Open Court Concept

OPEN COURT CONCEPT
Open court is normal court where proceedings of the court are

conducted. To the extent practical, every person is allowed to watch the
proceedings of the court. The concept of hearing in an open court is
practiced because it brings transparency in administration of justice. The
parties get to know what is happening and inculcate discipline and
caution in the minds of all those involved in administering justice.
But there are instances where it is not practical to accommodate persons

other than parties to the proceedings. Therefore, such proceedings are
held in camera. This means that the proceedings are held in a closed
room where the public will not have access to watch the proceedings.
Matrimonial disputes are one example.
In criminal cases like rape, it is necessary to protect the identity and

modesty of the victim. These cases are held in camera. All the persons,
including the advocates practicing in that court and the litigants are
asked to vacate the court room. Only the accused, the rape victim,
counsels for prosecution and defence and the witnesses (at the time
when they are giving witness) are allowed to be present in the in-camera
proceedings.
COURT COURT CONCEPT
the term "closed court" is used to refer to a court proceeding

where members of the public are restricted from access to the
court room proceedings due to the nature and sensitivity of the
case.In criminal matters, usually juvenile cases are held in
closed court unless the minor is charged with specific violent
crimes or asks the court to open the proceedings.In civil
matters,most family law proceedings and mental competency
hearings are delt with in closed court.
 Dissenting opinion
A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion in

a legal case in certain legal systems written by one or
more judges expressing disagreement with the majority
opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment.
When not necessarily referring to a legal decision, this can
also be referred to as a minority report.[1][2]
Dissenting opinions are normally written at the same time

as the majority opinion and any concurring opinions, and
are also delivered and published at the same time. A
dissenting opinion does not create binding precedent nor
does it become a part of case law. However, they can
sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive authority in
subsequent cases when arguing that the
court's holding should be limited or overturned. In some
cases, a previous dissent is used to spur a change in the
law, and a later case may result in a majority opinion
adopting a particular understanding of the law formerly
advocated in dissent. As with concurring opinions, the
difference in opinion between dissents and majority
opinions can often illuminate the precise holding of the
majority opinion.
The dissent may disagree with the majority for any

number of reasons: a different interpretation of the
existing case law, the application of different principles,
or a different interpretation of the facts. Many legal
systems do not provide for a dissenting opinion and
provide the decision without any information regarding the
discussion between judges or its outcome.
Basic structure doctrine
The basic structure doctrine is an Indian judicial principle

that the Constitution of India has certain basic features
that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments
by the parliament.[1] Key among these "basic features", as
expounded by its most prominent proponent Justice Hans
Raj Khanna, are the fundamental rights granted to
individuals by the constitution.[1][2][3] The doctrine thus
forms the basis of a limited power of the Supreme Court to
review and strike down constitutional amendments
enacted by the Parliament which conflict with or seek to
alter this "basic structure" of the Constitution. The basic
structure doctrine applies only to constitutional
amendments. The basic features of the Constitution have
not been explicitly defined by the Judiciary, and the claim
of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a "basic"
feature is determined by the Court in each case that
comes before it. The basic structure doctrine does not
apply to ordinary Acts of Parliament, which must itself be
in conformity with the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's initial position on constitutional
amendments was that any part of the Constitution was
amendable and that the Parliament might, by passing a
Constitution Amendment Act in compliance with the
requirements of article 368, amend any provision of the
Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and article
368. The "basic features" principle was first expounded in
1964, by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in his dissent, in the case
of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. He wrote,
It is also a matter for consideration whether making a
change in a basic feature of the Constitution can be
regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in
effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the
latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368?
In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions
in Golaknath v. State of Punjab. It held that Fundamental
Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a
"transcendental position" and are beyond the reach of
Parliament. It also declared any amendment that "takes
away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part
III as unconstitutional. By 1973, the basic structure
doctrine triumphed in Justice Hans Raj Khanna's judgment
in the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharati v. State
of Kerala.[4] Previously, the Supreme Court had held that
the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was
unfettered.[1] However, in this landmark ruling, the Court
adjudicated that while Parliament has "wide" powers, it
did not have the power to destroy or emasculate the basic
elements or fundamental features of the constitution.[5]
Although Kesavananda was decided by a narrow margin of
7-6, the basic structure doctrine has since gained
widespread acceptance and legitimacy due to subsequent
cases and judgments. Primary among these was the
imposition of a state of emergency by Indira Gandhi in
1975, and her subsequent attempt to suppress her
prosecution through the 39th Amendment. When the
Kesavananda case was decided, the underlying
apprehension of the majority bench that elected
representatives could not be trusted to act responsibly
was perceived as unprecedented. However, the passage
of the 39th Amendment by the Indian National Congress'
majority in central and state legislatures, proved that in
fact such apprehension was well-founded. In Indira Nehru
Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Minerva Mills v. Union of India,
Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court used the basic
structure doctrine to strike down the 39th Amendment
and parts of the 42nd Amendment respectively, and paved
the way for restoration of Indian democracy.[3]
The Supreme Court's position on constitutional
amendments laid out in its judgements is that Parliament
can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its "basic
structure".

Open Court Concept

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Open Court Concept

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Open Court Concept

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OPEN COURT CONCEPT

Open court is normal court where proceedings of the court are

But there are instances where it is not practical to accommodate persons

In criminal cases like rape, it is necessary to protect the identity and

COURT COURT CONCEPT

the term "closed court" is used to refer to a court proceeding

A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion in

Dissenting opinions are normally written at the same time

The dissent may disagree with the majority for any

Basic structure doctrine

The basic structure doctrine is an Indian judicial principle

You might also like