21 Reducing Nepotism in Courts : Expel judges , bring in Jury

(A detailed version of this chapter in notes #301.021 on http://facebook.com/mehtarahulc )

Download this chapter 21 : http://www.righttorecall.info/301.pdf

21.1 Why we need to fix the courts

When the citizens wrote the Constitution in 1951, it was clearly stated by the citizens to MPs, SCjs, IAS etc

1. The country will be run as per the Constitution of India

2. The country will be run as per the Constitution, as interpreted by the citizens of India

3. The SCjs’ interpretation of Constitution will be above Ministers’ interpretation of the Constitution, but citizens’ interpretation of the Constitution will be final and supreme and above the interpretation of SCjs..

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. E.g. 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, in 1951 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 tore apart in High Courts and Supreme Courts. I will quote following example : [Link as on Apr-2-2008] http://www.boloji.com/wfs2/wfs238.htm

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 [convicted pedophiles] 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 judges. They will think that their efforts to get criminals convicted went in vain and would feel sour about the bribes they had forgone. 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. Such violations of Constitution happen because we citizens dont have procedures to expel the judges who violate Constitution.

21.2 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?

21.3 RRP’s demands , promises to improve courts

I at RRP demand and promise to bring following changes in India’s court system using TCP as a means and by obtaining YESes of citizens . So my proposal is not that we will come into power and enact following law-drafts, but my proposal is that we should convince PM to print TCP draft in the Gazette and then using TCP, print following drafts in the Gazette :

1. Right to Recall Supreme Court Chief judge

2. Right to Recall High Court Chief judge

3. Right to Recall Lower Court Chief judge

4. Abolish interviews: Recruitment of all junior Lower Court judges by written exams only

5. Recruitment of all junior High Court judges by written exams only (no interviews)

6. Recruitment of all junior Supreme Court judges by seniority only (no interviews)

7. Jury System in Lower Courts to decide punishments

8. Jury System in High Courts for appeals

9. Jury System to Supreme Courts for appeals

10. Enacting National ID system (to improve records in courts)

11. Enact a wealth tax of 0.5% of market value of non-agricultural land above 25 sq meters per person to fund the Police, Courts only.

12. Create 100,000 more Lower Courts

13. Jury System to expel/fine a state govt employee.

14. Jury System to expel/fine a central govt employee.

15. Enabling citizens to replace Chief National Prosecutors

16. Enabling citizens to replace Chief State Prosecutor

17. Enabling citizens to replace Chief District Prosecutor

18. Recruitment of junior District prosecutors by written exams only (no interviews)

19. Recruitment of junior State prosecutors by written exams only (no interviews)

20. Recruitment of National prosecutors by seniority only (no interviews)

21. Teaching Law from class-VI

22. Teaching law to all adults for free

23. Wealth disclosure of all Govt Employees and their close relatives, their trusts , companies

24. Disclosure of residency and citizen status of all Govt Employees and their close relatives

25. All courts records, as far as possible, will be placed on internet

26. The parties will be informed about their case status by emails, SMS in all languages, along with usual postal mails and notices.

27. 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-draft and Constitution, as interpreted by the Citizens”.

21.4 Enabling Citizens to Replace Supreme Court Chief judge

I have discussed this procedure earlier in chap-7

21.5 Manufacturing 100,000 more courts

I at MRCM demand , promise to create wealth tax for courts of about 0.25% of market value of land on those who have residential and commercial land exceeding 25 sqm per person and use that strictly for courts. 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 restrict this annual raise to Rs 400,000 crores (10% of what is now) and the newly created money will be used solely for Military, Police and Courts. Using this “wealth tax for courts” and new M3, the Govt shall be able to create 100,000 more courts within 1 year. Using 100,000 new courts and GNs that change in civil , criminal laws, it would the existing 3 crores cases can be resolved within next 3 to 6 years fairly

21.6 Problems of integrity in Lower Courts, High courts and Supreme Court

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

1. Nepotism — lawyers and aasils who are judges’ relatives are winning cases after cases

2. judge-lawyer nexuses

3. judge-criminal nexuses (often via lawyers)

4. Corruption in judges

5. Nepotism in appointments of judges : relatives of judges or eminent lawyers become judges

21.7 About Jury System

We propose The Jury System as the 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 in India 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 activists in general about the Jury System. So I have decided to allocate pages to explain Jury System to the readers.

What is judge system and Jury System?

We have 110 cr citizens in India. We have at least 20 lakhs to 50 lakhs disputes or criminal cases a year. If these disputes are not resolved by the citizens of India in short time and if criminals are not punished, the criminals will resort to more crimes and many individuals will resolve to private violence in civil cases thereby causing a chaos. Or perpetuating injustice will weaken the emotional attachment a citizen has towards the nation and other citizens. Such chaos will weaken the nation and will result into re-enslavement. So for stability, it becomes necessary for the citizenry to give judgments on these disputes and criminal cases, and use force to enforce that judgment. Now it is not possible for every citizen to personally take interest in each of the these 20 lakh 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 a few individuals, for each dispute and take their decision as 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

1. 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

2. 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. eg in Florida State in US, total criminal jury trials in year 2006-2007 were about 6000. And so the judgments were given by about 6000 * 12 = 72000 different citizens. In case of judge system, mere few hundred judges would have decided. If taken over a period of 25 years, this would mean 6000*25 = 150,000 Jury Trials where in cases would be decided by 150,000 * 12 = 1800,000 citizens as opposed to few hundred or 1000-1500 judges in judge-system. The sheer increase in number by 1800-2000 times makes Jury System far less prone to nexuses, nepotism and corruption. Jury-lawyer-nexus is far less probable than the judge-lawyer nexus because numbers of Jurors are too high..

How nepotism or cross-nepotism becomes 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 eminent intellectuals insist that we must accept that this ban ends the nepotism in our courts. Well, this ban does not make any difference at all. Till date, every eminent intellectual I met is hostile to even discuss the problem of cross nepotism in courts. And till date, 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 much difference.

judge system Jury System
One judge has term of 3-4 years. This is long time to lawyers and organized criminals to approach the relatives of judges to cut deal 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 5000 cases per district on an average and they go 50-100 judges in that district. So lawyers can easily manage such small number of judges using personal relations. 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.
In many 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 we call as cross-nepotism. 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 the big time 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 thus Jurors 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 court system in India suffers

1. Fully solves nepotism problem

2. Fully solves judge-lawyer nexus problem

3. Fully solves judge-criminal nexus problem

4. Drastically reduces corruption problem

[A reader more interested in the 1000 year old Jury
vs judge debate way want to read http://www.rahulmehta.com/why_jury.htm  ]

21.8 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 incorrect — both jurors and judges have same information about basic concepts of 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 action fall in section 302 such and such act carries maximum punishment of say 5 years or 14 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 with lawyers and rich, and also take bribes via relative lawyers.

21.9 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.

21.10 JurySys in India and why Nehru, intellectuals killed JurySys

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. The JurySys reduced injustices in India in private cases and gave stability to British rule.

In 1956, Jawaharlal Nehru and the then Supreme Court judges abolished the Jury System by citing Nanavati case as reason. This was utter nonsense.

Here are the case details. Nanavati had killed a person named Ahuja who was adulterer and had affair with Nanavati’s wife. The Jurors had accepted the Nanavati had killed Ahuja out of rage. Nanavati was a Navy officer 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 harsh life of Military. And Ahuja was a proven adulterer, and back then since paternity tests did not exist, citizens in entire world considered adultery as more heinous than murder. Now the Jurors were in dilemma – if they convict Nanavati, the judge would hang him (which was exactly what happened in the 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 he was a respectable Navy officer. And so Jurors rightly believed that he did not deserve death for his crime out of anger. The Jurors IMO took right decision in saving his life. Their wrong decision of “zero punishment” because they did not have powers to imprison him for a few years not an error in wisdom. 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, but 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.

