ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Vide order dated 28.03.2017, this Court directed as follows :

“We direct that at least in two districts in every State/Union Territory (with the exception of small states/Union Territories where it may be considered to be difficult to do so by the concerned High Courts) CCTV Cameras (without audio recording) may be installed inside the courts and at such important locations of the Court complexes as may be considered appropriate. Monitor thereof may be in the Chamber of the concerned District and Session Judge. Location of the district courts and any other issues concerning the subject may be decided by the respective High Courts. We make it clear that the footage of the CCTV Camera will not be available under the R.T.I. and will not be supplied to anyone without permission of the concerned High Court. Installation may be completed within three months from today. The report of such experiment be submitted within one month of such installation by the Registrar Generals of the respective High Courts to the Secretary General of this Court who may have it tabulated and placed before the Court.”

3. Accordingly, we have received reports from High Courts of Sikkim, Bombay, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Meghalaya, Chhattisgarh, Tripura, Punjab and Haryana, Allahabad, Patna, Rajasthan and Gauhati. The CCTV cameras have already been installed in the jurisdiction of the eight High Courts while in the remaining four High Courts installation process is in progress. We have perused the reports/opinions received from the said High Courts. No report appears to have been received with regard to the remaining twelve High Courts.

4. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India has submitted a supplementary note compiling the relevant information. We have also heard Shri Arun Mohan, Senior Advocate, who on our request assisted the Court in the matter.

5. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that reservation has been expressed in some of the reports that CCTV cameras will affect the privacy of judicial officers. He submits that proceedings in Courts being open to all, there was no question of privacy. CCTV cameras are culture of the day and promotes good governance. He referred to the observations of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra (1966) 3 SCR 744 as follows :

“It is well-settled that in general, all cases brought before the Courts, whether civil, criminal, or others, must be heard in open Court. Public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity, and impartiality of the administration of justice. Public confidence in the administration of justice is of such great significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad proposition that in discharging their functions as judicial Tribunals, courts must generally hear causes in open and must permit the public admission to the court-room. As Bentham has observed:

"In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest, and evil in every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the Judge himself while trying under trial (in the sense that) the security of securities is publicity".

(Scott v. Scott)

21. Having thus enunciated the universally accepted proposition in favour of open trials, it is necessary to consider whether this rule admits of any exceptions or not. Cases may occur where the requirement of the administration of justice itself may mak