Home » Culture » The case behind 'Rustom': how morality wasn't allowed to supersede law
 

The case behind 'Rustom': how morality wasn't allowed to supersede law

Saurav Datta | Updated on: 10 February 2017, 1:47 IST

The movie Rustom, starring Akshay Kumar and Ileana D'Cruz in the primary roles, released on Friday, 12 August, and has brought back in to focus one of the Indian judiciary's most controversial cases.

This was, after all, the case that led to the eventual abandonment of the jury system in India.

The case is one of the most famous in the Indian public consciousness, given that it was widely covered and talked about at the time, and also because it has spawned many Bollywood movies (Yeh Raaste Hin Pyar Ke, Achanak) and literary mentions.

The case

Way back in 1959, Indian Navy Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati shot dead his wife Sylvia's lover Prem Ahuja, causing a nationwide ruckus.

But, despite the Supreme Court's decision to uphold his life sentence on 24 November 1961, many fundamental questions remain answered.

Primary among them is the decision of the jury in the trial court, which held that Cdr Nanavati had done no wrong, although charges of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder had been registered against him.

The appointed jury held that he was only upholding his and his wife's honour, and because of this, he hadn't committed any criminal offence.

This would raise the hackles of many feminists, but unfortunately, that's how the system worked.

Such a situation arose because the jury based its decision on the concept of male honour rather than the principles of justice. The Magna Carta,which is regarded as one of the principal documents of justice, mandates that a man must be tried by a "jury of his peers".

Fundamental questions

A naval officer who is often absent. In his prolonged absence, his wife starts having an affair. Does that give him the licence to kill?

The answer to this question lies in what legal experts term as a 'structural judicial and juridical problem'.

In Nanavati's case, the jury acquitted him on grounds of honour. But what happens to legality and justice?

As Geoffrey Robertson, a designated Queen's Counsel (synonymous with a Senior Advocate) in India, narrates, the jury trial, even if celebrated as a triumphant moment, has the potential to lead to a whole lot of problematic injustices.

And in the present case, the jury went by societal morality than constitutional morality. Was it 'right', 'wrong',or 'illegal'?

Going simply by the facts of the case, the answer is - neither.

Also, when has the law not been held hostage to politics?

One only has to examine the politics of the struggles between the Parsis (to which Nanavati belonged) and Sindhis (Ahuja's community), and how Morarji Desai, hailing from a rival mercantile community, declined to show any mercy.

Even after the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, there was a huge outrage by the Parsi community.

So, what role did class, gender and 'patriotism'(Nanavati was a top naval officer) play in the case?

In the Nanavati case, the tabloid Blitz filed a series of stories sensationalising the case. Its reports had salacious stories aplenty, but did they influence the course of justice?

One still doesn't know if the jury was impressed/influenced by the media's proclamations.

So, it boils down to jury selection. If one turns the pages of history, and looks back at the jury selection process, one would be constrained to notice the difference it made in judicial outcomes. Remember Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird? The cases in the US when the Ku Klux Klan condemned blacks to death, by influencing the jury?

Nanavati was ultimately released because he managed to secure the benefits of 'patriotism' and the fracas between the Gujaratis and the Sindhis.

What lessons does the case hold?

The jury in the trial court (Sessions Court) of Bombay held that it wasn't a case of premediated murder. Its reason - 'honour killings' to protect family (meaning, a male's) honour should be condoned by the law.

But the Nanavati case, though depicted tepidly in Rustom, does substantiate certain views. For one, the Supreme Court ruling reaffirms that the rule of law and Constitutional morality should prevail over moralistic diktats.

After all, why shouldn't a woman's wishes (and desires) prevail over what a man wants?

Most important of all is the sensationalism about the case. What was dependant entirely on circumstantial evidence was turned into a media circus, courtesy the Parsi-owned Blitz.

This episode, sordid as it may be, teaches us the following lessons:

1. The rule of law should prevail over all.

2. If a group of people, going by societal beliefs, indict someone, it doesn't translate into reality.

In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the jury system was unsuited to Indian jurisprudence. Today, when India is weathering a torrent of 'morality', could this ruling be less important?

Edited by Shreyas Sharma

More in Catch

Blitz-krieg, Rustom and Nanavati: how a magazine changed journalism forever

Rustom: All you need to know about this Akshay Kumar-starrer's trailer

Akshay Kumar's Rustom, Hrithik Roshan's Mohenjo Daro and their filmy Box Office clash tale

First published: 13 August 2016, 10:11 IST
 
Saurav Datta @SauravDatta29

Saurav Datta works in the fields of media law and criminal justice reform in Mumbai and Delhi.