and Clarifications for the moot problem shall be entertained after 23-01-2017.Clarifications will be declared on http://lloydlawcollege.com for everyone's perusal without disclosure of the identity of the teams which raised them.

1.

2.

3.

ARTICLE 5: The Moot Problem and Clarifications

4.

Each team shall submit soft copies of the Memorials to the Organizing Committee of Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida by 03-02-2017 through e-mail to profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in .Each team shall also submit five (5) hard copies of the Memorials to the Organizing Committee of Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida on 10-02-2017 by 06:00 p.m. IST

1.

2.

ARTICLE 6: Memorials

9

at the time of formal registration at the venue.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 single 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.

thThe citation should be in compliance with the 20 Edition of Bluebook. Speaking footnotes or Endnotes are not allowed.No indication shall be made for identifying the Institution/College of the participant and each team will be awarded a CODE NUMBER and that number alone shall be marked on the memorials. No team shall communicate their institutional affiliation or identity to anyone during the competition. Disclosure of identity shall result in disqualification from further participation in the competition.The memorials of the Petitioner and the Respondent must be differentiated by 'Blue Cover' and 'Red Cover' respectively and marked with Codes.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 / PrayerThe 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”)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 FootnotesAny 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 Memorial:(a) Title Page(b) Table of Contents

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

10

(c) Index of Authorities(d) Statement of Jurisdiction(e) Statement of Facts(f) Issues Presented(g) Summary of PleadingsStatement of Facts: The Statement of Facts shall be limited to the facts as stipulated as well as to the necessary inferences drawn from the proposition. The Statement of Facts must not include unsupported facts, distortions of stated facts, argumentative statements, or legal conclusions. An excessive Statement of Facts shall be a 'Non-Discretionary Memorial Penalty', but such violation may be taken into account by the judges while evaluating the written submission.Summary of Pleadings: The Summary of 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.The teams are to submit authorities supporting their contentions referred to in the memorials at the time of oral presentation but at no stage they are allowed to supplement the memorial in the form of annexure, compilation etc. which may otherwise amount to exceeding page limit of the memorial.

9.

10.

11.

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:

ARTICLE 7: Assessment of the Memorials

(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 and 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)

Criteria

11

1.A. The Preliminary RoundThe Preliminary Round will comprise of Two Stages wherein the teams will argue from both sides, i.e., Petitioner and Respondent respectively.Each Oral Round shall consist of Seventy (70) minutes of oral pleadings. Each team Petitioner/Respondent shall be allotted Thirty Five (35) minutes.Two (2) members from each team will 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 35 minutes among:(a) Its First Oralist,(b) Its Second Oralist, and(c) Rebuttal (for the Petitioner) or Surrebuttal (for the Respondent).No single oralist shall plead for more than Twenty (20) minutes, including rebuttal or surrebuttal. 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 the Twenty (20) minutes limit.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)Each team may reserve up to Five (5) 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 surrebuttal.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.B. The Quarter-final, Semi-final and Final RoundsThe Quarter-final, Semi-final and Final Rounds shall comprise of Only One Stage respectively wherein the teams shall argue from One (1) Side only, i.e., Petitioner or Respondent after a draw of lots. No derogation is permissible from this rule.Each Oral Round shall consist of Seventy (70) minutes of oral pleadings. Each team Petitioner/Respondent shall be allotted Thirty Five (35) minutes.Two (2) members from each team shall make oral presentations during the round.

ARTICLE 8: Oral Presentations

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

1.

2.

3.

12

Prior to the beginning of the Oral Round, each team shall indicate to the bailiff as to how it wishes to allocate its 35 minutes among:(a) Its First Oralist,(b) Its Second Oralist, and(c) Rebuttal (for the Petitioner) or Surrebuttal (for the Respondent).No single oralist shall plead for more than Twenty (20) minutes, including rebuttal or sur-rebuttal. 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 the Twenty (20) minutes limit.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)Each team may reserve up to Five (5) 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.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.No researcher will be permitted to be present in the court room during any of the rounds, i. e., Preliminary, Quarter-final, Semi-final and Final. No derogation is permissible from this rule.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

The judges would assign marks to each individual speaker out of hundred (100) 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 :

ARTICLE 9: Marking Criteria for the Oral Presentations

Oral Presentation Criteria

(1) Knowledge of Law (30) Excellent (27-30 pts); Very Good (24-27 pts); Good (21-24 pts); Adequate (19-21 pts); Poor (15-19 pts.)

(2) Application of Law to Facts (25) Excellent (23-25 pts); Very Good (21-23 pts); Good (19-21pts); Adequate (16-19 pts); Poor (15-16 pts.)

(4) Style, Poise, Courtesy and Demeanour (10) Excellent (9-10 pts); Very Good (8-9 pts); Good (7-8 pts); Adequate (5-7 pts); Poor (4-5 pts.)

(5) Time Management and Organization (5) Excellent (5 pts); Very Good (4 pts); Good (3 pts); Adequate (2 pts); Poor (1 pt.)

(3) Ingenuity and Ability to Answer Questions (30) Excellent (27-30 pts); Very Good (24-27 pts); Good (21-24 pts); Adequate (19-21 pts); Poor (15-19 pts.)

13

Any dispute about the conduct of 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 complaint or dispute, the decision of the Dispute Resolution Committee shall be final.

ARTICLE 10: Dispute Resolution1.

The language for the Moot Court Competition shall be English.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 profession.Oralists, Researchers, 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 11: Code of Conduct1.2.

3.

The winning team will be awarded the “Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition , 2016-17 Winning Team trophy”. The runner-up team will be awarded the “Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition, 2016-17 Runner-Up Team trophy”.The Male and Female Oralists receiving the highest marks in the Oral Pleadings of Preliminary Round will be awarded "Best Student Advocate (Male)" and the "Best Student Advocate (Female)" trophies respectively.Team receiving the highest and second highest marks in memorial evaluation shall be awarded "Best Memorial" and the "Second Best Memorial" trophies respectively.All participants will receive mementos for participating in Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition & Law Students Conference, 2016-17.

ARTICLE 12: Awards1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

14

The winners will receive "Certificate of Merit" and participants will receive "Certificate of Participation".

The team of Four (4) participants will be provided accommodation by Lloyd Law College for the duration of the competition only. Students seeking for accommodation are required to inform the Organizing Committee, through their Registration Form, so as to enable them to make necessary arrangements.

ARTICLE 13: Accommodation

6.

1.

The duration of each court shall not exceed its prescribed time-limit.Team numbers and the side to be represented (Petitioner/Respondent) will be decided by draw of lots at different Stages during the competition. The scheme of competition thus drawn out will be notified to the participating teams.The organizers reserve the right to make any necessary alterations in respect of 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.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 practices, 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.

