”It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.” – 12 Angry Men
The room is stifling, the air thick with tension. Twelve men sit around a table, their faces etched with certainty, their verdict seemingly inevitable. A young defendant’s life hangs in the balance, his fate to be decided not by a single learned judge, but by a group of ordinary citizens—his peers. The evidence seems damning, the prosecution’s case airtight. Eleven men are convinced of the accused’s guilt, eager to be done with their civic duty. But one man refuses to surrender to the weight of the majority. “I just don’t know,” says Juror No. 8, his voice cutting through the haze of assumptions and prejudice.
This moment, drawn from the classic 1957 film 12 Angry Men, is more than just a cinematic masterpiece—it is a lesson in justice. The film follows a jury deliberating on a murder case, where one lone juror challenges the seemingly obvious verdict, forcing the others to examine the case more critically. As the discussion unfolds, biases are exposed, contradictions in the evidence are revealed, and the very concept of justice is put under scrutiny.
At its core, 12 Angry Men is not just about one case; it is about the power of a jury trial itself—a system where justice is not an elite privilege but a collective responsibility. It is a system that compels deliberation, demands reasoning, and safeguards against the blindness of prejudice. And yet, in India, this system no longer exists.
Jury trials were once a part of India’s legal framework, a legacy inherited from the British. But in 1959, following the controversial K.M. Nanavati case, the jury system was abolished, leaving the fate of defendants solely in the hands of judges. In doing so, India distanced itself from one of the most fundamental pillars of participatory justice.
Now, decades later, it is time to ask: Did we lose something irreplaceable? And could reviving jury trials make our justice system more democratic, transparent, and accountable?
The Philosophy and Genesis of Jury Trials
Jury trials are not just a procedural formality; they are deeply tied to the philosophy of democratic justice. They decentralize power by involving common citizens in the administration of justice, ensuring that legal verdicts reflect the values and conscience of society. This principle is rooted in the belief that justice should not be monopolized by a single authority—be it a judge, a government, or a political system.
A jury introduces diversity of thought, experience, and reasoning, ensuring that no single perspective dominates the adjudication process. It also compels legal professionals—both prosecutors and defense attorneys—to present their arguments in a clear, compelling manner, enhancing the fairness of the trial process.
The origins of jury trials trace back to ancient Athens, where large groups of citizens decided legal disputes. The concept evolved significantly in medieval England, culminating in the Magna Carta (1215), which established that no man could be punished except through the lawful judgment of his peers. This idea became the foundation of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and was later ingrained in the legal systems of the United States, the United Kingdom, and many other democratic nations.
The concept of jury trials was not alien to India either. In ancient India, during the period of monarchy, it was common practice for the monarch, who was ordained with the duty and authority to administer justice, to be bound by the opinion of a council of advisors—a system resembling what we now call a “jury.” Ancient texts like the Manav Dharma Shastra, Yajnavalkya’s Doctrine, and Kautilya’s Arthashastra mention the concept of Sabha (assemblies) and Parishad (council), endorsing the idea of collective and participatory justice. The best example of this is the longstanding concept of Panchayati Sabha, which continues to play a vital role in delivering justice in India today, embodying the idea of societal participation in the justice system.
Jury Trials and the Art of Cross-Examination: A Battle of Wits in the Courtroom
A courtroom without a jury is like a stage without an audience—devoid of the raw human element that makes justice a living, breathing process. Jury trials elevate cross-examination from a mere legal formality to an art form, where lawyers must not only dismantle falsehoods but also persuade, captivate, and convince.
In a judge-led trial, arguments are tailored to a legally trained mind—precise, technical, and confined within rigid legal frameworks. But a jury trial changes the entire dynamic. Here, a lawyer must translate legal intricacies into compelling human narratives, ensuring that twelve ordinary citizens see through deception, uncover contradictions, and grasp the essence of the case. Cross-examination in a jury trial is not just about facts—it is about perception, psychology, and performance.