Nehru and intellectuals of India used Nanavati case as pretext to abolish Jury System in India, and all MPs of Congress, Communist Party etc back them supported him. Nehru and intellectuals killed JurySys to support the landlords who were using criminals to beat the landless. Due to Jury System, the criminals were getting prison sentences and so landlords were finding it difficult to ask criminals to beat the landless. So Nehru cancelled the Jury System in India so that landlords can beat the landless and block the land reforms. And intellectuals were on payrolls of these landlords and so intellectuals supported Nehru’s decision to ban JurySys. Nanavati case was just a pretext.

21.11 Drafts of GN 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 print the Govt Order described in second MRCM demand and then use that Govt Order to issue the following Ordinance.

Govt Ordinance: Jury System in Lower Courts of India

# ProcedureFor 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-draft 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-draft 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 a 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.

28

—–

This GN will come into force only after over 51% of all citizens in India have registered YES and every SCj has approved this GN.

29

DC

If a citizen wants to propose any change in this law, then the citizen can submit an affidavit demanding the change to District Collector or his clerk who will post it on the website of Prime Minister for a fee of Rs 20 per page.

30

Talati aka Patwari

If a citizen wants to register his opposition to this law-draft or any clause of this law-draft or wants to register any support to affidavit filed in the above clause, then he may register his YES/No for a Rs 3 fee at Patwari’s office. The Patwari will note the citizen’s YES/NO and will also post the citizen’s YES/NO on PM’s website.

21.12        How can citizens bring Jury System in India?

I at RRP citizens to take following steps

  1. Force existing PM, CM and Mayors to print the TCP law
  2. Using TCP, force PM to print Right to Recall over PM law
  3. Using TCP, force PM to print Right to Recall over SC-Cj law-draft
  4. Using TCP, force PM to issue Jury System Draft as above

21.13       Drafts of GNs to bring Jury System in High Courts and Supreme Court

The drafts of these GNs at http://www.rahulmehta.com/improve_courts.htm

21.14        Reducing nepotism in appointment of judges

I at Right to Recall 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 a 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 my Right to Recall Party proposes are immune to nepotism. No one can be relative of lakhs of citizens who were going to give Approvals.

21.15        Teaching Law to entire population and other changes

I at Right to Recall Party promise 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 my 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

21.16        Ku-buddheejeevies will support corruption in judges

Would intellectuals (aka buddhijeevee or ku-buddhijeevi) oppose corruption in judges? Well, till date, I have not come across even one intellectual who demanded resignation of any defunct Supreme Court justice (except a Dalit Justice). Even when Honorable Justice Khare gave bail to pedophiles convicted by Lower Court, the intellectuals I met said that they will never find time to read the judgment and then added that they support continuation of Justice Khare in office and oppose his impeachment. Even when several Justices got tainted in Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam, intellectuals refused to demand impeachment of those Honorable Justices.

IMO, intellectuals have too many close relatives in judocracy. Which is why they want corruption in Judocracy to continue. And IMO, intellectuals are themselves corrupt as well as coward. To give an example, I will cite the event that happened in Supreme Court of Hastinapur some 5000 years ago.

As Dr. Ved Vyas says, some 5000 years, Supreme Court of Hastinapur was under the then Chief Justice Honorable Justice Dhritrashtra. Honorable Chief Justice Dhritrashtra has appointed his son Honorable Justice Duryodhan as “Crown Chief Justice”. Justice Duryodhan molested a common woman Draupadi right in the Supreme Court of Hastinapur, right before Honorable Justice Bhishma, Honorable Justice Dhritrashtra, Prof. Dr. Dronacharya et al.

