JURY SYSTEM OF INDIA IN THE CURRENT TIMES: ABOLISHED OR NOT?

ABSTRACT:

Jury as a whole concept in India is very ancient, though the westernized system of a jury, dates back to the time of British ruled India and the influence of the same can be noted in cases that took place in that era. The system; with time evolved, began compassing Indians and their narratives when and where required. Though there were changes with time, it did not sustain. The jury system started proving to be dangerous and unethical. It can be observed in the verdicts passed by the jury that time. The decline of jury trials happened when a series of controversial verdicts that were passed by the jury which were considered unconstitutional by the majority of the people. The question that still stands till date is whether the jury system still exists in the current judicial system for trials; is it abolished or does it have certain terms to being in use.

KEYWORDS:

The following are the keywords for the paper:

Jury, judicial system, verdict, delegates, justice and abolish.

INTRODUCTION:

The concept of jury is ancient as it dates back to nearly the Vedic period but the westernized form of jury leaves its traces in the time of British ruled India. Interpreting the working of the jury was very closely linked with the working of Panchayti Raj, which existed widespread across the nation. As far as the system and its norms of establishment, it was done by the Brit and used their working structure as base for introducing the same in India as well. The jury is a bench of 6 or 12 people selected in the open court from the attending common people, on acceptance by both the parties, to avoid allegations of governmental prejudice. The judge would explain the basic working of the applicable laws of that particular case to the jury who would later on examine and apply the same to determine the outcome of the trial.

Interestingly the working of the jury pulled through 1665 to the late 1960s. It was after that, concerns regarding the working of the jury were raised and still are in question until date. The debate surrounding this topic has spiked many interesting insights of various judges, lawyers, advocates and jurists themselves. From people supporting the existence of jury as a system to people ripping out the passed verdicts by them, there exists all. Till date there is no clear picture which states the abolishment or existence of jury trials in the Indian Legal System. The impact that the jury has held can never be dismissed, as a result it has given some verdicts which are still used in law schools.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The following paper can be considered as descriptive in nature. The information taken are from secondary sources for the deep analysis of the jury system in the current times. Sources like various journals, articles, newspapers, and internet websites are used to compile the said research. Cases that have taken place and the jury has given verdicts for which are used extensively to support various claims and statements.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

1. The literature around the concept jury as a whole is extremely vast. It holds data about the establishment, the working of the jury in ancient times, the jury’s influence in judicial trials, the decline of jury and the reason for the same along with the current status of involvement of jury in the judicial administration.

2. From the ancient ways of working to today, the terms of jury differ in many perspectives. Due to reasons like personal biases and unworthy verdicts, the guidelines for who and how the jury, if there is to be, has to function.

3. There is vast and detailed discussion on how and why certain situations have led to the current system of the jury. The mentioning of cases that have had heavy influence on overall understanding and requirement of a jury has been made.

ESTABLISHING JURY IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM:

The first jury trial in India was in the year 1664, when Mrs. Ascentia Dawes murdered an employee slave girl. The jury was typically a bench of 6 or 12 members chosen from the public to judge, analyze, and give the verdict for a case. The British with their ideas, laws, and appearance as the members of the jury heavily influenced the jury structure. The first trial bench of the jury consisted of six Englishmen and six Portuguese men. Indians as members of the bench were much later recognized. It was first started as a practice in the courts of the presidency towns of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, slowing making an entrance into other court rooms as well. It was considered as a requirement in criminal cases.

THE NANAVATI TRIAL:

The case of K.M Nanavati v/s State of Maharashtra (AIR 612 SC 605) 1959, which is considered as one of the most controversial cases in the history of events occurred.

The trial revolves around the alleged murder of Prem Ahuja who was a businessperson, by Kawas Maneckshaw Nanavati, who was a commander in the Indian Navy. The said murder took place upon finding out his wife Sylvia Nanavati, had an affair with Prem Ahuja. The masses of the country had a split opinion on who is to be blamed for the said murder. There were narratives that supported the commander’s action, saying that a home wrecker deserves a punishment whereas the supporters of Prem Ahuja called it a crime of passion. Another section of people held Sylvia Nanavati responsible, as she should have made decisions that are more appropriate while some felt compassion for her as she was longing for love, care and affection that was missing as her husband was on duty for nine months on a ship.

