Remember the time when a jury presided over court cases? There was no single judge, but rather a bench of 12 members deciding in favour or against.
What if this system was to return? What if we were to
place our already distressed judicial system yet again in the hands of a chosen
committee? Is it better or worse than a single judge presiding over cases? Will
the return of a Jury improve or further dig a hole in the judicial system of
our country?
To answer these questions, we must first reminisce the
last of the Jury cases, the very famous and much discussed Nanavati case.
The Last of the Jury Cases:
The Nanavati case, wherein the accused shot the man his
wife was having an affair with. Allegedly, the accused had pleaded the man to
marry his wife since they were in love, but the man claimed that it wasn’t act
an of love, rather it was a way of getting back at Nanavati. This infuriated
the Navy-man, Nanavati, who then shot him dead.
The indecisiveness of the Jury in this matter laid ground
for a presidential pardon for Nanavati. This marked the last of the Jury Cases
in India.
Possible Reasons for the Obliteration of the
Jury:
Firstly, our constitution has time and again emphasized on the Independence of the Judiciary, placing decisive powers in the
public domain by way of a jury is wrong. It is fallacious in the sense that it
robs the judiciary of its individuality and independence. The Legislative is
for the public domain not the judiciary and these two wings must be kept as far
as possible for the sake of the nation.
Secondly, the jury members are nothing but human with prejudices
and biases. A biased jury can make or break an accused’s life. An impartial
Judge can also be influenced by preconceived notions but the sense of
responsibility weighs the prejudice down. The Jury on the other hand are rarely
unanimous in their decision. The number of biased members may outnumber the
impartial members, in such a case justice may not be delivered.
Thirdly, the Corruption and Bureaucracy in India
makes the Jury a risky venture. Greed for money and power is worse than
prejudice governing a jury member. The jury members can be influenced by these
bureaucrats who want to tip every scale in their favour thereby reducing our
judicial set-up to shambles.
Fourthly, the Criteria for Selection of Jury Members
undermines the quality of the courts. Jury comprises of people from different
walks of life who may not posses as much judicial knowledge. The course of
action certainly lies with the appointment of judges who are highly qualified
in dealing with the law.
Lastly, a jury Lacks Reasonable Judgement and Transparency in its proceedings. Juries are more likely to be swayed in
their decision by subjecting them to emotions or irrationality. Something that
may closely represent happenings in their personal life cannot and should not
influence judgements.
What Would Happen if the Jury Were to Make a
Come-Back?
Imagine if a single judge system was to become redundant
and the jury were to make a comeback. A 12- member bench would now be
responsible for delivering justice once again.
The late 1900’s was strikingly different in terms of
tolerance, the Jury acted on their discretion without fearing the ruling party.
Now, that the foundation of democracy feels more like an autocracy and
one-party rulership, the Jury would be reduced to puppets in the hands of the bureaucrats.
Their decision would be majorly influenced by the high-profile autocrats. At a
time when the government is treating dissent as sedition, India needs a
fearless judge system and not a committee of fearful members to deliver
justice.
Another obstacle in the path is the selection criteria
for the jury. Who is to decide upon the members? On what basis is the selection
to be made? How to decide on which members preside over which case?
If the members strongly
influenced by their biases were to preside over cases that they strongly
resonate with, it would lead to the downfall of our judiciary. In present
times, when religion, race and culture have taken to dispute, it wouldn’t be
wise to resort to a jury system, instead it would flare up more animosity and
revulsion in cases where the jury members and the accused are of different
races/religion/culture or it could also be used as a tool to create differences
and divisions as in the predominant divide and rule set up in India.
Economically too the jury is digging a hole in the pocket
of the government. Paying a single judge is far more economical than paying 12
jury members. The same money can be used for some productive government
spending. The government should use a part of these resources to speed up the
judicial process and eliminate delays.
All these aspects have to be given deep consideration
before even thinking of bringing back the norm of a jury. Speedy and prudent
justice must be the only criteria for selecting a judicial facility.
With the 21st century India completely fixated
on development and positive growth, bringing back an age-old system of the jury
would be a step in the backward direction. India must look at better
prospects of strengthening the judiciary by way of quality education, rigorous
hands-on training and laying the foundation of an aware, non- prejudiced and
non-corrupt society.
Written By – Tushna Choksey
Social