MRCM Party - MRCM demands, promises to improve courts

The MRCM (Mine Rent for Citizens and Military) Party
Jai Jawan Jai Kisan
Main Page Feedback? MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com Orkut Community For Discussions

MRCM demands, promises to improve courts

Contents

Why we need to fix the courts
Effects of such unjust verdicts in society
MRCM’s demands , promises to improve courts
Enabling Citizens to Replace Supreme Court Chief judge
Replacing other SCjs, HC-Cj, HCjs etc
Creating 100,000 more courts
Problems of integrity in lower , other courts
About Jury System
The Jury System and the information factor
Other Political parties, intellectuals on the Jury System
The Nanavati case
Drafts of Govt Ordinance to bring Jury System in Lower Courts in India
How can citizens bring Jury System in India?
Drafts of GOs to bring Jury System in High Courts and Supreme Court
Reducing nepotism in appointment of judges
Teaching Law to entire population and other changes
Other party’s and intellectuals stand on Improving Courts
Review questions
Exercise

1. Why we need to fix the courts

This is change is needed to restore the Indian Constitution, and the subversions that have occurred in past several years. When the citizens wrote the Constitution in 1951, it was clearly stated by the citizens to MPs, SCjs, IAS etc

The country will be run as per the Constitution
The country will be run as per the Constitution, as interpreted by the citizens of India
The SCjs’ interpretation of Constitution will be above Ministers’ interpretation of the Constitution, but citizens’ interpretation of the Constitution will be final and supreme.

         It was because of these decisions, the citizens kept the words Democracy, political justice and equality in the Preamble. And this was the reason why MPs , who were supposed to represent the citizens, were given powers to impeach the SCjs, so that if and when SCjs interpret the Constitution differently from the citizens, the MPs can impeach the SCjs. India’s Constitution borrows many ideas from US Constitution and US society. The citizens in 1950 when they wrote Constitution of India had taken the meaning of word Democracy that was prevailing in US. What was the meaning of word Democracy in US? To understand that, one should read the Constitutions of US states. eg Maryland Constitution clearly says that “Jurors (i.e. common citizens) shall interpret the laws as well as the facts”. The Constitution of 20 more US states speak the same. And so does US Supreme Court. IOW, the word Democracy clearly meant a regime where citizens make the laws and citizens interpret the laws as well as facts in a case.
         The Constitution has now been torn apart in High Courts and Supreme Courts. I will quote following example : Link as on Apr-2-2008
         Fun Place for Sex Crimes
         The [Marty] couple had been arrested in December 2000 after they were caught red-handed while photographing minor girls picked up from the Gateway of India. The horror story of child sexual abuse by the Swiss couple was told in-camera to a sessions court in Mumbai. And in March 2003, Additional Sessions Judge Mridula Bhatkar convicted the couple. They were awarded a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment .... It was on their appeal against this conviction that the Mumbai High Court accepted their contention that if the matter was not expedited, the appeal would not be heard until after seven years, the term of their original sentence. The judge also directed them to pay an enhanced compensation of Rs 100,000 to each of the victims. The gravity of their offence did not figure anywhere in the judgment.
         Their passports revealed that the couple had been visiting India every year since 1989. They operated in different countries and their laptop was stocked with photographs of children including those from Sri Lanka and the Philippines. Posing as a lonely, grandfatherly couple, they befriended street children and their parents, promising to give them a good time on the pretext of charity. Marty (who described himself as a general manager in a multinational pharmaceutical company) and his wife were well stocked with lubricants, condoms and penile sprays. Lily Marty, a trained nurse, would tend to the wounds the children suffered as a result of their abuse. ... But none of this, all recorded evidence, figured in the judgment of the Mumbai High Court. The SC Bench headed by Chief Justice V N Khare granted bail to the two in an order passed on April 5, 2004 ... .

         After obtaining bail from CjI Khare, the two wealthy Swiss pedophiles escaped from India. Such bail orders lower the morale of policemen and lower courts. The acquittal order given by Mumbai High Court judge was against the Constitution. and the bail order given by Chief judge Khare to the two wealthy Swiss convicted pedophiles was also blatant violation of the Constitution.

2. Effects of such unjust verdicts in society

If we dont fix the courts, the injustice from rich on to the bottom 99% of the citizens will keep on increasing. The cohesiveness of society decreases as members of elite throw more and more atrocities on commons. And the decrease in cohesiveness of society decreases the strength of administration and military . When individuals get rampant injustice in courts, they see no point in defending the nation and the society. Unfair treatment in police, courts etc decreases the sense of nationalism day by day, and weakens the whole society, nation every organ of nation such as administration, police, military etc. How can citizens stops the unjust behavior of judges? How can we citizens stop subversion of Constitution in Supreme and High Courts? And how can citizens improve speed and fairness of courts?

3. MRCM’s demands , promises to improve courts

We demand and promise to bring following changes using Third MRCM Govt Order as tool and by obtaining YESes of citizens on the Govt Orders and Ordinances needed to bring following changes.

