Saveetha School of Law

Revised Syllabus for Moot Court

CHAPTER I – AN INTRODUCTION TO MOOTING

Introduction
What is mooting?
A.The teams
B.The moot court
In which courts are moot courts set?
A.Description of and difference in a domestic vis-à-vis an international moot court competitions
Where did mooting begin?
How does a moot court differ from a real court?
How is a mock trial different from a typical moot court?
A.Cross-examination and re- examination in a mock trial
B.Contrasting mock trial and moot court
How to choose or draft a good moot problem?
What are the major competitions in India and internationally?

CHAPTER II – HOW TO PRODUCE A MORE EFFECTIVE MEMORIAL OR WRITTEN

SUBMISSION

How are memorials scored?

How does the competition format affect scoring ?
How to approach a moot problem?
A.Read the competition rules
B.Cracking the moot problem
How to prepare skeleton arguments?
How to do research?
How to draft a memorial?
A.Cover Page
B. Table of Contents
C. List of Abbreviations
D. Index of Authorities
E. Statement of Jurisdiction
F. Statement of Facts
G. Summary of Arguments
H.Arguments Advanced Section
I. Prayer
How to edit the memorial?

CHAPTER III - PREPARATIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE JUDGES IN MOOT COURT

How to Address a Judge

A. Importance of Addressing Correctly
B. Addressing Judges as a Term of Art
C. Proper Protocol: Addressing by the Court
D. Miscellaneous Practice Directions
Measures to Introduce Yourself Before the Judges
A. Outset of the Introduction
B. Designations for Participants
C. Designation of the Party
Sample Opening Protocol in Moot Court
A. Introduction of Self and Team
 B. Acknowledgment of the Bench
C. Designation Clarifications
D. Adherence to Formality and Respectful Tone
Conclusion
A. Importance of Protocol in Moot Court Proceedings
B. Continual Adherence to Professionalism and Etiquette

CHAPTER IV - PREPARING TO OUTLINE FACTS AND ADDRESS ISSUES IN MOOT

COURT

Outlining the Facts

A. Introduction to Statement of Facts
B. Elaborating on Details in the Statement of Facts
C. Establishing the Connection between Facts and Law
Identifying Issues and Sub-Contentions
A. Defining Statement of Issues
B. Formulating Sub-Contentions
Presenting Arguments Before the Judges
A. Adequate Preparation
B. Initiating Opening Arguments
C. Handling Judicial Inquiry
D. Crafting Effective Responses
E. Managing Disagreements and Concessions
F. Establishing Trust and Ensuring Fairness
G. Offering Alternative Arguments
H. Anticipating and Naturally Responding to Arguments
Transitioning to Teammates
A. Seamless Handover to Colleagues
B. Maintaining Argument Continuity
C. Concluding Arguments and Prayer
Rebuttal and Surrebuttal Strategies
A. Approach to Rebuttal
B. Responding to Counterarguments
Conclusion
A. Recapitulation of Effective Argumentation Tactics
B. Emphasis on Adaptability in Moot Court Advocacy

CHAPTER V – MOOT PROPOSITIONS

MOOT PROPOSITION – 1
The Republic of Indiana, an independent nation with its own government and laws
established by the 1949 Constitution, is home to the esteemed University of Haseri, founded
under the Haseri University Act of 1990. Recently, on January 25, 2022, the University issued
an order mandating students to adhere to department-specific uniforms or wear attire that
does not disrupt equality, unity, or public order if no dress code is specified. This directive
faced opposition from students who argued that it violated constitutional principles and
fundamental rights.
Further controversy ensued on January 28 when the administration barred ten female students
from a particular community from attending classes for wearing religious or customary attire
alongside the prescribed uniforms. The University justified its actions by citing the order's
prohibition against religious or customary outfits during classes. The issue gained national
attention as students protested and held press conferences.
Miss Ferzin, one of the students barred from attending classes for wearing
religious/customary attire, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before
the High Court on February 15, 2022. She challenged the University's order, contending that
it infringed upon her fundamental rights and exceeded the University's authority. The case
before the High Court on February 20, 2022, involves considerations of fundamental rights,
mandatory uniforms, and the right to wear religious/customary attire in secular institutions,
drawing parallels with the legal framework of the Republic of India.
MOOT PROPOSITION – 2
The Republic of Indiga, a parliamentary democracy and the 7th largest economy globally,
initiated the 'Make in Indiga' program, which included the establishment of a 'Public
Innovation Body' to promote innovative tech projects. M/S Creative AI Ltd, a tech startup,
secured funding from this body to develop advanced AI robots, including 'Raha', an AI
humanoid focused on creating digital art. Despite its success, Raha faced criticism for
allegedly deriving inspiration from internet sources without proper authorization.
Subsequently, a copyright infringement case was filed against M/S Creative AI Ltd by Lidia,
a renowned actress in Indiga. As the legal battle unfolds, the High Court of Waren grapples
with multifaceted issues surrounding AI authorship, originality, fair use, and potential
criminal liability.
Issues for the moot problem:
1. Does the Copyright law of Indiga acknowledge AI humanoids like Raha as the creators of
generated artworks?
2. Does the digital art created by Raha meet the originality criteria outlined in the Copyright
Act?
3. Can the utilization of copyrighted material for training AI be considered fair use/dealing
under the law?
4. Is an AI capable of engaging in criminal offenses according to legal standards?
MOOT PROPOSITION – III
Dr. X, is a highly respected medical professional, is embroiled in a legal battle against the
Principal Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of
Delta, and another party. Delta is a NCT and Union Territory of Govt. of Aksha.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and Medical Termination of Pregnancy
Rules, 2003 - enacted by the Govt. of Aksha excludes the unmarried women and minor girls
from terminating their pregnancies in the term 20-24 weeks, which Dr. X contends are unjust
and unconstitutional. These laws, purportedly aimed at safeguarding public health, have
raised concerns regarding their potential infringement upon Dr. X's fundamental rights
enshrined in the Constitution of Aksha. Dr. X argues that these regulations unduly restrict his
autonomy as a medical practitioner and impede his ability to provide optimal healthcare
services to his patients in Delta.