ARTICLE 14: General Section1.2.

3.

4.

All communication by the teams pertaining to registration, travel, moot proposition clarifications or otherwise shall be made to Chief Coordinator, Organizing Committee on profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in .

ARTICLE 15: Official Communications1.2.

15

RULES FOR LAW STUDENTS CONFERENCE

The Second Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Law Students Conference, 2016-17 aims at promoting research writing and paper presentation skills among law students of SAARC countries. It is also expected to network law students for mutual benefit and fraternity in the profession.

th thThe Law Students Conference will be held on 11 and 12 February, 2017 on the topic “Justice to Indigenous People”.

1.

2.

ARTICLE 1: Objective and Organization

From India: Five Teams qualifying from Indian Round will participate in the Law Students Conference.Other than India: Two Teams each from every SAARC country, will qualify for participation in the Law Students Conference upon registration with the Organizing Committee.

1.

ARTICLE 2: Participation

2.

The Law Students Conference is open only for Presenters, who may act as Researchers in the mooting. However, during the oral rounds of the mooting competition, no researchers will be permitted to be present in the court rooms. Two Presenters from each participating team in the SAARC Round is required to submit a research paper individually and participate in the Law Students Conference.Each presenter shall contribute one Research Paper being the original works of the Presenter.Both the Research Papers will be presented during the SAARC Law Students Conference by the respective researchers/presenters. The research papers selected by the committee of experts after peer-review will be published in a Collected Volume by Lloyd Law College.

1.

ARTICLE 3: Team Composition and Eligibility

2.

3.

4.

5.

All Presenters shall submit their Abstracts to profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in latest by 11:59 p.m. IST on 17-01-2017.The Final Paper (SOFT COPY) shall be submitted by email to profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in latest by 11:59 p.m. IST on 03-02-2017.The Hard Copies of the research paper shall be submitted on 10-02-2017 by 06:00 p.m. IST at the time of formal registration at the venue.

1.

ARTICLE 4: Abstract and Paper Submission

2.

3.

The oral presentation of the research paper shall not exceed Fifteen (15) minutes per presenter. Presenters exceeding the time limit will be liable to a penalty of Two (2) marks per minute/s exceeded.

1.

ARTICLE 5: Paper Presentation

16

The research papers will be assessed by a Peer-Review Committee and every research paper will be marked out of total Hundred (100) marks.The Marking Criteria and the Marks Allocated to each Category are listed below:

1.

ARTICLE 6: Assessment of Research Paper

2.

(1) Content, Proper and Articulate Analysis (Minimum: 15 pts; Maximum: 30 pts)

(2) Extent and use of Research (Minimum: 10 pts; Maximum: 20 pts)

(3) Clarity & Organization (Minimum: 15 pts; Maximum: 30 pts)

(4) Citation of Sources (Minimum: 5 pts; Maximum: 10 pts)

(5) Grammar and Style (Minimum: 5 pts; Maximum: 10 pts)

Criteria

The paper presentation shall be assessed by a Presentation Committee and every presentation will be marked out of total Hundred (100) marks.The Marking Criteria and the Marks Allocated to each Category are listed below:

1.

ARTICLE 7: Assessment of Paper Presentation

2.

(1) Clarity and Articulate Analysis (Minimum: 15 pts; Maximum: 30 pts)

(2) Extent and use of Research (Minimum: 15 pts; Maximum: 30 pts)

(3) Organization and Style (Minimum: 10 pts; Maximum: 20 pts)

(4) Etiquettes (Minimum: 5 pts; Maximum: 10 pts)

(5) Elocution and Oral Delivery (Minimum: 5 pts; Maximum: 10 pts)

Criteria

All research papers must be accompanied by an abstract not exceeding 200 words.The body of the manuscript shall be in Times New Roman, Font Size 12 and in 1.5 line spacing.The footnotes shall be in Times New Roman, Font Size 10 and in single line spacing.Submissions must be made in the MS Word (.doc/.docx) format and the citations

thmust conform to the 20 Edition of Bluebook.Co-authorship is impermissible.The prescribed word limit is 5,000 words exclusive of footnotes.All queries shall be made only to profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in .

1.

ARTICLE 8: Guidelines for Paper Submission

2.

3.4.

5.6.7.

17

All submissions shall be made via email to profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in within the prescribed time period.The subject of the email shall be “Submission for SAARC Law Students Conference, 2016-17 (Title of the manuscript)”.The submission should be accompanied by a Covering Letter which must include the following details:(a) Name of Author(b) Contact Details– Address and Mobile Number(c) Name and Address of Parent Institution(d) Course currently being pursued / Current year / Semester

8.

9.

10.

The presenter scoring the highest marks in paper assessment and paper presentation cumulatively will be adjudged the Winner and shall be awarded the “Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Law Students Conference, 2016-17 Best Presenter Award”.All selected research papers will be published in a collected volume by Lloyd Law College and their authors will receive certificates.All presenters will be awarded 'Certificate of Paper Presentation'.

1.

ARTICLE 9: Awards

2.

3.

18

ANNEXURE ON DISQUALIFICATION AND PENALTIES

The present Annexure on Disqualifications and Penalties forms an integral part of the Official Rules of the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition & Law Students Conference, 2016-17 (SAARC Round).The aim of the Annexure on Disqualifications and Penalties is to ensure a fair and supportive contest in the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition & Law Students Conference, 2016-17 (SAARC Round) by providing means for ensuring compliance with the relevant provisions of the Official Rules.

1.

2.

ARTICLE A1: Aims

Cheating or using of unfair means of any kind is strictly prohibited and if indulged in, shall result in disqualification of the team.Intimidation in any form is prohibited and if indulged in, shall result in disqualification of the team.Misconduct, whether behavioral or otherwise, is not allowed and if indulged in, shall result in disqualification of the team.

1.

2.

ARTICLE A2: Unfair Means, Intimidation and Misconduct

3.

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.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.Failure to deliver an oral argument shall be considered in entirety, a disqualification.It shall be the discretion of the Organizing Committee to decide on any violation of the provisions of the Rules and Regulations during the rounds and whether that violation entails penalty point. If a participating team, member of the Bench or the time keeper wishes to claim a violation, 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.

1.

2.

ARTICLE A3: Court Manners (Oral Arguments)

3.4.

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.

1.

ARTICLE A4: Submission and Formatting of the Memorials

19

Strict adherence to the Dress Code is required. The teams are required to be in proper dress code. The participants are required to wear 'Black Trousers / Skirts' and 'White Shirt', 'Black Blazers' and 'Black Neck Tie'.

1.

