For those of us who are not doctors, getting a pill or an 'injection' is the magic of medicine. It is exotic. When it works, we accept it and move on. I believe law can be even more exotic. Apart from the occasional parking ticket, it is seldom that we brush with the law. Now, my doctor friends and my lawyer friends (including my brother) would go, 'no, it is not exotic'.
But this is the view from someone from outside those professions. To me, they are exotic, with their own language, mores and surprising (if not magical) outcomes.
Which brings me to the topic of Juries. In the American system, trial by jury dominates almost all forms of litigation. That is, the outcome of a legal case typically is determined by what a set of peers judge the accused to have done.
In the British system, which is age old, they have both forms - trials with juries and those without (from what I understand). It seems like criminal trials have juries and civil trials may not.
In the Indian system, at the other end from the American system, there are NO jury trials. Why was that? A lot of the Indian jurisprudence came from the British system. So did the American system. So why did the American system predominantly take on trial by jury and why did India abandon it?
The answer on the latter is rather clear, explicit, at a point in time, intriguing, interesting and 'aha' inducing! (Hence my note on this.... :-) )
In 1959, a Naval Office named Commander Nanavati murdered his wife's lover. For which he was tried in court. But an Indian Jury acquitted him. Upon appeal, the High Court overtuned the Jury's verdict and jailed Commander Nanavati. He also happened to have political connections. So he got off light and emigrated to Canada where he lived until 2003.
Given all this, the Indian Government abolished the Jury system! This story was so sensational that books were written and movies were made based on it. (Who knew?)
The case of Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra is succinctly and interesting documented here - it is worth a read!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KM_Nanavati_v_State_of_Maharashtra
But this is the view from someone from outside those professions. To me, they are exotic, with their own language, mores and surprising (if not magical) outcomes.
 |
| Scene from 12 Angry Men |
In the British system, which is age old, they have both forms - trials with juries and those without (from what I understand). It seems like criminal trials have juries and civil trials may not.
In the Indian system, at the other end from the American system, there are NO jury trials. Why was that? A lot of the Indian jurisprudence came from the British system. So did the American system. So why did the American system predominantly take on trial by jury and why did India abandon it?
The answer on the latter is rather clear, explicit, at a point in time, intriguing, interesting and 'aha' inducing! (Hence my note on this.... :-) )
Given all this, the Indian Government abolished the Jury system! This story was so sensational that books were written and movies were made based on it. (Who knew?)
The case of Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra is succinctly and interesting documented here - it is worth a read!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KM_Nanavati_v_State_of_Maharashtra
8 comments:
We have Indian-British law - old and outdated and which suits our politicians and criminals who always escape from getting punished at the end of the trial. Law is meant only for common man because he has no strings to pull. If any body says anything against the law of the country it is treated a contempt of court and is put in jail. Sad to say!
I was myself a member of jury for many murder cases . I thought the Englishmen introduced the system only to involve local people as the judges were mainly englishmen . There were illiterate members on the jury along with me.
This is a good point. How do can a system hold up the law if the citizens are illiterate. On the other hand, how can the law be sustained if it is not in the people's hands?
Interesting.
It reminds of the brief explosion of media stories and editorials around the notion that perhaps our ‘jury of one’s peers’ approach should be reconsidered… after O.J. was declared not guilty by his peers after killing… his wife’s lover (at least he thought so)… and, to one-up Commander Nanavati, what the heck, killed the wife too.
It would be interesting to know how this switch on the part of India has worked vis-à-vis America’s.
Off to Mexico!!!
I distinctly remember this trial ! The whole country was polarized one for nanavati and the other for Ahuja. Ultimately, Nehru and his sister Vijayalaxmi Pundit saved nanavati. But it was definitely a black mark on the Nehru family and the Judicial system. Though it was not clear why the jury system is removed due to this case. People felt that it is because a single judge can be more easily influenced compared to a jury of 12 men. Any way ever since, that the law of Indian land.
To me it appears India ia a democracy without rule of law. The Society is
yet to understand that we are supposed to be governed by rule of law.
I am glad young men and women are protesting against corruption
(subversion of law) and lack of safety for women (absence of enforcement of rule of law on the streets of India).
Agree that following rule of law is the only solution to the ills of India.
So how does one:
1) Ensure that rule of law applies to everyone ?
2) Everyone who breaks the law is given swift punishment ?
3) Certain laws that need to be in tune with our times are changed ?
I have a pet theory that any protest that originates from an urban audience will not be sustainable. However imagine protests from the rural masses for what is rightfully theirs (for this we need to ensure that they know their rights and entitlements). A peaceful protest with enough media support. This could scare the entire political class into action (vote bank).
This is my bottom up theory.
Post a Comment