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:

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

speaker from team opposition.

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

The Prime Minister had stated,

(insert your rebuttal)

Assume in Chennai or New York,

A local referendum on policing budgets and policy would be misguided for

several reasons. Firstly, citizens may lack the necessary expertise to make
informed decisions on complex policing issues, leading to potential
misallocation of resources. Moreover, emotional decision-making and biases
may influence voting, resulting in policies that target specific groups,
perpetuating discrimination. Special interest groups may also exploit the
referendum process, prioritizing their own interests over the greater good.
Furthermore, the lengthy and resource-intensive referendum process would
divert attention and funds away from pressing policing issues not mentioning
the logistical challenges and failed accountability of law makers involved.
This brings me to my first point,

Local referendums on policing budgets and policies risk being hijacked by

special interest groups or individuals, such as police unions or wealthy business
leaders, who may use their influence and resources to sway decisions in their
favor.

Special interest groups, such as police unions or wealthy business leaders, often
have substantial resources and influence that can sway public opinion and
referendum outcomes in their favor.

This influence can potentially lead to biased or skewed decisions that prioritize
specific interests over broader community needs or equitable policing practices.
Numerous examples exist where special interest groups have successfully
influenced referendum outcomes on various issues, including policing policies.

For instance, in some cities, police unions have campaigned vigorously for
increased budgets and fewer oversight measures, leveraging their organizational
resources and community ties to sway public sentiment.

Special interest groups often contribute significant financial resources to

campaign efforts, funding advertisements, rallies, and outreach programs
designed to sway public opinion in favor of their preferred policies. This
financial backing can give them a disproportionate voice in the referendum
process compared to ordinary citizens or community advocacy groups.

In Mumbai, a local referendum on policing budgets and policy could go awry,

as seen in the case of the 2022 referendum in the upscale neighborhood of
Bandra. Wealthy businessman, Rajesh , spearheaded a campaign to divert police
funds towards increased security measures in affluent areas, leveraging his
influence and resources to sway voters. As a result, the referendum allocated a
disproportionate 70% of the policing budget towards elite security initiatives,
leaving marginalized communities like the Dharavi slum with inadequate
resources to address their unique safety concerns.

Relying solely on local referendums to determine policing budgets and policies

undermines the need for expert analysis, long-term planning.

Moving on to my second point,

Local referendums on policing budgets and policies would lead to unstable and
fragmented decision-making, as different communities would make different
decisions based on their unique circumstances.

Policing requires coordinated efforts to effectively maintain public safety,

respond to emergencies, and uphold law and order across jurisdictions.
Decision-making through local referendums, influenced by the specific
priorities and perceptions of each community, risks creating inconsistencies
and inefficiencies in policing strategies. This fragmentation could hinder law
enforcement agencies' ability to coordinate efforts, share resources, and respond
promptly to emergencies that require seamless collaboration.

Communities within a region often have varying demographics, crime rates,

and public safety concerns. For example, urban areas might prioritize
community policing and social services to address underlying causes of crime,
while rural communities may focus on enhancing response times and
expanding patrol coverage. Referendums could lead to divergent policy
directions that complicate regional policing strategies and resource allocation.

For example, in a city, A local referendum proposes policing budgets. Suburbs

seek high-tech security and rapid responses, while urban areas prioritize
community policing and social services. Rural regions emphasize emergency
response. This diversity risks fragmenting strategies and resource allocation.
Suburban demands might overshadow urban and rural needs, creating
inconsistencies and inefficiencies in policing.

Moving on to my third point,

Local referendums on policing budgets and policies would impose substantial

logistical demand and administrative burdens, detracting from essential
policing duties.

Policing requires consistent focus on crime prevention, emergency response,

and community safety. Requiring frequent referendums to decide budgets and
policies would divert significant resources—both financial and personnel—from
these critical responsibilities. Police departments would be compelled to
allocate considerable time and effort towards organizing and managing
referendum logistics, potentially compromising their ability to effectively
address public safety concerns in a timely manner.

Policing requires consistent focus on crime prevention, emergency response,

and community safety. Requiring frequent referendums to decide budgets and
policies would divert significant resources—both financial and personnel—from
these critical responsibilities. Police departments would be compelled to
allocate considerable time and effort towards organizing and managing
referendum logistics, potentially compromising their ability to effectively
address public safety concerns in a timely manner.

For instance, in a hypothetical city where a referendum is held to determine

policing budgets, the police department would need to dedicate resources to
educate voters, prepare ballots, and manage the voting process. This
administrative burden could lead to delays in decision-making and operational
disruptions, as officers and administrators are pulled away from their primary
duties of patrolling neighborhoods and responding to emergencies.
Moving on to my fourth point,

Conducting local referendums for basic policy decisions undermines the role of
elected lawmakers whose very job is to frame policies. It creates a scenario
where lawmakers can evade accountability diminishing public trust in
democratic governance.

Elected lawmakers are entrusted with the responsibility to represent their

constituents, engage in informed debate, and make policy decisions based on
comprehensive analysis and public interest. Introducing frequent referendums
on policy matters, including policing budgets, risks sidelining the legislative
process and weakening democratic accountability. Lawmakers could potentially
abdicate their responsibility to make difficult decisions, instead relying on
referendums to avoid accountability for contentious issues.

The legislative process is designed to incorporate diverse viewpoints, expert

advice, and public input through hearings, debates, and consultations.
Referendums, while promoting direct democracy, may bypass these deliberative
processes, limiting opportunities for nuanced understanding and compromise
in policy-making.

Overly frequent referendums or plebiscites can lead to voter fatigue and

disillusionment with the democratic process.

All this sums up to the fact that relying on local Referunds is not the way to go
ahead.

Supremely proud to oppose the motion. Thank You.