This paper critically examines moot court as a pedagogic tool to introduce law students to judicial processes. The purpose is to evaluate whether mooting, as a non-mandatory part of legal education in India, is successful in creating a cadre of competent and creative lawyers in the Bar. There are two inquiries which inform this endeavour—first, the normative structure of moot courts and the inherent limitations of it; second, the experiential flaws of mooting in the Indian context. Since mooting reinforces the rigours of adversarialism in the Indian legal education and subsequently in the judicial working, this aspect is queried to demonstrate the difficulties in embracing the moot court paradigm uncritically. Whilst a lot of Western literature has been helpful in theorising on the structure and purposes of moot courts, there are suitable connections and comparisons made with the pan-Asian approach and the Indian counterpart. Though the theoretical and functional limitations of mooting are explored particularly in the Indian perspective, the lessons can be instructive in other contexts as well—especially those jurisdictions which battle to create a system of practical legal education through mooting which is both enriching for law students and at the same time, worthwhile by itself