Take the celebrated criminal trials in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, where legendary lawyers have turned cross-examination into a battleground of rhetoric and logic. Every pause, every inflection, every sharp turn of phrase is designed to chip away at the credibility of a witness, to expose the weak spots in testimony, and to guide the jury toward the truth. It is in these moments that a lawyer’s skill is truly tested—not just in legal knowledge, but in persuasion, psychological insight, and sheer oratory power.
In India’s pre-abolition era, some of the finest cross-examinations unfolded in jury trials. The legendary Sir Jamshedji Kanga, the fiery Bhulabhai Desai, and the formidable Nani Palkhivala were masters of this craft, dismantling witnesses piece by piece before a jury that hung onto their every word. But with the elimination of jury trials, much of this artistry was lost. The lawyer’s role shifted from persuading a panel of diverse individuals to appealing to a single judge, often reducing cross-examination to a technical exercise rather than a test of advocacy.
Reviving jury trials in India would reignite this lost art, compelling lawyers to master the delicate balance of logic and emotion, fact and narrative, reason and rhetoric. A courtroom is not just a place of legal argument—it is a theater of justice. And in that theater, the presence of a jury forces cross-examination to be what it was always meant to be: a dramatic, high-stakes battle for the truth.
The Rise and Fall of Jury Trials in India: The Nanavati Case and Its Fallout
Jury trials in India were once a defining feature of its colonial-era criminal justice system, introduced through the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1861. Modeled after the British legal system, juries were meant to empower ordinary citizens with the responsibility of delivering justice—a system that, in principle, reflected democracy at its core. For nearly a century, jurors played a crucial role in deciding the fate of the accused, ensuring that justice was not merely the domain of legal elites but a collective endeavor.
However, this democratic experiment met an abrupt end in 1959 with the infamous case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra—a trial that not only gripped the nation but also sealed the fate of jury trials in India. Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a decorated naval officer, stood accused of murdering his wife’s lover, Prem Ahuja, in a fit of rage. The case had all the elements of a courtroom drama—love, betrayal, honor, and revenge—ensuring its place in the public imagination. But what truly made this case significant was how it exposed the flaws of the jury system—not in principle, but in practice.
During the trial, Nanavati’s composed demeanor and military background played into the jury’s emotions. The defense masterfully painted him as a wronged husband, a man of honor whose actions were driven by the betrayal of his wife rather than cold-blooded murder. The media, too, played its part, romanticizing the trial and shaping public sentiment in Nanavati’s favor. When the jury delivered a verdict of ‘not guilty’ by an 8:1 majority, it sent shockwaves through the judiciary. The Bombay High Court swiftly intervened, overturning the verdict on the grounds that the jury had been misled by emotions rather than legal facts.
The real turning point came when the government realized how susceptible jurors were to external influences—media sensationalism, public sentiment, and societal biases. Instead of reforming the system by ensuring better jury instructions, stricter media regulations, or improved selection procedures, the state saw an opportunity for greater judicial control. The Nanavati case became the final justification for abolishing jury trials altogether in the 1960 amendment to the CrPC, ensuring that the power of deciding guilt or innocence would rest solely with trained judges.
What India lost in the aftermath of Nanavati’s trial was not just a legal mechanism but an essential democratic safeguard—the idea that justice should not be monopolized by a select few but should be a shared responsibility of the people. While the case was an example of how jury trials could go wrong, it was never proof that the system itself was irredeemable. Instead, it was a cautionary tale of what happens when a system is abandoned Instead of being improved.
Why India Needs to Revive Jury Trials—And How to Make Them Work
The revival of jury trials in India is not just a nostalgic pursuit—it is a necessity for a more democratic, transparent, and participatory justice system. A system where the common citizen is not a mere spectator but an active participant in the pursuit of justice. Jury trials bring diversity of thought, safeguard against judicial biases, and act as a check on state power. In a country as vast and pluralistic as India, where socio-economic backgrounds influence judicial outcomes, a panel of jurors from different walks of life can ensure that justice is rooted in community conscience rather than institutional detachment.
