All You Want to Know About Social Justice Debate of Anjali Ramanujan

I’ve been taught, as has every law student, that definitions are extremely important. So, in order to have a productive discussion today, we’ll need a working definition of the notion at the heart of this motion, social justice.

We see and hear this word a lot; it’s all over Instagram, news infographics, and school lesson plans, and it’s a favorite phrase of anyone who wants to look progressive, whether it’s politicians or just your friend who recently started attending rallies. It’ll almost certainly be included in the response you get from some law students.

As an American, assuming my accent doesn’t give it away, I’m used to these pledges being written down in a central document, yet those same ideas aren’t written down anywhere.

The enlightenment ideals of liberty, justice, and equality are also deeply rooted in this country, so now that we’ve defined the key term for tonight.

My argument is simple: if we agree that these ideas matter and that legislators should consider them when enacting legislation, then we must accept that judges should consider them when interpreting the law.

Social Justice Debate of Anjali Ramanujan

Ireland’s anti-homosexuality legislation strikes me as an excellent example of the judiciary fostering social justice. I’ll make my case in two parts: first, the task of interpreting and declaring the law, which is the task of judges, always involves the introduction of bias.

Second, the electoral process in democracies inherently and structurally fails minority groups, and the courts have an opportunity to ameliorate this; and third, the electoral process in democracies inherently and structurally fails minority groups, and the courts have an opportunity to ameliorate this. So first, the task of judges interpretation necessarily assigns some character. 

Though the principles of statutory interpretation compel UK supreme court judges to interpret legislation in line with the goal that it was meant to achieve, the truth is that a judge’s values will influence their understanding of the law and hence the manner in which they interpret the law.

We must acknowledge that even that instruction allows for human decision-making; otherwise, there would be no use in having judges at all.

The common problem, as Amy so eloquently points out, is that the judiciary is older, more male, and, while wider than parliament, it is not without its flaws.

Simply put, we want judges to be concerned about the ideals that we should hold as a society, and second, before I go any further, a quick disclaimer:

I’ve only taken one term of UK constitutional law, whereas I have a decade’s worth of schooling that covers UK supreme and u.s supreme court decisions, and you’ll probably be able to tell that from what I say next, which is that in the United States, the courts have long been the forum for Brown v. Board of Education was one of the first cases I learned about.

Final Conclusion on Social Justice Debate of Anjali Ramanujan

We really hope that you all have liked this article really very much. In case, if you have liked this article then kindly share the same with your friends and family too.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

x