ARTICLE A5: Dress Code

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 Mooting Competition & Law Students Conference, 2016-17 (SAARC Round).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.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.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.

1.

2.

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

3.

4.

20

th thIMPORTANT DATES FOR SAARC ROUND (10 to 12 February, 2017)

DATES FOR REGISTRATION

DATES FOR MEMORIALS

DATE OF COMPETITION

SCHEDULE FOR SAARC ROUNDthFRIDAY, 10 FEBRUARY, 2017

Date of Announcement of Competition

Last Date for Registration

th04 December, 2016th10 January, 2017

Release of Moot Problem for SAARC Round

Assignment of Team Codes for SAARC Round

Last Date for Clarification on Moot Problem

Submission of Memorials (SOFT COPY)

for SAARC Round

Submission of Memorials (5 HARD COPIES)

at registration desk

th27 December, 2016th16 January, 2017rd23 January, 2017rd03 February, 2017

th10 February, 2017

Preliminary Rounds and Quarter-final Rounds

Semi-final Rounds and Final Round

Law Students Conference

th11 February, 2017th12 February, 2017th th11 and 12 February, 2017

Registration of Participants at Lloyd Law College

Draw of lots & Exchange of Memorials, followed

by briefing at Hotel Qube

Dinner at Hotel Qube

03:00 p.m. to 05:00 p.m.

06:30 p.m.

07:30 p.m.

thSATURDAY, 11 FEBRUARY, 2017

Reporting of Teams & Distribution of badges

at Lloyd Law College

Group Photo of Participants with Chief guest &

Other guests

08:30 a.m.

09:30 a.m.

21

Inaugural Ceremony

Tea

Preliminary Round Stage I

Exchange of Memorials for Preliminary Stage II

Lunch

Preliminary Round Stage II

Tea

Results & Exchange of Memorials for Quarter final round

Quarter Final Round

Dinner at Hotel Qube

Results of Quarter Finals & Exchange of Memorials

09:45 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

11:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.

12:00 noon to 01:30 p.m.

01:30 p.m.

01:30 p.m. to 02:30 p.m.

02:30 p.m. to 04:00 p.m.

04:00 p.m.

05:00 p.m.

06:30 p.m. to 08:00 p.m.

08:30 p.m.

09:00 p.m.

thSUNDAY, 12 FEBRUARY, 2017

Arrival of Teams

Semi-Finals Rounds

Results of Semi-Final Rounds & Exchange of Memorials

Final Round

Lunch

Valediction Ceremony

08:00 a.m.

09:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

11:00 a.m.

12:00 noon to 01:30 p.m.

01:30 p.m. to 02:30 p.m.

03:00 p.m. to 04:30 p.m.

DATES FOR LAW STUDENTS CONFERENCE

Abstract Submission

Submission of Research Paper (SOFT COPY)

Submission of Research Paper (HARD COPY)

th 17 January, 2017rd 3 February, 2017

th 10 February, 2017

thSATURDAY, 11 FEBRUARY, 2017

Paper Presentation Session 01 at Seminar Hall

Paper Presentation Session 02 at Seminar Hall

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

05:00 p.m. to 06:30 p.m.

SUNDAY, 12th FEBRUARY, 2017

Paper Presentation Session 03 at Seminar Hall

Paper Presentation Session 04 at Seminar Hall

09:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

12:00 noon to 01:30 p.m.

22

Lunch

Valediction Ceremony

01:30 p.m. to 02:30 p.m.

03:00 p.m. to 04:30 p.m.

thMONDAY, 13 FEBRUARY, 2017

SIGHTSEEING TOUR TO TAJ MAHAL, AGRA FORT, FATEHPUR SIKRIThe participants shall be taken for a sightseeing tour to One of the Seven Wonders of the World – the Taj Mahal; and UNESCO World Heritage Site, Agra Fort, Fatehpur Sikri.* SAARC Participants are to carry their passports and visa for identification by the authorities.* Indian Participants must carry their ID such as Address Proof, Voter ID or Driving License for entry to Taj Mahal.

23

Chief PatronProf. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon

Hony. SAARC Mooting AdministratorProf. (Dr.) S. Sivakumar

Member, Law Commission of India /Honorary Secretary, MILAT

FOUNDING COMMITTEE

ChairpersonMr. Manohar Thairani

President Lloyd Law College

MOOTING COMMITTEE

Chief AdvisorMr. Mehmood Y. Mandviwalla

PresidentSAARCLAW

AdvisorMr. Muhammad Mohsen Rashid

Secretary GeneralSAARCLAW

AdvisorMr. Hemant K. Batra

Vice PresidentSAARCLAW

ORGANIZING SECRETARY

Mr. Akhilesh Kumar KhanHead of Department, Lloyd Law College

+91-8800621117 hod@lloydedu.in

NATIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

Prof. (Dr.) Tara Prasad Sapkota

Prof. (Dr.) Lisa P. Lukose

Prof. (Dr.) V. T. Thamilmaran

Mr. Ugyen Tshering, Judge

Prof. (Dr.) Wadir Saifi

Prof. (Dr.) Md. Rahamat Ullah

To be announced shortly

To be announced shortly

Tribhuvan University

GGSIP University

University of Colombo

Kabul University

University of Dhaka

................

................

Nepal

India

Sri Lanka

Bhutan

Afghanistan

Bangladesh

Pakistan

Maldives

Royal Court of Justice, Distt. Court

24

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Mr. Ahsan RashidAssistant Professor, Lloyd Law College

Ms. Chhaya BhardwajAssistant Professor, Lloyd Law College

Ms. Meena A. MathewAssistant Registrar, Lloyd Law College

+91-9650154942

+91-9024088900

+91-9910215202

ahsan@lloydlawcollege.in

chhaya@lloydlawcollege.in

mmathew@lloydedu.in

DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE

Mr. R. Venkataramani Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Prof. (Dr.) Manjula BatraProfessor, Faculty of LawJamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

Prof. (Dr.) Kameshwari GodaProfessor, College of Law and GovernanceMody University, Rajasthan

Ms. Anju JainAdvocate, High Court of Delhi

Administrator - IndiaSAARC Mooting Competition

Chairperson

Member

Member

Member

Secretary

STEERING COMMITTEE

Dr. Md. SalimMs. Richa ChaudharyMr. Anil ThakurMr. Piyush SharmaMs. Manju KhileryMr. Amit SrivastavMr. Ankit RaiMajor V. G. MenonMr. Ratish Mallick

General Coordinator Faculty CoordinatorCoordinator (Accommodation)Coordinator (Media)Coordinator (Hospitality)Coordinator (Travel)Coordinator (Protocol)Coordinator (Administration)Coordinator (Finance)

STUDENT COORDINATORS

Ms. Pragha Paramita SahaMr. Kumar Deepraj

Ms. Anugya KumarMr. Aman Kumar

MOOT COMPROMIS

25

MOOT COMPROMIS FOR SAARC ROUNDThis Moot proposition has been authored by Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Supreme Court of India for the SAARC Round of Second Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition, 2016-17 and settled by Mr. R. Venkataramani, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India. This Moot Proposition has been formulated solely for the purpose of this competition furthering the academic exercise.

