Rahul Mehta Gandhinagar LsCandidate

(1) JurySys was NOT ended due to Nanavati case --- Mr. Jawaharlal ended Jury System in 1959 to protect landlords' large land holding. All in all, the Jurors across India were siding with landless and so ending Jury System had become must to protect landlords !!! And so Mr. Jawaharlal wanted to end Jury System and took Nanavati case as excuse.
.
(2) Jurors decided to "acquit" Nanavati, NOT because of media campaign . But because Jurors saw Ahuja as "paternity fraudster criminal", and saw Captain Kavas Nanavati as potential victim of "paternity fraud" or "paternity uncertainty". And Jurors acquitted Nanavati because Jurors were NOT given option of awarding say 3 years in prison. The only option given to Jurors was "acquit" or "life in prison" and so they decided "acquit".
.
(3) The movie Rustom gives wrong information. It repeats the lie that "Jury System was ended due Nanavati case". Whereas in reality, Mr. Jawaherlal etc ended Jury System only to protect landlords.
.
======
.
This post addresses two separate issue. One is Nanavati case. And second why Jawaharlal etc ended JurySys India.
.
======
.
(1) JurySys was NOT ended due to Nanavati case --- it was ended by Mr. Jawaharlal because Jurors across India were siding with landless, and giving verdict against landlords's criminals
.
Mr. Jawaherlal had printed a Gazette Notification in 1959 to end Jury System in India, and that GN became effective in courts after it was signed by the then Supreme Court judges.
.
Mr. Jawaherlal has cited Nanavati case as an excuse !!! But then did Mr. Jawaharlal always speak the truth? And did he always give right statements on motives behind his actions on all matters? And if decision of Jury to acquit Nanavati was wrong, and if Nanavati deserved to die, then why did Jawaherlal himself ordered his sister and Mahashrashtra Governor Vijaya Laxmi Pandti to hive Gubernatorial Pardon to Nanavati later?
.
We know that Mr. Jawaherlal had lied on many many occasions. Then it is quite possible that lied on this issue too --- that he had some other motives to ban Jury System, and he used Nanavati case ONLY as an excuse.
.
So only evidence to explain motives to Mr. Jawaherlal is his statement, And we know that M,. Jawaherlal had lied 10s and 100s of times. So one is free is to say "yes, Jawaherlal did lie on many occasions, but on this issue , that "reason why he ended Jury System was Nanavati case", he was speaking all truth. But there are many who believed that Jawaherlal had some other motives in ending Jury System. What could have been his motives?

Now lets make one statistical observation. Today, there are some 3 crore pending cases in some 18000 Lower Courts across India. And every year, some 5 lakh to 10 lakh new cases get filed, To this, add cases in 100s of tribunals. And in 1959, some one lack new cases were getting filed every year.
.
So a question in 1959 would have been "should we use Jury System in these lakhs of pending cases and 10000s new cases that come every year, or shall we use judge system?"
.
Now , IMO, it is NOT possible to decide this question, based on outcome of just one case namely Nanavati case.
.
The whole statement , that "one case, namely Nanavati case, was real reason that decided the question "should we use Jury System or judge in lakhs and lakhs of court cases" is farce. No sane and honest human will every ever use just one case to decide the system that needs to be used to give judgments in lakhs and lakhs of cases. Jawaharlal had high "cunning IQ" but low "statistical IQ" and low "mathematical IQ". So Mr. Jawaharlal was cunning but had no constructive intelligence was mentally incapable of taking decision that required statistical analysis. But even with such low IQ, he could have seen that one Nanavati case can never a good reason to decide what system should be used in to decide 1000s of cases.
.
So if Nanavati case was not sufficient reason reason, or not even real reason to end Jury System in India, what other motives Jawaherlal had in his minds?
.
Lets examine the land reforms issue which was central to politics from 1950 to 1980 and is critical issue even today.
.
Back in 1950s, over 85% to 90% Indians lived in villages. And by villages , I mean real villages --- no electricity, no roads, no runni water, no sewers, no hospitals etc. And less than 3% families owned over 90% of land in India, exceptstates of Gujarat, JK, Kerala , Punjab and Haryana.
.
In UP, Bihar etc, landlords owned miles and miles of land. And landless used to be real poor --- real poor --- starving poor. A poverty that we dont see today.
.
The landlords used to pay pittance to the landless laborers. And in addition, atrocities, kidnapping, beatings, insulting etc were norms. Many landlords were courts and police by themselves,
.
All party workers, such as jansangh / CPM / Congress workers wanted a solution to the problem of poverty of the landless and recklessness of the landlords. Some CPM middle level workers started demanding land reforms -- i.e. take away land or landlords and ex-kings and give it to landless. Most CPM leaders , all congress leaders and all jansangh apex leaders opposed it. But proposal became too too popular in workers across parties.
.
So in short --- the concept that landlords' land should be acquired by state and given to landless --- aka land reforms -- had become too too popular in workers across Jansangh, RSS,
.
So Jawaharlal and other MPs were forced to print law that if a landlord owns over 150 acre of land, then he can keep any 150 acre and rest will be given to tillers !!
..
So the tillers started going to court with claims. And so landlords started using criminals to beat the landless. But the landlords could not get far, because Jurors would imprison criminals and so criminals were not wiling to beat the landless anymore.
.
So ending Jury System had become necessary to ensure that landless can use criminals to beat the landless and stop them from going to courts. And so Jawaharlal ended Jury System in India.
.
Now why did 100s of MPs etc helped Jawaharlal on this issue? Well, most MPs were from landlord families and they didnt really want and upliftment of landless. So they too wanted to end Jury System in India. And so they all supported Jawaharlal on the issue of ending Jury System in India.
.
=====
.
(2) Why did Jurors freed Nanavati ?
.
(2a) Understanding the problem of paternity uncertainty, as it was decades ago ---
.
IMO, understanding the issue of paternity uncertainty is central to Nanavati case and 1000s of cases involving adultery and also understanding, why today society doesnt consider adultery as heinous crime, and in past it used to consider adultery as .a heinous crime.
.
Today, science and engineering, and medicine, has solved a problem that had plagued mankind across world for over 20000 years --- paternity uncertainty/fraud and avoiding unwanted pregnancy !!! Thanks to blood tests and DNA test, the problem of paternity uncertainty and paternity fraud has now become zero. And thanks to pills etc, problem of unwanted pregnancy also no longer exists.
.
Today, fathers and mothers impose less restriction on daughters than say 70 years ago or 1000 years ago. And brothers impose less restriction on sisters and husband impose less restrictions on wives and so on. And the main reason is NOT some novels written by feminists and assorted sociologists. The real and ONLY reasons are two -- hard work of scientists, doctors and engineers have ensured that (a) unwanted pregnancies wont happen.(b) blood tests and DNA tests have reduced paternity uncertainty to zero
.
For time immemorial, males and females (like mothers) had imposed restriction on young females, and reason was --- what if freedom results into non marital sex, and that non marital sex happens in pregnancy, and husband has no way to know whether he is the real father of the child or someone else. Whole life, father will have to live with suspicion and agony that child he is raising may not be his own. And adultery also creates ground for someone who gets sadistic enjoyment in committing "paternity fraud" !! All this statement may appear as useless today, because the crime has vanished due to blood tests and DNA tests, and that women can avoid / end unwanted pregnancy with no risk. But I would request readers to imagine situation some 70 years back when there were no effective blood tests and DNA test was unheard --- in fact DNA itself was not even discovered !! In many ways, rape is worse than murder, and betrayal is worse than rape, and paternity fraud is worse than betrayal because victim has no way to know that he is victim !! Of course, now this crime doesnt happen --- thanks to science.
..
The society too back then had to worry about unwanted children to unmarried women or married women. Because back then, social security system was not robust, and such out of wedlock children were more likely to become violent criminals. Today, society doesnt have MATERIAL reason worry about non-marital sex. Because pre-marital sex will NOT result in unwanted pregancy. And so physical danger from a out of wedlock child are very low.
.
Also, back then society had to worry about agony a man can suffer if he doubts that the child isnt his own, and there is no scientific way to prove or disprove it.
.
And so back then, across world, society consider adultery as a crime worse than murder, It was NOT because society considered woman as property of man, These nonsenses, that "men consider women as their property": make good novel lines and sociology essays, but are useless. The MATERIAL reason why men and women across globe considered adultery as heinous crime was paternity uncertainty it creates and opportunity it creates for a criminal to create paternity fraud. And as science solved the problem of paternity uncertainty, the adultery almost became non-crime.
..
So while analyzing Jurors' decision in Nanavati case, I request readers to keep the concept of paternity uncertainty in mind. Today, you, the reader, may or may not consider paternity as a crime. But back then, over 90% population in India, and even in Western countries, consider paternity fraud as heinous crime. And so they considered adultery as a crime.
.
-----
.
(2b) When victim in round-two was heinous criminal in first round, and the criminal of second round had been victim in first round !!!
.
If I ask you, "what punishment you give to a murderer", you may say "14 years in prison or 20 years in prison or life in prison or execution".
.
But let me ask following question
.
(i) A 60 years old man X decided to put all his life savings of say Rs 1 crore in buying two flats --- he planed to live in once and rent the other.
.
(ii) He bought two flats from a builder B
.
(iii) Later, buyer X found that builder had already sold those tow flats to someone else, and B has cheated him, and he lost his life's savings
.
(iv) X takes a gun, and X asks B to repay the money. B refuses and X shows gun to him, and in the fight, X kills B.
.
(v) say later investigation show that B was habitual criminal and B had duped many in past and B had also planned to dupe many in future
.
Now X is criminal. But thats in round-2. In round-1, builder B was criminal and that too a habitual criminal. And he had planned to duped many in future. In away, X saved many future victims from becoming victims.
.
