Evolution of the Indian Jury System

Introduction

Justice has been the foundational aspect of mankind since the beginning of time. In the gravest of forms, it has highlighted the darkest sides of human beings over time. Justice has also led to the formation of Nations and different communities across the world. However, while the elementary aspect remains the same, the execution of justice differs from Nation to Nation.

Different forms of the State adopted different systems of delivering justice. The Monarchy, Dictatorship and Oligarchy chose a leader, in some cases also hereditary, to govern the people, regulate their actions and punish them in case of any offences. Democracy, on the other hand, chose to give the people a choice to elect their leaders who further governed them and made decisions that were in favour of the public interest. On studying the consequences of the different forms of government, Justice was found to be so vital that it was given the status of being one of the 3 pillars of democracy, alongside the Legislature and the Executive.

With the increase in demand for Nation-building, Justice was seen more as a way to keep the masses happy with the ruling parties and was thus taken seriously. However, the divine connotation given to the rulers must also be credited. This compelled them to ensure the delivery of justice amongst their subjects. It also gave rise to the most democratic form of justice delivery; the Jury System.

What is the Jury System?

A Jury System is a legal set-up where a group of people from the general public are seated to hear the facts of a certain matter and decide upon it. These members are usually called for only in Criminal cases; not Civil matters. The justification for this classification is simply because civil matters involve only two private parties that share a certain relation with one another, whereas, in Criminal trials, the defendant is prosecuted by the State for committing a crime against public security.

The Jury members are also subjected to the Voir Dire. The Voir dire is the process where the legal representatives of both parties are given a chance to question the candidates. Only if both advocates are convinced that the candidate is unbiased, does that individual get a seat on the Jury for that particular case. This practice, however, is a relatively recent one.

The Jury System has been in practice since the time civilisation started. In early Greece, thousands of the common people were placed on a Jury to judge a matter. It was referred to as a Dikastai, where the jurors were not chosen by anyone involved in the case. The number of jurors ranged from 500 commoners in civil matters to 1501 members in matters of capital punishment. The judgement of the cases was based on the majority vote of the Jury, who voted through a local system of secret ballot. These members were further compensated for their services, in proportion to their daily wages.

A similar system was also followed in the Roman Empire. The Roman Jury, however, was selected on an annual basis. These jurors were expected to decide on matters for a specific period with the assistance of the Praetor. The Praetor was equivalent to the Magistrate's role in today's time. He assisted the jury as the Judge does today, with his legal expertise. The special feature of the Roman Jury was that high government officials and their family members were restricted from being on the jury, to avoid conflict.

The Jury System was heavily modified in the 12th century. Henry II introduced the practice of appointing 12 jurors to resolve land disputes in England. These jurors were appointed to investigate the matter and collect facts on their own, rather than sitting in a court of law listening to the arguments of the parties involved. England, at this time, had the famous Circuit Courts system. Thus, Henry II also set up a 'grand jury' that was given the duty to report crimes in their jurisdiction (then referred to as "hundreds"). The Circuit judge would then move between these hundreds listening to these matters thereby resolving them as a judge. 

This kind of jury finally came to an end in England with the banning of the clergy in trials by the Church, in 1215. The Magna Carta of 1215, finally came into existence with a trial by a jury as a fundamental right of humans. The relevant provision was later amended by Edward III to include the phrase "by due process of law", which at the time meant a jury trial. While the essence of the provision remained the same, certain kind of conflict that arose earlier due to its language was resolved through this amendment.

History of Jury System in India

As can be predicted, the jury system was adopted by all those countries that were under British Colonial Rule from the 15th Century. India made this system a part of its own legal system with the first case in 1665 where a Mrs. Ascentia Dawes was accused of the murder of an enslaved Indian girl. She was initially found guilty of the crime but later acquitted by a jury of 6 Portuguese and 6 English persons in a court in Madras, on account of the mentality of the crime.

The use of juries in British India continued in the Crown Courts of Presidency States (Bombay, Calcutta and Madras) for cases involving Indian and European defendants. However, in Company Courts outside of the Presidency towns, the jury system was scarcely used. This was further formulated through the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as IPC, 1860) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1861 (hereafter referred to as CrPC, 1861). These legislations made juries mandatory only in the High Courts of Presidency towns, and optional everywhere else.

The structure of the jury system remained the same post-Indian independence as the Constitution of India, 1950 had no specific mention of it. However, the implementation of the jury trial reduced with time eventually leading to the Law Commission's recommendation to abolish it entirely in its 14th Commission Report of 1958.

Nevertheless, the system continued to be in use for another 4 years before the landmark case of KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra. This case marked the official abolition of the jury system in India. However, while the Nanavati case is widely believed to be the last jury case of India, the actual final jury case was one filed before the Calcutta High Court in 1967.

