#Change in Judiciary

                                                           #Change in Judiciary

Isn't it for the best to have a jury, a broad-minded decision-maker in the court of law? The constitutional rights and future lives of thousands of people are put at stake and are given away many times because of a decision influenced by the stereotypical thought structure of that one judge or the that small panel of judges. The decision they make may be biased whereas jurors will be from different walks of life and their final decision depends not on one juror but on the entire jury.

India needs the normal, uninfluenced crowd to make decisions. They all have different viewpoints and the decision of each juror depends on his experience and how he sees the issue. Any citizen can be called to serve his nation as a juror and force his opinions down in an official court case.

Jurors will have more integrity and fairness compared to the stereotypical decisions of a judge. For a judge it is just another case in his monotonous court life. Some judges are passionate about their profession as an indirect social service for the country. Others however just have the right friends or have managed to win an election.

Also a judge who has heard thousands of cases likely wants to bring damages (consciously or not) in line with his/her past cases, whereas a jury is likely assessing damages for the first time and will do what it thinks is right, not what is in line with previous similar cases.

Of course there should not be any gender bias while selecting the jurors as this would create a biased decision. The jurors should be selected arbitrarily.

Now the question that comes here is - What about the economically and financially underprivileged class of India ? Will the rich and wealthy only be allowed to be part of the jury. Here, I think that the people who have a certain level of education (say 10th/12th grade pass) can be a part of the jury as they have a basic understanding of the problems faced by the country and understand basic political and financial concepts.

One problem that has often been expressed in jury trials is that the attorneys emotionally manipulate the jurors and make them sway with their emotions. The sentiments displayed here have affected the case in a significant way and the judge needs to stop to bring order whenever he sees the attorney's histrionics being used to influence decisions.

The jury has also not been able to understand complex evidence presented to them. I strongly believe that the judge needs to explain the evidence in layman's terms.

Even though all this work may seem arduous we need to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of India whatever it may take!

In a democracy the parliament is represented by the people. Just like this we need the people to take part in the judicial happenings. Isn't it better to have the common people make decisions in the court ?

In a democracy it is the people's will and opinion which decides the important policies of the government. The decisions in the judicial system need to reflect the same. Only then would India be a true democracy.

The judge cannot decide our fate. The common people need to step up and make their own decisions.

Reply with your views in the comments section.