Kawas Nanavati and Jury Trials in India
Published by Yazad Jal November 12th, 2003 in LawAnkh talks about “introducing” a jury based legal system in India.
Well, until 1959 India had a jury based system. The landmark Nanavati murder case changed it all. Kawas Nanavati, a Commander in the Indian Navy, was accused of murdering his wife’s lover. The evidence was against Nanavati. However, he was a young and handsome man who the public (and parts of the press) looked upon as some sort of “hero.” The jury declared him not guilty. The sessions court judge disagreed and sent the case on to the Bombay High Court, where he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonement. Nanavati appealed to the Supreme court, but lost.
Because the jury in the sessions court was thought to be unduly influenced by the press (notably Rusi Karanjia’s Blitz) to give a verdict in favour of Nanavati, jury trials in India were abolished.
However, I still don’t understand why jury trials were abolished after just one failure. Were there other cases of the jury being influenced? What is the history of jury trials in India between 1947 and 1960? A personal project for me in the next semester in law school.
Sidelight 1: This case is some kind of a legend in my family. My grandmother, then working for Tata Steel, went during her lunch hours to see the trial in action. I used to love hearing all her stories about the handsome Commander Nanavati. (Methinks she too was smitten).
Sidelight 2: James Bond’s rank in the British Navy was also “Commander.”
Sidelight 3: The Nanavati case took a little more than a year for the verdict, including appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. Recent murder trials — Safdar Hashmi / Sushil “Tandoor” Sharma — take 10 years or more and the appeals process has not yet started!
..and also resulted in a Gulzar film, “Achanak”, starring Vinod Khanna as the armed forces officer.
Oh ! I was going to say the same thing. About Achanak. One look at Vinod Khanna in the movie and I can imagine how charismatic a killer can be….
Yeh Raaste Hai Pyaar Ke with Sunil Dutt and Leela Naidu came out much before Achanak and was a more authentic potrayal of the affair. But the case matters less to me than the legal issue of jury trials and why they were abolished so perfunctorily.
How exactly was the Jury Trial system abolished? Was there a provision, of a right to trial by peers in our constituition, like there seems to be in the American Constituition? Also how were caste issues dealt with in Jury trials?
The sordid details of the case made interesting reading.i was absolutely unaware of this drama in the 50’s. no wonder it inspired so many movies.
Check out the fiction book called The Death of Mr. Love by Indra Sinha
Check out the facts of the case and dwell into the distinction between culpable homicide (referred to as manslaughter in the UK) and MURDER with special emphasis to act done by “grave and sudden provocation”. Maybe the Indian jury does not have the maturity to discern finer points of law…???
Kishu,
I’ve provided links to a detailed feature on the trial. During the appeal, the distinction was made between culpable homicide and murder. Nanavati it seemed had planned it — he goes to the Naval HQ to pick up a gun, etc. Although provocation existed, it was neither grave nor sudden according to the evidence. It looked premeditated and well planned, leading the appellate judge to rule that it was murder. This all is fine.
I am not satisfied with the “immaturity of Indian juries” argument. That to me seems more like a failure to *choose* a good jury. The American system has a process in which prospective jury members are questioned by lawyers for both sides and they could be vetoed.
Also, my main questions still remain unanswered.
1. Why were jury trials abolished after just one failure?
2. Were there other cases of the jury being influenced?
3. What is the history of jury trials in India between 1947 and 1960?