INTRODUCTION
The jury system in India, once a symbol of democratic inclusion in justice, now exists only in the pages of legal history. Rooted in colonial legacy and public participation, jury trials reflected the idea that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. However, this pillar of common law was eliminated from India’s judicial process following the infamous K.M. Nanavati case, raising a critical question: Was it incompatible with the evolving legal culture, or did its flaws outweigh its democratic appeal? This blog explores the rise and fall of jury trials in India, with a focus on the landmark Nanavati case.
HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF JURY TRIALS IN INDIA
Introduced by the British, the first jury trial is believed to have occurred in the Madras Presidency in 1669. A grand jury of six English and six Portuguese acquitted Mrs Ascentia Dawes, who was tried for murdering her enslaved servant.[1]
The Indian Jury Act of 1827[2] allowed only Christians to serve as jurors in Christian trials, while non-Christians were subject to Christian juries.[3] Modelled on English criminal procedure and institutionalised by Chapter XXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1861[4], jury trials were formally introduced in the Presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras.
The system aimed to promote local participation in justice, but it was never uniformly applied. Trials in mofussil (non-presidency) areas continued under magistrates and judges, leading to inconsistencies in criminal law enforcement.
The Constitution of India neither explicitly mandates nor prohibits jury trials. Under Article 372[5], existing laws, including those governing jury trials, are upheld until specifically amended or repealed.
THE NANAVATI CASE: THE LAST NAIL IN THE COFFIN
The case of K.M. Nanavati vs. the State of Maharashtra (1962)[6] marked a turning point in India’s legal system.
Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, the Deputy Chief of Naval Command, was married to Sylvia, an English woman and had three children. Due to his naval commitments, he was often away from home. Meanwhile, during his absences, Sylvia developed an intimate relationship with Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja, a Sindhi businessman and a family friend. On April 27, 1959, after noticing a change in Sylvia’s behaviour, Nanavati confronted her, to which she admitted having an extramarital relationship with Ahuja. Distressed, he dropped his family at a cinema, went to his naval base, procured his service revolver and six cartridges in the pretext of self-protection and went to Ahuja’s residence. There, he asked whether Ahuja intended to marry Sylvia and take responsibility for the children.[7]
Allegedly, when Ahuja replied, “Am I to marry every woman I sleep with?” Nanavati, enraged, drew his revolver to threaten him. When Ahuja tried to snatch it, the revolver unintentionally fired thrice. Nanavati then drove to the Provost Marshal of the Western Naval Command, confessed to the crime and surrendered.[8]
The case gained a lot of media attention, with newspapers reporting extensively. The Parsi community and naval officers supported Nanavati, portraying him as an honourable man who was wronged, whereas Ahuja was seen as a villain who had destroyed a happy family.
Initially, charged with murder under IPC Section 302[9] and Section 304[10] for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the trial was presided over by Justice R.B. Mehta in the Greater Bombay Sessions Court. Ram Jethmalani assisted the prosecution team led by Y.V. Chandrachud.[11]
The trial lasted from September 23, 1959, to October 10, 1959. The defence, led by Karl Khandalavala, invoked Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC[12], arguing grave and sudden provocation, contending that:
- Nanavati was provoked by Ahuja’s remark
- The revolver unintentionally fired during a fight
- Nanavati had no premeditated intention to kill
- His prompt surrender proved his innocence and integrity.
After deliberations, the jury, heavily influenced by media and public sympathy, delivered a controversial 8:1 verdict[13] acquitting Nanavati of murder. However, Justice Mehta, disagreeing with the decision, deemed this verdict perverse, referring the case to the Bombay High Court under Section 307 of the CrPC,1898[14].
On March 11, 1960, a division bench of Justices Shelat and Naik overturned the jury’s decision, convicting Nanavati under Section 302 IPC for murder, and sentencing him to life imprisonment. After careful examination, the Court held that:
- The facts did not support the defence of grave and sudden provocation.
- Forensic evidence contradicted Nanavati’s account of events.
- There was clear evidence of premeditation.