Enabling citizens to replace the Supreme Court Chief judge
Enabling citizens to replace the four senior Supreme Court judges
Enabling citizens to replace the High Court Chief judge
Enabling citizens to replace the four senior High Court judges
Enabling citizens to replace the Lower Court Chief judge
Enabling citizens to replace the four senior most Lower Court judges
Recruitment of all junior Lower Court judges by written exams only (no interviews)
Recruitment of all junior High Court judges by written exams only (no interviews)
Recruitment of all junior Supreme Court judges by seniority only (no interviews)
Jury System in Lower Courts to decide punishments
Jury System in High Courts for appeals
Jury System to Supreme Courts for appeals
Enacting National ID system (to improve records in courts)
Enact a wealth tax of 0.5% of market value of non-agricultural land above 100 sq meters per person, and use that fund on Police, Courts only.
Create 100,000 more Lower Courts
Jury System to expel/fine a state govt employee.
Jury System to expel/fine a central govt employee.
Enabling citizens to replace Chief National Prosecutors
Enabling citizens to replace four senior most National Prosecutors
Enabling citizens to replace Chief State Prosecutor
Enabling citizens to replace four senior most State Prosecutors
Enabling citizens to replace Chief District Prosecutor
Enabling citizens to replace four senior most District Prosecutors
Recruitment of junior District prosecutors by written exams only (no interviews)
Recruitment of junior State prosecutors by written exams only (no interviews)
Recruitment of National prosecutors by seniority only (no interviews)
Teaching Law from class-VI
Teaching law to all adults for free
Wealth disclosure of all Govt Employees and their close relatives, their trusts , companies
Disclosure of residency and citizen status of all Govt Employees and their close relatives
All courts records, as far as possible, will be placed on internet
The parties will be informed about their case status by emails, SMS in all languages, along with usual postal mails and notices.
Every time there is a trial, 20 citizens chosen at random will be required to attend the trial (to increase awareness about courts in citizenry)

IOW, we have proposed about 30-35 changes in administration to fix our courts, and attain the goal of “rule of law and Constitution, as interpreted by the Citizens”.

4. Enabling Citizens to Replace Supreme Court Chief judge

The biggest reason why India ails is that we commons do not have procedure to replace PM and SC-Cj. My fifth solves this major flaw – it creates a procedure by which citizens can replace PM. Following is the procedure we shall enact when we shall come into power. Or better, citizens can force PM to enact 3rd MRCM demand, and enact the following procedure without electing us :

Any citizen of India can pay a deposit same as MP election deposit to the PM’s secretary and register himself as a candidate for the position of NRJ (Nationally Recognized Jurist)
Any citizen of that district can walk to Talati’s office, pay Rs 5 of fee , approve at most five persons for the NRJ position. The Talati will give him a receipt with his voter-id#, date/time and the persons he approved.
A citizen can cancel his approvals any day as well. There wont be any charge for canceling of the approvals.
The Talati will put the preferences of the citizen on district’s website with citizen’s voter-ID number and his preferences. On every 1st of the month, the PM’s secretary will publish the approval counts of each candidate for each of the position
If a candidate gets approval of over 51% of ALL registered voters (ALL, not just those who have filed their approval) then PM will send the citizens requests to the existing SCjs.
If all SCjs recommend the request, the PM shall appoint him as CJI.
But if even one SCj refuses the appointment then the PM and all Loksabha, Rajyasabha MPs shall resign and call for new election.

The procedure to replace other judges is similar, but different and is described later.

Draft for procedure to Replace CJI

Govt Order : Registration of citizens’ YES/NO for Nationally recognized Jurist

	Procedure for	Procedure / instruction
1	-	The word citizen would mean a registered voter
2	Cabinet Secretary	If any citizen of India wishes to become NRJ (Nationally Recognized Jurist) , and he appears in person or via a lawyer with affidavit before the Cabinet Secretary, the Secretary would accept his candidacy for NRJ after taking filing fee same as deposit amount for MP election.
3	Talati , (or Talati’s Clerks)	If a citizen of that district comes in person to Talati’s office, pays Rs 3 fee , and approves at most five persons for the NRJ position, the Talati would enter his approvals in the computer and would him a receipt with his voter-id#, date/time and the persons he approved.
4	Talati	The Talati will put the preferences of the citizen on district’s website with citizen’s voter-ID number and his preferences.
5	Talati	If a the citizen comes to cancel his Approvals, the Talati will cancel one of more of his approvals without any fee.
6	Cabinet Secretary	On every 5th of month, the CS will publish Approval counts for each candidate as on last date of the previous month.
7	PM	If a candidate gets approval of over 34% of ALL registered citizen-voters (ALL, not just those who have filed their approval) in a district, then PM will appoint him as NRJ
8	PM	If a candidate gets approval of over 50% of ALL registered voters (ALL, not just those who have filed their approval) and the Approval count is 2% more than all NRJs, then PM will send the name of the most approved NRJ to the Chief Judge of India asking him if he is appropriate for the position of Supreme Court judge.

Govt Ordinance : Resignation of PM/MPs

#	Procedure for	Procedure / instruction
1	PM , all Loksabha MPs	If the CJI and every other SCjs recommend that the most approved NRJ should be new CJI, and the existing CjI resigns, within 30 days, then and then only the PM will appoint that NRJ as Chief Justice of India. However, if any one of the Supreme Court judge refuses to accept appointment of NRJ as the Chief judge, or gives no response within 30 days, then PM and all MPs will resign and declare new election.

The proposed two law will effectively implement replacement of CJI. None of the two proposed changes violate any article in the Constitution . And in the second law, the PM will resign if replacement does not happen, but PM with emergency powers in Constitution and CBI in hand has enough powers to make things happen. I don’t need to write all those gory things in black and white.

