SC : “Public scrutiny of the court process remains a vital principle for the functioning of democracy.” Does this mean no more Faceless hearing?

With the announcement of recent budget, the proposal in respect of introduction of the scheme of Faceless ITAT has been a point of debate since there are mixed opinions regarding the same The Tribunal being a final fact-finding authority, a personal hearing will afford members a better understanding of the perspective of the taxpayer to appreciate the finer nuances of the tax law and its applicability to a case. 

However, recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in their recent judgement of The Chief Election Commissioner of India Vs. M.R Vijayabhaskar & Ors. held that in-camera proceedings in court must only be held in exceptional category cases involving child abuse, matrimonial proceedings etc. All other proceedings must be in open court and should be available in public domain.

This signals inclination of Tribunal hearing to continue in-person rather than shift to faceless since open court proceedings ensure that judicial process is subject to scrutiny and transparency and accountability is maintained. The above mentioned judgement can be summarized as under:

The Chief Election Commissioner of India Vs. M.R Vijayabhaskar & Ors.

Civil Appeal No. 1767 of 2021

Courts must be open both in the physical and metaphorical sense. Save and except for in-camera proceedings in an exceptional category of cases, such as cases involving child sexual abuse or matrimonial proceedings bearing on matters of marital privacy, our legal system is founded on the principle that open access to courts is essential to safeguard valuable constitutional freedoms. The concept of an open court requires that information relating to a court proceeding must be available in the public domain.

Citizens have a right to know about what transpires in the course of judicial proceedings. The dialogue in a court indicates the manner in which a judicial proceeding is structured. Oral arguments are postulated on an open exchange of ideas. It is through such an exchange that legal arguments are tested and analyzed. Arguments addressed before the court, the response of opposing counsel and issues raised by the court are matters on which citizens have a legitimate right to be informed. An open court proceeding ensures that the judicial process is subject to public scrutiny. Public scrutiny is crucial to maintaining transparency and accountability. Transparency in the functioning of democratic institutions is crucial to establish the public‘s faith in them. In Mohammed Shahabuddin vs State of Bihar (2010) 4 SCC 653 , the concurring opinion noted:

“… even if the press is present, if individual members of the public are refused admission, the proceedings cannot be considered to go on in open courts…an ―open court‖ is a court to which general public has a right to be admitted and access to the court is granted to all the persons desirous of entering the court to observe the conduct of the judicial proceedings.”

There are multiple ways in which an open court system contributes to the working of democracy. An open court system ensures that judges act in accordance with law and with probity.

Public scrutiny fosters confidence in the process. Public discussion and criticism may work as a restraint on the conduct of a judge. In his dissenting opinion in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs State of Maharashtra (1966) 3 SCR 744, hereinafter referred to as ―Mirajkar , Justice M Hidayatullah (as the learned Chief Justice was then), observed how an open court paves the way for public evaluation of judicial conduct:

“129. […] Hearing in open court of causes is of the utmost importance for maintaining confidence of the public in the impartial administration of justice: it operates as a wholesome check upon judicial behaviour as well as upon the conduct of the contending parties and their witnesses.”

Hence, while in camera proceedings may be necessary in certain exceptional circumstances to preserve countervailing interests such as the rights to privacy and fair trial, for instance, in a sexual assault case, public scrutiny of the court process remains a vital principle for the functioning of democracy.

Print