- The interval between learning of the affair and shooting indicated that Nanavati had time for his emotions to subside.[15]
The Court observed that the jury had been swayed by public sentiment rather than legal reasoning. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, with Justice Subba Rao stating, “The jury system is not suited to the conditions obtaining in this country.”[16]
This case exposed several fundamental flaws in the functioning of the jury system in India.
OTHER INFLUENTIAL CASES
In Abdul Rahim vs. King-Emperor (1946)[17], the Privy Council reviewed a jury trial where inadmissible evidence was accepted, proving their inability to correctly apply legal principles, and highlighting the difficulty jurors face in navigating complex legal standards without proper training.[18] Frequent intervention by High Courts to rectify jury errors further exposed the system’s inefficiency, undermining the jury’s role as an independent fact-finder.[19]
In Ramanugrah Singh vs. King-Emperor (1946)[20], three men were shot, two were injured, and one was killed. Despite evidence of shared responsibility, the jury held the accused liable only for the injuries sustained by the survivors, not the murder. Evidence of intent and causation for the murder was ignored, suggesting possible bias or misunderstanding. [21]
LEGISLATIVE ABOLITION AND JUDICIAL TRANSFORMATION
As part of its larger mandate on judicial reforms, the Setalvad Committee reviewed India’s jury system. The committee’s report, included in the 14th Law Commission of India Report (1958)[22], recommended the complete abolition of jury trials due to potential bias, lack of legal knowledge, and vulnerability to external influences.
STRUCTURAL FLAWS AND SYSTEMIC CRITICISMS
Lack of Legal Training: Jurors were laypersons selected from the general public, lacking formal legal knowledge, making them ill-equipped to understand complex legal arguments, forensic evidence, or statutory interpretation, especially in complex cases.[23]
Media Influence and Public Bias: The media significantly influenced public opinion, particularly in high-profile cases. Pre-trial coverage, emotional appeals and societal bias influenced verdicts. In his 1960 Hamlyn Lectures at Cambridge, M.C. Setalvad asserted that Indians “easily moved to pity or hate”, compromising impartiality.[24]
Inconsistency and Regional Disparities: Jury trials were never adopted uniformly across India, resulting in varied outcomes even in similar cases in different jurisdictions and a lack of standardisation in criminal justice procedures.
Delays and Inefficiency: Jury trials were slower, more complicated and costlier than judge-led trials, due to juror selection, the need for simplified arguments, and frequent judicial interventions. Jurors often failed to reach a unanimous decision. Complex cases often proved too difficult for juries to handle impartially. The Bihar Committee, referenced by the Law Commission, noted that some jurors viewed jury duty as a lucrative profession, seeking compensation or illegal gratification.[25]
Jury trials were abolished in India through the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[26], except in Parsi matrimonial disputes under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936[27].
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
While India completely abolished jury trials, several countries evolved it.
In the United States, jury trials are a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment[28]. In both civil and criminal cases, jurors determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, only a small percentage of cases proceed to jury trial[29]; the great majority are settled through plea bargaining.[30]
In the UK, jury trials are limited to serious criminal offences. Their application in civil cases has significantly decreased. There are safeguards to ensure jurors are not swayed by external pressure.[31]
In 2009, Japan introduced Saiban-in Seido, a mixed jury system where professional judges and laymen jointly decide cases. This hybrid model attempts to manage civil participation with legal expertise.[32][33]
WAY FORWARD
Prof. Upendra Baxi argues that although jury trials represent democratic ideals, India’s social heterogeneity and low legal literacy make them impractical.[34] Although judges are not immune to bias, their professional training and accountability provide better safeguards than the jury system and promote consistency, helping in clearing backlogs.
Rather than fully abolishing jury trials, alternatives such as mixed tribunals of professional judges and laymen and specialised courts for minor offences can be proposed to promote community participation.
CONCLUSION
The abolition of jury trials in India was not merely a legislative change; it stemmed from legitimate concerns about their effectiveness and impartiality in the Indian setting. However, there still exists a debate about whether India should think about bringing back jury trials adjusted to today’s needs.