Moreover, Dr. X asserts that the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of
NCT of Delta, may have overstepped its statutory authority in implementing these Laws. He
contends that the Laws go beyond the department's mandate and encroach upon areas that
should be left to the discretion of individual medical professionals and their patients.

The implications of this case extend beyond Dr. X's personal grievances. It raises broader
questions about the delicate balance between public health interests and individual liberties.
Furthermore, it prompts a closer examination of the scope of governmental authority in
regulating medical practices, particularly in a dynamic and diverse city like Delta.

Ultimately, the outcome of this legal battle will have far-reaching consequences for
healthcare providers, patients, and policymakers alike, shaping the future landscape of
medical practice in Delta and potentially influencing similar regulatory frameworks across
Aksha.

Issues:

1. Whether the regulations imposed by the Health and Family Welfare Department of the
Government of NCT of Delta violate Dr. X's fundamental rights as guaranteed by the
Constitution of India, particularly regarding freedom of profession and personal
liberty.
2. Whether the regulations exceed the statutory authority granted to the Health and
Family Welfare Department, thereby rendering them ultra vires and void.
3. Whether the regulations, while aiming to safeguard public health, unjustly impede Dr.
X's ability to provide optimal healthcare services to his patients in Delta, and if so,
whether such restrictions are justified and proportionate in light of public health
concerns.

MOOT PROPOSITION – IV

In the State of Dharavi, Dhadha, a celebrated folk and Bharatanatyam performer,

crosses paths with Puyal, an Associate Vice President in a multinational corporation,
during a chance encounter after one of Dhadha's performances. Despite their differing
backgrounds and professions, they are drawn to each other and decide to marry, much
to the dismay of their families. Meanwhile, Zareena, a transgender activist, runs an
NGO dedicated to supporting transgender individuals in Dharavi.

As their lives progress, Puyal becomes pregnant, Dhadha earns international

recognition with a nomination to the Academy of World Folk Artists, and Zareena's
NGO receives a substantial funding boost from Kaala LLC, a multinational company.
However, their happiness is short-lived as complications arise. Dhadha's hectic
schedule leaves Puyal feeling neglected, while Zareena discovers an abandoned
newborn and faces discrimination when attempting to provide care.

Tensions escalate between Puyal and Dhadha, leading to a police complaint against
Dhadha and Puyal filing for divorce. Simultaneously, Kaala LLC decides to challenge
discriminatory laws, filing petitions before the Supreme Court regarding Section 377
of the IPC and transgender adoption rights.

Issues:

1. How can the legal system address societal prejudices and familial opposition to the
marriage between Dhadha and Puyal in the context of their differing backgrounds and
professions?

2. What legal avenues are available to address the discrimination faced by Zareena, a
transgender activist, in her attempt to adopt an abandoned child, and how can
transgender adoption rights be protected?

3. What are the legal implications of the allegations against Dhadha and Puyal's
decision to file for divorce, and how should the legal system navigate these
complexities?

4. Is Section 377 of the IPC consistent with the Indian Constitution, particularly
concerning the rights of individuals from the LGBTQIA+ community, including
transgender persons?

5. How should the Supreme Court handle procedural matters such as PILs filed by
Kaala LLC, the tagging of related petitions, and the jurisdictional considerations of
transferred cases in the broader context of addressing constitutional challenges and
societal issues?

References:

1. Moot Courts and Mooting, Author: Abhinadan Malik