Analyzing The Jury System's Effectiveness & Relevance In The 21st Century

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T18:00:48.535983+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:12:09.856+00:00

ANALYZING THE JURY SYSTEM'S EFFECTIVENESS &

RELEVANCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Akanksha Anna Rajeev Bhalerao, B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), School of Law, Bennett University

ABSTRACT

The jury system is a method of trial which allows for a body of citizens, representing the common man to participate in giving the judgment in both civil and criminal matters. This allows for direct participation in the judiciary. It represents democratic ideals, but ideals don’t work in an imperfect world. The Indian jury system stands abolished as of today. In 1958, the Law Commission in its 14th report, suggested abolishing jury trials in India. As a result, jury trials faded during the 1960’s. Finally, upon the adoption of Criminal Code of Procedure in 1973, the jury system was abolished in India. There existed multiple reasons for the newly independent India to forsake this system introduced by their colonisers. This research paper traces the origin of this system in the Indian judiciary and decodes its significant downfall.

While the Indian judiciary does not engage in jury trials, it remains a rather sought after alternative in several countries like the USA. This research paper provides a comprehensive overview of the jury system's efficiency and its associated challenges in different jurisdictions. By examining historical developments, contemporary issues, and proposed reforms, this paper sheds light on the strengths and weaknesses of the jury system in both civil and criminal cases. The present judicial landscape is a tumultuous one, wherein a conflict exists between the judiciary and the parliament. The jury system may be the answer to this question. Whether the jury system can prevent allegations of judicial overreach & activism. This angle will be explored in the research paper with the use of contemporary cases.

The jury system has always enabled the common people to participate in the judiciary, but at the same time, it raises doubts upon the competency of jurors to adjudicate on complex legal matters. While the jury system remains a fundamental pillar of justice, its continued relevance in the evolving legal landscape can be questioned.

INTRODUCTION

The jury system is a centuries’ old practice that has been adopted by several states across the globe. It is a process whereby an assembly of ordinary people from the same community decide whether a suspect accused of committing a crime is guilty or not guilty. The jury system rests on the assumption that the people are the best judges of other members of the society. The jury system has attracted great criticism in recent years. Some contend that it is an antiquated system and that it is irrelevant in today’s world. On the other end, others still acknowledge the continued importance of the jury system in the justice system and suggest that it represents a valuable control mechanism against excesses by the government. This paper presents a balanced view on the jury system in different jurisdictions, along with proposed solutions.

THE JURY SYSTEM IN FOREIGN LANSCAPES

Jury system dates to ancient Rome & Greece. However, jury trials practiced today find their origin in 12th Century England. Henry II of England (1113-1189 AD) was an active advocate of judicial reforms. During his reign a dispute arose between the State & the Church, wherein the latter demanded a fee to be levied on lands used for secular purposes, this was based on the belief that the church has been awarded proprietary rights over all the land by God himself. The taxes received from land revenues, was the most important source of income for the State. As a result of this conflict, it was discovered that this question could not be yielded to either the Church or the State, as neither should be the judge in its own cause. King Henry II came up with the solution to create a jury comprising of 12 jurors who would decide the fate of these lands.

The jurors were to be countrymen, outsiders to the situation who would in turn be free from any bias. This is probably the first ever recorded jury trial in common practice. 1 The United States of America adopted the concept of jury trials from the English legal system. This practice of jury trials is still in use in the USA. The 6th& 7th Amendments in the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right to trial by jury in both criminal & civil (when amount in controversy exceeds $20) cases, respectively. 2 Based on the wordings of the 6th Amendment it can be perceived that USA’s legal system advocates transparency through a “public jury trial” and seeks to initiate the participation of people in the judicial system.

