GUMP 2012

The All India Moot Conveners Conference 2012

GGUUIIDDEELLIINNEESS FFOORR UUNNIIFFOORRMM MMOOOOTT PPRRAACCTTIICCEESS IINN IINNDDIIAA

These Guidelines for Uniform Moot Practices (The GUMP) have been drafted at the first ever All India Moot Conveners Conference (AIMCC) 2012, hosted at National Law Institute University-Bhopal on the 24th and 25th of March 2012.

1. THE MOOT FORMAT

The Two Win System and the Cumulative Scoring System have both been considered as viable Moot

Formats, with certain alterations and amendments.

MOOTS WITH THE TWO WIN SYSTEM

1.1. OUTLINE: All Moots will have a prelim round in which every team will argue from the side of

applicant/plaintiff/petitioner as well as respondent/defendant.

1.2. Moots with participation in excess of 16 teams will have a Quarter Final Round and Moots

with participation in excess of 32 will have an Octo Final Round1 (involving 16 teams).

1.3. Teams with two wins in the prelim rounds will progress to the first Knockout Round (be it

the Quarter Final or the Octo Final). In case there are less than 8 teams (or 16, as the case

may be) with two wins, all the teams with 2 wins will progress. From the teams that have

one win, the teams with the highest Margins of Victory in the prelim rounds, will qualify to

the next stage. (Eg. If a team wins a round by 4 points, but loses the other by 6 points, the

Margin of Victory (MOV) will be -2). In case there are more than 8 (or 16) teams on 2 wins,

the above mentioned method will be used to identify the top 8 (or 16) teams from all of the

teams on 2 wins.

1.4. If there continues to be a tie between the teams even after considering the Margin of

Victory, it shall be resolved using the following criteria, and in the following ordering of

precedence:

1.4.1. The memorial scores of the teams, including penalties, if any

1.4.2. The Oral scores of the teams

1.4.3. The team which has received lesser penalties in the memorials.

1 The Octo Finals, Quarter Finals, Semi Finals and Finals are collectively referred to as ‘the Knockout Rounds’ for the sake of convenience.


1.5. See the section on ‘Scoring’ to know further details on scoring methodology.

1.6. SEEDING: Moots with participation of 16 to 32 teams may rank the top 8 teams, while

Moots with participation exceeding 32 teams may rank the top 16 teams. The ranked (or

seeded) teams must not face each other in the prelim rounds of a moot, but may face any

other team through a Draw of Lots. For more, see section on ‘Draw of Lots’.

1.7. Seeding of teams may be done by evaluating the memorials of the teams participating at

that particular moot beforehand, and ranking them on that basis.

1.8. POWER MATCHING: When teams progress to the knockout rounds of a tournament they will

be matched against each other on the basis of their seed. The 1st seed will face the 5th seed,

the 2nd seed will face the 6th seed and so on. In the case of a moot with Octo Finals, the first

seed will face the 9th seed, the second Seed will face the 10th seed and so on. Thus, the

draw of lots in the knockout rounds will not decide the opponent, but only which side the

teams are going to represent (eg. Petitioner or respondent).

1.9. When a seeded team is beaten by an unseeded team, or a lower seeded team, at any stage

in the tournament, that unseeded team, or lower seeded team, will take the seed of the

beaten team for the remainder of the tournament.

Rationale: Some of the best teams in the competition often face each in the prelim rounds,

thus ensuring that one of them gets knocked out early. Seeding ensures that the top teams

progress further in the tournament. Of course, there is no way of knowing for certain which

the best teams are, but seeding on the above ground strives to ascertain that in the best

possible way. For eg. At a Grand Slam tournament there is no way of knowing who is going to

win. However, Nadal and Federer (or the two best players) are still not pitted against each

other in the early stages of the tournament.

1.10. When there are an odd number of judges, winning the round is based, not on the cumulative

score of the judges, but on the number of ballots won by the team. For eg. In a certain round

if a team wins by 2 points on Judge A’s sheet, by 2 points on Judge B’s sheet, but loses by 5

points on Judge C’s sheet, that team still wins the round, though if the scores at added that

team loses by 1 point.

MOOTS WITH THE CUMULATIVE SCORE SYSTEM

1.11. OUTLINE: All Moots will have a prelim round in which every team will argue from the side of

applicant/plaintiff/petitioner as well as respondent/defendant.