The Nanavati Case

In this case of 1962, Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati (Popularly known as Rustom Pavri), a Naval officer, shot and killed his wife's lover, leading to a highly publicized trial. Nanavati surrendered and confessed to the crime. The defence argued provocation due to his wife's infidelity, while the prosecution claimed premeditated murder. Initially, the jury found Nanavati "not guilty", but the higher courts overturned the verdict,. This resulted in the abolition of the jury system for serious criminal cases in India. The case raised questions about moral responsibility and the conduct of individuals in positions of authority.

The 'Real' Last Jury Case

The real last jury case in India was a case before the Calcutta High Court was that of State vs Prakash Ch. De And Anr. In Calcutta, during the general elections of 1967, two communist activists named Prakhar Chandra De and Rabindranath Chandra De were charged with the murder of Dipak Sarkar. 1967 was marked by inflation, food shortages and widespread unrest, with bandhs and hartals becoming very common.

The general elections of 1967 witnessed grave conflict between the Indian National Congress Party and the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The latter party won the elections, bringing the Congress party's rule to an end. Three days post the election results, Dipak Sarkar (the victim) was attacked by 5 individuals, including Prakhar and Rabindranath. He was stabbed multiple times and later died as a result, while he was in the hospital. 

In 1973, a retrial of the two defendants took place at the Calcutta High Court, which served as the last jury trial in India. A special jury, comprised of highly qualified individuals was formed and the defendants faced charges of murder, acid attacks, inciting riots, etc. After hearing all the witness testimonies, the jury unanimously reached the verdict of "not guilty". Respecting the jury's decision, the judge acquitted the defendants and freed them.

Jury System Abolished - Valid or Invalid?

The jury system was discontinued in India for several reasons. Even though the recommendations and arguments made by the Law Commission of India were not paid heed to, they were eventually proved to be true through the Nanavati case and the Prakhar Chandra De case. The Commission had listed the following reasons for recommending the abolition of trial by jury in India:

1. Trial by Jury is not a Fundamental Right - The criminal laws that were in force at the time of this report, namely the IPC, 1860 and the CrPC, 1861; clearly stated that jury trials were only mandatory in the High Courts of Presidency towns. Moreover, since the makers of the Indian Constitution did not include the right to a trial by jury in Part III of the Constitution as in the Constitution of the United States of America, it cannot be considered a fundamental right of every Indian citizen.
   
   
2. The Right to Appeal is Restricted - The Commission stated that while Sections 418 and 537 of the CrPC, 1861, permit an appeal based on a mistake of fact and mistake of law; it also explicitly mentions that the former grounds cannot be utilised for an appeal in case of a trial by jury.
   
   At the time when the CrPC, 1861 was in force, this reasoning held value. However, with the replacement of the said legislation by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no such argument can be made. The criminal laws in action currently do not restrict the right to appeal in a trial by jury.
   
   
3. Trial by Jury is Time-Consuming - This was one of the reasonings made by the Commission at the time of recommending the abolition. Over the past 65 years, since the recommendation, the public has observed the legal system of India. It has also been accepted by several professionals of the Courts, that the Indian legal system is over-burdened with cases.
   
   Re-implementing the jury system would only prove to reduce this burden and assist the current judges in speedily delivering justice. Moreover, the general public in today's world is being subjected to fake and provoking news by the media around them. It would only be more fair and just to allow them to be a vital and direct part of the justice system of the Nation, thereby not only upholding democratic values but also helping to deliver true justice. In turn, it helps the public by allowing them to stay updated with legal developments and gain access to genuine news relating to the Indian Judiciary.

Conclusion

The jury system played a significant role in India's legal history but was eventually abolished due to concerns about its effectiveness and compatibility with the Indian legal framework. The Nanavati case highlighted some of the system's shortcomings. The Law Commission's recommendations, emphasizing the absence of a fundamental right to a jury trial and limitations on the right to appeal, were influential in its discontinuation.

However, it is worth reconsidering the arguments made by the Law Commission and examining the current legal landscape in India. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has addressed some of the concerns raised about the right to appeal in a jury trial. Reintroducing the jury system could help alleviate the burden on the overburdened legal system, promote public participation, and enhance transparency.

In an age of media influence and information dissemination, involving citizens directly in the justice system can foster understanding and trust between the public and the judiciary. The jury system has the potential to provide a platform for public engagement and ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.

While the decision to abolish the jury system was justified at the time, it is important to reexamine the benefits and drawbacks of its reintroduction in India. By doing so, India can move towards a more fair, transparent and responsive justice system that served the diverse population of the country.

References

1. https://www.latestlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Blacks-Law-Dictionery.pdf
2. Samons, Loren J. (2007) The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles. Cambridge University Press. pp. 244, 246.
3. https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/1_Magna_Charta.pdf
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1596139/
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/585964/
6. https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2022/08/2022080541-2.pdf