But the question remains: Can India implement jury trials without repeating past mistakes? The answer lies not in blind revival but in a carefully structured, well-regulated system that incorporates lessons from both history and modern democracies.
Practical Reforms for a Functional Jury System in India:
1. Rigorous Jury Selection Process:
– Jury duty should not be random but merit-based and representative.
– Conduct thorough background checks to eliminate bias and ensure impartiality.
2. Jury Training and Legal Guidance:
– Jurors should receive basic legal orientation before a trial to understand their role and the principles of justice.
– Judges must provide clear instructions to prevent emotional verdicts, ensuring decisions are rooted in law and not sentiment.
3. Protection from Media Influence and Political Pressure:
– A strict media gag order should apply once jury deliberations begin, preventing sensationalism from shaping the verdict.
– Jurors should be sequestered in high-profile cases to ensure decisions are free from public or political pressure.
4. Hybrid System with Jury Oversight in Select Cases:
– Jury trials need not replace the current system but can coexist with judge-led trials.
– Cases involving police brutality, sedition, corruption, and custodial deaths—where state power is in question—should be subject to jury trials to ensure fairness.
5. Appeal Process and Judicial Oversight:
– While the jury should determine guilt or innocence, a judge should still oversee sentencing, ensuring legal consistency.
– A robust appeal mechanism should exist where a judge can overturn a verdict only on the grounds of procedural irregularities, not on subjective interpretation.
Conclusion: A Justice System by the People, for the People
The abolition of jury trials in India was not just the end of a legal tradition—it was the quiet erosion of participatory justice. In a democracy, the people must not merely be subjects of the law but active arbiters of it. A well-structured jury system can restore this lost balance, ensuring that verdicts reflect not only legal expertise but also the conscience of society.
What made the abolition of jury trials even more regrettable was that instead of fixing its flaws, India chose to abandon the system altogether. Every institution has its weaknesses, and jury trials were no exception. However, rather than reforming the process by refining juror selection, providing legal guidance, and ensuring protection from bias, the system was discarded in favor of a judiciary-centric model that distanced the people from justice. It was a decision rooted in short-term convenience rather than long-term democratic ideals. The right approach would have been to correct the deficiencies, not eliminate the institution entirely—a decision that cost the legal system an essential element of public participation.
Reintroducing jury trials is not about romanticizing the past; it is about strengthening the future. With thoughtful reforms—rigorous juror selection, legal guidance, protection from external influences, and a hybrid system balancing judicial oversight—we can create a jury model that is both practical and resilient. A jury does not replace the judiciary; it enriches it, making justice more transparent, accountable, and representative of the diverse nation it serves.
Moreover, the revival of jury trials would breathe new life into the art of advocacy, particularly the skill of cross-examination, which has long been considered the ultimate test of a lawyer’s intellect and wit. In the presence of a jury, cross-examination transforms into a powerful tool—not just for discrediting falsehoods but for illuminating the truth in a way that resonates with ordinary people. The greatest courtroom battles in history have hinged on the sharp, strategic questioning of witnesses, exposing inconsistencies, revealing motives, and delivering justice in its most compelling form.
The courtroom should not be a space where law is dictated from above but where justice is deliberated among equals. It is time to reclaim the spirit of democratic justice—one where the fate of an individual is not decided in isolation but through the collective wisdom of society. The return of jury trials would not only democratize justice but also elevate the legal profession, challenging lawyers to master the lost art of persuasion and argumentation. A legal system that embraces both expertise and the voice of the people is not just ideal—it is essential for a truly fair and free society.
This article is written by Mr. Vaibhav Soti, a law student and a freelance legal research intern at the chambers of Advocate Divya Kumar Soti. To know more about him, click here.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. CiteCase.in does not assume any responsibility or liability for the contents of the article.