Reason of the legislature to abolish jury in india
Answers
Answered by
0
The jury found no place in the 1950 Indian Constitution, and it was ignored in many Indian states. ... Jury trials were abolished in India in most courts except for Matrimonial Disputes of Parsis by a very discrete process during the 1960s, finishing with the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, which is still in force today.
Answered by
0
Why was the jury system abolished in India, specifically making reference to the K M Nanavati VS State of Maharashtra ?
Still have a question? Ask your own!
What is your question?
Ad by Palo Alto Networks
Cybersecurity Insiders – Cloud Security Report.
Biggest threats to cloud security. Paths to stronger protection. Best practices and tools. Learn more.
Download
20 ANSWERS

Prasanna Balaraman, Prasanna
Answered Jul 25, 2014
Originally Answered: Why is the jury system not followed in India like it is in the West?
Jury System existed in India during Nehruvian times. The Nanavati case let to its abolition. The British realized long back that their own Collectors and judges were corrupt to core, and population would get crushed to the point of rebellion if their powers are not curbed. Which is why, in 1870s, British enacted Jury System in India. The JurySys reduced injustices in India in private cases and gave stability to British rule.
In 1956, Jawaharlal Nehru and the then Supreme Court judges abolished the Jury System by citing Nanavati case as reason.
This was utter nonsense.
Here are the case details. Nanavati had killed a person named Ahuja who was adulterer and had affair with Nanavati’s wife. The Jurors had accepted the Nanavati had killed Ahuja out of rage. Nanavati was a Navy officer and citizens have tremendous respect for military officers. The respect doubles when they see that a young man from wealthy family leaves posh comfortable life and accepts harsh life of Military. And Ahuja was a proven adulterer, and back then since paternity tests did not exist, citizens in entire world considered adultery as more heinous than murder. Now the Jurors were in dilemma – if they convict Nanavati, the judge would hang him (which was exactly what happened in the second trial). If the Jurors had power to decide the punishment, the Jurors would have surely issued some punishment like a few years of imprisonment. But Jurors had only one power --- to call him guilty which may mean his death or call him innocent. The crime of Nanavati was not motivated for economic gains nor Nanavati was a career criminal. And he was a respectable Navy officer. And so Jurors rightly believed that he did not deserve death for his crime out of anger. The Jurors IMO took right decision in saving his life. Their wrong decision of “zero punishment” because they did not have powers to imprison him for a few years not an error in wisdom. Which is why in the system I have proposed, the Jurors decide punishment so that Jury is not forced by their inner conscious to give “not guilty” verdict when person is guilty, but not guilty enough for highest punishment that the judge might throw. Nanavati case shows that Jurors took a very reasonable decision, and what was needed was to increase the powers of Jurors and let them decide punishments instead of judges.
Still have a question? Ask your own!
What is your question?
Ad by Palo Alto Networks
Cybersecurity Insiders – Cloud Security Report.
Biggest threats to cloud security. Paths to stronger protection. Best practices and tools. Learn more.
Download
20 ANSWERS

Prasanna Balaraman, Prasanna
Answered Jul 25, 2014
Originally Answered: Why is the jury system not followed in India like it is in the West?
Jury System existed in India during Nehruvian times. The Nanavati case let to its abolition. The British realized long back that their own Collectors and judges were corrupt to core, and population would get crushed to the point of rebellion if their powers are not curbed. Which is why, in 1870s, British enacted Jury System in India. The JurySys reduced injustices in India in private cases and gave stability to British rule.
In 1956, Jawaharlal Nehru and the then Supreme Court judges abolished the Jury System by citing Nanavati case as reason.
This was utter nonsense.
Here are the case details. Nanavati had killed a person named Ahuja who was adulterer and had affair with Nanavati’s wife. The Jurors had accepted the Nanavati had killed Ahuja out of rage. Nanavati was a Navy officer and citizens have tremendous respect for military officers. The respect doubles when they see that a young man from wealthy family leaves posh comfortable life and accepts harsh life of Military. And Ahuja was a proven adulterer, and back then since paternity tests did not exist, citizens in entire world considered adultery as more heinous than murder. Now the Jurors were in dilemma – if they convict Nanavati, the judge would hang him (which was exactly what happened in the second trial). If the Jurors had power to decide the punishment, the Jurors would have surely issued some punishment like a few years of imprisonment. But Jurors had only one power --- to call him guilty which may mean his death or call him innocent. The crime of Nanavati was not motivated for economic gains nor Nanavati was a career criminal. And he was a respectable Navy officer. And so Jurors rightly believed that he did not deserve death for his crime out of anger. The Jurors IMO took right decision in saving his life. Their wrong decision of “zero punishment” because they did not have powers to imprison him for a few years not an error in wisdom. Which is why in the system I have proposed, the Jurors decide punishment so that Jury is not forced by their inner conscious to give “not guilty” verdict when person is guilty, but not guilty enough for highest punishment that the judge might throw. Nanavati case shows that Jurors took a very reasonable decision, and what was needed was to increase the powers of Jurors and let them decide punishments instead of judges.
Similar questions