Point of Law : Prejudice to the junior lawyers of the profession and law interns is in fact an abstruse reason to challenge the order directing the holding of trial in-camera.

ORDER :

Petitioner is facing prosecution as the first accused in a case of mariticide. On 07.03.2023, the trial commenced. The learned Sessions Judge ordered the proceedings to be held in-camera. Learned counsel for the first accused thereafter filed a petition to recall the order directing in-camera trial. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') by the first accused.

2. S.C. No.496 of 2020 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode relates to the murder of the husband of Smt. Jollyamma -the first accused. The case attained widespread media attention since the first accused is alleged to have murdered five other persons over a period of time by poisoning. On the date when the case was posted for commencement of trial, the learned Sessions Judge ordered proceedings to be held in-camera. Three Advocates for each of the accused were also permitted to be inside the court, apart from the prosecution.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, an application was filed by the counsel for the first accused seeking to recall the order directing the holding of the proceedings in-camera. However, by the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application.

4. Sri. Biju Antony Aloor, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per section 327 of Cr. P.C, all criminal cases are to be held in open court and the only exception is with respect to sexual offences, which are specified in the statute itself. According to the counsel, without any reason, the learned Sessions Judge has ordered in-camera proceedings as a result of which all his junior Advocates, law interns and even the media are prevented from entering the court. The learned counsel further contended that the concept of in-camera proceedings is alien to the court except in exceptional circumstances specified therein and the power to order an in-camera proceeding cannot be based upon the whims and fancies of the officer.

5. Sri. Grashious Kuriakose, learned Additional Director General of Prosecution assisted by Adv. Suresh C.K., on the other hand pointed out that the first accused herself had filed a petition to the learned Sessions Judge stating that whenever she is attending the court, the media are following her, intruding into her privacy, even when she goes to the bathroom. In the petition, the first accused further stated that for the last one week, both the print and the visual media have been publishing relevant and irrelevant materials, which are disturbing the future of her children and her family and requested the court to prevent the intrusion of media. She even expressed her surprise at the media publishing every detail of a case, which has not even resulted in a judgment. Petitioner had also alleged that for the sheer purpose of availing a higher viewer ship rating, the media are publishing news, causing great mental agony to her and to her family. She requested the court to take an appropriate decision based on her human rights and the circumstances pointed out therein. It was also submitted that the decision to make it an in-camera proceeding was taken by the learned Judge only after such a representation was filed by the first accused and the same needs no interference.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. Cr.P.C provides for open court proceedings in all cases, except for the sexual crimes specified in section 327(2) Cr.P.C. Open court is the norm and closed court or proceedings in-camera an exception. For a better comprehension section 327 is extracted as below:

“327 Court to be open.-(1) The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them:

Provided that the presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any sta