1.12. Moots with participation in excess of 16 teams will have a Quarter Final Round and Moots

with participation in excess of 32 teams will have an Octo Final round (16 teams).

1.13. The 8 (or 16) teams with the highest Cumulative Scores (combination of memorial scores

and oral scores) in the prelims will progress to the knockout rounds.

1.14. POWER MATCHING: When teams progress to the knockout rounds of a tournament they

will be matched against each other based on their rank in the Prelims. In the case of a moot

with quarter finals, the first ranked team will face the 5th ranked team, the second ranked

team will face the sixth ranked team and so on. In the case of a moot with Octo Finals, the 1st

ranked team will face the 9th ranked team, the 2nd ranked team will face the 10th ranked

team and so on. Thus, the Draw of Lots in the knockout rounds will not decide the opponent,

but only which side the teams are going to represent (eg. Petitioner or respondent).

1.15. When there is a tie between the teams based on cumulative score, it shall be resolved using

the following criteria, in the following ordering of precedence:

1.15.1. The memorial scores of the teams, including penalties, if any

1.15.2. The Oral scores of the teams

1.15.3. The team which has received lesser penalties in the memorials.

1.16. Once the teams qualify to the knockout rounds, the progress of the teams henceforth, will be

based not on cumulative scores, but on whether they win their respective rounds.

1.17. In the knockout rounds, when there are an odd number of judges, winning the round is

based, not on the cumulative score of the judges, but on the number of ballots won by the

team. For eg. In a certain round if a team wins by 2 points on Judge A’s sheet, by 2 points on

Judge B’s sheet, but loses by 5 points on Judge C’s sheet, that team still wins the round ,

though if the scores at added that team loses by 1 point.

THE DRAW OF LOTS

1.18. The draws of lots, before the preliminary rounds, must be done in such a way that all of the

following points are accounted for;

1.18.1. No team will face the same team twice in the prelims.

1.18.2. Every team will argue from the side of petitioner and respondent.

1.18.3. No team will be judged by the same judge or set of judges twice in the prelims.

1.18.4. All teams should have equal prep time between rounds, as far as practicable.


1.18.5. Teams should not be judged by the same judges in the prelims and knockout rounds,

as far as practicable.

1.18.6. If teams are being seeded, the table must ensure that the seeded teams do not face

each other.

1.19. A Model Table of the conduct of Draw of Lots incorporating all of the above, with

explanations, has been included in Annexure 1.

2. SCORING

2.1. In the prelim rounds, teams will be scored such that not less 30% weight age is given

written submissions (or memorials). This implies that not more 70% weight age may give

given to the oral presentations.

2.2. If seeding of teams on the basis of memorials is being done, the weight age being given to

memorials cannot exceed 20%. This implies that the Organizing Committee is free to not

consider memorials scores at all (except for seeding and awards), in moots where the

seeding system is being used.

Rationale: Since seeding is being done on the basis of memorials scores, it would mean that a

seeded team will always face a team with substantially inferior memorial scores. Thus, giving a

high weight age to memorial scores would be giving a double advantage to the seeded team, and

also make it extremely difficult for the unseeded team to win, as even if the unseeded team scores

higher in the oral rounds, it may get offset by its low memorial scores. This is why memorial scores

should either not be included if seeding is being done, or be included only to the extent of 20% at

the very most.

2.3. Memorial scores may not be taken into account in the knockout rounds.

2.4. The judges must be given a strict range within which they must mark the speakers. The

worst performance in the history of mooting cannot be marked less than 60 out of 100 (or

60%).

2.5. The ideal parameters on which oral rounds should be judged are as follows:

2.5.1. Application of Facts

2.5.2. Understanding of Law and Procedure

2.5.3. Use of Authorities

2.5.4. Logical Coherency in Arguments


2.5.5. Response to Questions and Articulation

2.5.6. Advocacy Skills, Court Craft and Demeanour

2.5.7. Rebuttals

2.6. Keeping in mind that the range of marking for a speaker is from 60% to 100%, these

parameters must also be marked in the same ratio. For eg. The parameters scored out of 10,

will have a range from 6 to 10, while the parameters scored out of 20 will have a range of 12

to 20 and so on.

2.7. It may be noted that the range of marking has the following implication:

2.7.1. 60-70 marks : Poor

2.7.2. 70-80 marks : Average

2.7.3. 80-90 marks : Good

2.7.4. 90-100 marks : Very Good

Rationale: Different judges have different scales of marking, leading to Courtroom Bias. A certain

judge my mark a speaker 85 on 100, while another judge may award only 65 marks for an

identical performance. The range of marking endeavours to avoid this arbitrary marking, thus

giving more meaning to the Best Speaker Award and also ensuring that in situations when there

are less than 8 teams (or 16, as the case may be) on 2 wins after the Prelims Rounds, the teams on

1 win progressing on cumulative scores, don’t do so simply by virtue of being in a high scoring

courtroom. The range of marking is not applicable to evaluation of memorials as they are all to be

evaluated by the same panel of people. For more, see section on ‘Memorials’.

3. JUDGING

3.1. No judge must oversee a round in which he is closely associated with either of the teams or

the Institutions that they represent. Further, judges should have a right to recuse

themselves from judging a particular round on basis of a reasonable bias.

3.2. No round may be adjudicated by a single judge bench.

3.3. There should be at least one individual with prior mooting experience on the bench during

every round in a moot court competition.

3.4. All Institutions must endeavour to have as judges for the a moot court competition, the

following:


3.4.1. Persons familiar to different mooting styles and standards, such as former mooters

and judges of moots.

3.4.2. Persons well versed with the subject matter of the moot, such as:

3.4.2.1. Professionals from law firms and similar professionals practicing in the area

or subject matter of the moot problem.

3.4.2.2. Advocates engaging in the practice area of the subject matter of the moot

problem.

3.4.2.3. Technical experts and professionals in the field of the subject matter of the

moot problem. (eg. Engineers in a Technology Law Moot, or Chartered

Accountants in a Corporate Law Moot)

3.4.2.4. Academicians in the field of the subject matter of the moot problem.

3.4.2.5. Persons otherwise highly experienced and qualified in the field of law.

3.5. As far as practicable, High Court or Supreme Court Judges must not constitute a majority on

the bench. (Failed)

Rationale: HC and SC judges on the bench do add glamour to the tournament, but it was felt by a

minority of the delegates that they often wrongly affect the outcome of rounds as these senior

judges often tend to be mute during the rounds, deciding the round based largely on the quality of

speech. Some others tend to treat the moot as an actual court, and give the round to the team that

the law favours, rather than the more persuasive or better researched team. These senior judges

may be invited to the Opening and Closing Ceremonies where their wisdom may be better utilized.

3.6. As far as possible, drafters or framers of the moot problem should be present on the bench

for advanced rounds of the tournament, such the semi finals and finals.

3.7. Every Organizing Committee of the concerned tournament must designate a team of

individuals who are to brief judges before the start of rounds. As far as possible, this team

must include the drafter of the problem. No judge, whether a Senior Advocate or a Supreme

Court Judge, may enter a courtroom without being adequately briefed on the facts and law

involved in the relevant moot proposition, along with the any relevant aspect of the format

or scoring involved in the concerned moot.

3.8. An Online Web Portal will be set up to create a database of judges. All institutions will

contribute the names and contact information of their alumni and other individual whom

they are associated with and can judge moot court competitions. All of this information will

be available on the Web Portal.


3.9. The Portal will be created and set up by Campus Law Center-Delhi by the 31st of May 2012.

3.10. The purpose of the portal will be expanded to include information on all moots in India

including the propositions and rules, a database of winning memorials, contact information

of universities, academic calendars of Institutions etc.

3.11. The Portal will be controlled primarily by the institution hosting the next AIMCC, but

moderated and managed equally by representative moderators of all participating

institutions.

4. MEMORIALS

4.1. All memorials, from the side of petitioner as well as respondents, are to be evaluated by at

least two persons, and when possible, at least one of these individuals should be the drafter

of the problem.

Rationale: For the sake of convenience, Organizing Committees of Moots often use two (or two

sets of) individuals to evaluate memorials, one for the petitioners and one for the respondents.

Since petitioners and respondents are always against each other in every round, it is only fair that

they are evaluated on the same scale. It would be unfair to evaluate opposing teams on different

scales. Since no two human beings can have the exact same scale of marking, the memorials must

be evaluated by a single panel of persons.

