The right to a trial by jury is widely seen as a fundamental right. Article III, of the US constitution, for instance, guarantees the citizens of the United States the right to trial by jury. In cases of a non-guilty plea, the United Kingdom, in serious offences allows for the accused to choose between a trial by jury or a judge. Australia has also enshrined this right in the constitution and so has Italy. With the exception of a few countries like South Africa, trial by jury seems to be a sacrosanct right. India’s criminal justice system is a continuum of the colonial past. India has also inherited the adversarial system of law, being a mirror image of the United Kingdom. The idea is that the judge is to be an impartial referee, and keep her interventions to a minimum. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for a successful conviction. All these features are strikingly similar to other common law countries, especially the United Kingdom. What, however, oddly distinguishes Indian criminal justice system substantially is the lack of a right to trial by jury. In this piece, I explore the how this came to be about and assess trials by juries. The broader argument is to see if trial by juries serve the demands of criminal justice system in the modern world.