Why UK is considering abolishing jury trials – a system India has long since abandoned

What is a jury trial

A jury trial is a legal proceeding where a group of laypeople – ordinary citizens selected from the general population – swears an oath to hear evidence and determine the facts of a case.

Unlike a bench trial, where a professional judge decides both the law and the facts, in a jury trial, the judge’s role is limited to interpreting the law and guiding the proceedings. The verdict – whether someone is guilty or not – is decided by the “jury of peers”.

The underlying philosophy is that an accused person should be judged by the community rather than by state officials, acting as a safeguard against tyranny.

The crisis in UK courts

The British criminal justice system faces a crisis of delay. According to British government documents leaked to the press, there is a backlog of over 78,000 cases in the crown courts. In the UK legal system, crown courts deal with serious criminal cases, such as murder, rape and robbery – similar to sessions courts in India.

The predicament is so severe that some trials are currently listed for as late as 2029 or 2030. To prevent what officials have termed a “total system collapse”, the Labour party government has proposed a radical restructuring.

Under the new plans, the right to a trial by jury would be removed for most “mid-range” offences – this includes crimes such as theft, burglary, fraud and assault – being reserved only for the most serious “public interest” cases, such as murder, rape and manslaughter. For all other serious offences carrying sentences of up to five years, defendants would be tried by a judge sitting alone.

The proposal goes further than the recommendations made earlier this year by British former senior judge Sir Brian Leveson. While Leveson suggested an intermediate court in which a judge would sit with two magistrates, Justice Secretary Lammy is reportedly pushing for judge-only trials to achieve “maximum impact” on the backlog, according to the leaked government documents.

Backlash in Britain

The proposal has triggered a fierce debate in the UK legal fraternity – largely because it touches upon rights established during the Magna Carta era. The Magna Carta was a royal charter of rights agreed to by King John of England in 1215, which laid the foundation for individual liberties and the concept that a free man should not be punished except by the “lawful judgment of his peers”.

There is considerable opposition to the government’s plan. The Criminal Bar Association, which represents barristers, advocates who argue in court, and the Law Society, the representative body for solicitors, lawyers who advise clients and prepare cases, have contested the move.

Legal experts in the UK argue that juries are not the cause of the delays; rather, they blame years of “systematic underfunding” and court closures by previous governments. Critics have warned that removing lay participation could fundamentally undermine the British criminal justice system, arguing that administrative efficiency should not come at the cost of fairness.

Politically, the move represents a U-turn for Lammy, who had previously described criminal trials without juries as a “bad idea”. The Liberal Democrats, the second largest opposition party, has termed the plan “disgraceful”, arguing that the government is using the backlog as a pretext to erode civil liberties.

History of jury trials in India

While the UK debates the jury system, India has already walked this path. The jury system was imported to India by the British colonial administration. There were isolated instances of juries in the 18th Century within the East India Company’s courts and the system was formally codified by the Indian Jury Act of 1826.

However, its implementation in colonial India was fraught with controversy and racial bias. For a long time, British and European subjects in India claimed the privilege of being tried only by juries of their own countrymen, often leading to acquittals in cases where they were accused of crimes against Indians.

Following Independence, the debate over the efficacy of the jury system intensified. The government and the judiciary began to view the system as unsuited for India. In 1958, the Law Commission of India, in its 14th report, termed the jury system a “failure”. The Commission argued that juries were often influenced by media sensationalism and caste and communal considerations, and were susceptible to corruption due to the lack of anonymity.

Nanavati case

While the decline of the jury system was a gradual process, one case is famously credited with sealing its fate in the popular imagination: K.M. Nanavati v State of Maharashtra in 1959.

Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a decorated Parsi naval commander, shot and killed Prem Ahuja, his wife’s lover. The case became a media sensation, whipped up by tabloid journalism, which painted Nanavati as a betrayed hero and a man of honour.

Despite the judge’s instructions and the evidence pointing to premeditated murder, the jury in the Bombay sessions court acquitted Nanavati by an 8-1 majority, accepting his defence that the shooting was accidental during a scuffle. The presiding judge, finding the verdict “perverse” and contrary to the weight of evidence, referred the case to the Bombay High Court. The high court subsequently overturned the jury’s verdict and convicted Nanavati of murder, following which he spent three years in prison before being pardoned by the Governor of Maharashtra.

The case highlighted the susceptibility of juries to public sentiment and media pressure rather than strict legal evidence. It reinforced the government’s view that the system was prone to emotional errors.

Abolition and the last exception

Contrary to popular belief, the Nanavati case did not instantly end jury trials. The system continued in pockets of the country for several years. For instance, the Calcutta High Court continued to hold jury trials until 1973.

Its death knell came with the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which came into effect in 1974. The new law removed the provision for jury trials entirely from the Indian criminal justice system, placing the responsibility of determining both fact and law solely on judges.

However, a unique vestige of the system survives in India today. Under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, special courts are constituted to decide matrimonial disputes within the Parsi community. These courts are aided by “delegates” – essentially jurors – chosen from the community to assist the judge in deciding questions of fact.