1. qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
EK RUKA HUA FAISLA: AN ANALYSIS
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
Submitted to: Prof. Bhupen Srivastava
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
Submitted by
Nirankar Royal (11PGDMHR36)
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjk

2. PLOT SUMMARY
EkRukaHuaFaisla is an adaptation of 12 Angry Men (1957), which was directed by Sidney
Lumet and was nominated for 3 Oscars. It also was another 13 awards and was nominated for 6.
The original movie deals with the deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old
Latino accused of stabbing his father to death.
This is a movie about 19 year old boy who was a suspect for murder of his father. There was a
committee of 12 people assigned to decide whether boy was culprit or not. The jury assembled in
a room on a hot summer day. They had to reach a consensus, unanimously, regarding the boy‟s
fate – guilty or not guilty. When the movie begins it seems like the committee is already sure
about the decision- guilty. However, once the voting takes place the plot thickens. Only one juror
is unconvinced of the boy‟s involvement in the crime resulting in a difference in opinion and
further discussion on the case. The following discussion brings out different angles to the story
along with highlighting the characteristic traits of the committee member.
1

3. Before moving on to discussion on personality profile of each member and its impact on
their respective behavior/stand taken, I would like to specify the working conditions or
environment. The jury had assembled in a small room and had a task at hand – to adjudge
whether the boy was guilty or not. Here, it is interesting to observe the effect of individual
thinking on the way they dressed. Out of the 12 jurors, 11 had pre-decided that the boy is convict
based on individual notions which we would discuss later. Because of these pre-decided stands,
all of them, including the one who thought he was not guilty, were heavily dressed on a hot
summer day. This shows that while the 11 jurors thought that it must be a quick affair and won‟t
take much time, I had an impact on the thinking of the one left juror as well. Also, task was
pretty specific, that the court is expecting a common decision by the end of the day, the jurors
didn‟t had an option to simply leave or postpone the meeting in order to avoid the conflict. These
preconceived notions and clear objectives set the perfect stage for what unfolded later on.
From this, I could infer that time bound and specific objectives play an important role in group
dynamics. They bring out the conflict in open and thus their resolution takes place under amiable
conditions.
PERSONALITY PROFILE
JUROR 1 (DEEPAK KEJRIWAL)
He acted as a co-coordinator throughout the film. He was expected to be non-partial during the
proceedings and to keep the deliberation orderly and procedural. He is the facilitator and
mediator of the discussion and is hence expected to be someone who guides the discussion
forward and resolute the conflicts. He is soft spoken and believed in democratic decisions with
everyone‟s consent.
2

4. Though he is a good moderator but he lacked control over the group so as to ensure disciplined
and peaceful approach towards decision. Because of this, his role was not taken seriously by
others and he was often questioned about his authority and was unnecessarily emphasizing on
rules. In response, he lost his cool twice in the movie and asked other members to take up his
role.
Irrespective of the role, he kept his cool throughout the discussion and never fought with anyone.
He is the kind of person who seeks co-operation from others. He is social as he tried to bring
everybody to the table and maintained amiable relationship with everyone.
From his profile, I can say that he was probably working in a bank or at some place where
interaction with strangers is most as his soft skills are very polished.
JUROR 2 (AMITABH SRIVASTAVA)
He is relatively new to such situation and thus has certain inhibitions. He is shy by nature whois
easily convinced and influenced during stressedmoments. He also tries to keep the
discussion peaceful. He tries hard tokeep up with the group. He was very keen in making
significant contribution to the discussion, though every time he was overpowered by
PankajKapoor‟s character. He had good analytical skills and he came up with some goodand
valid point about the time taken by the lady witness to observe theentire situation.
Most of the times it seemed that he is a good follower andused to get influenced by the
majority and was more willing to receivethan to give. His part in the movie is affronted by
the Juror #3. But finally,he speaks up about some evidence that bothered him.
3

