Judge and Jury: Contrasting the Jury System in the United States to the Judicial System in India
The jury system is a critical component of the judicial system in the United States, and the sixth amendment of the US constitution guarantees the Sixth Amendment. A jury is a panel of citizens that hears evidence and renders a verdict in criminal trials. It is considered an essential feature of the American justice system, but not all nations have it. In India’s judicial system, criminal defendants do not have the right to a jury trial. This article will examine some differences between the Jury system in the United States and India’s judicial system.
The judicial system in India is quite different from that of the United States. India’s judicial system is complex and diverse, with several levels of courts and a wide range of laws governing them. The Indian judiciary is made up of the Supreme Court of India, High Courts, District Courts, and subordinate courts. One of the key features of the Indian judicial system is the role of the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India is the country’s supreme law, and all other laws are subservient to it. The Constitution lays down the framework of the judicial system and sets out the basic principles of justice and equality before the law. In India, the judicial system follows the principle of Procedure Established by Law. Any action the government or its agencies takes must be based on established legal procedures.
In contrast, the United States follows the principle of Due Process of Law, which means that any action taken by the government must be fair and just. Another essential feature of the judicial system in India is the concept of plenary powers. Plenary powers are the powers the government or its agencies have to act in the public’s interest.1 These powers are often used to ensure that justice is done and that the rights of citizens are protected. The importance of judicial review and its enforcement is another feature of the Indian judicial system. Judicial review is the judiciary’s power to review the government’s or its agencies’ actions and to strike down any unconstitutional action. This power is essential in ensuring that the government and its agencies act in accordance with the law and do not abuse their power.
One way the United States judicial system distinguishes itself from the Indian system is through the jury system. The jury system in the United States is a vital part of the criminal justice system, and its importance cannot be overstated. The jury system allows citizens to participate in the administration of justice, promotes transparency, and ensures a fair trial. In contrast, the jury system was phased out in India in the 1960s and abolished in 1973 as part of the Criminal Procedure Code Act. This part is due to cases like K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra 1959, which in view of the Indian government, showed that juries are unable to be impartial and rational when making their decision.2 The government also believed that the issue of jury tampering and corruption that had become widespread in the country would reduce. Today, all trials in India, with few exceptions, are bench trials, which is when a judge without a jury hears criminal trials in India.
While abolishing the jury system may reduce the risk of tampering, corruption, and bias, it also means that the defendant does not benefit from diverse perspectives in the decision-making process. Moreover, the current status of trials in India is a matter of concern. The Indian judicial system is notoriously slow, with cases taking several years to be resolved. This can result in significant delays in justice being served and can have a negative impact on the lives of those involved in the case. The importance of the Jury System is substantial, despite its potential drawbacks. Jury trials should be a fundamental right of citizens, and the ability to participate in the justice system is an essential aspect of democracy. The jury system allows citizens to participate in the administration of justice and ensures that the rights of the accused are protected. Whatever possible bias may exist, it is more important for you to have a ‘jury of your peers’ to decide your fate in the legal system than a Judge.3 However, there have been some cases in the US, like The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson 1995, which have divided public opinion in the US on if the Jury System truly is the best. It is crucial to consider the bedrock of the US legal system is that it is better for ten criminals to go free than imprison one innocent individual. This is not the current state of the US judicial system but is a worthy goal to aspire towards, and the jury system upholds this principle for all its faults.
In conclusion, the jury system is a crucial part of the United States judicial system, allowing citizens to participate in the administration of justice and ensuring a fair trial. India’s judicial system differs significantly from the United States because it relies on bench trials instead of jury trials. Despite some potential drawbacks, the jury system remains an essential feature of the American justice system, providing defendants with the right to a fair trial and ensuring the protection of their rights. Finally, as the legal system continues to evolve, it is important to remember that the fundamental principles of democracy and justice that underpin any just judicial system must be upheld to create a fair society. More often than not, the right to a jury goes a long way in supporting this society.
