Can a common indian citizen having no disputes enter court?

Yes, agree with the above responds. Court is open court except in some exceptional cases as stated above.

@ Author

I differ to opinions expressed above (barring few in-camera trials / Court strictures not to publish witness statements etals cases which is obvious). It may be said for lower Courts where "in camera" proceedings are not going on, that "strangers" may go there and watch "open trials" but the matter as asked by queriest is not a generic one to give simplified replies as above ld. members have stated in a haste. Kindly re-consider your replies;

Reasoning:
1. Jurisdiction to exercise powers which may affect "rights of persons other than those who are parties to the litigation" is either expressly granted to the Court by the statute or arises from the necessity to regulate the course of proceedings so as to make them an effective instrument - for the administration of justice. Hence a "stranger" cannot just walk in to a "superior Court's Court room" to hear affected parties case proceedings.


2. An order made against a "stranger" in aid of administration of justice between contending parties or for enforcement of its adjudication does not directly infringe any fundamental right under Art. 19 of the person affected thereby, for it is founded either expressly or by necessary implication upon the nonexistence of the right claimed which this query is all about (indirectly is my view).

3. Such a determination of the disputed question would be as much exempt from the jurisdiction of a superior Court to grant relief against infringement of a fundamental right under Art. 19, as a determination of the disputed question between the parties on merits or on procedure.

Illustration:
1. A "stranger" just cannot enter Hon'ble SC without permission / recommendation and witness "open trial in one of the Hon'ble SC Court rooms".
2. A "stranger" cannot enter atleast Hon'ble Delhi HC one of its Court Rooms without permission and see "open trial" thereto [this last illustration may need updation from other States HC practice / procedure respectively by this reply readers i.e. by practicing Ld. brothers]

it appears to me from the post of tajobsindia that

1] a stranger cannot enter into sc

2] a stranger cannot enter into hc

3] can i infer that a stranget can enter into district court.?

so in india, a so called democratic country a citizen who is a "stranger" has no right to see open trial.   this means that we don't know how the fate of our fellow citizen is determined unless our time comes. how silly is that!!!

india with all these restriction  very slowly but steadily becomes a TALIBANI nation. yes i repeat a TALIBANI nation where its citizen has no right to observe the judicial proceedings.

if democracy is a govt. run by citizens, then why a citizen who is a stranger cannot see an open judicial proceeding(trial)?

has anyone got the answer to the above question?

strange country.

I would humbly disagree with the opinion of tajobsindia but would be happy to stand corrected. As per my understanding rights are broad, powers are narrow. Freedom of Speech and Expression, Liberty is guaranteed under Part III of the Constitutuin unless restricted by any reasonable law. Freedom of  Speech and Expression, Liberty can only be restricted by a law which constitutes a reasonable restriction founded on the principle of proportionality.

Courts are the creature of the Constitution, hence not above the Constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights. Reasonable restrictions in exceptional cases of in camera trials is understandable. But the reasoning of blanket restriction is difficult to understand when put to the test of reasonable restrictions based on principle of proportionality.

May I know the specific law or laws which empower the courts to enforce blanket restrictions on  the Freedom of Speech and Expression, Liberty of citizens from observing the proceedings in court to see the fate of their fellow citizens?

Sure read down at leisure https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1643138/
1. I never spoke about [distorted] “blanket ban” as made out by your above reply. Sometimes going above board also distorts simple interpretations vis-a-vis inherent powers of Courts. The que. before us is about a “common man” entering a particular court room to witness ongoing proceedings and my answer is specific to it.
2. BTW, @ Democratic Indian, we will be more than happy if with your consoritiums' efforts you succeed to get the inherent powers of Courts as discussed in above one of reported piece of wisdom from Hon’ble SC repealed!

i also don't understand the logic of blanket restriction. it seems to me too much talibani.

besides democratic indian i respect freedom of speech and liberty granted to us by constitution. but our lawmakers do not understand the underlying meaning of freedom of speech and personal liberty. i think they are afraid of these things. why?

Regardless of legality of a stranger visiting insides of a court to observe a trial, i think no stranger should do that, unless he has some interest in the case. The court should have power to order the stranger to leave. Doen't it amount to invasion of privacy? I mean, if trial for my divorce case is proceeding in a court room, I would not want my mohalla wala to visit the court room and see the proceedings. 

Arnab ---- you cant label everything which you dont like as talibani. Yes, you should wait for things to happen. As for your comments " this means that we don't know how the fate of our fellow citizen is determined unless our time comes" - do you mean to say that you should be allowed to be inside a bedfroom to see people having s*x, so that you know how it works out before you actually have s*x!! Now THAT's silly Sir ...  

1. The judgment cited by you is about if High Court has inherent jurisdiction to hold a trial in camera if the ends of justice clearly and necessarily require the adoption of such a course. This matter is not part of the discussion or dispute in this thread since already mentioned that courts can hold in camera trials for exceptional cases. This is perfectly in tune with reasonable restrictions under Article 19.

