Before discussing upon the merits or demerits of the jury system and commenting if the abolition of jury was the right approach for the Indian judiciary, we should initially understand what is the jury system and how it works.
In simple language, jury system is the system in which a group of people are chosen who hears the arguments in a case and assist the judge by rendering an impartial verdict. The people are chosen on the basis of their knowledge and their character. The jury is responsible for finding the facts of the case and the judge is responsible for the interpretation of law and guide the jury through the case. Now typically, the jury only gives the impartial verdict of guilty or not guilty but the actual penalty is set by the learned judge.
In present day jury system exists in many countries. In United states of America, jury trials are held for both civil and criminal matters. In some other countries like France and Brazil, jury trials are reserved, and compulsory, for the most adverse criminal situations and are not available for civil cases. In Brazil, for example, trials by jury are applied in cases of voluntary crimes against life, such as first and second degree murder, forced abortion and instigation and attempt of suicide. In others countries like United Kingdom, jury trials are only available for criminal cases and very specific civil cases (defamation, Fraud, Malicious prosecution and false imprisonment). In Canada, an individual charged with an indictable offence may elect to be tried by a judge alone in a provincial court, by judge alone in a superior court, or by judge and jury in a superior court; summary offences cannot be tried by jury. But in the case of India, the jury existed till 1960’s but was abolished after the famous case of K.M. Nanavati vs. the state of Maharashtra.
The jury system has its own advantages and disadvantages which are to be critically analysed so as to come to an appropriate conclusion. Jury system is advantageous for the judicial system of any country as the citizens feel that they are the part of the judiciary. Moreover, the judicial system feels to be fairer and just with the jury. The jury, not only hears the arguments of both the parties but also gives the impartial verdict based on the morals of the society. thinking about the existence of corruption it can also be said that it can be easy to bribe a single judge than a number of jurors. But on the other hand it has some serious disadvantages also such as, it can be risky to put the fate of person’s life in the hands of the laymen who don’t have any knowledge about the law. Also, it can be observed from various situations that the jury can be influenced by the emotional arguments and the pressure of media. Media plays an important role in the verdict of the jury. Like in the case of K.M Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra, the media influenced the jury and hence the sessions court acquitted the officer but by the review of the Hon’ble High court, the officer was found guilty and sentenced. Similarly, other countries like, Malaysia, japan, also don’t find the jury system suitable for their judicial system.
In the End, it can be concluded that The Abolition of Judiciary is the right step in the Judicial System of the country as in the country like India which has people from different religions and communities. So there is a chance of biasness in the decisions of the jurors. Also the point that most of the jurors are not from the legal background therefore it is difficult for them to critically understand the law and apply it to the facts before giving the verdict of guilty or not guilty. And finally, jury members might give a verdict in fear of retaliation. For instance, if we have a jury trial for a highly publicized case, the jury members will feel pressured to give a verdict regardless of the evidence presented for fear of being attacked outside court.