5. Replacing other SCjs, HC-Cj, HCjs etc

The above is a Govt Ordinance that would enable citizens to replace SC-Cj. We at MRCM Party have proposed, demanded and promised 5 more Govt Ordinances that would

Enable citizens to replace any of the 4 senior most Supreme Court judges
Enable citizens to replace High Court Chief judge
Enable citizens to replace any of the 4 senior most High Court judges
Enable citizens to replace Lower Court Chief judge
Enable citizens to replace any of the 4 senior most Lower Court judges

The drafts are given later in this webpage.

6. Creating 100,000 more courts

We at MRCM demands , promises to create “wealth tax for courts” of about 0.2% of market value of land on those who have residential and commercial land exceeding 75 sqm per person. In addition, money supply was increased in year the time Jun-2007 to Jun-2008 by about Rs 700,000 crores which was 22% of M3 in Jun-2007. We promise , demand to decrease this annual raise to Rs 400,000 crores (10% of what is now). And newly create money will be used solely for Military, Police and Courts. Using this “wealth tax for courts” and reduced increase in M3, the Govt shall be able to create 100,000 more courts within 1 year. Using 100,000 new courts and GOs that change in civil , criminal laws, it would become possible to resolve the existing 3 crores cases within next 3 to 4 years fairly.

7. Problems of integrity in lower , other courts

The increase in number of courts will increase the speed, but we need structural changes in courts to address the following issues

Growing nepotism in judges --- lawyers and aasils who are relatives are winning cases after cases
Growing judge-lawyer nexuses
Growing judge-criminal nexuses
Growing corruption in judges
Growing nepotism in appointments of judges

8.    About Jury System

         We propose The Jury System as solution to first four of the five evils mentioned above (and recruitment by written exams to solve the fifth one). Sadly, most voters and even educated people know nothing about very concept of Jury System. That’s because intellectuals of India are so hostile to Jury System that they never ever informed students or population in general about this Jury System. So even though this manifesto is about changes we promise and not explanations, we have decided to allocate pages to explain Jury System to the readers.
What is judge system and Jury System?
         Consider India. We have 110 cr citizens. We are bound to have at least 20 lakhs to 50 lakhs disputes a year. If these disputes are not resolved by the citizens in short time, the individuals will resolve to private violence thereby causing a chaos. Such chaos could wreck the nation. So for stability, it becomes necessary for the citizenry to give judgments on these disputes, and use force to enforce that judgment. It is not possible for every citizen to personally take interest in each of the these lakhs of disputes. A citizen can at best take interest in 2-5 disputes a year. Therefore, the citizenry has not much option, but to appoint some individuals, for each dispute and take their decision has almost final in most cases, and scrutinize (via appeal) them in some cases. So one of the procedure that a nation has to execute, implicitly or explicitly, is to choose individuals to give judgment on a particular dispute. There are two broad systems depending on how individuals are chosen

The Jury System : Given any dispute, 10, 12 or 15 citizens are chosen at random from the voter list of all adult citizens in that district, state or nation and these citizens, called as Jurors, hear the arguments, examine the evidences, and give a verdict, eg in India before 1956, many cases were resolved by 12 citizens chosen at random
the judge system : the Govt appoints some 200-2000 individuals per crore of population in nation as judges, who will have term for 20-35 years. And these fixed small number of appointed individuals will resolve the disputes. eg in India, cases are resolved by about 13000 judges and some 5000 tribunals.

Other systems use both, randomly selected citizens as well as appointed individuals, are basically simple combinations of Jury System and judge system. There are many other factors, like size of Jury, qualifications, screening rules etc which make one Jury System differ from another. But fundamental difference between Jury System and judge system is :

judge system	Jury System
Small number of Individuals, say 20,000 to 100,000 individuals in India would decide all the cases 20 - 25 lakhs cases a year in India	In the Jury System, EACH case goes to 12-15 different Jurors, randomly chosen from the district, state or nation. The 20-25 lakh cases will be resolved by 3 cr citizens.
Many cases go same individuals. One judge in his career will hear some 500 to 200,000 cases and give some 5000 to 50,000 verdicts	The Jurors change with every case. A citizen cannot become Juror against for at least 5 years.
If a District gets 5000 cases a year, and say 25000 cases in 5 years, in the judge system they will be resolved by some 25-50 judges	In Jury System, they will be resolved by 300,000 to 400,000 different citizens.

         On the surface, this issue may look unimportant --- what difference does it make whether cases are decided by randomly chosen citizens or a fixed judges? But this trivial looking difference plays a huge role in the strengthening or weakening the nation.

