The End of Jury Trials – Has it Actually Refined the Indian Legal System?
India Today in its list of 30 land mark judgements included the name of K.M. Nanavati Vs State of Maharashtra 1960.
What is so important of a case in which an agitated and betrayed husband (Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati) killed his wife’s lover (Prem Ahuja), who was also his friend?
This case happen to mark the End of Jury Trials in India.
The Indian Legal system no longer has jury to judge its cases. The Government of India decided to abolish it because the opinion of jury is often coloured and biased. It is at times based on the values and norms shared by the society. The jury consists of common people who are not related to government or legal system. They jugde the cases on merits and not by statutes in absolute terms. Therefore, even if every jury member is instructed not to be influenced by media and public opinion.
In very few cases the jury makes an objective judgement. Whenever they judge a case societal norms, morality and ethics effect the nature of the decision. It is seen in most of the rape cases the accused is held guilty by the jury. But many people have argued that absence of jury trial would not incorporate principles of morality, equity and participation of citizens in the judicial process. I differ in my opinion.
I think absence of trial by jury in our Indian System is a progressive step. It cannot be said that jury alone checks state power. With present judicial activism in the country, the judiciary has emergered as an effective tool against the wrong practices of the government. Moreover in a country like India, where media enjoys ample artistic freedom.
People have always opined their concerns through press. Whether it was Manu Sharma or Zahira or Dhananjay Chatterjee, people have always voiced out their concerns related to the judicial procedure. Not only this, if law is sympathetic in jury trials, then the Indian Legal System is blessed with Article 72 of the Constitution, under which the President of India can grant a pardon or reduce the sentence of a convicted person, particularly in cases involving capital punishment. A similar & parallel power vests in the Governors of each State under Article 161.
The absence of jury trial in country has insured that the law is progressive. I’m sure the decisions of Shah Banu, Best Bakery and Naaz Foundation would have been different if we would still have jury trials in the country.
I agree.. and especially in the recent times when media has assumed the role of an institution which influences the thoughts of the people to a great extent.. if jury system would still have been prevalent in India now, their would hardly have been any difference between ‘media trial’ and ‘jury trial’!!
p.s- for all those interested in this topic, do watch “to kill a mocking bird”, “12 angry men” etc!
the disadvantage of abolition of jury trial is that the accused is at the mercy of trial judge.advocates becme servile for fear of incurring the judges displeasure. corruption goes unchcked.
I agree with you Mr. Desai but somewhere I feel manipulation of jury is an easy task. Moreover avtive participation of judges (who are aware of law) is a better option anyday.
Meghna, where can I find some literature on the PROCESS by which jury trial was abolished in India? Are you aware of any statements by ministers or legal experts? Was there a proper national debate, in the Lok Sabha for instance? Thanks
Madam, i happen to see your article on effects of abolition of jury trial in india(after a long time). It is quite informative. I broadly agree with your view point that this abolition has been a progress in the right direction. However, i may point out another scenario ; to evaluate whether a reform can be done in certain types of criminal trials which are important like multiple murders, trials involving immediate disqualification of sitting MP etc. In such cases the judgement may be pronounced by two judges of the rank of Addl Sessions Judge(instead of single additional sessions judge as happens today) to ensure a system of checks and balances enshrined in our constitution (largely covering cases where the immediate consequential stakes are high). Do we not have bench of two tribunal members be it VAT, Income Tax, Excise, Co-operative tribunal etc. And by and large all these members are also of the status of sessions /district judge and deal with civil nature in all such disputes.
In my opinion trial by jury is better.A judge is also fallible. Jury may illiterate in law.But he is a person from the locality. Chances of perjury by a witness before his fellow countrymen who happens to be of the locality is too remote.My experience as a judge for 30 years is that our people consider the witness box as the safest place to state false hood on oath