1 Chas. T. Coleman, “Origin and Development of Trial by Jury”, Vol. 6 No. 2 VLR pg. 77-89 (1919).

2 The Constitution of the United States, 6th& 7th Amendment.

The biggest downside of the jury system in USA is its constant need for unanimous verdicts. In Ramos v. Louisiana,3 the Supreme Court of United States held that, in serious criminal offences, the jury’s verdict should be unanimous. Although the retroactive application of this case law is left open to the courts of each state owing to the federal structure of the State. In cases where unanimous verdicts are not necessary, the jury system faces the wrath of ‘the tyranny of majority’. This suggests that eventually one must eventually conform to the majority opinion. In today’s circumstances it is easy to manipulate the people and convince them that the opinion that they are seeing is in turn the view of the majority. Internet and social media are some of the most predominant factors that mould opinions of people. In such a landscape it is easy to sway members of the jury.

This practice has been seen several times in USA courtrooms, wherein the accused uses trial by jury as a tool to communicate to an audience and convince them of his/her innocence by creating popular sympathy or approval of the masses. Thus, nudging jury members to conform to popular sentiments. The most recent example of this would be the case of John C. Depp, II v. Amber Laura Heard. 4 The infamous defamation case between an A-lister ex couple, pulled media attention all over the world. The plaintiff’s ex-wife (defendant) had written an op-ed in Washington Post in 2018 citing him as a “wife beater”. The whole trial was to whether acts of domestic violence had been done against the defendant by the plaintiff.

Although owing to the plaintiff’s popularity the case took a different turn with millions watching live stream of the hearings and rampantly mocking and criticizing the defendant while glorifying the plaintiff. The jury unanimously found that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff and that her claims of domestic violence were untrue. Its interesting to note that, when this same case was fought in the United Kingdom for a similar article, with similar evidences, the court found that the defendants claims were true and not defamatory. 5 This case highlights the biggest flaw of the jury system; a high probability of having gullible jurors. Amber Heard’s lawyers claimed that it was impossible for the jury to not be influenced by opinions circulating in the print media & internet.

The USA courts ask the jurors to be impartial in their decisions but there is no way to make sure the jury remains free from biases, as outside the courtroom hearing, the members of jury go back to their normal lives with access to all sorts of content available.

3 590 U.S. (2020).

4 Civil Action No.: CL-2019-2911.

5Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd. [2020], EWHC 2911 (QB).

This was not the first time such a case has been seen in American courts. In People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson,6 the accused a star NFL player was accused of murdering his wife and her friend in their LA condo. In addition, domestic violence charges were also levied. This case is popularly referred to as “the trial of the century” owing to the media coverage received. O. J Simpson hired a plethora of the most decorated lawyers at the time. During the case DNA evidence that linked him to the crime seen was presented, and yet the jury found him not guilty of murder. Although when the victim’s family filed a civil suit for wrongful death and assault, the accused was held liable and ordered to pay damages.

Over the years this case has been heavily criticised for its judgment and puts light onto the mobile temperament of jurors while deciding cases involving public figures. The above stated are “noble” ways to persuade a jury, but there exist other means as well. These other ways might not be as “noble” but do have a well enough success rate. At times, it is possible to compel a jury member or members to give a decision in favour of one party by threatening them with regards to their own body, property & reputation, or that of their loved ones. This instance was seen in United States v. John Gotti, et al.. 7 In this case, the accused, head of the Gambino Family, one of the families that controlled the NYC Mafia, was tried under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 1970.

This act was created to curb organized crime syndicates like the NYC Mafia, as a result its provisions highly favoured the state. This was the final case against John Gotti, and he was held liable under the RICO Act, but it must be noted that this was not his first case. He had been tried previously under the same penal provisions and was found not guilty. It was later found out in course of this trial that the jury in the previous cases had been compromised. The prosecution presented a cartload of tapes recorded from the accused’s office as evidence, in one of these tapes he was heard boasting about how he either bribed jurors or threatened them. This case is important as it highlights the vulnerability of jurors in cases involving dangerous and powerful offender. But then who is to say a juror can be threatened or bribed but a judge cannot. This question does not have a simple answer.

The judicial system is based upon the theory that judges are judicial officers anointed with the power to provide justice to all. The system refuses to see them as individuals who are a part of this system, instead perceives them as a larger-than-life character who is the system.

6 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 727.

7 782 F. Supp. 737 (EDNY 1992).

THE JURY SYSTEM IN THE INDIAN LANDSCAPE

Before colonial rule in India, justice was administered by arbitrators known as Panch or Panchayats (literally boards of five) chosen from the particular caste, tribe, trade or locality to which the parties belonged. 8Under the Muslim law the trial of criminal cases was entrusted to a judge with two assessors learned in the Sharia. At first the British accepted the justice system of Indians, though in course of time, English judges were appointed, who sat along with Muslim lawyers to assess the situation. The Trial by Jury of capital crimes committed by the Company's servant was enacted by an Ordinance of James I dated 1623/4, and jury trial became the rule for criminal trials on the original side by the Supreme Court in Calcutta.

This system passed on naturally to the Chartered High Courts, but this involveso small a part of the volume of criminal cases as to be negligible, except in so far as it provided an exemplar for the establishment of juries in the ordinary Courts of Session. From 1793 onwards a series of Ordinances whittled away those provisions the Muslim law which offended against European sensibilities, and a new system was launched by Act VI of 1832, which enabled judges to avail themselves of the assistance of respectable natives as panchayats in the decision of suits or trials. The final decision did not rest with these panchayats, but it certainly appears that this was intended to be the thin end of a wedge for the gradual introduction into India of the British jury system.

9 Although jury trial did become an integral part of Indian jurisprudence, but it was always viewed as condescending towards one group of people and heavily favouring the other. This was largely due to the fact that in criminal jury trials, in case the accused was English he could request for majority of the jury to be European, such privilege was not available to Indian nationals. This led to Indians believing that the jury system is biased and discriminatory, as a result, the Constitution of India, 1950, remained silent upon the status of the jury system in the newly independent India. In the infamous case of K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra,10 the defendant, a naval officer, was accused of murdering his wife’s lover under S. 302 of IPC.

Although there were several evidence and witnesses that could lead to the accused being found guilty, in a surprising turn of events, the jury found him not guilty of murder. Over the years it has been believed that such 8A. G. P. Pullan, “Trial by Jury in India” In Cambridge University Press, Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, Vol. 28 No. 3/4, pg. 104-109 (1946).

9 Ibid.

101962 AIR 605.

a decision was made by jury on compassionate grounds. It is believed that the outlook of media heavily influenced the jurors by creating a patriarchal ideology for the crime committed. The tabloid “Blitz” played an important role in rampantly publicising and glorifying the accused’s actions. The jurors in this case failed to understand the basic concept of supremacy of rule of law. They relied upon their judgment of ‘whether the accused should be punished of the crime’, whereas their role was to merely decide ‘whether or not he was guilty of the crime. Though this was not the last jury trial in India, but it certainly did raise questions about the effectiveness of jury trials. The concept of ‘jury nullification’ can also be observed in this case.

Jury nullification is the process by which a jury declines to apply the applicable law in a criminal case because it is of the opinion that the law is erroneous or that it should not be rigidly implemented in a given situation. The British considered this a disgrace to the Indian judicial system and considered this a caste and class-based problem. Lord Lansdowne, India’s viceroy in the early 1880’s was one of the first vocal critics of this issue. These ideas however were limited to westerners. James Jaffe, a professor at the University of Wisconsin believes it was actually the refusal of the government and the legal profession to confront class and caste differences in the courtroom, and not the popular press, that led to the abolition of the Indian jury.

11 Although the Fourteenth Report of the Law Commission on Reform of Judicial Administration (1958) which suggested abolition of jury trials, gave no regard to caste angle and relied on the argument of lack of availability of eligible jurors. It states: “It was found difficult to find jurors of the right type even in the advanced districts and such jurors as were available were shown to be easily approachable and moved by extrajudicial consideration. ”12 As a result, Indian judicial system tried to phase out jury trials in the 1960’s &1970’s. The last case of jury trial in India was of State vs Prakash Ch. De &Anr. ,13wherein the jurors acquitted a group of communist leaders who murdered a man while rioting. This decision was however overturned by a group of “special jury”.

