Boostrapping : CT.06 - Jury Trials in High Courts
Bootstrapping
Main Page     Feedback? MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com

Proposed administrative procedure - CT.06
Jury   Trial   in   High Courts

Purpose : To reduce nexusproness in High Courts

Pre-requisite reading : Why Jury System is superior than judge system

    Contents
  1. Background
  2. Problem with existing High Courts
  3. Proposed improvement : CT.06
  4. Advantages of CT.06
  5. Draft of the act to create procedure CT.06

Background

The purpose is to bring India's administration/courts at par with West. How? By improving record keeping in GoI-offices and reducing nexuses in GoI-offices and courts. How? We would need several laws to achieve that.

CT.06 is one of these proposed laws. (to see the list of some of the laws, please click here). The proposed law CT.06 creates a LESS nexusprone mechanism to appeal the decisions taken by lower courts.


Problem with existing High Courts

A High Courts' judge's career is some 10-25 years long, after he gets appointed as a High Court judge. Before that, he may have worked as lawyer for several years in lower courts, High Courts or Supreme Court. And he may have earlier been a lower court judge for several years. After becoming judge in High Court, he may get transferred after serving in a state for some 3-4 years.

It is basic nature of human to form nexuses with surrounding humans. Given such a long career as a lwayer and then as a judge, it is obvious that High Court judges end up forming nexuses with lawyers, criminals and wealthy individuals who cater these judges. And judges also end up forming nexuses with senior judges, Ministers and officers who can assist them in getting promotions as Chief judges in High Courts or as Supreme Court judges.

These nexuses invariably impair their judgements and only end up helping the career criminals.


Proposed improvement - CT.06 : Jury System in High Courts

There can be several ways to implement Jury System at HC level, of which I like and would propose following two ways :

  • First proposal :
    1. The State public prosecutor will select and summon 30 citizens at random from the State, and form a Grand Jury. Each Grand Juror will have a term of three months. So every month, 1/3rd will retire.

    2. Any case that comes for appeal, the Grand Jurors will decide if the case requires a detailed hearing. If over 15 decide that the case requires a detailed hearing, the in-charge of HC will summon 24 citizens from the State at random to form a Jury.

    3. The Jurors would hear the case. And if over 16 Jurors declare the judgement of Trial Court as inappropriate, the judgement will get cancelled, or else stay confirmed.

  • Second proposal :
    1. The State public prosecutor will select and summon 30 citizens at random from the State, and form a Grand Jury. Each Grand Juror will have a term of three months. So every month, 1/3rd will retire.

    2. Any case that comes before the High Court, the Grand Jurors will decide if the case requires a detailed hearing. If over 15 decide that the case requires a detailed hearing, the Grand Jurors will select 3 districts of that State at random, and send the case to those Districts

    3. The 36 Jurors of those 3 Districts would run trials independently and hear both the sides. If in two Juries, over 8 Jurors declare the judgement of lower court as inappropriate, then judgement will get cancelled, or else the judgement of lower court will be confirmed.


    Advantages of CT.06

    1. The Jury System is less prone to judge-lawyer nexuses. Say a lawyer handles 8 cases a month or say 100 cases a year or 400 cases in 4-5 years. In the present system, where one judge presides for 3-5 years, the lawyer to bribe or form nexus with only one judge to get unfair advantage in these 400 cases. But in Jury System, the lawyer will need to bribe or form nexus with 4000 Jurors to get unfair advantage. This is next to impossible.

    2. The Jury System is less prone to judge-criminal nexuses. Say a career criminal is committing 20-50 crimes a month of beating, harassing etc etc. Say 10 victims decide to file the cases. In the present system, all 10 cases are likely to go before the same 2-3 office-judge. So the criminal has easy time : he has to establish nexus with ONLY 2-3 officers and all the 10 cases a month or 120 cases of the year will get easily taken care of. But in Jury System, the criminal will have to influence 100 citizens a month or rather 1000 citizens a year, which is next to impossible.

    3. The Jury System is faster, as each Jury is given ONLY one case, unlike judge, who is loaded with 100s of cases. So the verdict would come within days.
    So by all means, using Jury in High Courts gives a far less nexusprone and yet faster method than existing one.


    Draft of the act to create procedure CT.06

    To enact CT.06, the citizens would need to pass an act in the Parliament. I have written that draft. To look at the draft, please click here.

         It will be wiser for citizens to first enact procedure LM.03, and then use LM.03 to pass this act. To know about procedure LM.03, please click here.


    If you have any other question, please mail it to MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com. Thousand thanks in advance.



    Next - CT.08 : Jury System in Supreme Court