5. During conflict and heated situation, he tried to move away from the situation by given excuse of
his ailing daughter. This shows that he is very timid and introvert by nature. He displayed
consulting style.
JUROR 3 (PANKAJ KAPOOR)
He is the arrogant, criticizing and was the shouting member of the group. Though he plays the
role of the most divisive character who is falsely convinced that the accused is the murderer;
his dissentious stand was because, his only son deserted him, so this painful relationship with his
son caused anger toward all young people, thereby influencing his vote. As time goes on he
becomes more personally involved with the case. He emerges as a rigid proud person who is not
open to new data and bases his judgment on old material. He does not listen to any points made
bythe people in favor of the accused.He depicts an active-destructivepersonality. He is over
emotional and takes the case very personally. He is very active in the decision making process
but in a destructive way by having an attacking and commanding attitude.
JUROR 4 (S. M. ZAHEER)
4

6. He is the well dressed stock broker whose character is shown veryconceited and unemotional. He
based hisdecisions on hardcore facts anddemonstrates an active constructive personality. He is
very patient andcalmthroughout the process and bases his decisions on pure logic. Heshowed
signs of thinker andcontroller in his decision making style. Hefaced hindrance of the evidence
trap because once Juror 8 hadpresentedhim the other side of coin, and there were evidences
supporting him, heimmediately went into athoughtful state realizing his blunder in ignoringthe
details and then shifted his decision in thefavor of Juror 8.
Though he considered hardcore facts for making decisions, he formed a group with Juror 3 once
he felt that he his in minority. Their he strategized and advised his fellow conspirer not to move
from his stand. This shows that he is confident about what he decides and in a threat situation, he
can do things which might not be correct according to his morals but correct to protect his
decision.
JUROR 5 (SUBHASH UDGHATE)
He is the person who belongs the same slum as the accused. Hebecomes very defensive and does
not reactwell to others prejudice.Since he comes from a similar background, he is in a better
position tounderstand the accused situations and empathize with him. He is alsological in his
methodology and bases hisopinions only on facts. Hedemonstrates a passive constructive
personality. He behaves like askepticany time when someone would point out that the accused
isfrom slum area so the prejudiced thinking was that allslum dwellerswere criminals. Other
than that, he was acting like a follower and going with the flow ofmajority.
5

7. JUROR 6 (HEMANT MISHRA)
He plays a secondary role in the movie, with no substantial contributions.He also demonstrates a
passive constructive personality. This
characterdoes not shy away from voicing his opinions and likes to maintaindecorum during the
discussions. Initially he was also against the accusedbut with the rational logics given by juror #8
he was convinced that theboy is not guilty.
He is traditional by thinking. That is, he showed respect to elders, others and their personal life.
He also had an fight when another juror was insulting the older juror 9.
JUROR 7 (M. K. RAINA)
6

8. He very effortlessly demonstrates the role of a self-centered person who
ismore worried about his own comforts and leisure than being fair anddetailed. He shows least
concern about the case even though a life wasdependent on it. He is least bother about the
importance of the decisionstaken with respect to the accused person‟s life. His personal affairs
aremore important to him than the life of that boy. He snubbed all thesuggestions and throws
tantrums every time the group follows an
orderthat is against his comforts and expectations. He show no regard toprotocols or justice and
does not actively support the decision makingprocess.
JUROR 8 (K. K. RAINA)
He is the voice of reason, and plays the most crucial role. At thebeginning, he is the only
member of the jury who votes „not guilty' andwithstands all the pressure from the other jury
members. By saying thatit's not easy for him sentence a boy to death without even discussing
thefacts he opens the other jury member's minds to the possibility that theaccused may not
be guilty. He is calm, cool, and collected, and is probablyone of the few jury members who fully
understand his role as a jury. Alongwith this, he approaches the trial logically, calmly and
competently byscrutinizing each and every fact discussed during the trial, so that theyare doubly
sure that they haven‟t left any loop-hole during their decisionmaking process.
7

9. JUROR 9 (ANNU KAPOOR)
He is theold and wise juror who proves to be open to difference inopinions and supports them.
He brings along with him loads of wisdomand experience which eventually helps the jury
members to come to
aconclusion regarding a faulty witness. This character shows a lot of patience but is still agitated
due to inappropriate behaviour on the part of other jurors. His passion for truth and justice drives
his decision makingprocess and helps him to logically analyse all the facts.
JUROR 10 (SUBBIRAJ)
8

