SEMI FINALS

This House Supports Legal Realism in Jurisprudence

PROPOSITION

Good morning to everyone present, This is Sanjay Senthilnathan, the second

speaker from team proposition.

I will be rebutting the points made by the leader of opposition and putting
forth further points on behalf of the government and reinforcing the stand
made by the Prime Minister.

The leader of opposition stated,

(insert your rebuttal)

Imagine this case,

A, a qualified software engineer, sues her employer for gender discrimination

after being passed over for a promotion in favor of a less experienced male
colleague. While a formalist judge would focus strictly on documented evidence
and company policies, potentially dismissing her case without clear proof of
bias, a realist judge would consider broader factors like workplace culture, past
promotion patterns, and implicit biases. This nuanced approach might reveal
systemic discrimination and lead to a ruling in X's favor, highlighting the
strengths of legal realism in addressing complex social issues within the legal
system.
This brings me to my first point,

Laws cannot just be applied in a vacuum and to ensure true justice other factors
should also be taken into consideration.

Legal realism states that the application of law should not be confined to a rigid
framework of rules and statutes. Instead, it acknowledges that the law interacts
with a complex array of human behaviors and societal contexts. Unlike legal
formalism, which treats the law as an autonomous, logical system, legal realism
insists on recognizing the nuances of each case.

Judges, under legal realism, are encouraged to go beyond the written word to
consider the real-world implications of their decisions. By integrating factors
such as the socio-economic background of the parties involved, historical
injustices, and prevailing social norms, legal realism ensures that the law is
applied in a manner that is both relevant and fair.

In the iconic Roe v. Wade (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
Constitution protects a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. It
exemplifies legal realism by considering more than just the historical legal
precedents. The Court recognized the profound impact of restrictive abortion
laws on women's personal and bodily autonomy. It also took into account the
broader social and health consequences of denying access to safe and legal
abortions, understanding that such restrictions could lead to significant harm.
Moreover, the ruling was responsive to the evolving societal shifts and
increasing demand for reproductive rights, adapting legal principles to
contemporary issues and the lived realities of women.

By embracing legal realism, the judiciary can make decisions that are not only
legally sound but also socially just. This approach aligns legal outcomes with
the evolving standards of fairness and equality in our society.

Moving on to my next point,

Legal realism enhances the responsibility of adjudicators and judges by
requiring them to transparently explain their decisions, thereby preventing
them from hiding behind rigid legal frameworks.

In a legal system dominated by formalism, judges often justify their decisions

solely by referring to existing rules and precedents, without addressing the
broader implications of their rulings. This approach can obscure their personal
influence and the real-life context of their decisions, allowing them to evade
accountability for the impact of their judgments.

Legal realism, in contrast, encourages judges to engage deeply with the societal,
economic, and human factors surrounding each case. This approach compels
judges to provide a clear rationale for their decisions that goes beyond a mere
recital of legal texts. By doing so, they must own their interpretations and
consider the broader consequences of their rulings. This transparency not only
fosters greater public trust in the judiciary but also ensures that judicial
decisions are fair, equitable, and relevant to contemporary issues

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of recognizing same-sex marriage as a

constitutional right. The Court's decision went beyond merely applying existing
legal doctrines; it considered the significant social and personal impacts of
denying marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Moving on to my third point,

Laws often contain inherent ambiguity, which frequently grants judges

significant discretion in reaching verdicts

Legal texts, by their nature, are not always precise and can be subject to
different interpretations. This ambiguity arises due to vague language,
conflicting provisions, or gaps in legislative intent. As a result, judges are often
tasked with interpreting and applying laws in ways that best fit the
circumstances of each case. While legal formalism may suggest a strict
adherence to textual interpretations, legal realism recognizes that such
interpretations can overlook the nuanced realities that laws are meant to
address.

Consider the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the
Supreme Court of India expanded the scope of personal liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution. The Court interpreted "procedure established by law" to
mean a fair, just, and reasonable procedure, thereby enhancing individual
freedoms beyond literal statutory interpretations.

By embracing legal realism, the judiciary ensured that laws evolve to meet
contemporary challenges and uphold principles of justice and fairness.

Legal realism encourages judges to consider not only the letter of the law but
also its spirit and societal context. This approach acknowledges that laws
cannot always anticipate every scenario and that judicial discretion is essential
for adapting legal principles to changing circumstances.

Legal Realism forms the basis of a fair, just and society that is equitable in all
ways.

Supremely Proud to propose. Thank You.

FINALS

THW require policing budgets and policy to be decided by local referendum.

Opposition: