The court affirmed that the right to a public trial is subject to restrictions to safeguard the accused's rights, especially in sensitive cases.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an independent Researcher and a Journalist formerly associated with Outlook Magazine. She seeks permission to be present in the Additional Sessions Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode, where the trial in S.C.No.496/2020 is held. The case attained widespread public attention given the allegations against the accused that she murdered six of her family members, including her husband and children, over a period of 14 years of poisoning.

2. When the Court commenced the trial of the case, on the application of the accused, the proceedings were directed to be held in-camera. The grievance of the petitioner is that, being a Researcher, she is prevented from having access to the Court hall for observing the proceedings, though Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 mandates that a Criminal Court is to be an open Court.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, being a very rare case, if she is denied to have an opportunity to witness the proceedings, she won't get any further opportunity to study the field of investigation in the matter.

5. Essentially, the petitioner's claim to be present in the Court is based academic interest.

Section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads thus:-

“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 stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the inquiry into and trial of rape or an offence under section 376, section 376-A, section 376-AB, section 376-B, section 376-C, section 376-D, Section 376-DA, section 376-DB or section 376-E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be conducted in camera. Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, or on an application made by either of the parties, allow any particular person to have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court:

Provided further that in camera trial shall be conducted as far as practicable by a woman Judge or Magistrate.

(3) Where any proceedings are held under sub-section (2), it shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to any such proceedings, except with the previous permission of the Court:

Provided that the ban on printing or publication of trial proceedings in relation to an offence of rape may be lifted, subject to maintaining confidentiality of name and address of the parties.”

6. Though Sub-section-(1) of Section 327 mandates that the Court where the trial of a criminal offence is held shall be deemed to be an open Court, the proviso empowers the trial Court to restrict the entry of the general public or any particular person to have access to the Court. The accused in the case is a woman, and she has specifically prayed for, directing the trial to be conducted in-camera. That order was challenged in Crl. M.C. No. 2192/2023 before this Court, on the ground that the junior Lawyers of the Bar and the law interns were not permitted to be present in the Court. This Court held that when the Judge is satisfied that the absence of in-camera proceedings will lead to prejudice to the accused or the victim, the interest of the junior members in the profession or that of the law interns will have to yield to the former.

7. The trial Court has specifically taken note of the prejudice to be caused to the accused while permitting the presence of the public and those who are not directly interested in the case to be present in the Court and satisfied that the best interest of the accused deserves that the trial