With the adoption of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 jury trials were finally abolished by omission of its mention. The law was clear, “after hearing arguments and points of law (if 11James Jaffe, “After Nanavati: The Last Jury Trial in India? ”, Vol. 52 No. 32EPWpg. 18-20 (August 12, 2017). 12Law Commission of India, 14th Report on Reform of Judicial Administration (Ministry of Law, 1958), Vol II: Chapters 30-57, pg. 871.

131977 CriLJ 863.

any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case. ”14 This removed the ambiguity surrounding jury trials. In India, jury trials were criticized as they led to “unjustified acquittals,” appointment of” unscrupulous professional jurors,” and for its inability to render an “independent, impartial and just” verdict. M. C. Setalvad the first Attorney General of India, and the chairperson of the 14th Law Commission Report, while giving a lecture at Cambridge in 1960, mentioned that jury trials could not work in the Indian subcontinent as the temperament of Indians was “mobile” and “easily moved to pity or hate. 15 Above all, it was important for the newly independent India to separate itself from British imposed ideologies and procedures. In Young India, 1931, M. K.

Gandhi writes about how one should not blindly follow the British and the advantages of a trial by a judge outweighs trial by jury. Trial by jury has been abolished in India except in matters of matrimonial cases of Parsis. The reasons stated for this have been numerous, but core remains that every jurisdictional landscape is different and not all procedures may be applicable to all. Sometimes one may have to alter these procedures for a smoother application.

REIMAGINING THE JURY SYSTEM IN 21ST CENTURY INDIA

It has widely been accepted that by legal critics that the jury system has become obsolete in India and has no use or benefits. But if this system is still widely accepted in other countries, maybe with a few a change this system can flourish in India. The author of this article firmly believes that in light of recent cases, considering a re-adoption of the jury system might not be a bad idea. In Supriyo Chakraborty &Anr. v. Union of India,16the Supreme Court denied same couples the right to marriage, stating that right to marry is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution and the State can regulate it. It was held that the Special Marriages Act, 1954 does not include same sex marriages. At the same time SC refused to issue directions to the Union Govt. to make special provisions for same sex marriages.

Many have touted this as a safe move on part of the judiciary to avoid any allegations of ‘judicial overreach’. But the consequence 14The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Act 2 of 1974), s. 235. 15Supra note 8 at 7. 16W. P. (C) No. 1011/2022.

of this judgement is discrimination against one community, due to deprivation of a right commonly available to all others. A case like this is exactly where jury trials could lead to fruitful decisions. Instances like

marriage, exist beyond the legal ambit, they have a very important place in the society. If marriage is such an integral part of the society, then shouldn’t the society have a say in its judgement. Those who are going to have to live with the effects of such verdicts should have a say in them. At the same time if a jury believes that directions should be issued to government to form laws on a particular issue, allegations of judicial overreach find no substance, as the govt. was elected by the people and now it’s the very people who elected them who wish to see positive changes. This would strengthen the participation of citizens in the decision-making process. Most countries still haven’t forsaken the jury system primarily because it generates participation of citizens in the judiciary and helps promote transparency & accountability.

It is debatable as to how different the outcome would have been for the above-mentioned case had there been a jury trial, but then at least the LGBTQ+ community would have had the chance to convince the society that they have to live in, to understand the discrimination faced by them. India is no longer the same country that it used to be 50 years ago. M. C. Setalvad believed that the temperament of Indians was “mobile”, but today with significant increase in literacy rates it would be unfair to undermine Indians with such theories.

CONCLUSION

The jury system comes with its pros &cons, but recent cases have raised questions about its effectiveness in delivering impartial & unbiased judgements. Despite these questions several foreign countries still proud themselves to carry on the legacy of jury trials. These countries consider jury trials to be a strong pillar of public participation. This type of public participation in judiciary is absent in the Indian subcontinent since the system’s abolition in 1970. Some believed jury trials are not the most ideal because the people of India lacked the required temperament, while others believed it was necessary to part with western practices. The result is a population, largely unaware and disinterested in judicial pronouncements of public importance.