INTRODUCTION
The principle of open justice is one of the fundamental features of judicial administration in democratic states. Generally, court proceedings are required to be conducted in public view, which ensures transparency, accountability and public confidence in the justice delivery system. However, this general rule does not apply to every circumstance, particularly in those cases involving intimate personal matters. Family disputes are among the most emotionally charged conflicts in society. Unlike other disputes, such as business or property, they carry deep-rooted emotions, personal history, and the psychological weight of broken trust[1]. In every suit or proceedings to which the Family Courts Act[2] applies, the proceedings may be held in camera if the Family Court so desires and shall be so held if either party requests it.[3] “In Camera” is a Latin phrase meaning “in private,” also known as ‘in chamber,’ as such proceedings are held in the judge’s chamber to protect privacy. In camera proceedings are conducted to maintain the confidentiality and dignity of the parties involved. Such hearings are generally directed to matters involving matrimonial disputes, custody, sexual allegations, mental health or cases involving a minor. Given the personal and sensitive nature of the cases, if public access is allowed, it would result in social stigma, reputational harm and deep emotional distress. Thus, excluding the public view of such cases would protect the vulnerable individuals and would ensure that the involved parties can present their case without any fear of unnecessary public exposure. This blog will examine whether ‘in-camera proceedings’ are a justified exception to open justice or a potential erosion of transparency.
OPEN JUSTICE & PRIVACY
The need to reconcile the principles of open justice and privacy arises from the competing demands of transparency and confidentiality in judicial proceedings, particularly within the context of family courts in India. Open courts help increase access to court proceedings, which in turn maintains public confidence in the courts and ensures transparency. While it may have its own benefits, like a coin has two sides, it also carries some disadvantages, one of which is an invasion of privacy. As the technological era develops, the openness of court proceedings takes the risk of becoming theatres of exposure. People cut out certain lines and expressions from it and mould it into a totally fake narrative, which not only breaches the privacy of the involved parties but also causes harm to their reputation. Family disputes deal with emotional complexity where the personal history of the parties is involved, due to which there is an extreme need for sensitivity in handling such interpersonal relationships. Public hearings may deter individuals from fully disclosing their feelings or concerns due to fear of judgment and stigma. This can hinder the resolution process, and the potential for media coverage can add a layer of stress and complexity to family disputes.[4] In family court proceedings involving disputes relating to child custody, guardianship or matrimonial disputes, the principle of the best interests of the child assumes central importance. Children are the most vulnerable section of society who need special care, thus publication of intimate family details may result in stigma, emotional distress and long-term reputational harm, especially when digital records remain permanently accessible. Protecting the confidentiality would not only serve as a procedural convenience but also act as a substantive welfare of the child. Thus, exclusion of the public in such cases would be an appropriate step, understanding that the justice system must minimise the avoidable harm. However, the need to protect the vulnerable parties must be balanced against the foundational principle of open justice.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING IN-CAMERA PROCEEDINGS
In India, various statutes like BNSS (earlier CrPC), Family Courts Act, POSCO Act, and others provide the conduct of ‘in-camera proceedings’ in specific cases to safeguard the interests and privacy of the parties involved. As we are focusing on Family Courts, such proceedings will be carried out under Section 11 of the Family Courts Act,1984, which allows for proceedings to be held in camera, i.e. in private. Its main purpose is to protect the vulnerable, such as children or spouses in abusive relationships, who may feel uncomfortable or unsafe discussing their private matters openly in public. Thus, they will be protected from public exposure. Also, in-camera proceedings encourage openness in their testimony as they know that their matter remains private, which would help the family court to make more informed and fair decisions. The judge’s discretion also plays a vital role in allowing in-camera proceedings in family courts.
JUDICIAL APPROACH: KEY CASE LAWS
The question of whether family court proceedings should be held in camera often arises. Thus, there are various cases where the court has acknowledged this issue-
Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal (2009):[5] This landmark case focused on child custody and the paramountcy of the child’s welfare, where the Supreme Court held that proceedings in matrimonial matters should be conducted in camera to protect the privacy of the parties involved.
