K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra-The story of the end of jury trials in India
There are two distinct ways in which trials are conducted across the world- Trial by judge and trial by jury. Both these methods have their merits and demerits and legal systems often provide for different types of trials in different cases. India, in the 20th century, too followed a system where certain cases were tried by a judge and the others, by a jury. However, this began to change from 1959, because of one particular case that shocked the consciousness of the nation, which ultimately paved the way for the abolition of jury trials in India by 1973. It should be noted that West Bengal was the only state to continue to have jury trials after the case of K.M. Nanavati vs the State of Maharashtra, and matrimonial disputes of the Parsi Community of India continue to be settled through jury trials (India’s legal system allows for different legal provisions for different religious communities).
Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati was a commander in the Indian Navy who lived with his wife Sylvia in Mumbai. Nanavati’s naval assignments kept him out of the city for a considerable amount of time in the year. His wife developed a romantic affair with Prem Ahuja. On 1st November, Sylvia came clean to Nanavati, which many believe sent him into a rage. After dropping his family to a movie theater, Nanavati went to the Naval base, collected his pistol on a false pretext from the stores along with six bullets, completed his official duties and proceeded to look for Prem Ahuja in his office and home, where he was ultimately found. After a prolonged verbal confrontation, three shots were fired by Nanavati, which took the life of Prem Ahuja. Nanavati headed straight to confess to the Provost Marshal of the Western Naval Command and, on his advice, turned himself over to the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
In a trial by jury, the jury only gets to decide if the accused is guilty or not, whilst the sentence is passed by the judge. In this case, Nanavati had popular support from the public. Members of the small but economically powerful Parsi Community and even officers of the Indian Navy made public statements in his support. Most Indians did not consider him to be a cold-blooded murderer but instead a man whose marriage was sacrificed because of his duty for the nation. Perhaps the biggest criticism of jury trials is that juries, unlike judges, are susceptible to public opinion, because they form a part of the public before the legal community. This has been observed in many ‘celebrity trials’ across the world, where public opinion has swayed verdicts, most famously in the case of O.J. Simpson in the United States.
Nanavati was acquitted by the jury, an acquittal that was soon challenged in the High Court. The High Court, in a trial by judge, found Nanavati guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a verdict that was upheld by the Supreme Court of India. After serving 3 years in prison, Nanavati was pardoned by the Government, which was under significant pressure from the public. Nanavati reunited with his wife, and the couple emigrated to Canada, where Nanavati lived till his death in 2003. However, this case marked the beginning of the end for jury trials in India.
