From Moot Court to the Delhi High Court | A Conversation with an NLIU Student ft. Yajat

Interview Summary

The interview follows Yajat, a second-year law student at NLIU Bhopal, through two early legal experiences: winning his first moot court competition and arguing his own case in connection with problems he said affected CLAT 2025.

Winning His First Moot

• Yajat and his team won the 2nd Symbiosis Moot Court Competition. It was his first moot, and he described the win as a joyful surprise, even though the team felt during the round that their arguments had gone well.
• He met his co-speaker, Parvi, through a literary society meeting and invited her to team up after seeing her presentation. They became friends during preparation rather than being friends beforehand.
• NLIU’s first-year moot selection process involved an internal competition. Students received rankings based on performance, and those rankings helped determine team assignments.
• The team divided its main speaking responsibilities by issue: Parvi took the first issue and Yajat the second. Both nevertheless worked to understand both issues, since judges could question either speaker on either one.
• Their researcher, Adita, helped locate relevant legal material, develop arguments on a relatively new question involving AI and Article 21, and assist with the memorial’s drafting, formatting, and citations.
• The team prepared for about two months, from receiving the moot materials in late January to competing in late March. They sought help from a professor, senior students, fellow students, and graduates. The team also completed five practice rounds with students and alumni.
• Yajat stressed that disagreements are best handled through calm, open discussion—and a willingness to change one’s mind when another person’s reasoning is persuasive.
• The team used AI as a research aid, not as a source of text to copy directly. They used it to simplify concepts and identify possible precedents, then checked suggested authorities against legal databases. Yajat said they applied a triple-check process to material they relied on.
• The competition involved changing confidence about which side had the stronger case. The team initially found the respondent’s position more persuasive, but further reading and research helped them develop the applicant’s arguments. They ultimately argued for the applicant in the final and won.
• Yajat praised the competition’s organisation, hospitality, and opportunities to meet judges and other legal professionals. He also noted that nerves are normal—even experienced lawyers feel them—but can ease once a speaker begins presenting.
• The host shared her own experience of an unexpectedly unsuccessful moot result, reinforcing that moot outcomes can be unpredictable and do not always match a team’s assessment of its performance.

Appearing in Court Over CLAT 2025 Concerns

• Yajat said he filed a petition after identifying problems with CLAT 2025, including alleged errors in questions and answer keys. He pursued the matter in court and personally argued his case before the Delhi High Court, appearing virtually.
• He said his family supported his decision, and that a senior counsel encouraged him because he understood the problems as a candidate affected by them. A lawyer helped prepare the paperwork and gave him basic guidance on courtroom procedure, presentation, and attire.
• Yajat described the experience as stressful: he felt the outcome mattered greatly to his future, and the wider exam process had left him distressed and anxious. He said that after the results he withdrew from others and slept excessively to avoid thinking about what had happened. He credited family support and reading about people who had faced difficult circumstances with helping him cope.
• He argued that problems with major entrance exams require accountability and follow-through, saying that proposals or committees alone are not enough if recommendations are not implemented or made public.
• His court appearance was livestreamed and drew both gratitude from aspirants and criticism on social media. He said the supportive messages from people affected by the issue mattered to him despite the online backlash.

Broader Reflections

• Yajat said he is interested in litigation and plans to explore different areas of law as he continues his studies.
• The conversation’s broader lessons include taking initiative, preparing thoroughly, seeking feedback, working constructively with teammates, verifying AI-generated research, and accepting that both legal proceedings and competitions can be uncertain.
• The transcript’s spellings of some names and details are unclear because of automatic captioning.

Speakers and Sources Featured

• Rashmi Jain — host of the interview.
• Yajat — NLIU Bhopal student and moot competition winner.

The conversation also refers to Yajat’s teammate Parvi, researcher Adita, NLIU faculty and students, competition judges, lawyers and senior counsel, and a student named Sarak. They are discussed but do not appear as interview speakers in the subtitles.