Though Nanavati confessed to Inspector John Lobo upon shooting Prem Ahuja, which got him charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and all instances and situations argued in the court were merely stories, the majority of the jury found him not guilty. There were eyewitnesses, motive to commit the crime, stable mindset, and access to the murder weapon, the initial decision was in his favor. With support for Nanavati from external forces and big media houses like Blitz, the trial turned from a case of murder to maintaining the dignity of the forces and painting the commander as a hero in the eyes of the public. The judge B.K. Mehta overruled the jury’s verdict as it was a majority decision of 8-1, but not unanimous. The case further went to the High Court where the bench sentenced him for life imprisonment. There was a further appeal to the Supreme Court where they upheld the decision of the High Court.

Later on, he came out on parole temporarily and further on was released on the plea petition that was signed by many people including the sister of the dead Prem Ahuja; Mamie Ahuja. The above discussed case has intrigues public discussions even at present, through films, web series, etc. It pressed breaks on the continuation of jury trials in India. However, this was not the last case of jury trial.

THE LAST NAIL IN THE COFFIN – KOLKATA CASE:

The infamous Nanavati trial gained all the eyes due to being controversial and dramatic in nature, there became a clamor about it being the last case heard by the jury. Contradicting of which, it is actually a case in Kolkata, West Bengal; which happens to be one of the last cases to be tried in front of the jury. The case involved two communist activists namely, Prabhakar Chandra De and Rabindranath Chandra De being charged of murder of Dipak Sarkar, who was a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), opposing the Congress, whose members are the accused. The year of 1967, saw many changes with constant hartals, strikes due to food shortages and increasing prices, which was putting the regular public in a state of anguish. The same year were the general elections, which the CPI (M) won.

Exchange of arguments and attacks became a part of the rivalry amongst the mentioned parties, following to which under one such situation was Dipak Sarkar stabbed by the two accused along with a couple of more men, while leaving from a salon. He was declared dead by the time he was taken to the hospital. The accused had fled and finally were found in the month of October, charged with Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code after which a jury trial was arranged where they were convicted for murder. They retried in the Calcutta High Court where the last jury hearing was held in 1973. The defendants were charged with many other accusations, which bore eyewitnesses as well, yet the jury was of the opinion that they are not guilty and gave a unanimous verdict. Giving the jury the due respect, the judge filed the verdict given by the jury.

The mentioned case has considerably less public knowledge and information due to it being political in nature. Thus, marking the end of jury trials in India.

THE SLOPE DOWNWARDS:

With time, the jury lost its importance as people started considering it to be biased and partial. There were instances that curbed the idea of removal of jury as a whole.

The decline of the jury system came after the two cases; the infamous Nanavati Trial and the Kolkata political murder case. There were questions being raised on the legitimacy, righteousness and partial behavior of the jury. In such situations, the public started thinking that the jury were making decisions favoring certain accused.

1. Partiality of the jury

This was one of the major concerns surrounding the existence of jury, as there were a series of cases where there was a majority opinion being that the jury was picking sides before even the presentation of evidence and arguments due to political or personal connections and perspectives. During British India, the British domination on the bench led to the favoring of verdicts. After a certain point, there were biases based on personal gains as well. Justice was taking a step back in such circumstances.

2. Emotional Outpour

As humane emotions and correlating them to a case may sound, it does not sound or prove to be just in the judicial system. The people of the jury were picked from the regular crowd of the public who may or may not have legal knowledge; following which there was a hindrance of smooth performance in the justice regime. Sentiments have a very imperative value in law. It can change the course of flow of the case at the very base level. Emotional decisions can prove to be unfair in a legal setting. Functionality of legal processes do not base themselves on emotions but on the facts and evidences presented in a court of law.

3. Existence of Bribes and Threats

Using the force of threats and bribes to the jury may be unconstitutional but still existed. The jury members were a group of regular people called in the court of law to help with decision-making; but not given any kind of special protection. Though instances of pressurizing the judges have also been seen, there exists protection and powers with the judge to fight against it. The party, which had access to money and workforce, would use it to turn the verdict in their favor, which was turning to be a problem in the functioning of serving justice. Such situations are against the very basic idea of law being ‘equality before law’.

4. External Decision Makers

In the times of high-profile cases, media and newspapers tend to play an important role as they end up shaping opinions of not only the jury members but also the public. The influence is of an extent where the case can be either built or broken by them. The biggest example being the Nanavati Trial where the newspaper house, Blitz, run by R.K. Karanjia, was in support of the commander’s actions made it a point to deliver the same to the rest of the people by using his weapon of media. It was clear that there was a heavy influence of the articles published in Blitz as not just the commoners but at the end even the jury found K.M. Nanavati to not have committed a breach of law even though the evidences were against him since the beginning of time. This sort of action not only changed the course of the case, it might have changed the verdict of the case as well. Such peer pressure created an unjust way of ruling in the judicial system.