Prof Dr. Dronacharya was back then Vice Chancellor of Hastinapur University and may have been owning his own self-financed colleges. When Honorable Justice Duryodhan molested Draupadi, Prof Dr. Dronacharya supported Justice Duryodhan, he did not oppose it at all. Even later, after the incident, Prof Dr. Dronacharya did not ask Honorable Justice Dhritrashtra to imprison Honorable Justice Duryodhan or else he would resign and leave Hastinapur. Why did Prof Dr Dronacharya support Honorable Justice Duryodhan? A cursory investigation into motives of Prof Dr Dronacharya would answer why. Prof Dronacharya was worried that Justice Dhritrashtra may expel him from post of Vice Chancellor of Hastinapur University and may also investigate his self-financed colleges. Further, he could have been worried that Justice  Dhritrashtra can imprison him for the Eklavya incident, when he had committed atrocities on a Tribal who was also a minor. Prof Dr Dronacharya had asked Eklavya to cut his thumb, and did not bother to ask Eklavya’s parents, which was mandatory as Eklavya was a minor. So because of money and fear. Prof. Dr. Dronacharya supported Honorable Justice Duryodhan’s act of molesting Draupadi, he did not oppose it and did not demand expulsion of Justice Duryodhan.

Now these were intellectuals of Treta Yug. So what would intellectuals of Kal Yug do? They will step ahead and blame Draupadi to protect Honorable Justice Duryodhan. Which is what we see today. When asked about corruption and nepotism in judges, intellectuals today blame us citizens of this problem !! All in all, my statement to activists is that do not ask or wait for intellectuals to take part in actions needed to reduce corruption and nepotism in Justices. The intellectuals will keep insisting on alternate agendas and insist that problem of corruption/nepotism in Honorable Justices must never be attempted. IMO, it is time activists openly shun these intellectuals and follow their own instincts only.

21.17        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.

21.18        How can YOU help in improving courts in India?

Please read chap-13 of this book http://rahulmehta.com/301.htm . It has several steps where-in you can spend 6 hours a week and help to bring TCP draft in Gazette in India. The steps involve distributing pamphlets, informing citizens on motives of leaders such Congress MPs, BJP MPs, The Anna, Arvind Gandhi etc who oppose TCP draft, by giving newspaper ads, contesting elections. Once TCP gets printed in Gazette, using TCP, it will become easy for activists to get RTR-SCCj, JurySys etc drafts printed in the Gazette within few weeks, and so the courts will improve.

21.19        Questions

  1. 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?
  2. 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]
  3. 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
  4. 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?
  5. 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?
  6. 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?
  7. 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?
  8.  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?

    21.20        Exercises

  9. 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.
  10. Please obtain drafts submitted by Shourie and other BJP MPs in Parliament to reduce cross-nepotism in courts.
  11. Please obtain drafts submitted by Yechuri and other CPM MPs in Parliament to reduce cross-nepotism in courts.
  12. Please obtain drafts submitted by Congress MPs in Parliament to reduce cross-nepotism in courts.
  13. 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?
  14. Whose discretion is used in deciding new SCjs?
  15. Whose discretion is used in deciding new HCjs in a state?
  16. What % of existing HCjs in your State have father or immediate uncle as an HCj or SCj?
  17. What is Coroner’s Jury in West? When did it start? Why didn’t/couldn’t  India create such system?
  18. What impact did Coroner’s Jury System have in West?
  19. Who/when started Jury System in India and who/when ended it?
  20. Which, of the first 50 countries by population, in world use Jury System?
  21. Please gather information on the Jury System in Hong Kong
  22. Why are Indian intellectuals hostile in giving information about Coroner’s Jury in West to citizens, students?
  23. Why are Indian intellectuals hostile in giving information about Jury System in West to citizens, students?
  24. Approximately, what % of States in US have elected judges? Since when?
  25. What was the literacy rate in US when these states introduced election of judges?

Advertisements

About RTR

3 line law can reduce corruption and bring peoples to power

One response to “21 Reducing Nepotism in Courts : Expel judges , bring in Jury

  1. Pingback: Three Line Law Can Reduce Corruption And Let Citizens Comes To Power « Three Line Law Can Make "Citizens Are Supreme" For Ever

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: