Order on in-camera proceedings in gang-rape case upheld

Updated - December 04, 2021 11:40 pm IST

Published - January 09, 2013 02:24 pm IST - New Delhi

Security check at the enterance of Saket Court in New Delhi. Photo: Sandeep Saxena

Security check at the enterance of Saket Court in New Delhi. Photo: Sandeep Saxena

A sessions court here on Wednesday upheld a magistrate order on in-camera proceedings in the Delhi gang-rape case and restraining the media from reporting on the proceedings.

District Judge R.K. Gauba noted that there was nothing illegal or improper in Metropolitan Magistrate Namrita Aggarwal’s order of January 7.

“The magistrate was within her rights, rather duty-bound, to apply the provisions of Section 327(2) (conducting in-camera proceedings in cases of rape and related offences) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. PC) to the proceedings of the case,” he said.

“The fact that a large crowd entered the courtroom, leaving no space for even the under-trial prisoners to be brought in added to the circumstances leading to the passing of the order,” the judge said. “I do not find any error, impropriety or illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, the revision petition is devoid of substance and is dismissed.”

Ms. Aggarwal passed the order after the proceedings got embroiled in a chaotic situation after a section of lawyers, unconnected with the case, opposed two advocates coming forward to appear for the accused in the case. The sessions court said that as per Section 327(2) Cr. PC, it was mandatory for the presiding officer to hold the proceedings in-camera in rape cases.

On the petitioner’s claim that lawyers and citizens have legitimate interest in the judicial proceedings relating to the case, the court said that under the general rule — Section 327(1) Cr. PC — every criminal court was expected to be an open court where public may be allowed access.

“But then, that rule does not confer any absolute right. It is subject to exceptions provided within the said clause, including on the factors of the capacity of the court hall to contain persons to an extent or even public generally, from the court room or building used by the court. The command of the law contained in Section 327(2) is than in such case (of rape), Section 327(1) Cr. PC would not apply and it is mandatory for the presiding judge or the magistrate to hold the proceedings in-camera,” Mr. Gauba said.

In a written reply filed on behalf of the Delhi Police, public prosecutor Rajiv Mohan said the revision petition was not maintainable and sought that it be dismissed.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.