The National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad (Nalsar) was host to the 1^st Prof. Vepa P. Sarathi Memorial Chamber Debate on February 8, 2012. The debate was one of a series of events plannned to commemorate one of the most loved teachers at Nalsar: Professor Vepa P. Sarathi.

The highly respected Prof Vepa P. Sarathi, who passed away on January 25, 2012 aged 96, was an inspiring figure for legions of Nalsar graduates. A legal luminary and author of many texts Prof. Sarathi (pictured below right)  was, perhaps more importantly, someone who encouraged open discussion and debate. “He always encouraged us to question things.....his dedication was truly inspring” says Puneeth Nagaraj, member of the Nalsar Student Bar Council and debate participant.

The debate was a modification of the hugely successful chamber debates organized at Oxford and Cambridge. “Instead of having eminent personalities to speak at the event, we had them moderate the event and had student speakers instead....This sort of debating is not [popular] in India, we mostly have parliamentary style debating.”, explains Nagaraj.

The pre-decided motion for the debate was “This House will legalise facilitation payments in developing countries” and was moderated by Prof Timothy Endicott from Oxford University and Chris Parsons from internationl law firm Herbert Smith . Both the moderators had worked on the issue of faciliation payments and hence were ideal candidates, says Nagaraj.

“Facilitation payments”, often considered a lesser form of bribery, is a term used to describe the practice of paying bureaucrats money or gifts to expedited routine government actions. While some argue that this is a realistic approach towards reducing corruption, there are those who feel that it will only institutionalise and propogate corruption in society.

The Proposition (consisting of 4^th year students Nagaraj and Anjaneya Das) argued, inter alia, that faciliation payments are a pragmatic “middle ground” in the fight against corruption and can even be seen as a legitimate option to boost government revenue. Not only this, such payments could also provide incentives for improving governmental efficiency provided, of course, that these incentives are backed by “stringent accountability mechanisms”.

The Opposition (made up of 4^th year students Jagdish Menezes and Sourav Roy) argued, inter alia, that facilitation payments would only encourage a “culture of corruption” and will result in “non-discretionary” duties to become purely discretionary. The Opposition argued that, instead, time-bound delivery mechanisms must be introduced along with greater investment in “e-governance” which reduces the role of government officials.

Once each speaker completed his speech, the moderators engaged the speakers with questions on the topic and content of the speech. At the end of all four speeches, the floor was opened to the audience to put forth their questions to a speaker of their choice. These questions could be on the content of the speaker’s speech or the response to a moderator’s query.

After each side was done with their respective speeches, Prof. Endicott and Parsons (pictured left to right) identified the key clashes between the teams without taking a stance on the issue itself. The motion was then put forth to the audience to vote, with the Opposition winning with a margin of 46:11.

The debate is just one of several events planned by Nalsar to commemorate the late Prof. Sarathi and it is hoped that his memory will continue to inspire and encourage future generations of law students.