Section 71:

71. Jury Act – Failure to comply with Act – Unconstitutionality of provisions—The accused were charged with manslaughter. At the trial Counsel contended that (i) the provisions of the Jury Act relating to preparation of the jury book were not complied with because the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Police had not sent the Registrar the lists required under the Act; (ii) section 2 of the Act was unconstitutional because it required jurors to be chosen from the Island of Mauritius effectively discriminating against jurors from other islands in the State of Mauritius; (iii) section 19 (1) was unconstitutional in that it gave arbitrary powers to the Chief Justice; (iv) section 24 (1) (d) was unconstitutional because it discriminated against men. HELD (i) the preparation by the Registrar of jury lists using whatever lists he had access to at the time is not by itself a ground for saying that the chosen panel deprived the accused of a fair trial. The book as prepared gives an opportunity for a fair cross-section of society to be chosen; (ii) the power given to the Chief Justice does not take away or override the power of the Registrar, and is not arbitrary; (iii) under section 24 (1) (d) the Judge has a discretion whether to grant an exemption on ground of special hardship or incapacity. This does not discriminate against men who also may be granted exemptions from jury service for limited reasons. R v Boyjoo (1991).