4.2. Use of butter paper, book binding, bond paper, transparency sheets, etc. in the making of

Memorials should be banned. Standard A4 size paper should be used and bound by simply

stitching, stapling or using basic spiral binding.

Rationale: The individuals evaluating the memorials are merely human, and these superficial

additions to the memorial are like to have an impact, even if subconscious, on his assessment of the

particular memorial. Keeping this in mind, participants from poorer backgrounds will be

disadvantaged as they may not be able to afford these frills.

4.3. In the interest of the environment, double sided printing is encouraged and use of plastics

(except for basic spiral binding) is discouraged.

4.4. The maximum number of memorials required to be couriered prior to the beginning of the

Moot Court competition should only be equal to the number of memorials required for

evaluation.

4.5. The total number of memorials required to be submitted to the Organizing Committee of a

Moot Court competition should be limited to 7, at the very most, in a competition with

Quarter-finals and 8 in a competition with Octo-finals.


4.6. All winning memorials of the various Moot Court Competitions in India will be uploaded on

http://www.mootsite.com/. All Organizing Committees are requested to email the winning

memorials to [email protected].

Rationale: Students from certain law schools and traditional universities are less exposed than

others. Creation of this online database will expose them to a higher quality of memorials, thus

possibly making mooting in India more competitive in the long run.

4.7. Every tournament should have a bench memorial circulated after the completion of the

tournament and/or a session with the judges/framers/organizers so as to discuss the moot

problem and what was expected of participants.

4.8. Use of a Compendium of case is to be permitted, restricted to 5 pages for every individual

citation (case).

4.9. The team codes must be sent well ahead of the date of memorial submission in the soft

copy form, so that the team codes may be incorporated on the memorial when printed by

the teams.

4.10. Every moot should have submission of memorials in a soft copy form. If the hard copy is

also being sought before the teams arrive for the moot, there should be a gap of at least one

week between submission of the soft copy and the hard copy.

Rationale: Since the date on which the hard copies of memorials have to couriered varies for each

participating institution depending on how far the host institution is, there is an effective

inequality in preparation time. This inequality is eradicated through the submission of identical

soft copies on an earlier date, followed by a reasonable period before the submission of hard

copies.

5. HOSPITALITY

5.1. In Moots that provides separate accommodation to boys and girls, the Organizing

Committee should make a provision for a common meeting area which can be used by both

boys and girls for preparation at any time. (Eg. an All Night Library)

Rationale: Some moots give separate accommodation to boys and girls. This gives an inherent

unfair advantage to all boys or all girls teams, who have the luxury of preparing during the nights

prior to the rounds, especially considering that the exchange of memorials usually happens a night

before the rounds commence.

http://www.mootsite.com/

mailto:[email protected]


6. PRE MOOTS

6.1. Subsequent to the completion of the India-North and India-South Rounds of the Jessup and

Stetson Moots, a venue must be decide conjointly by the 4 Institutions representing India at

Washington and Florida respectively.

6.2. The cost incurred in conducting the Pre Moots, which is likely to be minimal, may be borne

by the 4 institutions. Surana and Surana, who are under no compulsion to organize or

sponsor the same, may however be approached for the same.

7. MOOT CAMPS

7.1. The Annual Moot Camp must be a forum where senior mooters and novice mooters get to

interact with each other in a non competitive forum.

7.2. The exact manner of conducting the Camp, including mooting exercises, demonstration

rounds, lectures, inculcation of nuances, fun learning methods etc, will be at the discretion

of the host institution.

7.3. It is proposed that Institutions such as CLC-Delhi, GLC-Bombay and GNLU-Gandhinagar

may take up the mantle as they already conduct Moots such as the K. K. Luthra Moot, the

D.M.Harish Moot and the GIMC which have substantial International participation. A day or

two prior to these Moots may be dedicated to the conducting of a Workshop by inviting

faculty, trainers or coaches from the international Universities participating at these Moots.

These Workshops or Moot Camps should be open to the entire country, and not only the

participants at that Moot.

Rationale: Such an exercise may give the students a greater understanding of what is expected at

international competitions, and play a role in improving the performance of Indian Universities at

such competitions.

7.4. A venue for the Annual Moot Camp may be decided through a bidding process at every All

India Moot Conveners Conference, where factors like finances, infrastructure,

organizational ability etc. may be considered. The bids can be voted upon and the winning

bid will be awarded the Annual Moot Camp (or Workshop) for the next year.


