The language of section 327 clearly presupposes the power in the presiding judge or magistrate trying a criminal case to decide on the venue of the trial. The section has been interpreted to give discretion for the judge to hold his court in a suitable building, public or private, other than his court-house but unconnected with the parties to the proceedings, in case of emergency. If the conveyance of prisoners and the accused to and from the court-house or other buildings, will be attended with serious danger of attack, and the rescue of the accused or the prisoners would be done only with a heavy cost to Government in providing an armed escort, it is within the powers of the judge or magistrate after due consideration of the public interests and after writing down the reasons in each case, to hold the trials even inside the jail premises, where the accused are confined, provided that the offences tried aer not connected with those premises, and there is no apprehension therefore it the minds of he accused that they may not get a fair trial.
CHAPTER 2
IN CAMERA – AN EXCEPTION AND ITS JUSTIFICATION
Public Trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries, and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice. Public confidence in the administration of justice is of great significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad proposition that in discharging their functions as judicial tribunals, courts must generally hear causes in open court and must permit public admission to the court-room. But there arises many situations wherein a departure from the usual or general is required. Where the court may go against the right of open court trial to the accused and instead uphold the right to privacy and anonymity of the victims or the witnesses.
There are two capacities in which attendance at a trial may take place. They are (a) as dramatis personae or (b) as a mere spectator. The personae of the trial can be clearly and uncontroversially identified: the judges, the parties, their legal representatives, witnesses and the personnel of the court building. A hearing in camera is one in which entry to the courtroom is denied to everyone except the personae of the trial. The denial of access to the general public may be supplemented, in certain cases, by practical measures aimed at preventing visual or audio surveillance of the courtroom.
European Convention on Human Rights jurisprudence
It is the fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6.1 of the convention that court hearings should be held in public. This public character protects litigants against the administration of justice without public scrutiny; it is also one of the means whereby people’s confidence in the courts can be maintained. By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of article 6.1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the principles of any democratic society within the meaning of the convention. However, the requirement to hold a public hearing is subject to exceptions. Even in a criminal law context where there is a high expectation of publicity, it may on occasion be necessary under Article 6 of the convention to limit the open and public nature of proceedings in order, for example, to protect the safety or privacy of witnesses or to promote the free exchange of information and opinion in the pursuit of justice.
Article 6.1 does not prohibit courts from deciding, in the light of the special features of the case submitted to them, to derogate from this principle: in accordance with the actual working of this provision, “....the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice”; holding proceedings, whether wholly or partly, in camera must be strictly required by the circumstances of the case.
The benefits of a public hearing are well known. The principle advantage of press and public access is that it helps to ensure that a trial is fair. In addition, the international tribunal has an educational function and the publication of its activities helps to achieve this goal. A trial chamber cannot without good reason, deny the accused the right to a public hearing enshrined in article 6(1) of the ECHR or under section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
Judicial officers can help to make a difference for people appearing before them not only by according procedural fairness but also, despite the constraints of a busy list, by expressing concern and compassion for the situation of their fellow human beings and by using processes conducive to a therapeutic effect. This has the potential to promote public confidence in the court as an institution that listens, acts and responds to the needs of those it serves. It allows a judicial officer to take a more comprehensive and creative approach to determining cases.
Protecting the rights of victims and witnesses:
In a sense, the entire criminal legal system functions primarily and substantially to provide justice to the victim. Giving the victims and witnesses a voice to testify in court without fear, participate in the court proceedings and have their rights and interests protected is of utmost importance for the legitimacy of the justice delivery system. Moreover, the present day understanding of justice necessarily includes accessibility to courts of law. Unless the judicial system is accessible to the people who demand justice, the system would exist only in name and not in substance. Needless to say, victims and witnesses would be amenable to accessing the system and give truthful testimonies only if the system guaranteed a protection of their and their families’ privacy, security, identity and dignity.
The victims and relatives are reluctant to divulge any information concerning heinous offences, due to fear of victimization by and reprisals from the perpetrators. Some experts say that the alienation and sense of powerlessness of the victim or witness, coupled with traditional problems surrounding the credibility of justice redressal machinery and the lack of public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole, can lead to a situation of revenge and retribution through private mechanisms. Individuals and communities who perceive themselves to be unprotected and under attack could in fact become very threatening.
