Trial by Bench and Trial by Jury

These are the days of Biopics. Biopics have been produced since a long time, but it has become a regular trend nowadays. A Biopic is actually a Biographical Film, that dramatises a historical or non-fictional person and use his real name. There are also many films in which real life happenings are used with suitable changes to suit the motion picture medium. In some cases names are also changed, but everyone including the viewers know the reality. Sometimes the changes made are so bizarre that real life villains become heroes on the screen or vice versa. The Lord and Filmmakers are the only two authorities who can make and unmake and make something else out of nothing. Filmmakers make subtle or not so subtle use of the sentiments of the viewing public and en-cash it for their financial successes. There are many instances of the same person, issue or idea used for production of films at different periods of time. It is also true that films on some of these subjects have an eternal appeal on the general public. Many films on the same topic have been successful at box office each time they were produced. One such recent film is Rustom, produced two years ago, in 2016. 

The case of K M Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra (1958-59 and decided in 1961) is one such instance. The case was on a murder charge on Commander K M Nanavati for the death of his friend Prem Ahuja. The case was tried before a jury. Jury returned a verdict of 8-1 that he was not guilty. The jury verdict was overturned by Bombay High Court and Nanavati was convicted. Subsequently Governor of Maharashtra granted him pardon. It is said that Nanavati, his wife and three children migrated to Canada. Nanavati died there in 2003. 

The Nanavati case aroused lot of passion among the general public. Newspapers reporting proceedings of the case were sold on the streets for six to eight times of their normal edition prices. Nanavati pistol models were sold on footpath. Public sentiment was with the decision of the jury.

Trial by Bench and Trial by Jury are in practice all over the world. In Trial by the Bench, the presiding officer of the court (The Judge) weighs the evidence and arguments and pronounces the judgement. In Trial by Jury, the proceedings are controlled and monitored by the Presiding Officer of the court (The Judge), but the members of the Jury decide whether the accused person is guilty or not guilty. Members of the jury are selected from among the common people. After the case of K M Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra, jury system was abolished in our country by amending the Criminal Procedure Code. Now cases are decided by the Presiding Officer of the designated court and there is no system of using jury. That is why we see members of jury in old Hindi movies, but it is not available in present films. 

Three Hindi films have been produced so far using the Nanavati case, with changes for the films. The first was "Yeh Rastey Hain Pyar Ke" (1963) starring Sunil Dutt. "Achanak" (1973) with Vinod Khanna in the lead had some more changes for the film. "Rustom" with Akshay Kumar in the lead was produced in 2016. Akshay Kumar also won the "Best Actor" award for this role in 64th National Film Awards, 2017.

*****

Second anniversary of Demonetisation is being observed during this week. The earlier practice was to celebrate birth anniversary of people who are alive and death anniversary of people who left us. Now we have both birth and death anniversaries of various personalities being celebrated. The numbers have crossed the number of days in the calendars and shortly we may have to celebrate them in shifts when more than one anniversary falls on the same day. We may also have two time slots for each such anniversary, one for celebrating and one for opposing such celebrations. 

What were the goals of this Demonetisation? Is it a success or a failure? Who is to decide this? Should it be a trial by a Jury or a trial by a Bench? These are just and proper questions that can be asked, but we may never get a just and proper answer. The views expressed by various responsible personalities have more personalities in the discussion than a fair evaluation of the signs of success or failure!

Finance Minister made a strong defence of the step saying Demonetisation resulted in formalisation of the economy and increased tax base, with the Government earmarking more resources for the poor and infrastructure development. Its opponents have gone to the extent of claiming that it was a brutal conspiracy and a shrewd scheme to convert the black money of those close to the people in power. They say that drawing any other meaning to the exercise will be an insult to the intelligence of the nation. Former Prime Minister says that the scars and wounds it caused are getting more visible with time and the decision's second anniversary is a day to remember how "economic misadventure" can roil the nation.

The discourse on Demonetisation is just like what we hear in a court of law. At times it is even worse because claims and arguments made in the court are to be based on law and facts. Discussion on Demonetisation need not be with such constraints. Each one is free to mention or shout about what they feel it to be true. There are many shades of arguments:

• It was one of the brightest ideas that was implemented brilliantly.
• It was a good scheme with great success.
• it was a good idea but implementation was poor.
• It was a bad idea implemented equally badly.
• It was a bad idea implemented even worse.
• It was an ill-conceived and ill-fated exercise.

Of course, there are millions who do not know what it is actually was because they never had any money with them for demonetising. There are claims that 100 lives were lost and 15 crore daily wage earners lost their wages for several weeks. There were unending queues before banks. 2000 rupee notes were available in the market but nobody would accept them because they did not have change. There were reports that employers had one job for their workers for a month - to go the bank every day and exchange 4000 rupee value old notes for new notes. There were claims of bankers facilitating unholy exchange of old notes for new ones. There were reports of trucks directly going to houses of black money hoarders instead of ATMs. Of many more such issues and reports.

What has happened in two years? Some verifiable facts are as under:

• 99.3% of demonetised money has returned to the RBI.
• Financialisation of hidden savings took place.
• Number of tax returns filed have increased and revenue collection has gone up.
• There were huge economic, social and political costs, but returns are not clear.
• Small business and SME units suffered during and immediately after implementation of the scheme.
• Digital payments increased substantially immediately after the scheme.
• There was some suffering for Non-residents in exchanging their demonetised money.
• Digital transactions went up by 82% in 2 years. (It would have gone up by 40% even without the scheme)
• Money in circulation has come back to old levels now and it has even increased.
• Bankers had stressful days. 
• More than 40 changes in the scheme were made during implementation. One interpretation was that this was a signal of the responsiveness of government/RBI. Another interpretation was that this showed that it was an exercise undertaken without giving full thought to the repercussions.
• Many questions are still unanswered about cost of implementing the scheme.
• Counterfeit notes came down by 31.4%.
• Implementation of GST during the period has added to the fluidity of the situation.

Evaluation of success or failure of the scheme has been rendered difficult because all the goals were not clear from the outset. Though fighting black money and blocking counterfeit notes was mentioned as objectives, government did not publish a clear item by item goal list and expectations. Though the move was to have been sudden to keep the element of surprise, this list could have been published in the initial two or three days of implementing the scheme. RBI took inordinate time to put out figures of returned value of notes or the cost of their handling. Government never mentioned while implementing the scheme that it did not expect demonetised currency returned to RBI would be less than what was in circulation. When speculation was rife that a large chunk will be lost and thereby ensure success of the scheme, government played along with the hope that it would be so and credit for the same can be claimed. When 99.3% of the money has come back, it is now being mentioned that this was not an objective of the scheme.

*****

A proper evaluation of the scheme is impossible when the goals were not entirely clear and parties on either side are not prepared for a factual evaluation, but go by emotional judgement. Trial by Bench is not possible because nobody is prepared to establish a bench for this purpose. Trial by Jury is abolished by Criminal Procedure Code. But political discourse is now decided by Trial by Jury. There are many Trials by different sets of Jury. They would never be able to come to an unanimous verdict! Each one continues to hold to his own view; more by force of emotions and political expediency, than by stated goals on record and verifiable facts and figures.