1. The United Republic of Andorra (hereinafter URA) is a highly-industrialized country with a population of approximately 10 million people. It is a global economic power and world leader in the field of science & technology. Its mainstay in the world economy is due to the number of patents it holds and its scintillating brilliance in the field of innovation. It is one of the leading exporter of semi-conductors and variety of chips used in computers and cyber technology. The cyber and information technology companies of the United Republic of Andorra (URA) hold almost all the intellectual property rights over design of semi-conductor chips & circuits. The value of URA currency is equivalent to the EURO and has found its global acceptance in the international economy. Indistan is a developing economy having a population of approximately 30 million people. Large percent of its population belongs to the below poverty group i.e. the population lives below an average earning of one Euro per day. It is a land- locked country having highly diversified and rich biodiversity, flora, fauna and has embarked on rapid industrialization. In the last decade, the Republic of Indistan has witnessed new wave of foreign direct investments in various sectors which had opened the new vistas and opportunities for the people of Indistan. Indistan got its independence in 1970 from URA and has a written Constitution as its governing document. The Constitution of Indistan is considered and described as one of the most progressive Constitutions based on the principles of 'liberal democratic' governance. Its constitution guarantees several fundamental rights, broadly corresponding to those recognized in International Human Rights instruments. The Constitution further guarantees direct access to its Supreme Court for enforcement of those rights. The Govt. of Indistan has also entered into several Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) with various developed States. The BITs serve as a minimum guarantee of least State intervention and offers a unique protection to the investments made by future investors under current International Economic regime. In the last decade, Indistan has witnessed a major development in the field of Information Technology and Govt. of Indistan sees it as a vital component for pursuing its developmental agenda and bridging the gap between 'haves' and 'haves not'. It aims to realise the

2.

3.

4.

5.

26

constitutional goal of 'Equality' with the help of informational technology in an equitable manner. The Republic of Indistan is seen as one of the 'bright spots' in world economy largely due to the continued investment reforms, stable Govt. and policy measures including banking and labour reforms undertaken by the Govt. of Indistan to attract large scale foreign direct investments. Infrastructure, power generation and automobile industries are a few major foreign investment sections. URA and Indistan also have signed a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) in the course of the above trend towards investment which was signed and entered into force in the year 2010. This was widely considered as conducive to Indistan. The BIT guarantees fair and equitable treatment, total protection and security of their contractual rights, due safeguards against unlawful expropriations, as well as other protections of investors from one of the contracting parties, as specified in the BIT. URA and Indistan are founding members of the United Nations and are Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. URA and Indistan are Parties to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. URA and Indistan are also the founding members of the WTO system and were party to the Uruguay Round of negotiation which led to the signing of the Marrakesh Agreement. The important provisions of the BIT are as under: TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDISTAN AND THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDORRA CONCERNING THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENT

The Government of the United Republic of Andorra (URA) and the Government of Indistan (each hereinafter referred to as a - Contracting Party);Desiring to create favorable conditions for greater economic cooperation between them and in particular for investments by nationals and companies of one Contracting Party in the territory of the other Contracting Party based on the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and mutual benefit; Recognizing that the encouragement and reciprocal protection of such investments will be conducive to stimulating business initiatives and increasing economic prosperity in both States; Recognizing the importance of providing effective means of asserting claims and enforcing rights with respect to investment under national law as well as through international arbitration; Desiring to achieve these objectives in a manner consistent with the protection of health, safety, and the environment, and the promotion of internationally recognized labor rights; Having resolved to conclude a Treaty concerning the encouragement and reciprocal protection of investment; have agreed as follows:

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.11.

12.

******

27

Strict adherence to the Dress Code is required. The teams are required to be in proper dress code. The participants are required to wear 'Black Trousers / Skirts' and 'White Shirt', 'Black Blazers' and 'Black Neck Tie'.For the purposes of this Agreement: "investment" means every asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that has the characteristics of an investment, including such characteristics as the commitment of capital or other resources, the expectation of gain or profit, alongwith the assumption of risk. It means and includes all kinds of assets that have been invested in accordance with the laws of the Contracting Party receiving them, including though not exclusively any: Movable and immovable property and other property rights such as mortgage, usufruct, lien, or pledge; Title or claim to money or to any contract having a financial value; shares, stock, and other forms of equity participation in an enterprise; futures, options, and other derivatives; All intellectual property including Copyright, Patent, Design, Trademark, Geographical indication as covered under TRIPS. turnkey, construction, management, production, concession, revenue-sharing, and other similar contracts; licenses, authorizations, permits, and similar rights conferred pursuant to domestic law; andother tangible or intangible, movable or immovable property, and related property rights, such as leases, mortgages, liens, and pledges. "investment agreement" means a written agreement between a national authority of a Party and a covered investment or an investor of the other Party, on which the covered investment or the investor relies on in establishing or acquiring a covered investment other than the written agreement itself, that grants rights to the covered investment or investor: with respect to natural resources that a national authority controls, such as for their exploration, extraction, refining, manufacture, making transportation, distribution, or sale; to supply services to the public on behalf of the Party, such as power generation or distribution, water treatment or distribution, or telecommunications; or to undertake infrastructure projects, such as the construction of roads, bridges, canals, dams, or pipelines, that are not for the exclusive or predominant use and benefit of the government.…

Article 1: Definitions

(a)

(b)(c)(d)(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Each Party shall accord to the covered investments, treatment in accordance with customary international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full

Article 5: Minimum Standard of Treatment

1.

28

protection and security. For greater certainty, paragraph 1 prescribes the customary international law minimum standard of treatment of aliens as the minimum standard of treatment to be afforded to covered investments. The concepts of "fair and equitable treatment" and "full protection and security" do not require treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by that standard, and do not create additional substantive rights. The obligation in paragraph 1 to provide: "fair and equitable treatment" includes the obligation not to deny justice in criminal, civil, or administrative adjudicatory proceedings in accordance with the principle of due process embodied in the principal legal systems of the world; and "full protection and security" requires each Party to provide the level of police protection required under customary international law. …

2 .

(a)

(b)

Any unilateral act of the parties in one sector of the investment in any manner whatsoever will give the other party a right to terminate other investment measures in the country.