10. He is the most actively destructive juror having his original opinions
andprejudices which are biased in nature. He demonstrates a clear cutexample of a personalized
approach leading to destructive behavior. Hiscommunity biases lead to many verbal conflicts
resulting in an aggressive approach.He showed a lot of arrogance in his style was trying
toinfluenceothers in the favor of punishing the guilty without going over the detailedfacts. He
was also veryimpatient in his decision making.
JUROR 11 (SHAILENDRA GOEL)
He is one of the characters who show an adult ego state throughoutthe decision making process.
Hewas not amongst the jury memberswho were not taking their roles seriously and were only
makingtheenvironment more aggressive and uncontrolled. He was in factpacifying other
members of the jury andcalming the environment.His decision style is again a mix of a
charismatic and a follower. Hewas one ofthe members who were ready with the decision
almostimmediately when the discussion started, but lateron when logicand facts were presented,
he changed sides again aggravating Juror3. He was also a victim of theAnchoring and
Adjustment heuristic ashe was using the implicitly suggested reference points toinfluence his
original decisions
9

11. JUROR 12 (AZIZ QURESHI)
He portrays the role of the most indifferent character. He wasbehaving as if he is just passing
histime and is least interested inthe decision making process. He displays a typical child ego
statewho isexcited but not serious about the task assigned. He againshows
a mix of charismatic and a follower in hisdecision makingstyle and was a victim of the status quo
bias like most othercharacters in this movie.
Team’s Influence in effecting change
A team can be divided as a group of people having a common vision, carrying out a specific task
by following specific rules and protocols to achieve a common goal/mission/objective. In this
movie 12 jury members are appointed by the court to discuss the case and reach to a consensus
about the final decision of the case.
Systems theorists have long believed that when individuals "merge into a group" something new
is created. This called the GESTALT effect which says whole is much more powerful and
effective than a part. This new entity, although comprised of individuals, is believed to be
"greater than the sum of its parts" and thus the dynamic that is created within the group is not
directly attributed to any one individual but rather the unique interrelationship between those
individuals and the force that this interrelationship has on group functioning.
Written below are the various benefits of teams, observed:-
10

12. 1. Understanding group dynamics and creating participation and involvement: In the
movie, 12 jury members have to reach a consensus. So the consent of every jury member was
required. This required an underlined understanding of where the group stood with respect to
trust, disclosure and acceptance. Also everyone was individually asked about their views and
they have to give appropriate reasons. Thus involvement of each and every member was there.
Participation of each and every member of the group was encouraged. They were forced to share
their point of views. . Here also it has been strongly depicted that the group dynamics play a
highly important role in changing the mindset of its members. For example the character played
by PankajKapur was very stringent and stubborn for most of the part of the movie, but the group
was successful in changing his perception regarding the new generation. I would start the team
building process in the movie from the beginning.
2. Facilitating better group effectiveness by honing every member’s decision making
abilities: at the beginning of the discussion 11 out of 12 jurors considered the accused to be
guilty of murdering his father. The final decision made later shows that even after so many
sessions in the court many issues were left unexplored. These were unearthed during this group
task. This helped the group to make a decision considering all the true facts and hence they were
able to make a fair and just decision. Due to this the innocent boy was realized of all the charges.
So as a result of this team work the effectiveness of the group as well as individual decision
making ability increased 12 folds.
3. Better management and utilization of conflicts by generation of diverse ideas: all the
brainstorming and teamwork helped in exposing all those facts which were not even thought of
during the entire trial and which finally helped in proving the boy innocent. For example the fact
that the lady witness wore spectacles and it would have been difficult for her to recognize the
killer from such a far away distance. Or the time taken by the old man with an injured leg to
reach the place where he saw the boy running away from home.
There were many instances when many of the jury members contradict each other and heated
arguments usually followed these conflicts. But at the end everyone came out with a unanimous
decision by accepting their differences and acknowledging to the facts.
The main protagonist was the Juror #8, played by Mr. K KRaina
The major attributes, style and approach are discussed below:-
Openness and ability to voice opinions: Heis the voice of reason,and the most crucial character in
the movie. In the beginning, he isthe only member of the jury who votes „not guilty'
and withstandspressure from all other eleven jury members. By doing this, heopens the other
jury members to the possibility that the accusedmay not be guilty. His calm, cool, and
11

