Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Simultaneously, it confers jurisdiction on the Court to either, on its own, or on an application of parties, allow access to any particular person of their choice.

9. The Court is also conferred with the discretion to lift the ban on reporting.

10. Therefore, the questions which come to fore are:-

(i)     Is open trial, a rule?
(ii)    Does Sub Section (2) of Section 327 of Cr.P.C., which provides for an
        in camera trial in a rape case, envisage access?           If so, in what
        manner?

(xi). A blanket ban is illegal. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed, where for example testimony of one witness may affect the testimony of another witness. The Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to apply the test of "necessity" and "proportionality", adverted to, by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 603.

(xii). The Court was required to balance the two competing rights, that is, the right of the public to know and have access to Court trials as against right of the victim‟s family and that of the accused to confidentiality. In the instant case, neither the family of the victim nor the accused has sought in camera trial, and instead, in camera trial, is sought by the State.

(xi) The provision in Sub Section (2) of Section 327 of the Cr.P.C. which mandates in camera trial is not unique to this particular statute, as there are several other statutes which provide for in camera trial. Reference in this regard was made to Order 32A Rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC); Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 43 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936; Section 33 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954; Section 11 of the Family Courts Act, 1984; Section 16 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 22 (eeee) of the Mental Health Act, 1987; Section 237(2) of the Cr.P.C. in respect of prosecution of defamation under Section 199(2) of the Cr.P.C.; Section 265B(4) in a case involving plea bargaining; Section 17 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008; Section 36AJ of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949; Section 52 M of the Insurance Act, 1938; Section 17 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959. Reference was also placed to statutes of other nations as well as international covenants and treaties to emphasise the point that exclusion of media in order to ensure fair trial was not peculiar to India. Reliance in this behalf was placed on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1992; Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999; Sexual Offences Act, 2003 which amended Section (2) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1992 whereby the array of offences in respect of protection of the identity of the victim was widened; Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act, 1996; Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act, 1926; Section 8 and 8C of the Magistrate Courts Act 1980; Part 16 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, 2012;

32. The argument advanced by Mr. Krishnan, based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurmit Singh and Sakshi has relevance to the extent that ordinarily in an enquiry or trial of an offence of rape and / or allied offences, should be held in camera. The Supreme Court‟s exhortation in that regard, however, cannot be construed in manner so as to exclude the trial Courts‟ discretion to act otherwise for good reason. The Supreme Court, in my opinion, consciously uses the words "invariably" as against exclusionary words such as "must" and "without fail" when opining in paragraph 24 at pages 404 and 405 of its judgment that such trials should be held in camera and that trial Courts should "liberally" take recourse to the provisions of Sub Sections (2) and (3) of Section 327 of Cr.P.C. 32.1 To my mind there could be myriad situations in which the trial Court may not want to take recourse to Sub Section (2) of Section 327 of Cr.P.C. even in a rape trial. Take a case where the victim is a woman of small means, who is put into flesh trade by a group of persons, enjoying power and pelf. The accused in such case may want the entire proceedings to be held in camera. The trial Court while protecting the victim from unwanted public glare may still consider opening certain phases of the trial to public. One of the reasons for adopting such a course, out of many, could be to send out a signal that a fair trial would be held, which would remain impervious to powerful influences.