As India continues to develop its democratic institutions, this question remains relevant for criminal justice, as well as the relationship between expertise and democracy in governance. Whether future reforms might allow jury participation again is a question of time, but experience provides valuable lessons for any such efforts.
Author(s) Name: Nandini Shaw (Calcutta University, Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College)
References:
[1] ‘Jury Trial in India – Abolished or Not?’ (2024) 10(10) The Lawway with Lawyers https://thelawwaywithlawyers.com/jury-trial-in-india-abolished-or-not/ accessed 24 May 2025
[2] Indian Jury Act 1827
[3] ‘Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s Protest Against Jury Act in 1827’, Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav, Ministry of Culture, Government of India https://cmsadmin.amritmahotsav.nic.in/district-reopsitory-detail.htm?10860#:~:text=Raja%20Ram%20Mohan%20Roy%20was,at%20the%20beginning%20of%201827 accessed 24 May 2025
[4] Code of Criminal Procedure 1861, ch XXIII
[5] Constitution of India 1950, art 372
[6] K.M. Nanavati v State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605.
[7] ‘The Nanavati Case: The Last Jury Trial in India’ (Legal Service India) https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-56-the-nanavati-case-the-last-jury-trial-in-india.html accessed 24 May 2025
[8] ‘K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra: Detailed Case Analysis’ (Lawctopus) https://www.lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/km-nanavati-v-state-of-maharashtra/ accessed 25 May 2025
[9] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 302.
[10] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 304.
[11] ‘K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra’ (Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Nanavati_v._State_of_Maharashtra accessed 25 May 2025
[12] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 300 Exception 1.
[13] Abhinav Chandrachud, Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India (Penguin 2017) 132
[14] Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s 307.
[15] K M Nanavati v State of Maharashtra (1962) 64 BOMLR 1461.
[16] K M Nanavati v State of Maharashtra (1962) 2 SCR 567, 594 (Subba Rao J).
[17] Abdul Rahim v King-Emperor [1946] AC 415 (PC)
[18]Aishwarya Sandeep, ‘History of Jury Trials in India’ (AishwaryaSandeep.com, 2 April 2022) https://aishwaryasandeep.com/2022/04/02/history-of-jury-trials-in-india/ accessed 25 May 2025
[19] LawNotes, ‘Jury Trial in India’ (LawNotes, 2023) https://lawnotes.co/jury-trial-in-india/ accessed 26 May 2025
[20] Ramanuj Singh v King-Emperor [1946] AC 390 (PC)
[21] LawWire, ‘Jury Trial in India’ (LawWire.in) https://lawwire.in/jury-trial-in-india/ accessed 26 May 2025
[22] Law Commission of India, 14th Report on Reform of Judicial Administration (1958) vol 2, ch 33
[23] JusCorpus, ‘Revisiting the Jury System in India’ (JusCorpus) https://www.juscorpus.com/revisiting-the-jury-system-in-india/ accessed 26 May 2025
[24] ‘After Nanavati: The Jury System in India’ (Economic and Political Weekly) https://www.epw.in/engage/article/after-nanavati accessed 26 May 2025
[25] ‘Culmination of Jury Trials: A Closer Look’ (The Law Brigade) https://thelawbrigade.com/constitutional-law/culmination-of-jury-trials-a-closer-look/ accessed 27 May 2025
[26] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India)
[27] Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (India)
[28] US Constitution, amend VI
[29] John H Blume and Emily C Paavola, ‘The American Jury System’ in The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process (Oxford University Press 2018)
[30] Marc L Miller, ‘Plea Bargaining and the Role of the Jury’ (2007) 89 Marquette Law Review 39
[31] Ministry of Justice (UK), Juries and Trial by Jury (2020) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/juries-and-trial-by-jury accessed 27 May 2025
[32] Japan’s Lay Judge Act, Act No. 63 of 2004
[33] Hideo Tanaka, ‘Japan’s Saiban-in System: A Hybrid Jury Trial’ (2010) 24 International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 101, 102–103
[34] Upendra Baxi, The Indian Supreme Court and Politics (Eastern Book Company 1980)