8. TIMING OF MOOTS

8.1. Moots must be timed in such a way that the maximum number of Universities can take part.

8.2. On analysis of the academic calendars and examination schedules of various universities, it

has been found that most preferred periods to conduct moots are the windows from

January to March and also from July to September.

8.3. The least preferred periods for the conduct of moots are the months of April, May,

November and December.

9. FUTURE EDITIONS OF THE AIMCC

9.1. The AIMCC will be an annual event.

9.2. A venue for the AIMCC may be decided through a bidding process at the previous AIMCC,

where factors like finances, infrastructure, organizational ability etc. may be considered.

The bids can be voted upon and the winning bid will be awarded the AIMCC for the next

year.

9.3. The AIMCC 2013 will be hosted by Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University,

Lucknow.

10. MISCELLANEOUS

10.1. Institutions must not participate at the Moots being hosted by themselves.

10.2. There should be a verified online database of e-mail IDs of all institutions, on the lines of

Google Groups or similar. This will facilitate ease of access to information as the entire

mooting fraternity can easily be intimated on any matter. The same will be initiated by

Campus Law Center, Delhi.

10.3. The Organizers of every tournament must disclose the cumulative totals along with the win-

loss record at the end of the Preliminary Rounds. Further, a comprehensive score sheet

must be provided to the teams at the end of the Moot. Also, if requested by the teams, the

individual score sheets (filled out by the judges during the rounds) should be made

available at the end of the moot.


10.4. Below is the timeline to followed with respect to the various stages of a Moot:

10.4.1. There should be at least 6 weeks between the release of the problem and the start of

the first prelim round.

10.4.2. There should be at least 4 weeks between the release of the problem and

submission of the soft copy of memorials.

10.4.3. There should be at least 2 weeks between the release of the last clarification and

submission of the soft copy of memorials.

11. INSTITUTIONS AT THE AMICC 2012

11.1. The Following are the Institutions that were represented at the first ever AIMCC

2012, and involved in the drafting of ‘The GUMP’:

11.1.1. Surana and Surana International Attorneys

11.1.2. Organizers of the K.K.Luthra Memorial Moot Court Competition

11.1.3. National Law Institute University, Bhopal

11.1.4. National Law University, Jodhpur

11.1.5. RML National Law University, Lucknow

11.1.6. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi

11.1.7. National Law University, Orissa

11.1.8. Symbiosis Law School, Pune

11.1.9. Government Law College, Mumbai

11.1.10. School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore

11.1.11. Campus Law Center, Delhi

11.1.12. Law Centre-1, Delhi

11.1.13. Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat

11.1.14. Symbiosis Law School, Noida

11.1.15. Institute of Law, Nirma University

11.1.16. School of Law, CUSAT, Kochi

11.1.17. MATS Raipur

11.1.18. New Law Academy, University of Pune

11.1.19. Akola Law College, Akola

11.1.20. RDVV, Jabalpur


ANNEXURE 1

1. A model Draw of Lots table for a Moot with 44 teams has been reproduced below. This table ensures the following:

1.1. That no team is judged by the same judge (or set of judges) twice.

1.2. That no team faces the same opposition twice.

1.3. None of Seeded Teams face each other in the Prelim Rounds (In this Model Table 8 teams, number 1 to 8, have been Seeded).

1.4. That every team argues from the side of petitioner and respondent.

1.5. That teams get equal preparation time between rounds (though this may be difficult in case there are an odd number of teams)

1.6. That the pick of a single chit (with a numbers from 1 to 44 in this case) will decide who the teams will be judged by, who their opponents are for

both the rounds, which side they are in each round, and what time both of their rounds are.

2. The Judges in each courtroom will always remain fixed. At the very least, even if judges are being replaced, they will not interchanged or replaced by

judges from other courtrooms. This is so as the Draw of Lots table ensures that no team is judged by the same judge twice. 3. The Draw of Lots table (in the format given below) can be handed out to all the team before the start of the Draw of Lots session. 4. The teams may then pick up a chit (with numbers from 1 to 44 in this case) which will tell them all that they need to know, simply by looking into the

Draw of Lots table which has already been handed out to them.

Documents

GUMP 2012