Jurors with a Difference

As the judiciary increasingly comes under criticism, would an impartial jury trial by lay persons be desirable? They would be the very embodiment of equity and allow for a more open system of justice

- Shaan Katari Libby

AT a time when our country is battling the Covid pandemic, massive unemployment, mass migration and a majoritarian government, one wonders if it would be better to bring back the jury system to decide matters. The basic idea of a jury—being tried by one’s peers— dates back (in the UK) to the time of the Normans in 1066. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, it was the presence of a jury that led to courts being centralised and ultimately, the creation of the common law as we now know it. Drastic methods of extracting evidence like various tortures (the ordeal) were replaced with trials for criminal and civil cases.

As the Empire expanded, so also did this method of dispensation of justice—to Africa, Asia and America. Jury trials still exist in the UK in a small percentage of cases. These are mainly in criminal courts and in some very limited civil cases. Certain cases permit trial by jury where reputation or character is involved. This includes cases involving defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and fraud.

Jury trials in India came to an end following the case of Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra (1959). The defendant was a naval officer, KM Nanavati, who was accused of murdering a man his wife, Sylvia, was having an affair with. In this case, he ultimately spent three years in prison before being pardoned and emigrating to Canada with Sylvia and their three children. The only jury trials which still continue in India are those conducted for Parsi matrimonial cases.