Talk:K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra

Info box on the RHS
Is this following a different template? But it seems off compared to some of the other info-boxes. Please can someone check this. --Csathya (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Why "wrongly convicted" is so POV....
While HT's and Sethi's versions may both state that he is wrongly convicted, the "wrongly" would still be POV because - the court or a higher court has not reversed its judgment; pardon implies that the guilt still stands but punishment is revoked due to humanitarian reasons or otherwise good conduct. We don't say Mahatma Gandhi was wrongly arrested. Similarly, while Khushwant Singh and several others hold that Indira Gandhi was wrongly indicted by the Allahabad High Court, the same doen't get figured in her article. Or a way out would be to say that in what was considered to be a wrong conviction by many. In those days, the economic context was different and economic offences wrt imports were punished heavily (by today's standards). --Gurubrahma 14:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope the current wording now is better. See &   for the summary of that case. -- Pamri &bull; Talk 15:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is perfect now. I did not know full details of the other case before. Thanks a ton!! --Gurubrahma 15:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Next featured case on Portal:Law
I have nominated this case to be the next featured case on Portal:Law, I have begun the discussion on the talk page there. BD2412 talk 04:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

High court image
Breaks the flow. I get that the edit summary for the inclusion of the image says it's there to provide a break, but just felt it was looking odd. Am fiddling with the size to see if I can make it look better. Saksham 13:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Really "The" Deciding Case for Juries?
I am still really curious to know if this was THE deciding case to abolish juries? Is the Indian legal system that swayed by a single case? Gautam Discuss 02:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox mistake?
Why does infobox heading say "Shray Prem vs. State of Maharashtra"? &#9733;Saurabh P.  &#124;   &#9742; talk  11:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias
This article is not neutral at all in either the verdict of the case or the subsequent fact that juries were abolished. The facts are not presented as they are instead the page has been (perhaps subtally in the deluded mind of the author) overtly pushing a pnot of view. Bodha2 (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050504162533/http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/proj_tabloid/sylviaprofile.shtml to http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/proj_tabloid/sylviaprofile.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Last Jury trial in India
The misleading claim that K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra was the last jury trial in India is very common - it even featured in 'Did you Know'. We should remove it from the article unless it can be substantiated. https://www.sociolegalreview.com/post/not-the-right-people-why-jury-trials-were-abolished-in-india - there seem to be multiple sources (some are payalled) which state that the last jury trial was in West Bengal in the 1970s.