You are on page 1of 7

EK RUKA HUA FAISLA 2 Case Summary The movie is about twelve members of a jury who have gathered together

in an enclosed roomto deliberate on charges of murder against a young boy accused of killing his father. The caseagainst the boy looks very convincing and strong, as there is a witness in the form of an old manwho claims to have heard the incident and another woman who claims to have seen the actualact of stabbing. Also, there is the murder weapon a knife that was found at the crime scene,which looks exactly like the knife purchased by the boy without any fragment of doubt. All the jury members, except one, are convinced that the boy is guilty of the crime and the task beforethem is to reach a unanimous decision to advance the case. But there is only one jury member who is not completely convinced about the case and he starts the deliberations, in which all themembers have to participate to reach a common conclusion.What starts off as a minor doubt in one jury members mind slowly develops into an elaboratediscussion about the various possibilities and scenarios where there could be even a shred of divergence from the commonly perceived notions and judgments of the jury members. There isa coordinator who is supposed to chair the jury & make sure a final decision is reached. But heis also a part of the vote and has to make up his own mind along with making sure theproceedings are done without disruptions.The one man who is not fully convinced, manages to change the vote of one other jury member who is the oldest in the room. From here begins a raucous and a very argumentativediscussion, with most of the jury members ending up fighting with someone or the other in tryingto make a point or accept another. Different Members o f the Jury Following is a small analysis of the behavioral aspects of different Jury members and how differentfactors related to their behavior contributed to or hindered the decision making process: 1 234567 1 2 11 10 98


Juror 1: Deepak Kejriwal (Coordinator) He is the appointed coordinator of the group whoattempts to keep the deliberation orderly andprocedural. He is the facilitator and the mediator of the discussion and is hence expected to be someonewho guides by laying out a list of how to s, should s and should not s. The main role of hecoordinator is to maintain the correctness of thedecision and to stop the group from getting intoirrelevant discussions. He is a person who is eitheractive by nature or by role and is hence playing therole of the initiator. His decision style is mainly like aFollower. The decision hindrance was he could notstick to his decision. If there was any argument, heimmediately backed out from his decision. Juror 2: Amitabh Srivastava (White Kurta) He is a timid first timer who is easily persuaded and influenced during tense moments. He tries hard tokeep up with the group and also tries to keep the discussion peaceful. This character shows a typicalpassive constructive personality type. He was keen in the discussion and was constructively taking part.He was, in his behavior, more of a follower type of a person who was very influenced by the majority. Hewas a typical follower who was initially holding himself back because of the lack of experience anduncertainity in his own decision making ability. He was facing hidden traps as well as problems fromfragmented opinions. This kind of personality usually avoids themselves from decision making scenarios. Juror 3 : Pankaj Kapoor He is the loud-mouth, condescending, criticizing member of the group. Thoughhe plays the role of the most unreasonable character till the end and is veryconvinced that the accused is the actual murderer, his heart wrenching story of himself being the father deserted by his only son expounds the reason for hisstand. He depicts an active-destructive personality. He is over emotional and istaking the case very personally. He also makes rude personal comments to othermembers of the jury. His decision style was mainly like that of a skeptic. He wasvery biased while making the decision. He had a very aggressive personality and was very rude to theother jury members who changed their decisions while logics were being presented. He was full of hindrances mainly of the recent past event trap. He also allowed his perceptual selectivity to creep intohis decision making ability. Juror 4 : S. M. Z aheer (S peaks Urdu) He is the well dressed stock broker whose character is shown veryconceited and unemotional. He based his decisions on hardcore facts anddemonstrates an active constructive personality. He is very patient andcalm throughout the process and bases his decisions on pure logic. Heshowed signs of thinker and controller in his decision making style. Hefaced hindrance of the evidence trap because once Juror 8 had presentedhim the other side of coin, and there were evidences supporting him, heimmediately went into a thoughtful state realizing his blunder in ignoringthe details and then shifted his decision in the favor of Juror 8. J u r o r 5 : S u b h a s h U d g h a t e ( R e s i d e n t from slum) He is the person who belongs the same slum as the accused. Hebecomes very defensive and does not react well to others prejudice.Since he comes from a similar background, he is in a better position tounderstand he accused situations and empathize with him. He is alsological in his methodology and bases his opinions only on facts. Hedemonstrates a passive constructive personality. He behaves like askeptic any time when someone would point out that the accused isfrom slum area so the prejudiced thinking was that all slum dwellerswere criminals. Other than that, he was acting like a follower and going with the flow of majority.