How nepotism or cross-nepotism become rampant in judge system
         To end nepotism, in judge system, a judge’s relative is banned from practicing in the judge’s courts. Now the intellectuals insist that we must accept that this ban end nepotism in courts. Well, this does not make any difference at all. In most court complexes, two or more judges will form a cartel. judge-A will give favorable treatment to relative lawyers of judge-B and judge-B will give favorable treatment to the relative lawyers of judge-A. This is what MRTP Party calls as cross-nepotism . Till date, every intellectual we met is hostile to even discuss the problem, of cross nepotism in courts. And till, Jury System is the only known solution to this problem of cross-nepotism in courts. The cross nepotism has become so intense that criminals and industrialist just retain a few relative lawyers and get all favorable judgments and commons simply get crushed in the courts. Cross nepotism is important reason why Acts like SEZs did not get canceled in High and Supreme Courts.
         Even if culture is nepotic, nepotism and cross-nepotism is structurally impossible in Jury System. It is similar to recruitment by written exams, where nepotism cant make any difference. In Jury System, 12 Jurors are chosen from population of 5 lakhs to 100 crores. Since these Jurors have only one case, the case is over 5 to 15 days in 99% cases. So first, it is highly unlikely that a lawyer would exist in world who would have be a relative of these 12 Jurors or even 6 of them or even two of the Jurors. And finding him within 15 days make it further difficult. India sees some 35,00,000 cases a year spread over about 700 district i.e. about 5000 cases a district a year. If these 5000 cases are resolved by 5000 batches of 12 Jurors each, then less than 10 batches will have a two Jurors with common relative lawyers. Further, in Jury System, a lawyer would face prison sentence if he appears before a Jury where in he has a close relative. So nepotism is physically impossible in Jury System. Now can cross-nepotism work in Jury System?
         So only way cross-nepotism will work is when 12 Jurors of Jury-A and 12 different Jurors of Jury-B form nexuses. Jury-A would favor lawyer with relatives in Jury-B and Jury-B will favor lawyer who has relative in Jury-A. Finding such pair of lawyers, pair of Juries and managing deal within 5 to 15 days is a mathematical impossibility. IOW, while the judge system reeks with nepotism and cross-nepotism, the Jury System is immune to nepotism and cross-nepotism.

How career crime increases in judge system due to cross-nepotism
         Consider a specific kind of crime --- street criminals (commonly called as Bhaai or Daadaa) or any career criminals who collect protection money from small shop-keepers etc every month, openly and fearlessly. There are places in US/Europe with high crimes, but nowhere can one see criminals openly extorting money from shop-keepers. One of the factor why career crime is rampant in India, and less seen in West is the that India uses judge system, while the West uses Jury System. The judge system makes India's courts very nexused, while the Jury System has drastically reduced the nexusproneness in Western courts.
         Lets see how Jury System reduces the nexusproneness in Western Courts. Consider a mid-level career criminal with a gang of 50-100 criminals. He may be operating in some 5-10 areas. Now to sustain their operations, he and his gang members would need to pay monthly bribes to many MLAs, MPs, police officers, other officers, government lawyers, judges etc and would also need money to hire lawyers, mercenaries etc on time to time basis. All this, means a monthly FIXED COST of lakhs of rupees. Now such career criminal CAN NOT always find 5-10 victims that would cover all the costs and give profits every month. So almost always, a gang of career criminals has to victimize 100s of victims a month. In short, a career criminal and his gang-member has to commit 100s of crime a month. Out of so many crimes, some 20-30 of victims would end up filing complain in the courts. This would generate some 300-400 court cases per year.
         Now this is where judge system and Jury System would create difference in combating career crimes.

Career criminal in judge system	Career criminal in Jury System
In the judge system, say 1000 cases that get filed in 4-5 years against that ganglord. All will go to just 5-10 judges.	In the Jury System, EACH case goes to 12-15 DIFFERENT Jurors, randomly chosen from the district, state or nation so these 1000 cases will go to 12000 to 15000 district, state or nation
So in order to delay the case to frustrate the witnesses or get outright acquittals, the gang leader has to cultivate nexuses with ONLY 5-10 judges.	Long delay in Jury Trials are rare as each Jury is given ONLY one case, hearings are from 11am to 4pm on one and only one case, and mostly next date is next day. And the ganglord will have to make nexuses with 12000 Jurors
If the ganglord manages to cultivate nexuses with 5-10 judges, and he can manage an acquittal/delay in 99% cases.	So to get acquittals in 1000 cases in 5 years, the gang leader will need to cultivate nexuses with 12000 Jurors.

So managing acquittals in even 10%-20% cases in Jury System is next to impossible. IOW, since a large number of cases in Indian courts are resolved by a small number of individuals (i.e. judges) the career criminal have cultivated nexuses and are having a field day. While West uses a very large number of individuals to resolve court cases, which makes establishing nexuses in a larger number of cases difficult to the extent of impossible. So career crimes, such as extortion, in West have vanished.

judge-lawyer nexus in judge system
That was about judge-criminal nexus. The courts in India are sprawling with judge-lawyer nexuses. The nexus between judges and relative lawyers is now a law than exception. But even apart from that, the judges have nexuses with many non-relative lawyers as well. How does judge-lawyer nexus come into existence? No one in Western courts has even seen Juror-lawyer nexus. The reasons are structural and not cultural.

judge-lawyer nexus	No Jury-lawyer nexus
Say 5 senior lawyers have 20 junior lawyers working for them. Say they are together taking say 1000 cases a 4 year period year in a district	Ditto
Most of these cases would to some 20 judges posted in that district.	The cases will go to 12,000 Jurors in a year.
One judge would get many cases from them	No Juror would get repeated
Within 3-6 months these 5 lawyers can cultivate nexuses with these 10-20 judges	There is no time to cultivate nexuses with even 2% of them.

         When a lawyer makes a nexus with a judge during the trial of a case, that nexus with that judge will be CERTAINLY useful to that lawyer in ALL his cases which will come up before that judge. Even if a lawyer manages to form nexuses with say 7-8 out of 12 Jurors during the trial of a case, those nexus with those Jurors will be of NO USE at all in ALL other case of that lawyer, as Jurors change with each and every trial.

