Back
2023 Supreme(Ker) 1049
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala and Another – Respondents
Crl. MC No. 2192 of 2023
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Biju Antony Aloor, K.P. Prasanth, Vishnu Dileep, Archana Suresh, Hijas T.T.
For the Respondents: Grashious Kuriakose
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 and Section 327 - In-camera trial - The petitioner challenged the dismissal of a plea to recall the in-camera order. The court affirmed that in-camera proceedings are permissible under exceptional circumstances, especially to protect the privacy of the accused. The Presiding Judge's decision was justified given media intrusions into the privacy of the accused. (Paras 4, 8, 9, 10, 12)
(B) Open Court Principle - The court reasserted that open court is the general rule, and in-camera proceedings are exceptions aimed at protecting individuals' rights. It emphasized the importance of maintaining privacy in trials related to serious allegations, particularly when media coverage could cause significant distress. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of mariticide, sought to challenge an in-camera trial order, claiming it obstructed junior advocates and interns' right to observe the trial. The proceeding was ordered in-camera due to severe media intrusion as raised by the first accused.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial judge's order, acknowledging the need for protective measures for the accused’s privacy.
Issues: The key issues included whether the in-camera trial order was justified and if the presence of junior lawyers in the courtroom was essential.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that judicial discretion allows for in-camera proceedings to safeguard the interests of parties involved, especially in light of privacy concerns raised by the accused.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner is accused in mariticide case and seeks to recall in-camera trial order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defense argues for open court based on legal provisions against in-camera proceedings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court acknowledges exceptions for in-camera proceedings due to privacy concerns. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. emphasis on balance between public access and protection of individuals' rights. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court finds no merit in challenge against in-camera proceedings; case dismissed. (Para 12 , 14) |
ORDER :
1. 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 incamera 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 viewership 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 spec