13. collected demeanor infusesconfidence in the audience, and shows that he is probably one of the
few jury members who fully understand his role.
All that Juror 8 wants is to give the accused a fair chance bystructurally going forward with the
process of scrutinizing every factand detail. He is the first to question the evidence that is
broughtforward. He went to lengths to prove his point and to convincepeople of his opinions. For
example, the knife which was the weaponof crime was supposed to be unique and rare to find.
He proved thiswrong by buying the same kind of knife from a local shop. Heapproaches the trial
in a very logical and organized manner. Hestood out due to his ethics, motives, passion for fair
and justhearing, and rational approach.
Believed in Fair and Wise Judgments – Ethics and Justice:Juror #8proves to be anEthicalperson.
This is reinforced by the fact thatdespite of so many ethical dilemmas encountered by
theprotagonists, he never budged from his values and ethics, andcontinued looking forward to
a just and fair discussion. For example,even when 11 out of 12 jury members were against him
he did not get intimidated by numbers. He told them that he was not entirely convinced and
considers it ethically wrong to sentence a boy to such a fate without discussing about the case
properly. Insome parts of the movie he acts like a counselor too. He tries to convince Juror #3 to
think about the case leaving all prejudices behind.
Logical and Rational Approach: An architect by profession he brings with him a logical, rational
and analytical way of going forward with the procedure. Right from the beginning he says that
he does not know for sure whether the accused is guilty or not, and neither does he have any
valid points to put forward but all that he wants is discussion about the same so that they are able
to validate their beliefs. For him sentencing someone to a death penalty is a huge decision and he
would require pure logic and valid reasons to prove him that the accused deserves such a harsh
penalty. He likes to overanalyze the facts so that every aspect of the problem is studied indetail.
He contributes some very logical and valid counter arguments haven thought of by others. For
example the fact that the lady witness wore spectacles and it would have been difficult for her to
recognize the killer from such a faraway distance, or the time taken by the old man with an
injured leg, to reach the point where he saw the boy running away from home. The old man who
lived in the apartment exactly below the crime scene, had heard the accused shouting just few
seconds before he heard someone scream and fall with a thud. He said that he then saw the
young boy running from the stairs. All this according to him took 15-20 sec. But the juror 8
proved that fore person that old, walking with the help of a stick, cannot reach the staircase in
just 15 seconds. In fact he himself demonstrated that it will take minimum of 41 seconds to reach
there.
Leadership and Influence: The character demonstrates greatleadership skills and influencing capa
bilities. Even though in thebeginning, he was the only person against 11 jurors, he eventually
convinced people that the case is not as simple and straight as it haslain out to be. He tells them
that according to him there arevarious loop-
holes in the case which need to be discussed andscrutinized in order to reach a fair judgment. He
12

14. believes in logically approaching the discussion and hence convinced everyone to do the
same. Being a performer and a through and through hard worker, he devotedly does his studies
the case, the witnesses and the crime scene to come up with any loop-holes which will help them
to reach conclusion about the case. Being the leader that he is, he believesin his gut feeling and
follows it right from the beginning till the end. His greatest strength was the ability to positively
influence others.
Finally, this character proves to be a go-getter, and an initiator who actively seeks truth while
maintaining a calm, peaceful and pleasant demeanor throughout the procedure despite of being
Provoked a number of times. Being an achiever and a confident man he actively listens to his
fellow jurors‟ opinions and point of views, and encourages them to think and rationalize. Upon
examination, the film highlights social psychology theories in areas of attitude change,
conformity, and group process.
Attitudinal Change: Persuasion, being a function of attitude, plays an integral aspect in the
intriguing nature of the movie. Persuasions the process by which attitudes is changed. They are
the tools through which people persuade others to agree with what is right and just or apt. There
are two ways to persuasion: peripheral and central. The central route is the process by which a
person carefully ponders upon a communication and is eventually influenced by the power
of argument. Juror #8 and Juror #4, both follow this approach towards attitudinal change. Juror
#8 appeals for the accused‟s innocence in well-thought, organized and elucidated manner. He
stipulates his points through empirical evidence and eventually sways the
other jurors. The central route to persuasion characterized Fonda‟sapproach. Likewise, the busine
ssman uses his curt, stoic andinductive nature to create a strong, convincing argument based on
facts. Lastly, Juror #11 applies the central route to persuasion when he advocates, “going
deeper,” in reference to an examination of the facts. The peripheral route of persuasion is
characterized by
superficialcues surrounding the argument rather than validity of the factspresented in the
argument. Juror #10 and 7 display this kind of an approach. Where on one hand Juror #10 very
inappropriately urges other jurors to construe an attitude based on peripheral ethnic and racial
cues, Juror #7 asks them to get away with the decision as soon as possible since there is no use in
discussing the facts
asmaximum number of them were convinced the boy was guilty. Through the use of non-
factual, environmental cues, the sickgentleman utilizes the peripheral route to persuasion. Route
selection is another component of relevance in the movie. The jurors, who care deeply about the
fate of the accused boy, areconcerned with justice, take pride in their intellect regardless of
Group polarization is the concept that group discussion generally serves to strengthen the already
dominant point of view. This often leads to risky shift. The movie initially exemplifies this
process but with consistent contempt is suppressed by Juror #8 and the people who support
him.Hence it becomes emperative for any team to give their teammembers the following:-
13