Article 6:

Neither of the Contracting Parties shall take any measure of expropriation, nationalization, or other measures having effect equivalent to nationalization or expropriation (all of which measures shall hereinafter be referred to as ? ? expropriation?) against the investment of nationals or companies of the other Contracting Party unless the measures are taken for a purpose authorized by law, on a non-discriminatory basis, in accordance with its laws and in return for payment of just compensation, which shall be made without unreasonable delay. Such compensation shall be the value of the investment immediately before the expropriation, taking into account the customary norms of international law and except:-. for a public purpose; in a non-discriminatory manner; on payment of prompt, adequate, and effective compensation; and in accordance with due process of law and Article 5 [Minimum Standard of Treatment].…

Article 10: Expropriation & Compensation

1.

(a)(b)(c)(d)

Each Contracting Party shall comply with any other obligation that it has entered into in relation to the investments of nationals or companies of the other Contracting Party in its territory.…

Article 11: Umbrella Clause

1.

The Parties recognize that their respective environmental laws and policies, and multilateral environmental agreements to which they are both party, play an important role in protecting the environment.

Article 12: Investment and Environment

1.

29

The Parties recognize that it is inappropriate to encourage investment by weakening or reducing the protections afforded in domestic environmental laws. Accordingly, each Party shall ensure that it does not waive or otherwise derogate from or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from its environmental laws in a manner that weakens or reduces the protections afforded in those laws, or fail to effectively enforce those laws through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, as an encouragement for the establishment, acquisition, expansion, or retention of an investment in its territory.

2.

This Treaty shall not derogate from any of the following that entitle an investor of a Party or a covered investment to treatment more favorable than that accorded by this Treaty: laws or regulations, administrative practices or procedures, or administrative or adjudicatory decisions of a Party; international legal obligations of a Party; or obligations assumed by a Party, including those contained in an investment authorization or an investment agreement. … Including determinations of similar obligations under any principle of International Law.

Article 16: Non-Derogation

13.14.

15.

Any dispute between the Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the present Agreement that cannot be settled within a reasonable lapse of time by means of diplomatic negotiations shall, unless the Parties have otherwise agreed, be submitted at the request of either Party to International mediation. If such dispute cannot be settled through negotiation or mediation, the Contracting Parties shall agree to submit the matter to an arbitral tribunal or the International Court of Justice.

The BIT has been registered in accordance with Article 102 of the UN Charter. In the northern part of Indistan, there is a mountainous terrain ranging from 2000 to 5000 meters in height. River 'Volga' which flows across the length of Indistan is the major river originating from the northern mountainous region. It basically originates from the 'Mount Crater' and meanders through the valley between 'Mount Crater' and 'Mount Lotus' and travels through its natural course as indicated in Annexure A-1. Some major Tributaries of the river also flow through some of these areas rich in mineral resources. The River 'Volga' is considered as the lifeline of Indistan. It has a long history of being the social and economic lifeline of Indistan as its major cities, and industrial zones have been developed on the two banks of the river. Though demands have been made towards regulating its flow through hydro electric use, the Government did not embark on any such major work, for several social, environmental and political reasons.

Article 20: Settlement of Disputes

1.

*****

30

In spite of the economic benefits and upward movement in social and living index of the Indistan, there has been open opposition to the continued and increased presence of the MNCs in the country, who have invested in various segments. The main grievance of sections of the people propounding domestic governance as against multinational profiteering is about the expropriation and exploitation of natural resources including the mining of precious rare ores and exploration of its natural waters. One of such rare ore found in the Republic of Indistan is 'Selenium' which has high utility as semi-conductor in the computer and cyber technology. The concerns raised by civil society and prominent NGOs have led to several non- violent as well as occasional violent demonstrations against Govt. of Indistan and exploitation of natural resources by MNCs. In the midst of these happenings Indistan desired to move forward in pursuance of the BIT with URA. A corporation by name Metallurgical Synergy Group (Met-Synergy Inc.) having its headquarters in the capital city of the Republic of Andorra, entered into an investment contract with the Republic of Indistan. The contract for refining and production of ore/metal was signed by the CEO of Met-Synergy Inc. and the finance minister of Indistan. Under the said contract Met-synergy Inc. purchased several hundred acres of land near the site of excavation and mining in Indistan at an estimated cost of $50 million for the exclusive use of setting up of a refining and processing unit. It intended to mine and refine the precious metal i.e. SELENIUM and export the majority of its finished product in the world market. However, it assured to the republic of Indistan to make available its finished product for its domestic consumption and also computer chips/electronic chips at a price of 10% below the world market price. Indistan claimed this in view of the rising demand of electronic chips and semi-conductors in its industries and to cater to its aspiration of catching up with other countries in the field of information technology and services. The 'Investment Agreement' further envisaged that Indistan would be purchasing a minimum of 15% finished product of Met-synergy Inc. exclusively for domestic use and cater to the developmental needs of Indistan. It also envisaged the employment and training of minimum 2000 nationals of Indistan in the Met- Synergy facilities as measure of human capacity development in the emerging technology of refining and processing. As set forth in the contract drawn pursuant to the signing of BIT, Indistan guaranteed Metallurgical Synergy Group full and necessary access to the water resources required for processing and refining the raw ore into finished Selenium. It also envisaged issuance of all required licenses and permission to ensure the efficient operation of the mining activities. However, citing various technical requirements like EIA Report for the project and the proposed diversion of water against the natural course of river 'Volga' - not permissible under its domestic legislation – the Govt. of Indistan was unable to provide unhindered access to necessary water

