Time to reconsider jury trials in India?

Jury trials were abolished in India after 1960 on the grounds that they were susceptible to media and public influence.This decision was based on an 8:1 acquittal of Kawas Nanavati in K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra, which was overturned by higher courts, on the grounds that the jury was misled by the presiding judge.

However, if we consider things over time then it won't be completely wrong to say that the courts in the present system have messed up completely in some cases and wasted lives of many innocent individuals. And it is not only the lower courts, even the High Courts have passed judgments which are grossly un-constitutional. Take Dr. Binayak Sen's case for example. The evidence against him for having helped the naxals is based on a confession by Piyush Guha that he had carried out two letters from the naxalite leader Narayan Sanyal, whom he met in jail in his capacity as a doctor and a human rights activist. What is absurd is the fact that as per Indian law, confession cannot be admitted as evidence in court. This besides the fact that the jailors who were produced in court said that Sen's meeting with Sanyal were monitored so he could not have carried out those letters and also that the letters produced in court contained nothing of a seditious nature. There are multiple irregularities in the case that suggest that either the judge lacks a proper understanding of the law or is a fascist.

Dr. Sen is fortunate to have so much support nationally and internationally and the case being in the media all the time, it is very likely that he'll get acquittal soon in the Supreme Court. However, in many cases like that of Jessica Lall, people are not so fortunate. The Babri Masjid case for example, should have been an open and shut case. The verdict however, seems to be clearly bent by the religious affiliations of the judges.

Consider the maoist problem. Who are they? Why have they resorted to violence? There is a vast literature in the public domain now on this. Very crudely these are tribal people who used to live off their land. The state took away their land by brute force to sell them to big companies for mining etc. In the process of grabbing land, the state's forces tortured them, raped their women and carried out several other atrocities on these people. As a result, these people had no other option but to revolt by force. Now, we sit in court rooms and call them terrorists. And anyone who works for their human rights is charged with sedition like Dr. Binayak Sen or Arundhati Roy.

If we let justice and democracy this course then in is only a matter of time that India would be engulfed by civil war. Issues in Kashmir, the north-east and the naxal discontent are an indication of an unstable society. The systematic exploitation of the poor, politically weak, and the backward sections of the society by the politically powerful and the capitalists is very likely to culminate in the break down of the civil society very soon.

In such a scenario, I think that it is a very good idea to reconsider jury trials in India. The common sense of the common man is no less and no more than that of any qualified judge. The benefit is that the judgments would reflect what the society as a whole thinks about any case. We'll have a a lower probability of gross errors like that in Dr. Sen's case happening. The maoist problem then will be looked not in a manner in which the state projects it but what the people at large think about it. A diverse jury will give us new perspective.

I am not saying that jury trials have no downsides but it is definitely worth giving some thought and incorporating some features of it into our legal system, albeit a little carefully.