How corruption reduces in Jury System
         Much of the corruption in judge system is via organized criminals or large corporate who have 100s of cases in a state. These cases go to some 100-300 judges in lower courts. So these criminals and corporates hire some 15-50 lawyers who are close relatives of these judges or are otherwise close to these judges. Now in Jury System, these 100s of cases will go to 10000s of Jurors. eg if there are say 100 cases against a ganglord and his members or there 100 cases against a company in a state, these cases will go 12000 Jurors. A nation wide corporate would be having 1000 cases a year against it all over India and would end up confronting 12,000 Jurors a year all over India No ganglord or company owner is capable of bribing so many citizens. So they give up.
         Further, in judge system, a judge has to keep a commitment after taking bribe or else he wont get repeat business. In the Jury System, the Jurors change with every case and a Juror cannot come back in Jury for next several years. So the bribe-giver has no assurance that Juror will keep the commitment, and very often, due to hatred against criminals, Jurors will still punish a person even if he has taken a bribe. After taking bribe, he has nothing to lose.

How corruption in police , administration reduces in Jury System
         Most policemen , officers come into contact with judges due to years of services. Almost every policemen, officer knows which relative lawyer to contact if there is a case against him in a particular judge’s court. And they have years of relation and nexuses. The relative lawyers trade favors for the favors they would get from policemen, judges. And so policemen, officers get away in the cases against them easily. However, in Jury System. they confront Jurors who are angry against corrupt policemen, officers. And they have no nexus with 1000s of Jurors. So chances that a corrupt policemen, officer gets punished are far higher in Jury System. This is why Jury System reduces corruption in other depts such as police, revenue, education, health etc.

Global overview of Jury System
         There are about 17 countries which use Jury System – Canada, US, UK, France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand. Two countries are added in this list --- some 25% of Russia’s Districts now uses Jury System and Japan will start Jury System from 2009. And some 90 countries use judge system. Each and every country which uses judge system have corrupt courts, corrupt police and corrupt polity ( 4 exceptions are Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, where corruption is much higher than the 15 countries which have Jury System). Russia and Japan too had to move to Jury System due to problem of corruption and nepotism in courts. And so did South Korea in Apr-2008. IOW, if there is anything that shows 100% correlation, it is that Jury System always reduces corruption and judge system always increases corruption and nepotism.

Historical overview of Jury System
         Rome had elected Magistrates and used Jury System for high crimes, which created a far less nepotic and less corrupt regime than neighbors. This is why Rome became much stronger than the rest. Rome collapsed and main reason was that a large chunk of population (slaves) did not have right to vote. After that, in every regime, the punishment was given by King or Lords appointed by the King. In 1200 AD, Britain was the FIRST nation which reversed this --- and declared in Magna Carta that the King’s agents shall only make allegation and citizens (Jurors) would decide the guilt and punishment. This was a historical change , a change that diametrically changes relation between rulers and subjects. The ruler was no longer in charge of deciding imprisonment or even fines. It was after this Jury System, the craftsmen and traders could protect themselves from the arbitrary rule of Lords and progress started. It was only this reason, why craftsmen became prosperous in Britain and some of them later became industrialists. The industrial revolution in Britain was only because of this Jury System – the Jurors protected the craftsmen, traders and industrialists from the arbitrary fines of Lords and the Kings and enabled these craftsmen to become wealthy. The so called Renaissance had no role to play. If Renaissance was responsible for the progress UK made, well, why didn’t Italy made such progress, where Renaissance came first? The intellectuals have deliberately suppressed the role of Jury System in explaining why Europe overtook rest of the world as they do not want students to know about Jury System, lest they would demand for it.

Summary
         In short, the Jury System solves each of the following 4 problems that existing India court system suffers

Fully solves nepotism problem
Fully solves judge-lawyer nexus problem
Fully solves judge-criminal nexus problem
Drastically reduces corruption problem

[A reader more interested in the 5000 year old Jury vs judge debate should clieck here

9.    The Jury System and the information factor

         One objection often cited by anti-Jury pro-judge individuals is that Jurors have less information about the law. This objection is partly incorrect --- both jurors and judges have same information about basic concepts of justice, fairness, right/wrong etc. The one and only difference is that judges have more information about section numbers and exact length of punishment. eg both judges and Jurors know that violence is crime, a murder done with monetary motive is more heinous than spontaneous violence borne out rage and anger. But Jurors may not be aware of specific details like such act fall in section 302 such and such act carries maximum punishment of say 5 years or 7 years or 6 months and so forth. Such specific details are easy to grasp and apply.
         The pro-judge anti-Jury people do not mention the other point --- i.e. judges progressively get more and more nexused, and also take bribes via relative lawyers.

10.    Other Political parties, intellectuals on the Jury System

         We want all citizens of India to note that all existing parties’ MPs and all intellectuals of India have opposed Jury System, and insist that only judges will give judgment thereby ensuring that nepotism in courts will continue. We want all citizens and non-80G-activists of India to note that we are the ONLY party interested in curbing the nepotism in judges. Other party’s leaders dont even bothers to mention this problem of nepotism in courts in their manifesto.
         It is not difficult to see why party leaders and intellectuals support judge system and oppose Jury System. Many intellectuals’ relatives are judges and so these intellectuals support judge system. That apart, corrupt elitemen want centralized judge system and do not want a decentralized Jury System. Currently India has 13000 judges and they resolve about 13,00,000 cases a year. Now say an elitemen is operating in a District or State. Say he has 20 cases against him a year or 600 cases in a period of 30 years. That law-breaking elitemen now needs to manage only 10-20 judges to deal with this 600 cases. If the Jury System comes, he will have to manage 7200 Jurors which is almost impossible task. IOW, the law-breaking elitemen’s life will become far more cumbersome in Jury System. The intellectuals are agents of these elitemen, and so support judge system and oppose Jury System.