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

31

resources for commencement of the mining operation as envisaged, viz., within six months of signing of the Agreement. The metallurgical Synergy group therefore built a costly water pipeline for an efficient use of water for mining purpose from the river 'Volga' and two of its major Tributaries. This virtually amounted to indirect diversion of the course of the river. The pipeline details and quantum of water drawals were not duly disclosed to Indistan on the ground of confidentiality. Indistan however tacitly gave its nod to this course of action on the good faith that no undue advantage will be taken, nor will Indistan be otherwise persuaded to give express approvals. It began to cite the example of a gigantic river water project of this nature in the People's Republic of China, as if this would be beneficial to the people of Indistan in due course. The Government of Indistan was led into this thinking on certain projections and representations made by Met-Sync-Inc and which were believed to be true. Amidst all these developments and fascinating stories of economic growth and industrialization and modern cyber technology world, one of the lesser known tribe named 'INDO-TURIN' was away from and living in isolation from all these happenings. The 'Indo-Turin' tribe - a local indigenous group that insists on maintaining their traditional historic way of life like the Amish faith. The Constitution of Indistan also provides for the preservation of and protection to these tribes with least interference in their habitat, land, and way of life. The Govt. of Indistan also had a policy to allow the 'Indo-Turin' tribe to peacefully co-exist as long as they do not interfere with the pursuant of technology and other industrial process that will benefit the rest of the country. However, no major interfaces took place in the past, post independence. The 'Indo-Turin' tribes mainly rely upon animal husbandry and goat/ sheep herding in the foothills of Mount Etna and Lotus. They also grow rice and millets. The area is rich in fruit orchards and most of some rare variety of fruits not found in the rest of Indistan and even in other mountainous ranges. It is believed that this area is also special for its unique ecological diversity. The Turin tribe believe in minimum technology only necessary to cater to their basic needs. They further believe that education must serve only such purpose and that natural resources shall not be invaded as they cannot be created or generated by human effort. In fact, the tribe has a limited understanding of the common language spoken in Indistan and its neighboring areas, and their only written language is a pictographic script. Some anthropologists believe that they may have historic links with the prototype people of Northern Indistan whose archeological excavations continue to be a subject of great international speculation and literature. The spiritual leaders and folklorists of the Tribes and some sections of the Indistan population have worshipped the Mount Lotus which is also site of a dormant volcano. It is estimated that the said volcano erupted last in 2000 B.C. The Indo- Turin tribe claims Mount Lotus known in ancient times as the abode of the creator

21.

22.

23

32

and as the ancestral home of the sole divine power, which provides the 'Indo-Turin' people/ tribe with all nourishment, energy, crop growth and light. The mountain is said to be an extraordinary centre of spiritual upliftment. Certain sections of the people of Indistan also undertake special journeys to a particular spot of the mount and consider this as rare opportunity of spiritual value. The routes which have been followed over a long period of time have also acquired a hallowed importance. The Constitution of Indistan also provides a kind of autonomy for the administration of such areas through the Tribal Advisory Council and provides special protection to the 'land' and 'area' inhabited by them. The Constitution of Indistan specifically forbids the transfer of such tribal land to 'non- tribals'. Special provisions for administration of justice in these areas are guaranteed. The 'Indo-Turin' tribe and its successive young generation goes through a process of enlightenment, whereby young children are required to climb Mount Lotus via a winding route which is very difficult and rugged terrain. However when the young children reach the summit, they give offerings to their deity believed to be eternally present on the mount through sacrificing chosen animals. Once the children successfully complete this ritual task and return, the tribal elders adorn them in a traditional manner and celebrate the occasion by feasts and other cultural celebrations. However, the tribals do not encourage nor discriminate among the male and female child in the performance of this ritual; rather it is a way of life which the children of 10 to 15 years undertake to perform on voluntary basis. There have been several deaths reported by independent journalists and social organizations of the young children of 'Indo- Turin' tribe. It is also reported that, over last three decades, the population of 'Indo- Turin' tribe has not shown significant increase and has been far below compared to the general demography of Indistan. Since early 2016, several parts of Indistan began to witness severe droughts, due to unprecedented climate change, water shortage following scant rains virtually 10% of its normal rainfall and increased demand due to increasing population. Large scale deaths/ suicide by farmer were reported by national and international media due to scarcity of vital yet life supporting component like 'water' for supporting agriculture and livelihood on a day- to – day basis. Emphasizing these issues, several NGOs and sections of the civil society forged a strong demand that the water supply to Metallurgical Synergy Group ought to be stopped with immediate effect as it does not have any sanction in law to the use waters of river Volga. The mounting public pressure was a matter of great concern and governance crisis. The task of balancing growth and development and the obligations under the BIT, with the need to conserve its resources became a major national issue. This called for greater attention to constitutional discipline and political maturity. The Turin Tribe people also occasionally joined these demands. To meet the extra - ordinary situation, as stated above the Govt. of Indistan

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

33

constituted an expert Committee to study the use and management of its water resources particularly of River 'Volga', to strike a balance between economic progress and social development with least impact on environment. The expert Committee in its report envisaged erection of a huge concrete structure between Mount Crate and Mount Lotus and a further gigantic dam between the two mountain Hills i.e. Mount Etna and Mount Lotus. However, it also expressed its apprehension about ecological damage and threats/ risks involved in diverting the course of river and storage of water for the purpose of such a dam. The land mark studies on large dams were pressed into service. The Govt. of Indistan made several conciliatory efforts to reduce the ongoing resentment and protests by negotiation and dialogue process. It also asked Metallurgical Synergy Group to reduce its water usage to help in ameliorating the situation until the drought conditions subside. The CEO of Metallurgical Synergy Group however refused to heed to the request made by Govt. of Indistan and continued with its mining operations as well as refining process in full swing. It also cited the obligation and duty of Republic of Indistan under the contract executed pursuant to the BIT. The Govt. of Indistan in its communication to Metallurgical Synergy Group accused it of excessive use of water which turned and aggravated the drought situation in Indistan into a national emergency. The dilemma of a bilateral agreement becoming non-accountable to domestic needs, began to pose a huge issue of review of all Bilateral Investment treaties. An Association of concerned citizens called "People Cause" petitioned the Supreme Court of Indistan under its fundamental rights jurisdiction, seeking that the agreement between the Government of Indistan and Metallurgical Synergy Group as well as the BIT between Indistan and URA, be declared unconstitutional and that the further operation of all processes under the agreement be stopped as it would cause irretrievable loss and injury – social and economic. The wisdom and propriety of such Treaties was seriously questioned.The Supreme Court of Indistan however declined to grant any prohibitory orders. The Court, while willing to hear the petition, however expressed grave doubts about the appropriateness and scope of its judicial review powers, as in its view, set out in one of its orders, several economic, political and technical questions including issues of international law are so entangled. With each passing day the weather conditions continuing to be unsympathetic, the drought conditions in Indistan worsened which led violent protests across the country and against the MNCs which were exploiting its mineral resources and abusing its scarce water resources. The percentage or quantum of returns to the government, were said to be meager compared to the profits being made by Metallurgical Synergy. Comparisons were made to the case of Enron and Dabhol power Companies. In one of the inflammatory video released by the Civil Society and its leaders

30.

31.

32.

33.

