Madras High Court issues notice in plea to allow Entry of General Public to Court premises

The Madras High Court has issued notice in a writ petition seeking entry of the general public into the Court premises. The petition challenges the current system of restricted entry as per which only litigants, lawyers, media personnel etc. are granted entry passes..The Bench of Justices M Sathyanarayanan and P Rajamanickam issued notice on Friday in the petition filed by PhD researcher Anusha Hariharan. Hariharan has challenged the current entry restrictions as unconstitutional and contrary to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Rules to Regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, in addition to violating the principles of open justice..In her petition, Hariharan has empasised that her grievance does not concern the inconvenience associated with obtaining an entry pass or security measures such as frisking and screening of baggage. Rather, she has contended,.“The grievance is the arbitrary bar imposed on the entry of public into the Honb’le Court, which is inter alia contrary to Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 153-B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), Rule 6 of the Rules to Regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and the principle of open justice, which is the foundation of our legal system and the principle that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.“.Section 327 CrPC is a provision that declares (criminal) courts to be open. Section 153-B CPC declares that the place of trial is deemed to be open court. Rule 6 of the Article 226 Proceeding Rules allows persons to present their views opposing petitions in the High Court..In addition, reference is also made to various case laws where Courts have time and again emphasised on the importance of open courts. These include Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors v. State of Maharashtra, Scott v Scott, Mohd Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar and Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India..In this backdrop, Hariharan has contended that ordinarily, courts are meant to be open to the public, unless restricted by the space constraints or because a particular judge orders an in-camera trial. As far as the Madras High Court is concerned, the petitioner points out that the High Court campus is one of the largest, and is equipped to accommodate interested members of the public..It has been submitted,.“…[the] exclusion of the public from accessing Courts has serious bearing on the administration of justice and such opaqueness does not aid the trust people have reposed in Courts of law..… Courts, especially courts dealing with public interest litigations deal with issues that have a bearing on the everyday life of the common man, who might not even be a party to the litigation. Since the principle that ignorance of law is not an excuse has been imbibed in our jurisprudence, efforts to open up costs and create awareness should be given priority and not efforts designed to exclude public participation.“.Therefore, Hariharan has prayed that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned authorities to permit the entry of the general public into the Court premises. The petition was moved before the High Court after a representation raising these concerns to the Court Registry authorities made earlier this month did not yield any response..The Court has posted the matter to be taken up next on March 15.