Pressing writ jurisdiction too far: Delhi High Court refuses to entertain plea alleging arbitrariness in NLU Delhi moot court competition

The Delhi High Court today refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Utkal University students alleging arbitrariness in an inter-college moot court competition organised by National Law University, Delhi (Debashish Panda & Ors v. NLU Delhi)..Dismissing the petition, the Bench of Justice Jayant Nath held,."This is pressing writ jurisdiction too far. There is hardly any issue."Delhi High Court said. .The grievance of the petitioners was that they were eliminated from the inter-college moot court competition on the basis of the memorial submission, and without disclosure of the marks obtained by all participants. .The Court was informed that as per the initial result declared by NLU Delhi, the petitioners were said to have qualified to the second round. However, due to some undisclosed error in the marking, the result was updated and petitioners were undeclared as eliminated. .At the very outset, Justice Nath questioned the role of a court in a moot court competition. "How can a moot court be part of a court proceeding?".Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Pinky Anand argued that moot courts were now an integral part of the curriculum in law schools and thus, there was a need for the Bar Council of India to issue guidelines to govern the same. .Stating that the moot court in question was held in an arbitrary and capricious manner, Anand sought a direction to set aside the result. .Appearing for NLU Delhi, Advocate Rajshekar Rao submitted that the competition was already over, and there was no point in dragging the university, the Vice-Chancellor and other authorities into litigation. .Acknowledging that "disappointment" was part and parcel of moot courts, Rao explained that the evaluation of the memorial was undertaken by external evaluators and NLU Delhi had no interest in the results so declared. ."If there is a case of malafide, that specific allegation must come out", Rao said. .After hearing the parties, the Court decided not to interfere in the matter..Stating that a Right to Information (RTI) application could have been filed to get information on the marks obtained by the petitioners, the Court dismissed the plea. ."It's not like something is snatched from you.. Are they obliged to hold a moot court?", the Court said. .The Court nonetheless said that the marks of the petitioners and the last qualifying team may be shared. . The petition was accordingly dismissed.