34

described as to how the Metallurgical Synergy Group is abusing the waters of River 'Volga' which it is transporting for refining and commercial purposes. The video not only criticized the inadequate steps undertaken by the Govt. of Indistan rather asked it to take immediate action against Metallurgical Synergy Group. The reluctance of the Supreme Court to expeditiously adjudicate the matter also led to the civil society unrest. Out of several incidents/ protests and demonstrations which took place across Indistan, a violent and angered mob in the vicinity of Metallurgical Synergy Group attacked the refining unit and caused damage to the production unit. This resulted in a loss of several million dollars to the Company. The CEO of Metallurgical Synergy Group wrote and complained about the Indistan's inability or unwillingness to deal with the hostilities against the Metallurgical Synergy Group and termed the incident as direct breach of the 'Investment Agreement' drawn pursuant to BIT. The Govt. of Indistan through its response assured all lawful action against identified set of people and assured justice in every sense but also took the plea of extra- ordinary drought scenario prevailing in country and stated that it may not have all control over people's protests. It also accused the Metallurgical Synergy Group of unlawfully operating its mining as well as refining unit without the proper clearance to access the quantity of water as stipulated in the 'investment Agreement'. For the first time, the Govt. of Indistan termed the drawing of water from river Volga through pipeline as 'not approved' by the Govt. Consequently, the Metallurgical Synergy Group has to shut down two of its processing and refining units which reduced the production output of 'selenium' to 30%. This retrospective declaration by Indistan was considered illegal by Metallurgical Synergy Incorporation. As the Govt. of Indistan termed the activity of drawing water from river 'volga' by Metallurgical Synergy Group without its express consent as illegal and unlawful, people gathered once again surrounding the processing & refining units and caused massive destruction of the property which also resulted into death of 7 nationals from URA and around 10 local workers from Indistan. After this second incident of attack and destruction of the Metallurgical Synergy Group, the production decreased by 50%. In response, to this, the CEO of Metallurgical Synergy Group decided to reduce the number of workers and laid off nearly 1000 employee (all national of Indistan). The retrenched employee of Indistan reported of racial discrimination, inequality in work conditions and wages by the management of Met- Synergy group. The leaders of 'Indo – Turin' tribe and Republic of Indistan (through its colonial master i.e. URA) had entered into a solemn treaty 110 years ago, called the URA – TURIN Treaty declaring the area between Mount Lotus and Mount Etna as 'Indo- Turin' Territory. The Indo- Turin tribe also consider these lands their own since time immemorial. However, the said treaty was entered by the URA with leaders of Indo-Turin tribe.

34.

35.

36.

37.

35

Whenever, the Republic of Indistan desired to use the land specified and protected for 'Indo- Turin' tribe, it negotiated through the Tribal Advisory Council as established under the Constitution of Indistan through an amicable agreement. Taking cue from the Expert Committee report, the Government of Indistan decided to undertake the task of fundamental alterations in the mountain topography, to secure a man made reservoir and to build a huge dam on River Volga. The internal crises led to another thinking on the regulation of the waters of river Volga. The Government of Indistan while finalizing its views on the Expert Committee recommendations thought that this could resolve several issues including management of water resources to deal with the draught conditions as well as regulated supply of water to Metallurgical Synergy Inc. The consequences of acting in breach of the BIT loomed large with Indistan. The URA – TURIN Treaty was not considered to be any impediment in this regard. The Turin Tribe was thus kept out of the decision. All decisions were taken in secrecy. Indistan government thus started the Volga River Dam construction and diversion of its water. One fine morning, the 'Indo- Turin' tribe woke up to the sound of massive construction material and machinery alongwith large workforce at the dam site. In due course, they were forcibly evicted, displaced and relocated on the other side of the mountain which amounted to complete abandonment of its hoary past, its traditions and its rights. The entire 'Indo- Turin' tribe could only watch as their homes, life, liberty, livelihood and traditional way of living was destroyed at the hands of its own Republic of Indistan. Additionally, the dam, when completed, is expected to cause the water in the river volga to rise upstream from the dam and cover a significant portion of the near-by lands of the 'Indo-Turin' tribe displacing them forever from key parts / portions of their homeland. Most recently, however, the tribe 'Indo-Turin' were apprised of International Law Association Resolution No. 5/2012 of August 30, 2012, cited as evidence of their collective human rights under customary international law. They see their rights to their traditional lands as violated by the flooding of their lands resulting from the dam construction; also, their customary international law right not to be relocated without their free, prior, and informed consent was, in their eyes, clearly breached. In addition, they claimed a violation of their rights under the pre-constitutional treaty with URA. It was felt that pre-constitutional treaties / agreements are constitutionally protected. Attempts were made to petition the Supreme Court of Indistan, by the Turin Tribe. The court was sympathetic to their cause, and decided to hear their complaint, along with the petition moved by "Peoples cause". But the court said in its interim order, that the issues are too complex, to be halted by it by any interim measures. At this point, Metallurgical Synergy Group (Met-Synergy Inc.) was unable to sell its chips at world market prices, as inflammatory videos, and public outcry against the alleged activities of Met- Synergy Group in adverse situation like drought, amongst

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

36

other human rights concerned, which spread around the globe, led to a boycott of its products worldwide. Drought conditions continued even as the construction of the dam was underway in Indistan with great speed. The drought, the construction of the dam, and the additional expenses by the Indistan government to deal with its domestic and international crisis had an obvious adverse impact on the economy of Indistan. The currency of Indistan suffered a substantial devaluation. The CEO of met-Synergy Group demanded that Indistan take delivery and payment for the agreed upon 15% of finished product at 10% below the market price, as contemplated in the Investment Agreement and payment of outstanding dues of around 50 million dollar. The Govt. of Indistan citing its economic emergency coupled with wide social unrest, declined to purchase the finished product from Met –Synergy group as demanded by its and also refused to pay the outstanding dues. Metallurgical Synergy Group also filed an application to implead itself in the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court of Indistan. It argued that the contract between it and Indistan is justiciable under Indistan law. No orders have been passed by the Court in this regard. The Metallurgical Synergy Group does not see any hope to fight and recover their due(s) and their own bankruptcy, failure of Govt. of Indistan to purchase new finished product, their wide-scale destruction of investment by violent mob in Indistan. The shareholders of Met-Synergy group urged the Govt. of Andorra to take legal action against the Govt. of Indistan. As the stocks of Met- synergy group plummeted world-wide due to all these circumstances- the Andorra's reputation as an economic power began to be doubted. It is also contemplated that the bankruptcy of met- Synergy Group would create economic disaster within the Andorra's society. At this juncture, the Govt. of Andorra decided to take action on behalf of Met-Synergy group against Indistan. The President of Andorra wrote a letter to the Govt. of Indistan to compensate Met- Synergy group for the destruction of its refining and processing units and all other damages sustained by it as a result of several incidents. Additionally, he requests the Govt. of Indistan to take legal action against all leaders of civil society and protestors who fuelled the attack on the establishment of Met-Synergy Group. In addition, he further asked the Govt. of Indistan to stop construction of the dam as may block the use of water for its mining, refining and processing production and to provide Met- Synergy Group with all appropriate licenses and permits as promised under the Investment Agreement including access to water resources. In exchange, the company would release Indistan from its commitment to purchase 15% of finished products and also consider waiving off portion of its dues, as that may reduce huge liabilities on Indistan. Govt. of Indistan refuses to abide by any such conditions and accuses Met-Synergy Group of violating the Investment Agreement by operating without a license and using excessive amounts of water, and discriminating against its nationals as

45.

