CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 01 DEL CK 0346

Vijay Singhal and Others vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another

Delhi High Court · Decided on 11 January 2013 · Citation: (2013) 1 AD 767

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajiv Shakdher, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) 195 of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 346 words

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

CM No. 418/2013 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

WP(C) 195/2013 & CM No. 417/2013 (Interim direction)

1.

Issue notice. Mr. Dayan Krishnan accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He seeks leave to file a counter affidavit. Let the same be done within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date.

2.

Mr. Krishnan informs me that pursuant to the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 07.01.2013, the District & Session Judge has also passed an order on 09.01.2013 on a criminal revision petition preferred by two advocates in their personal capacity, one Ms. Poonam Kaushik & Sh. D.K. Mishra.

3.

Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a larger question of public access to trials involving an offence inter alia of rape. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate denies public access and hence is not in public weal.

4.

Mr. Krishnan, on the other hand, invokes the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to contend that in case of trials, inter alia, involving an offence of rape, the proceedings have to be held in camera. That apart, Mr. Krishnan submits that it is in the best interest of an expeditious and fair trial, as also in the interest of all concerned, that the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate is not interdicted with, by this court.

5.

Having regard to the above, I do not intend to pass any interim order at this stage. It is made dear that the pendency of the present writ petition, will not come in the way of committal proceedings, which are pending presently before the Metropolitan Magistrate. However, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is left free to examine the manner in which the proceedings before her be reported at the end of each day. This aspect is left to the discretion of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

6.

List on 13.02.2013. Parties are directed to file their respective written submissions before the next date of hearing.