V Ravi Chandran v Union of India (2010):[6] The Supreme Court held that in-camera proceedings should be conducted in cases involving the custody of minors to protect the interests and welfare of the child. They emphasised that child welfare overrules procedural technicalities in custody disputes.
Nipun Saxena v Union of India (2018):[7] The Delhi High Court emphasised the importance of maintaining confidentiality and conducting in-camera proceedings in cases involving child victims to protect their rights and interests.[8]
From these case laws, we can infer that Indian courts tend to adopt a balancing approach rather than adhering strictly to an absolute rule, maintaining the principle of good conscience in their discretion.
PRIVACY VS OPEN JUSTICE
On one hand, privacy outweighs open justice while dealing with family disputes because, as discussed when court proceedings become publicly accessible, parties involved don’t open up properly and speak honestly as they normally would due to fear and stigma. This would lead to unfair justice as problems aren’t communicated well. Family matters are emotionally intimate, and public scrutiny would make them feel violated and unsafe. Also, public accessibility to court proceedings means a lot of unnecessary opinions, judgments from people who aren’t even the concerned parties, which causes re-traumatisation because the people would go through the same painful event due to constant exposure, like viral posts or commentaries, etc. Family disputes that involve a minor, in-camera proceedings would help protect their identity, their welfare and expect a truthful testimony.
On the other hand, some argue that open justice is much required against excessive secrecy. When dispute proceedings are conducted in camera, public scrutiny is reduced. People’s public confidence in courts is diminished, and thus the judiciary is criticised for yet another reason. Also, there might be a possibility of misusing the power of in camera proceedings where influential persons are protected irrespective of the issues, so that they can be protected from public embarrassment. In such situations, the victim or the whistleblower might feel isolated, neglected or vulnerable.
CONCLUSION
Privacy and Open justice are not mutually exclusive, but they must be harmonised through a framework of the principle of qualified openness, where both privacy and open justice work together. The competing values underlying privacy and open justice reveal that neither transparency nor confidentiality operates without a potential consequence. While privacy safeguards dignity and protects vulnerable individuals from such unnecessary exposure, open justice ensures accountability and increases public confidence in the justice delivery system.
To address the potential dangers associated with either of the extremes, family courts may adopt calibrated mechanisms, such as anonymised judgments, redaction of sensitive details or tailoring reporting restrictions whenever it would harm the dignity, privacy, fairness or justice. At the same time, reasoned judicial orders, often regarded as an essential component of modern natural justice, must remain accessible to preserve the integrity of the justice delivery system. Through this idea, family courts can protect the vulnerable parties while they preserve the essence of judicial accountability. And at the end of the day, as an evolving country, courts are shifting towards a more humane approach to ensure justice. The progressive development of judicial approaches indicates a growing acknowledgement that family court proceedings must combine humanity and compassion with accountability.
Author(s) Name: Sumaila Shamshad (Brainware University , Kolkata)
References:
[1] Advocate (Dr.) Abhishek Gandhi, ‘Understanding Family Disputes: Causes, Legal Remedies & the Role of Courts in India’ (Advocate Gandhi, 16 June 2025) <https://advocategandhi.com/understanding-family-disputes-causes-legal-remedies-the-role-of-courts-in-india/ accessed 24 February 2026
[2] Family Courts Act 1984
[3] Vardhaman Raj, ‘Section 11 – Proceedings to be Held in Camera’ (IPC Laws, 22 November 2024) <https://ipclaws.in/family-courts-act/section-11-proceedings-to-be-held-in-camera/> accessed 17 December 2025
[4] Dr Pooja Sood and Amandeep Verma, ‘The Working of Family Courts in India: A Study’ (2024) Panjab University Law Review 63(Part 1) 116–129 <https://pulr.puchd.ac.in/index.php/pulr/article/view/290/54> accessed 17 December 2025
[5] Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42
[6] V Ravi Chandran v Union of India (2010) 1 SCC 174
[7] Nipun Saxena v Union of India (2018) 13 SCC 719
[8] ‘Proceedings in Camera’ (Law Notes, 23 March 2024) <https://lawnotes.co/proceedings-in-camera/> accessed 18 December 2025