Upgrad LLM

can a common indian citizen having no disputes enter court?

corporate lawyer

can a coomon indian citizen who has no dispute enter into the courtroom and see the trial?

 
Reply   
 

Yes of course. Unless it is some rare "in camera" trial, all courts are open courts for public to go there and see what is going on.
 
Reply   
 


Advocate

Yes, agree with the above responds. Court is open court except in some exceptional cases as stated above.

 
Reply   
 
Senior Partner

@ Author

I differ to opinions expressed above (barring few in-camera trials / Court strictures not to publish witness statements etals cases which is obvious). It may be said for lower Courts where "in camera" proceedings are not going on, that "strangers" may go there and watch "open trials" but the matter as asked by queriest is not a generic one to give simplified replies as above ld. members have stated in a haste. Kindly re-consider your replies;


Reasoning:
1. Jurisdiction to exercise powers which may affect "rights of persons other than those who are parties to the litigation" is either expressly granted to the Court by the statute or arises from the necessity to regulate the course of proceedings so as to make them an effective instrument - for the administration of justice. Hence a "stranger" cannot just walk in to a "superior Court's Court room" to hear affected parties case proceedings.


2. An order made against a "stranger" in aid of administration of justice between contending parties or for enforcement of its adjudication does not directly infringe any fundamental right under Art. 19 of the person affected thereby, for it is founded either expressly or by necessary implication upon the nonexistence of the right claimed which this query is all about (indirectly is my view).



3. Such a determination of the disputed question would be as much exempt from the jurisdiction of a superior Court to grant relief against infringement of a fundamental right under Art. 19, as a determination of the disputed question between the parties on merits or on procedure.


Illustration:
1. A "stranger" just cannot enter Hon'ble SC without permission / recommendation and witness "open trial in one of the Hon'ble SC Court rooms".
2. A "stranger" cannot enter atleast Hon'ble Delhi HC one of its Court Rooms without permission and see "open trial" thereto [this last illustration may need updation from other States HC practice / procedure respectively by this reply readers i.e. by practicing Ld. brothers]

 
Reply   
 
corporate lawyer

it appears to me from the post of tajobsindia that

 

1] a stranger cannot enter into sc

 

2] a stranger cannot enter into hc

 

3] can i infer that a stranget can enter into district court.?

 

so in india, a so called democratic country a citizen who is a "stranger" has no right to see open trial.   this means that we don't know how the fate of our fellow citizen is determined unless our time comes. how silly is that!!!

 

india with all these restriction  very slowly but steadily becomes a TALIBANI nation. yes i repeat a TALIBANI nation where its citizen has no right to observe the judicial proceedings.

 

if democracy is a govt. run by citizens, then why a citizen who is a stranger cannot see an open judicial proceeding(trial)?


has anyone got the answer to the above question?

 

strange country.

 
Reply   
 

I would humbly disagree with the opinion of tajobsindia but would be happy to stand corrected. As per my understanding rights are broad, powers are narrow. Freedom of Speech and Expression, Liberty is guaranteed under Part III of the Constitutuin unless restricted by any reasonable law. Freedom of  Speech and Expression, Liberty can only be restricted by a law which constitutes a reasonable restriction founded on the principle of proportionality.


Courts are the creature of the Constitution, hence not above the Constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights. Reasonable restrictions in exceptional cases of in camera trials is understandable. But the reasoning of blanket restriction is difficult to understand when put to the test of reasonable restrictions based on principle of proportionality.

 

May I know the specific law or laws which empower the courts to enforce blanket restrictions on  the Freedom of Speech and Expression, Liberty of citizens from observing the proceedings in court to see the fate of their fellow citizens?

 
Reply   
 
Senior Partner

 

 

1. Originally posted by :arnab banerjee

"


it appears to me from the post of tajobsindia that 
Kindly donot force feed 'words' into my mouth by "your interpretation" I particularly know what I discuss here thus I tend to give my reasonign and mostly illustratuion and donot prefer taking in vaccum in legal portal websites.


1] a stranger cannot enter into sc
"Yes, without a PASS he cannot. A pass is given based on either you are 'affected party" and or "on recommendation from member of Bar" and or "if you are a student of Law from a recognised law school / institute"  and or if you have been specifically called to make an appearance etc etc. However post summer vacation any able bodied common man reading this post without any locus standie (i.e. without any pass) may try entereing past security gate of Hon'ble SC and give me a call once he steps first canopy past security enterence gate I will take back my above first reply and stand corrected.

2] a stranger cannot enter into hc
"same as above atleast for Delhi HC and I specifically requested other HC status update care to re-read first reply!" Members of bar from pan India reading this very post should update status of their HC instead of being mute readers !

