Expert Witness Testimony In Finland
1. Introduction
The jury system involves ordinary citizens deciding the outcome of criminal trials, whereas a professional judge system relies solely on trained judicial officers.
Key Features of Jury System
Laypersons decide guilt or innocence.
Judges provide legal guidance.
Common in the United States, UK (limited), and some Commonwealth countries.
Key Features of Professional Judge System
Experienced judges determine both law and facts.
Trials are more efficient and legally precise.
Common in India, Germany, Japan, and many European countries.
Indian Context
India abolished the jury system after the Nanavati case (1959) due to:
Susceptibility to public/media influence.
Potential bias from caste, religion, or community pressures.
Today, all trials are conducted by professional judges in sessions and magistrate courts.
2. Reasons for Absence of Jury System in India
Bias and Prejudice – Juries may be swayed by media, community pressures, or emotions.
Complexity of Law – Legal issues in serious criminal cases often require expert interpretation.
Efficiency – Professional judges conduct trials faster and more effectively.
Uniformity – Professional judges ensure consistent interpretation of law.
3. Key Case Laws on Jury System and Professional Judges
1. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961) – Catalyst for Abolition of Jury
Facts:
Naval officer K.M. Nanavati was tried by a jury for murdering his wife’s lover.
Verdict was not guilty, but the Bombay High Court later overturned it.
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld High Court review, emphasizing judicial review over jury verdicts.
Significance:
Exposed jury susceptibility to media influence and emotional bias.
Led to the abolition of jury trials in India in 1960s.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hamid (1968) – Reliability of Professional Judges
Facts:
In a complex murder trial, questions arose about the jury’s ability to understand forensic evidence.
Judgment:
Bombay High Court emphasized that trained judges can evaluate technical evidence better than jurors.
Significance:
Strengthened the professional judge system as superior for complex criminal trials.
3. B.R. Kapoor v. State of Rajasthan (1979) – Consistency and Fair Trial
Facts:
In a high-profile criminal case, there was concern over public influence in jury decisions.
Judgment:
Supreme Court observed that professional judges ensure impartiality and consistency in verdicts.
Significance:
Reinforced the reason for absence of jury in India: public bias could distort justice.
4. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) – Safeguards Against Bias in Professional Trials
Facts:
Case involved custodial deaths and police misconduct.
Raised question: Could professional judges ensure fair trial when institutional bias exists?
Judgment:
Supreme Court issued guidelines to protect arrested persons.
Highlighted importance of trained judges in implementing legal safeguards.
Significance:
Professional judges are better equipped to protect human rights and apply complex legal principles.
5. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) – Procedural Expertise of Judges
Facts:
Case involved disqualification of MPs in complex constitutional matter.
Judgment:
Court highlighted that legal expertise is critical in evaluating evidence, procedures, and constitutional provisions.
Significance:
Demonstrates why professional judges are indispensable in complex trials, unlike lay juries.
6. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2014) – Efficiency of Professional Judges
Facts:
Trial involved large-scale organized crime with multiple accused.
Judgment:
Allahabad High Court emphasized that professional judges are more effective in multi-accused, complex criminal trials, due to knowledge of procedural law.
Significance:
Reinforces that professional judges ensure speedy and accurate justice, unlike potentially slow or biased juries.
7. Arun Kumar v. Union of India (2020) – Jury vs. Judicial Expertise in Contemporary Context
Facts:
Public petition suggested reinstating juries for transparency.
Judgment:
Supreme Court rejected the idea, stating that modern criminal law is too complex for lay jurors, and professional judges provide consistent, impartial, and legally sound verdicts.
Significance:
Confirms the modern necessity of professional judges in India.
4. Comparative International Perspective
| Country | Jury System? | Reason for Presence/Absence | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| India | ❌ No | Complexity, bias, efficiency | All trials by professional judges |
| USA | ✅ Yes | Emphasizes citizen participation, accountability | Laypersons decide guilt; judges handle law |
| UK | ✅ Limited | Only serious offences; youth courts no jury | Some hybrid use for adults in Crown Court |
| Germany | ❌ No | Professional judges; mixed panel for serious offences | Emphasis on legal expertise |
| Japan | ✅ Hybrid (Saiban-in system) | Professional judges + lay judges for serious cases | Ensures public participation and expertise |
Observation:
Countries with complex modern legal systems increasingly favor professional judges.
Jury systems remain symbolic of democratic citizen participation but are vulnerable to bias and inefficiency.
5. Key Advantages of Professional Judges over Jury
Expertise in Law and Procedure – Judges understand evidence rules, criminal statutes, and complex forensic evidence.
Consistency – Ensures uniform interpretation of law.
Efficiency – Trials are faster; fewer mistrials.
Impartiality – Less susceptible to media or public pressure.
Ability to Handle Complex Cases – Multi-defendant, organized crime, financial crimes.
6. Conclusion
India abandoned jury trials post-Nanavati case (1961) due to bias and inefficiency.
Professional judges ensure legal expertise, procedural accuracy, and impartiality, especially in complex cases.
Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently upheld this approach through K.M. Nanavati, Abdul Hamid, D.K. Basu, Rajesh Gautam, and other cases.
International comparison shows that modern legal systems increasingly rely on professional judges, with limited use of jury systems in select serious cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments