Kerala High Court rejects in-camera trial, bans photography in SFI Abhimanyu murder case

The Kerla High Court on Wednesday refused to direct an in-camera trial in the high-profie murder case of SFI activist Abhimanyu, buta omised the accused by ordering a blanket ban on any photography or videography of the trial proceedings.

Justice C.S. Dias, hearing a petition filed by 13 of the 16 accused, upheld the trial court's order that had dismissed their request for a closed-door hearing. However, the Court issued crucial safeguards to ensure the fairness of the identification process, given that no test identification parade was conducted during investigation.

The Shadow of Pre-tial Exposure

The case stems from the fatal stabbing of a Maharaja's College student in Ernakulam on 2 July 2018. The trial is scheduled to commence from 15 October 2026 before the Ssions Court, Ernakulam. The accused, who have been on bail since 2018, moved the High Court after the trial court rejected their plea for an in-camera proceeding.

Their principal fear was that extensive media coverage and public access to the court would lead to witnesses being shown photographs or videos of the accused, thereby tainting their identification during the trial. Since no test identification parade was conducted, the accused argued that the entire trial would be prejudiced if the wittnesses were exposed to their images before testifying.

The Prosecution's Stand

After State Prosecution strongly opposed the plea, citing the fundamental principle that criminal trials must be conducted in open court. It pointed to Section 366 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates open proceedings as the rule. The prosecution also submitted that a identification parade had already been conducted by an Executive Magistrate and that the witnesses had identified the accused. Police had drawn up a comprehensive bundobust scheme to ensure no law-and-order issues arised, and the accused had earlier appeared in masks without objection.

Court Upholds Open Court Principle

Justice Dias stressed that the power to hold proceedings in camera is an exception, not the rule. "The provision, therefore, recognises open-court proceedings as the general rule while preserving the presiding officer's discretion, in appropriate cases, to restrict access in the interests of the fair and proper administration of justice ," he observed, quoting the precedential decision in Nares Shridhar Mirajkar v State of Maharashtra .

The Court distinguished the case from Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v State of Kerala , relied upon by the petitioners, noting that decison was rendered in its peculiar facts and cannot be applied universally.

"No blanket exclusion warranted"

The judge found that the circumstances of this case do not warrant a blanket shift to an in-camera trial . "The apprehension, therefore, relates to the possibility of the accused being exposed to the witnesses and not to any threat, intimidation, or disturbance during the conduct of the trial," the Court noted.

Nevertheless addressing the accused's genuine conern, the Court issued specific directions:

"I direct the Trial Court, in coordination with the police, to ensure that no person is permitted to photograph or video-record the trial or the accused while they are inside the courtroom. The Trial Court shall also consider, in accordance with law and having regard to the circumstances of the case, whether the entry of the public or any particular person ought to be restricted during the examination of the yyewitnesses, namely, CWs. 1 to 7, so as to preserve the fairness of the trial."

Key Observations from the Judgment

  • "The above provision makes it abundantly clear that criminal proceedings are ordinarily to be conducted in open court , where the public generally have access."
  • "Public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice."
  • "I am of the considered view that the circumstances of the present case do not warrant directing an 'in-camera' trial."
  • "The apprehension... relates to the possibility of the accused being exposed to the witnesses and not to any threat, intimidation, or disturbance during the conduct of the trial."

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Miscelaneous Case, confirming the trial court's order. However, it left the door open for the trial judge to restrict public entry during the examination of key eyewitnesses. The direction to ban any photography or video recording of the accused inside the court is intended to preserve the integrity of the identification evidence. The trial, which will now proceed in open court but under these protective measures, is set to begin from 15 October 2026.