Rahul Mehta Gandhinagar LsCandidate

Right To Recall Against Corruption:

Before 1959, in our country there was a weak Jury system. In this system, the lower court, 9 citizens were randomly selected for deciding a case and these randomly selected citizens were called Jurors. These Jurors were changed after every case. Judge used to decide under which section case will be registered and Judge used to decide which evidences would be shown to the Jurors. The Jurors only could decide the case as guilty or not guilty UNDER THE REGISTERED SECTION and as per the evidences shown to them. Meaning, in the Jury system prevailing at that time, most of the powers were with the Judge and not with the Jurors.
.
This Jury system even though weak was quite beneficial to the society and to the country. Due to fear of being punished, that time, adulteration and hafta-giri was less at that time and bribes in courts were also less. But under a conspiracy, using excuse of Nanavati case, this system was abolished.
.
Nanavati was a naval officer. He was married to an English woman. He came to know that his wife had an affair with his close friend, Ahuja. Enraged, he killed Ahuja and surrendered himself to the police. This case was misrepresented by the paid media and in using excuse of this case, corrupt Nehru and corrupt Judges abolished this Jury system.
.
Those who use KM Nanavati case as an excuse for opposing Jury system should first answer one question -
Why did judges not charge on Nanavati Indian Penal Code section other than IPC 302 which had lesser punishment when Nanavati himself had confessed that he had killed Ahuja ?
.
Because if there were charges having less punishment, then Jury would have given Nanavati punishment under those charges while Ahuja family and nexused corrupt judges and corrupt media wanted maximum punishment for Nanavati.
.
Section 302 means killing with criminal intent that is murder and has maximum punishment of life sentence and in rare cases death by hanging.
.
Why did the Judge and lawyers not charge lesser IPC punishments ?
.
Because this was a highly politically influenced case. The family of Ahuja and Nanavati both had high political connections and had used them. Relatives of Ahuja had influenced the judges etc. to charge only max punishment and not lesser charges. Had these charges been there, jury could have ruled Guilty under those charges. And due to lack of sufficient, clear-cut evidence that Nanavati was guilty of pre-planned murder, they ruled "Not guilty under IPC 302"
.
This truth was not told by paid media that Nanavati was declared not guilty under IPC 302, So, in reality the paid media was paid not to tell reality that there was a conspiracy against Jury system. Why ?
.
Because the corrupt elite - corrupt Nehru and corrupt judges and other corrupt judges wanted to finish this system which was standing in the way of their corrupt ways. There seems to be no other reason because in the appeal there was no Jury and often after appeal influential people used to go scot free. In the end, due to influence of Nanavati on Nehru, he was freed by his sister, who was Governor of Maharashtra at that time. And the Judges never objected to this because the corrupt Judges were happy with abolishment of Jury system.
.
What is the proof that Jury was influenced by media ? Is there any testimony given by the Jury members to the press etc ? Was any study done comparing influence of paid media on Jury and on judges ?
.
Rather than doing a study of the systems of judge or the systems of jury - both existing and possible and improving the system, much worse system was brought. Citizens of other countries such as Hongkong improved this weak Jury system but in our country instead of improving this system, it was abolished and a much worse system was broughtYou can see and compare that even in those countries which have good jury systems, majority of judgments come quicker and are much more just. Please see more details in – tinyurl . com / JuryNichliCourt (remove spaces)
.
Also, consider this judgement to see how the judges themselves break laws - fb.com/notes/590527747632897
At least the jurors did not break any law and prosecution could appeal. There was no jury in higher court
.
All in all, if you compare apple to apple, the system proposed in chapter 21 of 3linelaw.wordpress.com is a hugely better system than today`s judicial system. It is judge system which should be abolished and a good jury system be brought.