11.    The Nanavati case

         The British realized long back that their own Collectors and judges were corrupt to core, and population would get crushed to the point of rebellion if their powers are not curbed. Which is why, in 1870s, British enacted Jury System in India. But in 1956, Jawaharlal Nehru and the then Supreme Court judges abolished the Jury System by citing Nanavati case as reason. This was utter nonsense.
         Nanavati had killed a person named Ahuja. The Jurors had accepted that as a fact. Nanavati was a Navy officers and citizens have tremendous respect for military officers. The respect doubles when they see that a young man from wealthy family leaves posh comfortable life and accepts hard life of Military. To that, Ahuja was proven adulterer, and back then when paternity tests did not exist, adultery was considered as heinous as murder. The Jurors were in dilemma – if the convict Nanavati, the judge would hang him (which is exactly what happened in second trial). If the Jurors had power to decide the punishment, the Jurors would have surely issued some punishment like a few years of imprisonment. But Jurors had only one power --- to call him guilty which may mean his death or call him innocent. The crime of Nanavati was not motivated for economic gains, nor Nanavati was a career criminal, and surely did not deserve death for his crime out of anger. So Jurors took right decision in saving his life, and took wrong decision of “zero punishment” because they did not have powers to imprison him for a few years. Which is why in the system I have proposed, the Jurors decide punishment so that Jury is not forced by their inner conscious to give “not guilty” verdict when person is guilty not guilty enough for highest punishment that the judge might throw. So Nanavati case shows that Jurors took a very reasonable decision, and what was needed was to increase the powers of Jurors and let them decide punishments instead of judges. Despite this, Nehru (due to his feudalistic mindset) and judges canceled Jury System in India without any debate by citing one “Nanavati Trial” as reason.

12. Drafts of Govt Ordinance to bring Jury System in Lower Courts in India

The citizens would need to get the following Govt Ordinance signed by PM. The Citizens should first force PM to sign the Govt Order described in third MRCM demand and then use that Govt Order to issue the following Ordinance. The citizens should i