15. Equal and fair chance to voice their opinions i.e. good space for Self-Observation.
A welcoming and supporting environment i.e. a conduciveenvironment for Self-
Disclosure.
Experience trust, acceptance and understanding within the team.
Vicarious learning i.e. a chance to pick up skills and attitudes from others.
Good insight to expand self-knowledge.
Share other people‟s experiences- concerns, difficulties andhopes. This will indeed make the
team an effective medium of change.
LEARNINGS FROM THE MOVIE-
Firstly we learn that whenever a number of people from different background,mindset,culture
come together then conflicts are bound to happen. The scenario from the movie can be
extrapolated to an organisation where people from different backgrounds come together and are
supposed to work in a coordinated manner, then due to difference in opinions and personality
conflicts are sure to take place.
Secondly, in similar circumstances the role of power and politics comes into play when people
with a dominant personality try to influence others and make them think and do things according
to them. So in such cases proper attention has to be taken so that the discussion takes place in an
unbiased and non influential way and everybody gets a fair chance to participate and express
his/her opinion.
Thirdly whenever some decisions are taken as a team then the focus should be on taking the view
points of everybody and collectively coming to a decision rather than focusing on expressing
only individual viewpoints and influencing others as well.
We also learn that every decision should be based on reasonable evidence and it can be
dangerous to rush to conclusions. In the movie, most of the Jury members were initially in a
hurry to shut the case and pronounce the accused guilty even when they know it‟s a matter of
someone‟s life. Only Mr. Raina stands against such a decision and demands that the jury should
give appropriate time to the issue and have a healthy discussion on the entire case. Hence, as
managers, we should always be dedicated and do a thorough analysis before taking an important
decision.
Whenever working in a team some points have to be kept in mind always, some of which are-
Equal and fair chance to voice their opinions
A welcoming and supporting environment
14

16. Experience trust, acceptance and understanding within theteam.
Vicarious learning i.e. a chance to pick up skills and attitudesfrom others.
Good insight to expand self-knowledge.
Share other people‟s experiences- concerns, difficulties andhopes
The accused in the movie came from a poverty stricken background. Some members of the Jury
had preconceived notions against people coming from slums. It was evident in the movie that
this preconceived notion had a big impact on their decision .The film demonstrates the power of
social influencesand shows us how prejudices and biases can cloud our decisionmaking
capacities. It leaves us with a learning that we should never have any pre conceived notions
while taking critical decisions since they may cloud our rational thinking.
When dealing with Humans nothing is written on the wall as golden rule. As one of the
characters puts it " Yeh koi science nahinhai , jahan sab kuchnishchithotihai " ( this is not science
where everything is fixed and proven). What is required of us is to have an open mind to
everything in life and crtically analyze all aspects of a situation before making any decision.
There are certain important points that should be kept in mind while working in teams and when
collective decision has to be taken-
Take interest-
While working in a group often what we witness is social loafing by some of the members,which
should be tried to get rid off at any cost.all members should take interest in whatever is
happening in the meeting,unlike what we saw in the movie where majority of the jurors were in a
hurry to finish the proceedings and rush back home.
Avoid aggression-
Aggression should be avoided and everybody should remain calm and composed so that rational
decisions can be taken.
Avoid being a follower-
A fair chance should be given to all members to express their opinions and point of view and
they should be encouraged not to just go with what the majority is saying.
Rational and logical thinking-
All members should to think and take decisions rationally. Members should think critically and
then arrive at any decision.
15

17. 16