India has a vibrant and varied legal system and is a democratic nation. The lack of a jury system is one of the major flaws in the Indian legal system, though. In many nations, including the United States and the United Kingdom, the common law system includes the juror system as a fundamental component. It includes a group of regular people who are chosen to hear testimony and decide the case’s facts in a courtroom. The jury system is an essential element of the criminal justice system because it guarantees the trial’s openness, justice, and impartiality.

India had a jury system up until 1960 when the government ended it. The government had mentioned the jury system’s inefficiency, corruption, and incompetence as justifications for its elimination. The absence of the jury system, however, has prompted numerous critiques of the Indian legal system and calls for its restoration from a number of legal experts and academics.

Why should India bring back the Jury System?

In India, there is no jury system, which has resulted in a number of issues, such as corruption, incompetence, and delays in the legal process. The court is frequently overburdened with cases, which causes a backlog of cases and a slow delivery of justice.

Because it includes regular people in the legal process, the jury system is renowned for its effectiveness in delivering justice. The jury system guarantees a fair and impartial trial, and the verdict is based on the evidence and information given during the trial. Furthermore, because the jury system includes regular people who serve as the community’s representatives, it guarantees that the decision is acceptable to society. Due to the fact that the juror is not subject to the influence of the court’s attorneys, judges, or other participants in the trial, it serves as an essential safeguard against legal system corruption.

The juror system is crucial for defending the accused’s rights. The jury system ensures that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The jury system makes sure that the defendant gets a fair trial and that the decision is supported by the evidence given during the trial.

Case Laws supporting the revival of the Jury System in India

Numerous criticisms of the judicial system have been made as a result of India’s lack of a jury system. The legal system has been charged with being dishonest, ineffective, and biased in favour of the powerful and affluent. The reinstatement of India’s juror system is encouraged by the following case laws:

K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra

K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra is one of the most famous criminal cases in India. The case involved a naval officer, K.M. Nanavati, who was accused of murdering his wife’s lover, Prem Ahuja. The case received widespread attention in the media, and it was one of the first cases in India to be tried by a judge without a jury.

Nanavati was exonerated by the judge in the case, but the decision was contentious and generated significant criticism of the judicial system. The verdict was completely dependent on the judge’s discretion because there was no jury system, which the public did not find acceptable. The case made clear that India needs a judicial system to guarantee that the judgement is upheld by society.

Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat

Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat is another famous criminal case in India. The case involved the murder of fourteen people in the Best Bakery in Vadodara during the Gujarat riots of 2002. The case received widespread attention in the media, and it was tried by a judge without a jury.

Due to threats and intimidation from the defendant, many witnesses recanted their testimony during the contentious prosecution. Due to the lack of a jury, the judge was forced to depend solely on the evidence that the prosecution and defence attorneys presented. The case made clear that India needs a jury system to guarantee that the decision is made solely on the basis of the evidence given during the trial and not by outside influences.

State of Gujarat vs. Kishanbhai

State of Gujarat vs. Kishanbhai is a case that highlighted the problem of corruption in the legal system. The case involved a land dispute between two parties, and the accused, Kishanbhai, was convicted by the judge without a jury.

Later, it was revealed that the judge had taken bribes from the accused’s opponent, and Kishanbhai was acquitted. The case highlighted the need for a jury system in India to prevent corruption in the legal system and ensure that the verdict is based on the evidence presented in the trial.

How India can bring back the Jury System?

India can bring back the jury system by amending the Constitution and introducing legislation that provides for the selection and functioning of a jury. The following are the steps that can be taken to bring back the jury system in India:

Selection of Jury

An essential stage in making sure the jury system operates effectively and impartially is jury selection. The jury should be chosen to reflect the variety of the community by coming from a cross-section of society.

A random selection of citizens who satisfy the eligibility requirements should be used in the selection process, which should be open. Age, education level, and criminal background should all be taken into account when determining eligibility.

Functioning of Jury

Rules that guarantee the trial is conducted in a fair and impartial manner should guide how the jury operates. The rules should outline procedures for witness questioning, proof presentation, and verdict delivery.

The jury should be briefed on their duties and obligations, such as the need to maintain objectivity, the need to base their judgment on the evidence given at trial, and the need to maintain the secrecy of their deliberations.

Challenges to the Jury

There are numerous methods to challenge the jury system, and it is not without difficulties. The jury method faces the following difficulties:

1. A)        Jury tampering

The jury system raises serious concerns about vote tampering. Jurors may be intimidated or threatened by outside forces, which could have an impact on their judgement. The juror should be shielded from such influences, and anyone discovered guilty of tampering with the jury should face severe penalties.

1. B)         Jury Bias

Another issue with the jury system is jury prejudice. Based on their individual views, experiences, or prejudices, jurors may have biases. Jurors should be required to reveal any possible biases in order to ensure the jury is impartial and part of the selection process.

1. C)        Jury Incompetence

Jury incompetence is another challenge in the jury system. Jurors may not have the necessary skills or knowledge to understand the evidence presented in the trial. The selection process should ensure that the jury is competent and has the necessary skills and knowledge to understand the evidence presented in the trial.

Conclusion

Numerous criticisms of the judicial system have been made as a result of India’s lack of a jury system. The jury system is an essential element of the criminal justice system because it guarantees the trial’s openness, justice, and impartiality.

By amending the Constitution and introducing a law that specifies the composition and operation of a jury, India can restore the jury system. The jury should be chosen at random from among the people who satisfy the requirements. There should be regulations that regulate how the jury operates.

Bashash Mahmood is a 2nd year Law student at University of Kashmir. Feedback at [email protected]

Bashash Mahmood