Govt Ordinance: Jury System in Lower Courts of India

#	Procedure for	Procedure / instruction
.	.	Section-1 : Appointment and replacement of Jury Administrator
1	CM	Within 2 days after passing this law, the CMs shall appoint one Registrar for entire State and one JA (Jury Administrator) per District.
2	Talati, Talati’s clerk	A citizen residing in a District can present his ID and specify the serial numbers of (at most 5) candidates he Approves for the position of Jury Administrator in his District. The clerk will enter the requests in the systems and give the receipt to the citizen. The citizen to change his choices any day. The clerk shall charge a fee of Rs 3/-
3	CM	If any candidate is approved by highest number of citizen-voters and over 50% of ALL citizen-voters, the CM will appoint him as new JA for that District within 2 days. If any candidate is approved by over 25% of ALL citizen-voters and his approval count is 2% more than existing JA, the CM will appoint him as new JA within 2 days.
4	CM	With approval of over 51% of ALL citizen voters in that State, the CM can cancel clause-2 and clause-3 and appoint his own JA for 5 years.
5	PM	With approval of over 51% of ALL citizen voters in India, the PM can cancel cluase-2, clause-3 and above clause-4 for entire state or some of the districts and appoint JA for 5 years.
.	.	Section-2 : Formation of Grand Jury
6	JA	Using the voter list, the JA will, in a public meeting, randomly select 40 citizens from the voter-list of District, State or Nation as the Grand Jurors, from which he can exclude any 10 after interview so that finally there are 30 Grand Jurors. If the Jurors is appointed by CM or PM under clause-4 or clause-5 he may select up to 60 citizens and exclude 30.
7	JA	In the first set of Grand Jurors, JA will retire the first 10 Grand Jurors every 10 days and select 10 more using random selection from voter list of District or State or Nation.
8	JA	The JA cannot use any electronic device to select a number randomly. He will use the procedure detailed by CM. If CM has not specified the procedure, he will select as follow. Suppose JA has to choose a number between 1 and a four digit number - ABCD. Then JA will have 4 rounds of dice-throw for each digit. In a round if the digit he needs to select is between 0-5, then he will use only 1 dice and if the digit he needs to select is between 0-9, he will use 2 dices. The number selected will be 1 less than the number which comes in case of single-dice throw and 2 less in case of double-dice throw. If the throw of the dices exceeds the highest digit he needs, he will throw the dices again.. Example - Suppose JA needs to select a page in a book, which has 3693 pages. Then JA will execute 4 rounds. In the 1st round he will use 1 dice as he needs to select a number between 0-3. If the dice shows 5 or 6, he will throw the dice again. If the dice show 3, the number selected is 3-1=2, and JA will proceed to second round. In the second round, he needs to select a number between 0-6. So he will throw two dices. If the sum exceeds 8, he will throw the dices again. If the sum is suppose 6, the second digit selected is 6 - 2 = 4. Like that, suppose the dices in 4 rounds show 3, 5, 10 and 2. Then JA will select digits as (3-1), (5 -2), (10-2), (2-1) i.e. page number 2381. The JA should use different citizens to throw dices. Suppose the voter-list has B books, the largest book has P pages and all pages have N entries. Then using above method or method described by CM, JA will select 3 random numbers between 1-B, 1-P and 1-N. Now suppose selected book has less than that many pages or the selected page has fewer entries. Then he will again select a numbers between 1-B, 1-P and 1-N.
9	JA	The Grand Jurors will meet on every Saturday and Sunday. They may meet on more days if over 15 Grand Jurors approve. The number must be "over 15", even when less than 30 Grand Jurors are present. The meetings, if happen, must start at 11am and last till at least 5pm. The Grand Juror will get Rs. 200 per day he attends. The maximum payment a Grand Juror can get for his 1 month term will be Rs 2000. The JA will issue the checks 2 months after a Grand Juror completes the term. If the Grand Juror is out of district, he shall get Rs 400 per day of stay and if he is out state, he shall get Rs 800 per day of stay. In addition, they will get Rs 5 per kilometer of the distance between their home and court. The CM , PM may change the compensation as per inflation. All rupee amounts written in this clause and this law use WPI given by RBI in Jan-2008 and JA can change the amounts every six months using latest WPI.
10	JA	If a Grand Juror is absent on a meeting, he will not get Rs 100 for that day and may loose up to thrice his amount to be paid. The individuals who are Grand Jurors 30 days later will decide the fine.
11	JA	JA will start the meting at 11am. The JA arrive in the room before 10.30am. If a Grand Juror fails to arrive before 10:30am, JA will not allow him to attend the meeting and mark him absent.
		Section 3: Charging a citizen
13	JA	If any person, be a private person or District Prosecutor, has complaint against any other person, he can write to all or some Grand Jurors. The complainer must specify the remedy he wishes. The remedy can be obtaining possession of a property obtaining monetary compensation from the accused imprisoning the accused for certain number of years/months.
14	JA	If over 15 Grand Jurors, in a meeting, issue an invitation, the citizen may appear. The Grand Jurors may or may not invite the accused and complainer.
15	JA	If over 15 Grand Jurors declare that there is some merit in the complaint, the JA will call a Jury consisting of 12 citizens from the district to examine the complaint. The JA will select more than 12 citizens randomly, and send them summons to them, and of those who arrive, the JA will select 12 at random.
16	JA	JA will ask the Chief District Judge to appoint one or more Judges to preside over the case. If the property in dispute is worth above Rs 25 lakhs or compensation claim is above Rs 100,000 and/or the maximum prison sentence is above 12 months, the JA will request Chief Judge to appoint 3 judges or else he will request Chief Judge to appoint 3 Judges for the case. The Chief Judge's decision on appointing number of Judges in the case will be final.
		Section-4 : Conducting a trial
17	Presiding Judge	The trial will go from 11am to 4pm. The trial will start only after all 12 Jurors and the complainer have arrived. If any party has not arrived, the parties who have arrived must wait till 4pm and then only they can go home.
18	Presiding Judge	The Judge will allow the complainer to speak for 1 hour, during which no can interrupt. Then Judge will allow the employee to speak for 1 hour during which no one can interrupt. Like this, the Judge will alternate case. The case will go on like this on every day.
19	Presiding Judge	The case will go for at least 2 days. On the 3rd or later, if over 7 Jurors declare that they have heard enough, the case will go on for 1 more day. If on the next day, over 7 out of 12 Jurors declare that they would like to hear more arguments, the case will go on till over 7 say that case should end.
20	Presiding Judge	On the last day, after both parties have presented the case for 1 hour each, the Jurors will deliberate for at least 2 hours. If after 2 hours, over 7 Jurors say that they need no more deliberation, the Judge will ask each to declare his verdict.
21	Grand Jurors	In case a Juror or a party does not show up or shows up late, the Grand Jurors after 3 months will decide the fine, which can be up to Rs 5000 or 5% of his wealth, whichever is higher.
22	Presiding Judge	In case of fine, each Juror will state the fine he thinks is appropriate, and MUST be less than the legal limit. If it is higher than legal limit, the Judge shall take it as legal limit. The Judge will arrange the fine amounts stated in increasing order, and take the 3rd highest fine, i.e. fine that is approved by over 8 out of 12 Jurors, as the fine collectively imposed by the Jury.
22	Presiding Judge	In case of prison sentence, the Judge will arrange the sentence lengths cited by Jurors which must be below the maximum sentence as stated in the Law accused is charged with breaking, in increasing order. And the Judge will take the 3rd highest sentence i.e. prison sentence approved by over 8 out 12 Jurors, as the prison sentence collectively decided by the Jury.
.	.	Section-5 : The judgment, execution and appeal
23	District Police Chief	The District Police Chief or policemen designated by him will execute the fine and/or imprisonments as given by the Judge and approved by the Jurors.
24	District Police Chief	If 4 or more Jurors do NOT ask for any confiscation or fine or prison sentence, the Judge will declare the accused as innocent and the District Police Chief will take no action against him.
25	Accused, Complainer	Either party will have 30 days to appeal against the verdict in the State's High Court or the Supreme Court of India.
		Section-6 : Protection of Fundamental Rights of the Citizens
26	All Govt Employees	No Govt employee will impose any fine or prison sentence without consent of over 8 out of 12 Jurors of the Lower Courts, unless approved by the Jurors of High Courts or the Jurors or Supreme Court. No Govt employee will imprison any citizen for more than 24 hours without approval of over 15 out 30 District or State Grand Jurors.
27	To everyone	The Jurors will decide the facts as well as intensions, and shall also interpret the laws as well the Constitution.