Criminal Law in India was codified by the British with the sole purpose of facilitating repression of Indians and to prevent the ‘natives’ from acting against the colonial masters. Within this scheme of things, a victims’ and witnesses’ perspective would have been a misfit. Independent India inherited and has continued to use a substantial body of criminal law as was codified by the British. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that rights of victims and witnesses barely feature under the existing criminal laws. At a practical level, victims have been silent partners in the legal process, and their role is nothing more than that of a prosecution witness. Thanks to judicial activism, some basic protective measures for victims and witnesses are now being provided during trial. These measure include holding an in camera trial – a procedure that is prescribed by the criminal law under a proviso to section 327(1). This is a provision which will be useful at times when the testimony of the witness or victim may be otherwise vitiated by a hostile court atmosphere. In addition, courts can order suppression of the identity of victim or witness from all official documents in order to protect her privacy. This under the Indian Law has been implemented through and amendment in 2008.
Arguments against in camera trial
There are advocates who are against incamera trial or rather are sceptical about the same. For example, as observed by one of the advocates against such proceedings - ‘Judicial practitioners of therapeutic jurisprudence still have some way to go in ascertaining the appropriate parameters of court processes. We must strive to ensure that we are not trampling over the rights of court users while maintaining a flexibility and practicality that have been lacking in traditional court processes. We must ensure that our processes are beyond reproach and that the processes we adopt cannot be criticised by those who don’t, (or don’t wish to), understand our rationale.’
In camera trials do not guarantee that the dignity of the victim or witness will be protected - which happened in Bhanwari Devi’s case: where the court had ordered an in camera trial to prosecute accused persons for gang-raping the victim. The trial resulted in isolating the victim behind closed doors, facilitating further victimisation by the defence lawyers, their assistants and accomplices, with the male judge and policemen being mute spectators.
CHAPTER 3
MEDIA’S RIGHT TO SPEECH v. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
In 1960, the Indian Government first acknowledged the perils of ‘trial by media’ by abolishing jury trials completely on the ground that such trials would be susceptible to media and public influence. This was a direct consequence of the ‘not guilty’ verdict pronounced by the jury in the highly publicised case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, in which Nanavati was tried for the murder of his wife’s paramour and even though all evidence seemed to be pointing at him, he was acquitted by the jury, so influenced were the members by the media and public support for Nanavati.
A recent case which may be mentioned here is Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, in which a body of intellectuals and a human rights group campaigning for the abolition of capital punishment, on the one hand, and an indignant section of society on the other, had been battling over the execution of Dhananjoy Chatterjee with the media doing the groundwork for both. The case had been so immensely publicized that the press even published the opinions of political leaders as to whether the accused should be hanged or not. It is interesting to note that though the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the capital punishment awarded to the accused for raping and killing a 14 year-old girl in this case, a mere week thereafter, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence awarded to one Rahul alias Rao Saheb, who had been found guilty of raping and murdering a four and a half year-old girl.
In the case of Labour Liberation Front v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Narasimha Reddy, J. vehemently deprecating the role of media held: “If the press clippings filed as material papers in this writ petition are examined, it indicates the miserable levels to which the glorious profession of journalism was brought to. A section of the electronic media has reduced entertainment and journalism to nauseating levels.”
It is true that information being the lifeblood of democracy and the media being the custodian of the public’s right to information, the freedom of media ought to be protected zealously. The line between what constitutes the media’s essential right to freedom of speech and expression and what forms a trespass into the arena of justice dispensation can hardly be demarcated in clear terms. The task to be undertaken by the media is itself a difficult one; requiring it to provide the public with the maximum information and to facilitate free exchange of views without stepping into the boundaries meant strictly for the law to take its course. However, the media cannot, under the shield of free speech, defy the principles of law (for instance, presumption of innocence of the accused until proved guilty) or be allowed to breach the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. The freedom of speech and expression ought to be exercised in a manner that the right of an accused to a fair trial is not unduly compromised, and the public’s larger interest in the smooth functioning of the criminal adjudication system is not impeded. What is to be realized is that no liberty can be absolute and no freedom unfettered and with every freedom comes responsibility. Freedom of speech cannot be construed as freedom from responsibility of its exercise.
But it is known that the media is relentless in getting the first byte of a new story or going to the place where the case arose and even disturbing the evidence on the site. There is another side to this coin as well, as in the Jessica Lal murder case, the Priyadarshini Mattoo murder case, incidentally in both the cases where the lower courts had acquitted the accused, this caused uproar among the people and the media lapped this up. The media scrutiny over the matter and the constant embarrassment dolled out on the officials can be conclusively be held to be the reason why the judges in these cases were compelled to give the right judgment.
The media can be a friend and a foe to the victims, it can fight for the cause of the victims but it can also hamper the chances of convicting the accused by mostly disturbing the evidence in the spot of the crime by their over zealous coverage of the incident. A balance has to be found between the two ideally so that the interests of justice are upheld and the media- which can be a boon is just that, a boon not a bane.