3] can i infer that a stranget can enter into district court.?
Atleast in Delhi Yes Other states other members shall update if it interests you to quence your generic thurst.

so in
india, a so called democratic country a citizen who is a "stranger" has no right to see open trial.   this means that we don't know how the fate of our fellow citizen is determined unless our time comes. how silly is that!!!
india with all these restriction  very slowly but steadily becomes a TALIBANI nation. yes i repeat a TALIBANI nation where its citizen has no right to observe the judicial proceedings.

if democracy is a govt. run by citizens, then why a citizen who is a stranger cannot see an open judicial proceeding(trial)?

has anyone got the answer to the above question?

Addendum:
1. "Court" wherever I mentioned here means a "Court Room" not court premises.
2. "Stranger" wherever I mentioned here means a common person not related to the ongoing case proceedings in a particular court room (and not court premises hence donot distort my replies with your out of thin vaccum assumptions) which also includes sections of "media" where directions of Judge can be very orally announced in "open court" to media persons not to report the ongoing case and mind it such cases may not even be "in-camera" cases!.
3. “Open Court” meaning should not be distorted as being made by you. Maximum cases pan India are held as "open court" hearings / proceedings barring handfull sensitive cases as "in camera proceedings".
strange country. I donot think we are a strange country just because an reply didnot please you it does not make one say so.

"

 

 

2. Originally posted by :Democratic Indian

"

May I know the specific law or laws which empower the courts to enforce blanket restrictions on  the Freedom of Speech and Expression, Liberty of citizens from observing the proceedings in court to see the fate of their fellow citizens? See my reply below
 

"

 

Sure read down at leisure http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1643138/
1.
I never spoke about [distorted] “
blanket
ban” as made out by your above reply. Sometimes going above board also distorts simple interpretations vis-a-vis inherent powers of Courts. The que. before us is about a “common man” entering a particular court room to witness ongoing proceedings and my answer is specific to it.
2. BTW, @ Democratic Indian
, we will be more than happy if with your consoritiums' efforts you succeed to get the inherent powers of Courts as discussed in above one of reported piece of wisdom from Hon’ble SC repealed!


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
corporate lawyer

i also don't understand the logic of blanket restriction. it seems to me too much talibani.

 

besides democratic indian i respect freedom of speech and liberty granted to us by constitution. but our lawmakers do not understand the underlying meaning of freedom of speech and personal liberty. i think they are afraid of these things. why?

 
Reply   
 

Regardless of legality of a stranger visiting insides of a court to observe a trial, i think no stranger should do that, unless he has some interest in the case. The court should have power to order the stranger to leave. Doen't it amount to invasion of privacy? I mean, if trial for my divorce case is proceeding in a court room, I would not want my mohalla wala to visit the court room and see the proceedings. 

Arnab ---- you cant label everything which you dont like as talibani. Yes, you should wait for things to happen. As for your comments " this means that we don't know how the fate of our fellow citizen is determined unless our time comes" - do you mean to say that you should be allowed to be inside a bedfroom to see people having s*x, so that you know how it works out before you actually have s*x!! Now THAT's silly Sir ...  

 

 
Reply   
 

Originally posted by :Tajobsindia
" Sure read down at leisure http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1643138/
1. I never spoke about [distorted] “blanket ban” as made out by your above reply. Sometimes going above board also distorts simple interpretations vis-a-vis inherent powers of Courts. The que. before us is about a “common man” entering a particular court room to witness ongoing proceedings and my answer is specific to it.
2. BTW, @ Democratic Indian, we will be more than happy if with your consoritiums' efforts you succeed to get the inherent powers of Courts as discussed in above one of reported piece of wisdom from Hon’ble SC repealed!
"

1. The judgment cited by you is about if High Court has inherent jurisdiction to hold a trial in camera if the ends of justice clearly and necessarily require the adoption of such a course. This matter is not part of the discussion or dispute in this thread since already mentioned that courts can hold in camera trials for exceptional cases. This is perfectly in tune with reasonable restrictions under Article 19.


The question made by author of the thread is whether citizens not related with the case can enter court room to see the proceedings. The question implies that if there are some sort of blanket restrictions  prohibiting the observing of court proceedings. The answer is yes they can see the court proceedings since courts are open courts as a norm except in some exceptional cases.


2. Your assertion about challanging the Supreme Court order is misplaced since matter in discussion in this thread is different from that has been decided by Supreme Court. In other words the matter decided by Supreme Court is already agreed in this thread i.e. reasonable restrictions under Article 19 to hold in camera trials.

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x