CURRENT CONFUSION:

As far as the evolution and decline of the said system is concerned, people were roughly aware of it. What is in question today, is what the status of jury trial is in today’s times. The confusion of whether jury trials are held for civil and criminal cases even today is significant. If so, then what are the remedies to avoid the raised concerns in previous times and if not, then has the system as a whole been abolished? Not to anyone’s surprise, these questions are valid and natural. Our judicial system has various tiers and exemptions to it. The main reason, this narrative has spiked discussions, is because there are still vague opinions but no concrete statement that support or deny the existence of the jury.

CURRENT STANCE:

It is safe to say that though there has been a decline to such a rate that it was believed that the jury structure is dissolved but to contradict that, the system still exists, with different criteria, powers and even name. The practice is yet to be abolished, as it has been a part of the judicial system for decades together at this point. Concerns still subsist but some integral communities of the nation still stand by this practice. The most prominent is the Parsi community as the system of jury still is in complete relevance in the Parsi Matrimonial Courts.

THE MATRIMONIAL AFFAIR:

The Parsi matrimonial courts at the high court and district courts, continue with the jury system as though it was never in question. The then known jurists are called as delegates in the Parsi Matrimonial Courts which abide by the laws which come under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. The delegates sit in a bench 20 or 30 alongside the judge and help preside over the cases. The delegates are elected for the course of 10 years and come in the bracket of public servants (IPC Sec 45). The major criteria to appoint or elect a candidate as a delegate, is them being Parsi by religion. No person who does not follow the religion can be a delegate under whatsoever circumstances. The power to appoint the delegates rests with the state government and is officiated by a publication in the Official Gazette. Individuals appointed or elected as the delegates are bestowed by the sense of duty for which they closely work with the judges.

TRIBUNALS:

As different as the concept and functioning of the tribunal may seem, it does co-relate to the structure of a jury. A tribunal consists of a judge and a technical member as a bench. A technical member ranges from people who have knowledge on accountancy/law/management/finance/labor matters etc., which cover most of the mainstream employment options. The elective process of the same is indifferent to that of a jury but the idea that it follows, co-relates to a jury. The establishment of the first tribunal, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was in the year 1941 that took up cases of tax and tax related issues. With time, the horizons of tribunals expanded to armed forces, labor, company law, VAT, railway, etc. each having a tribunal of its own. However, tribunals are statutory in nature, and courts of law are constitutional, their functioning holds no difference. To ensure the independence of tribunals, it shifted from the Finance Ministry to the Ministry of Law and Justice as the ITAP’s formation was through the Income Tax Act, 1961. The working of the bench of the tribunals is different from that of a jury, but it does have its share of similarities. It is a more constructive form of a jury, with proper criteria of selection and powers and required knowledge.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS:

There has not been just an evolution of the jury under the judicial system but a change of narratives keeping the base idea intact. Noticing this change even shows how the legal system has adapted and enacted towards delivering just and apt decisions. The concept however is said to be replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is yet to be documented on the same. As far as personal opinions concern, the jury was a threat to society and the judiciary. It did give verdicts which not only served injustice but also set a wrong precedent for the cases to come in the future. Investing powers in the hands of people who have not trained themselves in the field of law could prove nothing but to be harmful. Biases and unfit legal behavior cannot have a place in the delivery of justice. Jury was introduced as a way to structure the legal system by replacing the indigenous Panchayati Raj. Westernizing the criminal legal organization was the motive, which failed to serve its purpose with time. It was not only two of the discussed cases in the paper where the jury failed to provide justice, but many more innocent lives have seen the face of injustice during the term of jury trials. The current working of the Tribunals and selections for it, gives the forum a meaning and behavior to it. People are a still a part of the justice system but only when they have the knowledge and experience for it. As for the abolishing of the jury is not on paper, in the minds of the people, it is a story read and forgotten for good.

REFERENCES AND CITATIONS:

[1] Mike McKneely, How Jurors Can Affect Criminal Trials, freenocriminalattorney (Jul 10, 2017)

https://www.fresnocriminalattorney.com/juror-bias-can-affect-criminal-trials

[2] S. Muthiah, The Towers of Justice, TheHindu (Jul 04, 2017)

https://www.thehindu.com/society/history-and-culture/the-towers-of-justice/article19204445.ece

[3] Soubhrata Bhattacharya, The Jury System in India and its Decline, blog.iPleaders (Nov 07, 2021)