The Colonial Difference between Law and Fact

Notes on the Criminal Jury in India

Dados Bibliográficos

ID8961373
AutoresKalyani Ramnath (0000-0002-1701-7613, Princeton University, autor correspondente)
Ano2013
Volume50
Fascículo3
Páginas341-363
Data de publicação2013-07-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoThe Indian Economic & Social History Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0019-4646 • E-ISSN: 0973-0893
EditoraSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/0019464613494624
OpenAlexW2054879839
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas4
Referências citadas28

This article tracks the rise and fall of criminal jury in colonial India through official and non-official debates, discussions and interventions. The discussion on criminal juries in the Anglo-American system has typically focused on the division of legal labour between judge and jury. In colonial India, this conventional difference between ‘law’ and ‘fact’ were shaped by notions of belonging to a different race, religion and language. These were frequently articulated as the story of the ‘unreliable’ juror or the ‘religious’ native who feared eternal damnation. From the jurors who were allegedly intoxicated by the publicity over the infamous Nanavati trial to women jurors who claimed to be followed on the way home from court, to the religious Brahmin juror who would not swear an oath, the story of the criminal jury is peopled with anxieties over undesirable forms of influence, that impinge on legal impartiality. Using the criminal jury as a lens, I look at the claims of universal legal reform as particularly lending themselves to contestations over sovereignty

Colonialism · Criminal law · Jury · Jury selection · Oath · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Sovereignty · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Law · Law in Society and Culture · Vietnamese History and Culture Studies