SFI Activist Abhimanyu Murder: Kerala High Court Refuses In-Camera Trial, But Bars Photography/ Video-Recording Of Accused In Courtroom

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 7) declined the plea for in-camera trial in the SFI activist Abhimanyu murder case which is pending before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.

Abhimanyu was stabbed to death in 2018 during a campus political rivalry at Maharaja's College in Ernakulam. Presently, trial is pending before the Sessions Court against 16 accused (Accused Nos. 1 to 16) whereas investigation is ongoing against 10 accused (Accused Nos. 17 to 26).

Justice C.S. Dias upheld the order of the trial court that dismissed the accused's request for in-camera trial.

The Court, however, directed the trial court to ensure that there is no photography or video-recording of the trial or the accused while they are inside the courtroom:

"I am of the considered view that the circumstances of the present case do not warrant directing an 'in-camera' trial. I find no error or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Nevertheless, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners cannot be left entirely unaddressed. Accordingly, by confirming the impugned order, 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 eyewitnesses...so as to preserve the fairness of the trial."

The petitioners/accused had submitted that since there was no test identification parade conducted, they have a legitimate apprehension that if the witnesses are shown the photos or videos of the accused, they will identify the accused persons based on the same.

It was also pointed out that the trial is likely to receive extensive media coverage. They also relied on the decision in Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State of Kerala, wherein the High Court refused to interfere with the order of in-camera trial.

The prosecution opposed the plea and referred to Section Section 366 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to state that it is the discretion of the trial court. It was pointed out that open court proceedings is the rule and in-camera the exception. It was also submitted that the prosecution has made arrangements to avoid law-and-order problems and to ensure safety of the witnesses. It was stated that the accused's apprehension was misconceived.

After hearing the parties, the Court referred to Section 366 BNSS as well as the Apex Court decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another and observed:

"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...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 further opined that the Jolly Joseph case cannot be understood as laying down a general proposition that every trial must be conducted 'in-camera since it was rendered in the peculiar circumstances therein.

Thus, it dismissed the plea.

Counsel for the petitioners: E.A.Haris, M.A. Ahammad Saheer, Muhammed Yasil, Aagi Johny, Ravi Krishnan

Counsel for the respondents: C. Rasheed – Special Public Prosecutor, Devika K.R., K.S. Arun Kumar