CHAPTER 4
CASES WHERE APPLICABLE
While the main part of section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code embodies the principle of public trial in open court the proviso recognises an exception to the principle. Cases may occur where the requirement of the administration of justice itself may make it necessary for the Court to hold a trial in camera.
Following are some instances where in camera trial was made use of:
Rape
The word ‘Rape’ is derived from the Latin term ‘Rapio’, which means ‘to seize’. Thus, rape literally means a forcible seizure and that is the essential characteristic feature of the offence. In common parlance, it means intercourse without her consent by force, fear or fraud. In other words, rape is the violation of the private person of a woman.
Rape is not just the physical violation of a woman’s body but also psychological and emotional as well. In such cases, it is good cause and healthy practice for the courts to respect the privacy of the victim and not harass her more by holding an open court trial where the media and the public will be allowed. She has had enough to deal with already. She doesn’t have to deal with the constant media scrutiny and the judging eyes of the public while she is answering the questions put in cross-examination which are more often than not very embarrassing and derogatory.
In cases of rape and such other sexual offences, the undue publicity given to the court proceedings is evidently harmful to the unfortunate women victims of such crimes. Such publicity would mar their future in many ways, and may make their life miserable in society. In order to protect women against such publicity the court has discretion to hold inquiries and trial in such cases in camera.
Section 327, while providing for open court has provided for in camera proceedings as well, under the proviso to sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) specifically provides the procedure of conducting trial for sexual offences. It reads: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the inquiry into and trial of rape or an offence under section 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D of the Indian Penal Code 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.”
An amendment in 2008 has added another proviso to this sub-section and it reads as follows: “PROVIDED FURTHER that in camera trial shall be conducted as far as practicable by a woman judge or magistrate.”
The legislative intent behind these provisions is obvious. The framers of the law envisaged upholding the right of a woman to her privacy. After the humiliation she has gone through at the hands of a man who did not respect her body, putting her through rounds of open court trial would be cruel and inhumane.
But, even if in camera trials are done, most of the witnesses turn hostile, then a question arises, what is the use of in camera trials? Does it truly serve its purpose? Take the case of Shiney Ahuja rape case, a 20 year-old maid who worked in Shiney Ahuja’s house accused him of raped her at his Andheri West home June 14, 2009. He was arrested and spent 110 days in police and judicial custody in various jails before the Bombay High Court granted him bail on surety of Rs.50,000. Following a nationwide furore over the incident and intervention by the National Commission of Women, Chief Minister Ashok Chavan had ordered the transfer of the case from a regular court to a fast track court to ensure speedy justice for the victim.
While granting bail, Justice A.P. Deshpande had imposed stringent conditions on ordering Shiney to live in New Delhi till the trial started in Mumbai, not to influence witnesses, deposit his passport with the police, and report regularly to a nearby police station while in the capital.
She then, on the 8th September, 2010 told the court that she was not actually raped and she just filed the complaint because of some pressure from a woman who introduced her to the actor. The case against Shiney will continue before the fast track court and the outcome would depend on the statements of other witnesses besides the evidence gathered against him. About the victim, legal circles say that if she was found to have lied before the court, she could be liable for perjury and face appropriate action. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Sep 15. The trial is being conducted in-camera before the Sewri fast track court. In-camera trial refers to a case where the court bars the media from reporting about the case as per section 327 of the CrPC, applicable in sensitive cases like rape.
High profile cases
In the hit-and-run case in which actor Salman Khan is accused of killing one and injuring four others, Salman had moved the High Court demanding an in-camera trial and later amended his plea to just recording deposition of eye witness Ravindra Patil in-camera. 10 charges against Salman even as the actor had pleaded not guilty. The magistrate had rejected Salman's plea for in-camera trial saying the grounds cited by the actor did not make out a case for such trial. He also noted that in-camera trial is held in cases of rape or unnatural offences to protect the identity of victim or witnesses but in this case it was not justified. Aggrieved Salman moved the High Court.
The counsel for Salman had pleaded in the lower court that media was going overboard in reporting this case. He said interviews of witnesses appeared in media which prejudiced the mind of the court and the people. Prosecution opposed Salman's plea saying that this was not a case for in-camera trial and that the grounds cited by the actor were not relevant to ask for in-camera trial. Salman was exempted from appearance throughout the trial unless his presence was felt necessary by the court.
Patil, former police bodyguard of Salman and a key witness, had alleged earlier that he had received threats from actor's relatives asking him not to depose as a result of which he did not appear during three occasions earlier. Patil's deposition is considered significant as he was accompanying Salman when the actor allegedly rammed his car into a bakery killing one person and injuring four on September 28, 2002. Patil had earlier given a police statement that he had warned the actor not to drive so rashly or else he would meet with an accident but Salman did not pay heed to his advice.
The High Court had dropped the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against Salman and directed the lower court to frame other charges.
In such cases, there are higher chances of the accused going through trial by media and the judges being influenced by the same. In these cases, it is but natural to hold the trial in camera and also to record the statements of witnesses in camera or on camera which may be played in the court.
Again, the Nitish Katara murder case, where Nitish Katara was murdered by the family of Bharti Yadav who belonged to a family of criminals-politicians for ‘tarnishing’ the reputation of the family by falling in love with Bharti. Bharti, after the murder had moved to London. But when called to testify, she refused to heed to the order. The court had to order her passport to be cancelled so that her stay in London may be made illegal so that she could be compelled to come to India to testify. She finally relented, but by this time there was a lot of media attention around this and she requested for an in camera hearing of her evidence. She requested that Nitish Katara’s sister not be present but okay-ed the presence of Nitish’s parents.
National security concerns
In the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of secitonn 16(2) and (3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [TADA] which gave the discretion to the designated court to keep the identity and address of a witness secret upon certain contingencies; to hold the proceedings at a place to be decided by the court and to withhold the names and addresses of witnesses in its orders. The court held that the right of the accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses was not absolute but was subject to exceptions.
CHAPTER 5
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND ANSWERS
One manner in which the accused may seek to diminish the effect of adverse media publicity upon his trial at a particular place is to apply for transfer of proceedings under sections 406 and 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The question of transfer of cases was dealt with in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, wherein it was observed by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer: “Turbulent conditions putting the accused’s life in danger and creating chaos inside the court hall may jettison public justice. If there is general consternation or atmosphere of tension or raging masses of people in the entire region taking sides and polluting the climate vitiating the necessary neutrality to hold a detached judicial trial, the situation may be said to have deteoriated to such an extent as to warrant transfer.”
The judges or the court could also come up with some guidelines to the media as to how to conduct themselves in a public trial and a private one. They could set out the rules which the media has to follow while reporting cases in their newspapers. The media needs to be scrutinized and carefully monitored. The media should not be allowed to interview the victims or the suspects in a case. The court should inform the media of any cases that they are trying in the form of a memo or a document without revealing the names of the parties, the witnesses etc.
The most potent weapon against trial by media my be found in the law of contempt of various countries which punishes publications that influence, prejudice or in any manner interfere or tend to interfere with the administration of justice. However, contempt proceedings constitute not preventive but punitive action against trial by media as they are a means of punishing the contemnor rather then providing a remedy to the accused who might have suffered due to the contemnor’s activities. The publication or the media which interfere with the administration of justice must be reprimanded and held liable for contempt and for obstructing the administration of justice much to the detriment of the parties, in terms of rights and to the court, in terms of time.
The court should, in as many cases as possible, order for in camera trial so that the witnesses are comfortable in the environment without the glaring and judging eyes of the public or the constant media attention. The statements could also be recorded on camera in the homes of the witness or the victim and played at the courthouse later on. This would save a lot of time which is spent by the victim in commuting from their place of residence to the courthouse for the hearing.
CONCLUSION
Incamera trials, though it has its disadvantages, this shouldn’t prevent the court from opting for this method of trial if it is evident that this would be for the benefit of the parties to the trial. The basic objective of criminal law being the protection of the rights of the victim and those who are helping the court in administering justice-like witnesses who testify for or against the accused. With this in mind, in camera trials should be encouraged.
As for the media, any opinion they have on the conduct of the trial is likely to be greatly coloured by other circumstances. The press, on the other hand, is much more likely to be objective in its view of the proceeding and see that the public interest is protected. This distinction between the media and the press should and could be kept in mind when the court is passing an order for in camera trial. Isn’t a little bit of canvassing for the rights of the victim necessary so that the court does not completely corrupt the use of in camera or closed trials?
The researcher is of the opinion the in camera trial is a boon to the victims of sexual assault and as far as possible in camera trial should be held. But, this would come with a caveat that the court will give a copy of what happened inside the courtroom at the end of the day without revealing the names of the witnesses who have testified and the parties.
The need of the hour is a harmony between the media and the in camera trial. The researcher strongly believes that in the greater interest of the society and the victim, in camera trial is totally justified. As for the rights of the accused, he can ask for an in camera trial proceeding too but when it is asked by the victim, he cannot object to it because the balance of convenience here is in the favour of the victim. Also, the society may be affected adversely or in any other manner if details of a gruesome murder or like cases are made public.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Articles
-
A.G. Noorani, “Secrecy and Judicial Proceedings”, Economic and Political Weekly, (Vol-27, No-36, September 5, 1992).
-
Francis T. Gohen, “Right to ‘Public Trial’: Power of Judge to Exclude General Public”, Michigan Law review, (Vol-35, No-3, January, 1937).
-
Kieran Walsh, “Privacy’s New Paradigm: The Rise and Reform of the In Camera Rule”, Columbia Law Review, (Vol-7, Autumn, 2005).
-
Nancy T. Gardner, “Cameras in the Courttoom: Guidelines for State Criminal Trials”, Michigan Law Review, (Vol-84, No-3, December, 1985).
-
Saumya Uma, “Towards a Legal Regime for Protecting the Rights of Victims and Witnesses”, Combat Law, (Vol-2, No-5, December-January, 2004).
-
Vismai Rao, “Trial by Media: Repercussions and Measures”, The Lawyers’ Collective, (Vol-21, No.8, August-September, 2006).
Books
-
Dr. K. N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, R. V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure, (Eastern Book Company, 5th edi., Lucknow, 2008).
-
Joseph Jaconelli, Open Justice – A Critique of the Public Trial, (Oxford University Press,1st edi., New Delhi, 2002).
Other sources
- Menaka Rao, “Shiney Ahuja rape case: Maid can be prosecuted for perjury. Sourced from: <http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_shiney-ahuja-rape-case-maid-can-be-prosecuted-for-perjury_1435560>
- “Hit-and-run case involving actor Salman Khan adjudicated till August 4”, sourced from: <http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?310594>.
- Nitish Katara Murder – The complete story”, sourced from: < http://speakindia.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/nitish-katara-murder/>
United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, Principle 4.
Francis T. Gohen, “Right to ‘Public Trial’: Power of Judge to Exclude General Public”, Michigan Law review, (Vol-35, No-3, January, 1937), pg. 475.
Joseph Jaconelli, Open Justice – A Critique of the Public Trial, (Oxford University Press,1st edi., New Delhi, 2002), pg. 3.
Dr. K. N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, R. V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure, (Eastern Book Company, 5th edi., Lucknow, 2008) pg 351
Chhatisgarh Mukti Morch v. State of M.P, 1996 Cri LJ 3239 (MP).
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1988 (3) SCC 609.
Kieran Walsh, “Privacy’s New Paradigm: The Rise and Reform of the In Camera Rule”, Columbia Law Review, (Vol-7, Autumn, 2005) at 7.
Article 6(1) of the ECHR: In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Saumya Uma, “Towards a Legal Regime for Protecting the Rights of Victims and Witnesses”, Combat Law, (Vol-2, No-5, December-January, 2004) pg 13.
Section 327. Court to be open: 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.
Saumya Uma, “Towards a Legal Regime for Protecting the Rights of Victims and Witnesses”, Combat Law, (Vol-2, No-5, December-January, 2004) pg. 4.
The Bombay High Court, however, remedied the situation by dismissing the acquittal by jury and convicting the accused to life imprisonment. The government abolished jury trials after this case.
2005 3 ALD (W.P. No. 23220/2004).
Vismai Rao, “Trial by Media: Repercussions and Measures”, The Lawyers’ Collective, (Vol-21, No.8, August-September, 2006), pg. 35.
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1.
State of Pubjab v. Gurmit, (1996) 2 SCC 384.
Section 376 of the IPC: Punishment for rape.
Section 376-A of the IPC: Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation.
Section 376-B of the IPC: Intercourse by public servant with woman in his custody.
Section 376-C of the IPC: Intercourse by superintendent of jail, remand home, etc.
Section 376-D of the IPC: Intercourse by any member of the management or staff of a hospital with a woman in that hospital.
Menaka Rao, “Shiney Ahuja rape case: Maid can be prosecuted for perjury. Sourced from: <http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_shiney-ahuja-rape-case-maid-can-be-prosecuted-for-perjury_1435560> on 9 September, 2010.
“Hit-and-run case involving actor Salman Khan adjudicated till August 4”, sourced from: <http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?310594> on 9th September, 2010.
“Nitish Katara Murder – The complete story”, sourced from: < http://speakindia.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/nitish-katara-murder/> on 9th September, 2010.
Nancy T. Gardner, “Cameras in the Courttoom: Guidelines for State Criminal Trials”, Michigan Law Review, (Vol-84, No-3, December, 1985) pg. 515.
Section 1 and 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1981 (U.K); Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (India) read with Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India.
A.G. Noorani, “Secrecy and Judicial Proceedings”, Economic and Political Weekly, (Vol-27, No-36, September 5, 1992) pg 1890.