Juror 6: Hemant Mishra (Painter) He does not contribute much to the discussion. He also demonstrates a passive constructive personalityand does not shy away from voicing his opinion. He likes to maintain decorum during discussions. Hisdecision style was like both of a charismatic and a follower. He merely went with the facts. Once logic

EK RUKA HUA FAISLA 5was presented, he immediately shifted his decision in the favor of the protagonist. He was a victim of the status quo bias as he became comfortable in whatever side the decision of the majority was shifting.

Juror 7 : M. K . Rain a (Mashaal Movie Ti ckets) He demonstrates the role of a self centered person who was more worriedabout missing the movie for which he had purchased tickets, rather than thelife of the accused. He worried more about his comforts and leisure than beingfair and taking responsibility of the role assigned. He got irritated on thedetailed decision making of other Jury members and shows no regard for the justice for the accused. His decision style shows that he was very ignorant andwas mainly a follower. He just wanted to wind up the discussion as quickly aspossible without bothering about the outcomes of a wrong decision taken. Juror 8 : K. K. Raina (The Prot agonist) He plays the most crucial role of the voice of reason. At the beginning he isthe only Jury member willing to give time and a chance to the guilty byvoting in favor for him. Even though not fully convinced, he wanted togive the victim the benefit of doubt and wanted to contemplate over thefacts and logic before arriving at a conclusion. His decision style was mainlylike a thinker who wanted to go ever every little detail before arriving at adecision. He was not biased or prejudiced against the accused boy andwanted to give him a fair chance to prove himself free from the charges.He shows openness and an ability to voice his opinion and believes in fairand wise judgement.


Juror 9 : Anu Kapoor (Ol d Man) He is the old and wise juror who is open to difference in opinions. He was the first tosupport the protagonist. When the protagonist presented a small logic of why thisdecision should be contemplated upon, Juror 9 gave him his full support. He waslogical and rational in his decision style. He brings with him a lot of wisdom andexperience which helps the other Jury members to arrive at a decision. He shows alot of patience as his passion for truth and justice drives his decision making style. Healso was a thinker like the protagonist in his decision making style. Juror 10: Su bbiraj (Had Col d) He is mostly the active destructive juror having his personal biases and prejudicesagainst the slum dwellers to interfere with his decision making style. He follows avery typical style of personalized approach leading to destructive behavior. Hiscommunity biases led to many conflicts among the jury members resulting in anaggressive approach. He showed a lot of arrogance in his style was trying toinfluence others in the favor of punishing the guilty without going over the detailedfacts. He was also very impatient in his decision making. Juror 11: Sh ailendra G oel (Blue Shirt South Indian) He is one of the characters who show an adult ego state throughoutthe decision making process. He was not amongst the jury memberswho were not taking their roles seriously and were only making theenvironment more aggressive and uncontrolled. He was in factpacifying other members of the jury and calming the environment.His decision style is again a mix of a charismatic and a follower. Hewas one of the members who were ready with the decision almostimmediately when the discussion started, but later on when logicand facts were presented, he changed sides again aggravating Juror3. He was also a victim of the Anchoring and Adjustment heuristic ashe was using the implicitly suggested reference points to influence his original decisions.


Juror 12: Aziz Querashi (Advertising Professional) He portrays the role of the most indifferent character. He wasbehaving as if he is just passing his time and is least interested inthe decision making process. He displays a typical child ego statewho is excited but not serious about the task assigned. He againshows a mix of charismatic and a follower in his decision makingstyle and was a victim of the status quo bias like most othercharacters in this movie