13. How can citizens bring Jury System in India?

We at MRCM Party request citizens to take following steps

Force existing PM to sign the first three Govt Orders we MRCM party have demanded
Using Third MRCM GO, we request citizens to enact Fifth GO which enables citizens to replace PM
Using the Third MRCM GO, citizens should enact Ordinance to create procedure to replace CjI
Using the Third MRCM GO , citizens should enact Ordinances to bring Jury System in India

14. Drafts of GOs to bring Jury System in High Courts and Supreme Court

The drafts of these Govt Ordinances are at http://www.rahulmehta.com/improve_courts.htm

15.    Reducing nepotism in appointment of judges

         We at MRCM Party demand and promise that all the judges in District and High Courts should be recruited by written exams only and no interviews would be taken. The interview is the classical technique through which judges have ensured that their relatives, close friends and close friends’ relative get selected. In Supreme Courts, the judges should be recruited strictly via seniority and there should be no interviews. If a wrong person becomes judge, the citizens will/may expel him , but the judges should have no control over who shall become the judge.
         In addition, the replacement procedures our MRCM Party proposes are immune to nepotism. No one can be relative of lakhs of citizens who were going to give Approvals.

16.    Teaching Law to entire population and other changes

         We at MRCM party promise , demand to teach law to all students in class-VI onwards or earlier if the parents approve. In addition, all adults will be taught law via evening classes, Doordarshan, All India Radio and other means. Universal weapon education and universal law education are two of our demands, promises.
         The drafts of the Govt Ordinances to implement Law Education System and other changes are on our website http://www.rahulmehta.com/improve_courts.htm

17. Other party’s and intellectuals stand on Improving Courts

The leaders of other parties and all intellectuals are simply hostile to improve courts. Every party’s leaders have refused to increase the number of courts. They are openly hostile to Jury System and insist that judgments must be given by judges only as we commons are morons. They also oppose enacting procedures by which we commons can replace judges. Almost all party’s leaders have refused to even discuss the issue of nepotism, corruption in courts, forget solving it. We request all citizens to ask their favorite party’s leaders on this issue of fewer courts, nepotism in judges, corruption in judges and are worth voting for. And we request activists to ask intellectuals on this issue, and decide if they are worth following.

18. Review questions

Consider a lawyer who practices in one city with 10 courts and files 30 cases a year. Say a judges’ term is 4 years. How many judges will he meet in 10 years? How many Jurors will be come across in 10 years?
Consider a state with 5 cr citizens. Say 100,000 cases are filed in a year. If one judge can resolve 80 cases a year, how many judges would that state need? And how many cases that judge would resolve in his 30 year career? If Jurors are used, how many Jurors would be used in that period of 30 years?

[Following questions require 12th class knowledge of Probability Theory. Use calculator or Excel as needed]

Consider District-A which has recruited 1000 judges to solve 80000 cases a year for next 30 years. Consider the probability of judge becoming corrupt from non-corrupt as 0.001 in each case, but once he becomes corrupt, assume that chances that he will take bribes are now 0.2 . Then what % of cases in first year will show corruption? Calculate the number for each of the next 30 years in District-A
Consider District-B which has decided to use Jury System for 8000 cases a year. Say a Juror is corrupt with probability of 0.2. The verdict will be corrupt only if 4 or more Jurors are corrupt. So what $ of verdict each year will be corrupt in District-B?
Consider District-A which has recruited 100 judges to solve 8000 cases a year for next 30 years. Consider the probability of judge being non-corrupt as 0.001 if all lawyers and aasils are not relative and 25% if lawyers are judges’ relatives. How many cases a year will contain corruption?
Consider a career criminal who commits 20 crimes a year. Say possibility of getting caught and punished is 10%. Then after 5 years, what the chances that he is still not imprisoned?
Consider a gang of 50 criminals. Say they commit 200 crimes a year. Say conviction rate is 3%. Then what are chances that not even member is imprisoned in 2 years?
Consider a gang of 50 criminals. Say each time a member is imprisoned, two members quit. Say they commit N*4 crimes a year, N is the number of members in the gang. Say conviction rate is 5%. What will be the expected size of the gang after 5 years?

19. Exercise

Consider any district in India. Say it has 50 courts. Please provide drafts of the laws by which cross nepotism i.e. judge-A favoring relative of judge-B and vice versa be avoided.
Please obtain drafts submitted by Shourie and other BJP MPs in Parliament to reduce cross-nepotism in courts.
Please obtain drafts submitted by Yechuri and other CPM MPs in Parliament to reduce cross-nepotism in courts.
Please obtain drafts submitted by Congress MPs in Parliament to reduce cross-nepotism in courts.
How many lower courts are there in India? What are the number of pending cases? If one court disposes say 80 cases a year, how many years would it take for the lower courts to dispose the cases?
Whose discretion is used in deciding new SCjs?
Whose discretion is used in deciding new HCjs in a state?
What % of existing HCjs in your State have father or immediate uncle as an HCj or SCj?
What is Coroner’s Jury in West? When did it start? Why didn’t/couldn’t India create such system?
What impact did Coroner’s Jury System have in West?
Who/when started Jury System in India and who/when ended it?
Which countries in world use Jury System?
Why are Indian intellectuals hostile in giving information about Coroner’s Jury in West to citizens, students?
Why are Indian intellectuals hostile in giving information about Jury System in West to citizens, students?
Approximately, what % of States in US have elected judges? Since when?
What was the literacy rate in US when these states introduced election of judges?

Main Page Feedback? MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com Orkut Community For Discussions