47.

46.

48.

37

employees. It further claimed that the retrenchment of employees of Indistan origin added to the already bad conditions of the Indistan's economy and increased hostilities. Furthermore, Indistan argues that Met-Synergy group should have decreased its use of natural resource like water when asked to do so by its government in response to the drought, and that not doing so has contributed to the escalation of conditions into a national crisis. It said that it has been misled by Met Syn Inc and its misrepresentation may amount to fraud. As neither state was willing to negotiate, URA on behalf of Met-Synergy Group and all citizen shareholders, instituted proceedings against the Government of Indistan in the International Court of Justice. Andorra claims that Indistan violated the BIT and the Investment Agreement, resulting in significant physical and economic injuries to it for which it seeks just compensation. Also, acting on behalf of the 'Indo- Turin Tribe' and their collective human rights, Andorra claims that Indistan violated the internationally protected rights of 'Indo- Turin' tribe to their traditional lands and the principle of free, prior, and informed consent and demanded scrapping of the dam project on river Volga and urged that domestic policies that violate the BIT are violations of international law and are reviewable by the ICJ.. Indistan contends that the ICJ has no jurisdiction, and that the claims put forward by Andorra on behalf of the Indo-Turin Tribe people are not admissible. It claims that after the enactment of its constitution URA is a complete stranger to its people including the Turin Tribes and it has no locus to act on their behalf. The Indistan constitution alone governs all issues and it is a domestic issue. Indistan also cited the proceedings pending before its Supreme Court where Met Syn Inc has sought impleadment. In addition, Indistan denies all of Andorra's claims regarding the violations of the BIT and customary international law. If the ICJ found that it had jurisdiction, it also had to conclude that Andorra had violated the basic human rights of the citizens of Indistan i.e. Right to water as it suffered from severe drought and loss of life and property due to the same. Andorra and its corporation did not stop from using excessive water for commercial activities during such sever crisis of human rights. It also alleged the Met. Syn. Inc. – contract stood vitiated due to fraud and unlawful unilateral measures and that BIT or the contract cannot override its domestic constitution.Both states are active members of the United Nations and have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Additionally, in 2010 both states endorsed the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Law of Indigenous Peoples. In December 2016, both Andorra and Indistan had submitted individual declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in accordance with Article 36(2) of its Statute. Indistan, however, had reserved that it would not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in relation to matters regarding its domestic economy and domestic judicial autonomy.

49.

50.

51.

52.

38

Andorra, the Applicant, asks the Court to adjudge and declare that: The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute; The case is admissible; Indistan has violated the BIT in place between the two states by planning and starting to construct a dam that will substantially impede the water flow from the Volga River to the mining and processing facilities of MET- Synergy group, a corporation registered in Andorra, in violation of the Investment Agreement between Met- Synergy Group and Govt. of Indistan; Indistan further violated the BIT by failing to stop, investigate or prosecute local protestors that destroyed Met- Synergy Inc. facilities and caused millions of dollars in damages; Indistan has violated international law by depriving the 'Indo- truin tribe' of their traditional lands without their consent and compensation; Indistan has to compensate Andorra under international law for all losses resulting from the incidents causing injury to Met- Synergy Group. In December 2016, both Andorra and Indistan had submitted individual declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in accordance with Article 36(2) of its Statute. Indistan, however, had reserved that it would not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in relation to matters regarding its domestic economy and domestic judicial autonomy. Indistan, the Respondent, asks the Court to adjudge and declare that: The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute; The case is inadmissible; Bilateral investment treaties are good faith agreements and their operation should be subject to domestic emergencies and be further subject to domestic constitutional action. Indistan did not violate the BIT by starting to construct the dam as this project was clearly within its sovereign rights of development and, as a matter of necessity, was done in response to the severe drought causing a shortage of water endangering the survival of the nation; Andorra's national Met- Synergy Inc. claim of violation of the BIT was negated by its failure to secure the appropriate water licenses and permits, by building an unlicensed pipeline, and by using excessive amounts of water in their irrigation of sugar cane fields; and all on the basis of its several misrepresentations amounting to fraud; Indistan did not violate international law by failing to prosecute protest groups, because Indistan respects and adheres to international human rights guaranteeing free speech and assembly; Indistan is not liable for damages to Andorra as the actions of Met- Synergy Inc. and their refusal to mitigate conditions caused the incidents that led to its injury. URA has no locus to canvas the concerns of Turin Tribe, as all matters relating to

53.

54.

(a)(b)(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

55.(a)(b)(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

2

1

3

4

Northern Mountainous Region Northern Mountainous Region

Proposed Course of River Volga

after construction of DAM

River Volga

5

1. Mount Crater

2. Mount ETNA

3. Mount Lotus

4. Proposed DAM Site &

Indo-Turin Protected area

5. MET-Synergy Group Investment Zone

Moot Map

39

them fell within the Indistan Constitution and are amenable to domestic jurisdiction alone. The ICJ, at Hague has scheduled the specific legal issues arising from the above

th thMoot Compomis for hearing before its Full Court on 11 -12 February, 2017 at Peace Palace (Netherlands).

56.

* Please refer to the Moot Map in context of the Moot Compromi

*********************

40

The Indian Round of the First Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting th thCompetition & Law Students Conference 2016 was held from 9 to 10 January,

2016 & Inaugurated by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave, Supreme Court of India.

The Indian Round of the Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting rd thCompetition & Law Students Conference 2016-17 was held from 3 & 4

December, 2016 & Inaugurated by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Supreme Court of India.

Second Prof. N. R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition & Law Students Conference, 2016-17

th th(10 to 12 February, 2017)

Hon'ble Judges Bench - Final

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun BhansaliJudge, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh MehtaJudge, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira BanerjeeJudge, High Court of Delhi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh BindalJudge, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Mittal KumarPresident of National Company Law Tribunal

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Permod KohliChairman, Central Administrative Tribunal

Hon'ble Chair Judges - Semi-finals

Chair Final

Judge, Supreme Court of Srilanka

Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T. Chithrasiri

Add. : Plot No. 11, Knowledge Park - II, Greater Noida, (U.P.) Tel : 0120-6406203, +91-8800621117

Website : www.lloydlawcollege.in ; www.lloydlawcollege.comE-mail : profmenonmooting@lloydedu.in, contact@lloydedu.in

LLOYD LAW COLLEGE