The question made by author of the thread is whether citizens not related with the case can enter court room to see the proceedings. The question implies that if there are some sort of blanket restrictions  prohibiting the observing of court proceedings. The answer is yes they can see the court proceedings since courts are open courts as a norm except in some exceptional cases.

2. Your assertion about challanging the Supreme Court order is misplaced since matter in discussion in this thread is different from that has been decided by Supreme Court. In other words the matter decided by Supreme Court is already agreed in this thread i.e. reasonable restrictions under Article 19 to hold in camera trials.

prasun chandra das you can take things personally but thats your choice. i don't care a damn thing of it.

so far your divorce proceeding is concerned sir, when you approach the court of law, you make your divorce proceedings a public matter and you can no more claim privacy. you have your privacy outside the court but when you are inside the court your divorce proceedings becomes a public matter. your mohallawala has a right to watch the proceeding unless they give up seeing your bad condition.

you cannot compare a citizen's right to visit courtroom with someone's right to visit your bedroom because your bedroom is a private property and the courtroom is a public property. do you agree with that? or do you have a new definition of public and private property?

people like you are just against equal rights you know. the democratic govt. is made by people. why a stranger being a citizen will have no right to visit a public property ( court room) in a democratic society?

arnab -- do you really know what talibani is? to hold public trials, and then shoot the sentenced people or hang them from a tree, that's talibani. no wonder they are called kangaroo courts. you want to be a part of that? go ahead and enjoy. thankfully, courts are civil and sensible to not encourage such public interest in a trial. anyways, who's got the time?

my divorce case does not become public once it goes to court. it becomes 'legal', which i am sure does not mean 'public' in any way.   

i know you dont give a damn about what i think. why do you post such issues in a public forum? if you dont care about other's opinions and thoughts, it is better you keep whatever comes in your mind to yourself only.  

talibani is something that forces or restricts someone's fundamental right. we, the citizen of india has a right to see the judicial process going on.

also one of the principle of FAIR TRIAL as laid down by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), says that:

3. The right to a public hearing

Article 14(1) of the ICCPR states that The right to a public hearing means that the hearing should as a rule be conducted orally and publicly, without a specific request by the parties to that effect.

now this is what i mean when i say that every common people should have access to the ongoing judicial process in a court. a common man must see the judicial process before his eyes to which he is not a party.

so see it is one of the principle of fair trial laid down by an international body. so indian courts should grant access to public to the ongoing trial in order to make a trial a fair trial.

prasun chandra das certainly does not want a fair trial. he is very happy with the unfairness of the trial. he also have some inhuman, barbaric ideology i have found in my earlier threads.

Hello!


This is what India by way of accession declared on 10-04-1979 (BTW what was your age on this date!) while signing the reference Treaty – if still not happy then question yours truly Executive *.

“India

Declarations:

"I. With reference to article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of India declares that the words `the right of self-determination' appearing in [this article] apply only to the peoples under foreign domination and that these words do not apply to sovereign independent States or to a section of a people or nation--which is the essence of national integrity.
       

"II. With reference to article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of India takes the position that the provisions of the article shall be so applied as to be in consonance with the provisions of clauses (3) to (7) of article 22 of the Constitution of India. Further under the Indian Legal System, there is no enforceable right to compensation for persons claiming to be victims of unlawful arrest or detention against the State.

"III. With respect to article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government of the Republic of India reserves its right to apply its law relating to foreigners.

"IV. With reference to articles 4 and 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and articles 12, 19 (3), 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the Government of the Republic of India declares that the provisions of the said [article] shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution of India.


"V. With reference to article 7 (c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Government of the Republic of India declares that the provisions of the said article shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India."

Source:

https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&lang=en

Santa – Where you going today?
Banta – Going to Supreme Court’s Court No. 12 to hear Nupur Talwar’s case
Santa – But it is not in-camera trial !
Banta – Oh, I forgot. Okies then will have some bhelpuri at India Gate.


Executive * [BTW, India follows common-law tradition]

Parliaments have a key role to play in the ratification process. While a representative of the executive – Head of State, Head of Government or the Minister for Foreign Affairs – signs and ratifies treaties, in most countries, the ultimate decision on ratification rests with parliament, which must approve ratification. This is certainly the case in countries with a civil-law tradition. However, in most countries with a common-law tradition, treaty-making power is generally vested in the executive, and parliaments have a more limited role to play in the ratification process. As international treaties increase in number and cover a growing range of subjects, with clear implications for domestic law and policy, parliaments in all countries are taking a greater interest in the executive’s prerogative to make treaties.

these declarations are only in the paper but in reality no trial in india has a public hearing. you cannot hear a trial no matter what. this is my point.  it is unfair practice.