Also, it is clear that murderer X would have never committed murder if he was not duped to such an extent. And murderer X had never committed any crime in past.
.
So this crime is case where ":the criminal in round-2 had been victim in round-1 and victim of round-2 had been a criminal, and that too habitual deliberate criminal, in round-1".
.
Now lets say we ask 10000 persons chosen at random "what punishment would you give on X for murder of B --- (a) zero (b) 3 years in prison (c) 14 years in prison (d) 20 years in prison or (e) execution".
.
I cant speak for all 10000. But if I am Jury, my answer will be somewhere between (a) and (b). In fact, I may give (a) and say "than you for saving many future victims from becoming victims of B".
,
IOW, when criminal in round-2 had been victim in round-1, and victim of round-2 had been criminal in round-1, then there is a tendency NOT to give full punishment and give "discount in punishment".
.
And when victim of round-2 has been career criminal in round-1 who had duped many, the hatred for victim increases discount that criminal may get. And the possibility that that victim would would have duped many more, further increases tendency to say "thank you" and give more discount in the punishment.
.
And in case of paternity fraud, and aduletry cases 70 years back, the case was worse than cheating I mentioned above. Because there was no way to prove / disprove paternity
,
And in way, this discount in punishment is what keeps criminals in check. Because if every criminal is told that "commit a crime, and you will be punished ONLY if proved and there will be zero private consequences if you commit a crime in unprovable way", then crime rate will jump. Because in many cases, wanna be criminals deter from possible private action and less from courts. IOW, giving discount to criminal of second round is one way to say "thank you for saving future victim".
.
So I request you keep his factor in mind. That many persons across the world have this notion that "when criminal in round-2 had been victim in round-1, and victim of round-2 had been criminal in round-1, then there is a tendency NOT to give full punishment and give some discount in punishment".

----
.
(2c) To acquit or imprison for 3 years or life imprisonment or execution?
.
So when Jurors saw the case, 70 years back, they saw it as follows
.
(2c.1) Nanavati was not a habitual criminal
.
(2c.2) Ahuja had option of commercial sex , which back then was 100% legal. But he decided to do adultery, knowing that it can cause paternity uncertainty and cause grave psychological and physical problems on Nanavati and the child, had a child been born out of Ahuja's relation with Nanavati's wife. IOW, Ahuja was a reckless criminal
.
(2c.3) Ahuja had indulged into adultery in past, and logically planned to do it again several times.
.
(2c.4) So Nanavati didnt deserve life sentence or execution, or even a long sentence. At worst, he deserved say 3 years to 4 years in prison.

------
.
(2d) Jurors were given only two choices --- not guilty or judge will decide "life imprisonment or execution".
.
The system in Nanavati case did not give power to Jurors to decide length of punishment,. The Jurors could have said "not guilty" and if they had said "guilty" then judges would have decided the punishment --- be life sentence or execution..
.
The Jurors did NOT have option to say "three years in prison". or "five years in prison"/
.
So Jurors effectively had only two choices - (a) zero punishment OR (b) let judge decide execution or life sentence
.
And execution in this case, where so victim Ahuja was a criminal in first round, and criminal Nanavati was a victim in first round , was perhaps unacceptable to them. And so was life sentence.
.
Basically, Jurors did NOT wish to say "life sentence or execution" . And so they had only once choice --- say "not guilty".
.
IOW, the Jurors only picked the option which they thought was lesser of the two bad options offered to them. If they had choice of "three years in prison", then they may have gone for it.
.
-----------------------
.
(2e) All in all, IMO the Jurors in Nanavati case could or should have said "three years in prison", but they didnt have that option. They had two choices (i) zero punishment OR (ii) let judge pick life imprisonment or execution. And given the gravity of paternity uncertainity and gravity of adultery 70 years back, Jurors ruled out (b). And so only choice they had was (a).
.
Today, evaluating the decision of Jurors in Nanavati case is difficult because today, crime of paternity uncertainty and unwanted pregnancy is no more thanks birth control and DNA tests. So today, one may wrongly say "Jurors were not rational and were emotional" etc. But Jurors did apply full mind, and took a rational decision amongst the choices they had
.
======
.
(3) Movie Rustom is wrong
.
Well, when was a Bollywood movie right? Movie is movie --- it need not be right.
.
But Rustom movie propagates same lie -- that the then PM Jawaherlal ended Jury System due to Nanavati case, Well, Nanavati could have been an excuse at best, Otherwise, outcome of one case will not effect decision of any person on "system for lakhs of case" question. Nanavati case was only an excuse. Jawaherlal wanted to end Jury System to protect landlords, because Juries were siding with landless.
.
To know more on Jury System, pls see chap-21 and chap-22 of
Right to Recall Manifesto, English, aka 301.pdf at https://www.facebook.com/groups/righttorecallparty/10152114637883103/ and Right to Recall Manifesto, Hindi, aka 301.h.pdf at https://www.facebook.com/groups/righttorecallparty/10152114645373103/ .