I understand why privacy matters so much in a domestic violence case. These proceedings expose the most private parts of family life: abuse, fear, finances, children and sometimes intimate matters. You may be the woman seeking protection, a family member, or the husband or relative named as respondent, and you may worry about neighbours, colleagues or relatives hearing everything. Here is the reassuring answer. An in-camera trial in a Domestic Violence Act case is expressly permitted by the Act itself, and either party can ask for it. Related proceedings also offer strong privacy options.

Let me first explain the nature of these proceedings. Most cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are applications under Section 12 seeking protection, residence, monetary relief, custody and compensation under Sections 18 to 22. In Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022), the Supreme Court held that these proceedings are not criminal complaints and are largely civil in nature. The criminal part of the Act is Section 31, which punishes breach of a protection order.

The key privacy provision is Section 16 of the DV Act. It states that if the magistrate considers that the circumstances of the case so warrant, and if either party to the proceedings so desires, he may conduct the proceedings under the Act in camera. This gives both the woman and the respondent a clear statutory basis to request a closed hearing. It recognises that domestic violence cases often involve matters that should not be aired publicly.

Section 16 applies to proceedings under the Act, which includes Section 12 applications and, arguably, prosecutions under Section 31 for breach of protection orders, since those also arise under the Act. Where a Section 31 case is treated as an ordinary criminal trial, the magistrate can still close it using the general discretionary power explained below.

Related criminal cases, such as cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), formerly Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, follow the general rule of open court. Section 327(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 366(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), declares criminal courts open courts. Mandatory in-camera trials under Section 366(2) BNSS apply only to rape and related offences, not to cruelty.

However, the proviso to Section 366(1) BNSS allows the judge, if he thinks fit, to order at any stage that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to the courtroom. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966), the Supreme Court held that courts have inherent power to hold proceedings in camera where publicity would defeat the ends of justice. Domestic violence testimony often meets this standard.

Constitutional values strongly support privacy here. Article 21 protects privacy, recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), and the right to live with dignity free from violence. Article 19(1)(a) protects press freedom, and Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) favoured open courts while accepting exceptions for sensitive matters. Live-streaming rules adopted after that case exclude matrimonial matters.

If the case includes sexual violence, the position is stronger still. If rape or sexual assault by the husband during separation is alleged under Section 67 BNS, or rape by any family member under Section 64 BNS, the trial must be in camera under Section 366(2) BNSS, and identity is protected under Section 72 BNS. If a child has been abused, POCSO's in-camera and identity protections under Sections 37, 23 and 33(7) apply.

Family Court proceedings running alongside offer additional privacy. Under Section 11 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, proceedings may be held in camera if the court wishes, and must be held in camera if either party so desires. DV reliefs can also be sought in Family Court or civil proceedings under Section 26 of the DV Act. Divorce, maintenance and custody matters heard there can keep sensitive evidence out of public view.

Counselling and mediation are private by nature. Under Section 14 of the DV Act, the magistrate may direct counselling with a service provider. Courts also refer matters to court-annexed mediation, which is confidential under the Mediation Act, 2023. Many DV disputes are resolved this way, avoiding any public hearing.

Protecting the woman's location is especially important. Women who have moved to a shelter home or relatives' house often fear the abuser discovering where they are. Under Section 27 of the DV Act, the woman may file where she temporarily resides. Your lawyer can ask the court to keep her current address confidential in orders and documents supplied to the respondent. Protection orders under Section 18 can prohibit the respondent from approaching her residence, workplace or children's school.

Partial measures are also available. The court can record the woman's testimony in camera while other hearings remain open. It can exclude specific persons, such as relatives intimidating her. It can allow screens under Sakshi v. Union of India (2004), and video testimony under Section 254 BNSS and Section 530 BNSS, as upheld in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003). Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres, directed in Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra (2022), may also be used.

Anonymisation is increasingly common. Many High Courts and the Supreme Court mask party names in judgments involving domestic violence and matrimonial disputes. Your lawyer can request that names be masked in orders and cause lists. Marital communications are protected under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now Section 128 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), though the exception for proceedings between spouses applies.

Sensitive evidence can be sealed. Photographs of injuries, medical records, private messages and recordings can be kept in sealed cover. In P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2019), the Supreme Court recognised that access to sensitive electronic records can be restricted where privacy requires. Media reporting can be restrained through postponement orders, as recognised in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012), and publication of in-camera proceedings without permission is unlawful under Section 366(3) BNSS.

To request an in-camera hearing, your lawyer should file a written application under Section 16 of the DV Act stating that the party desires it and explaining the circumstances, such as intimate details, fear of the respondent, children's welfare or risk of disclosure of residence. In related criminal cases, the application should invoke the proviso to Section 366(1) BNSS and Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar. Supporting material strengthens the request.

In-camera does not exclude the respondent or his lawyer. Under Section 273 CrPC, now Section 308 BNSS, evidence in criminal trials must be taken in the presence of the accused or his pleader, and natural justice requires the respondent to be heard in Section 12 proceedings. Only the public's access is restricted.

If you are the respondent, privacy protects you too. Section 16 allows you to request an in-camera hearing as well, since the section applies at the desire of either party. You can also seek anonymisation and restrictions on publicity. If the application is false, you can contest it on merits, and orders can be appealed under Section 29 of the DV Act within thirty days.

If the magistrate refuses a reasonable request, you may raise it in appeal under Section 29, or approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, or Article 227. Where confidential information is leaked or the woman's location is exposed, urgent directions can be sought.

Choosing the right forum and making timely requests is the best privacy strategy. You can consult the privacy-conscious advocates at Aapka Legal Advice confidentially. Experienced Top Criminal Lawyers in India| Aapka Legal Advice can apply for in-camera hearings under Section 16, protect the woman's address, seek anonymisation and sealing of evidence, arrange video testimony and coordinate with Family Court and criminal proceedings.

Aapka Legal Advice also offers consultations with its panel of retired judges, including retired High Court judges, retired District and Sessions Judges and former Family Court judges, who work alongside its criminal lawyers. They understand how magistrates exercise Section 16 in practice and can advise which forum best protects privacy in your situation.

If you face threats, protection is available. Threatening a witness is punishable under Section 232 BNS, and criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS. Breach of a protection order is punishable under Section 31 of the DV Act, which under Section 32 is cognizable and non-bailable. The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, approved in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018), and Section 398 BNSS also apply.

To sum up, an in-camera trial in a Domestic Violence Act case is expressly available under Section 16 of the DV Act where circumstances warrant and either party desires it. Related cruelty cases under Section 85 BNS are ordinarily open, but courts can close them under the proviso to Section 366(1) BNSS and their inherent power in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, and sexual violence allegations trigger mandatory closure under Section 366(2) BNSS. Family Court proceedings can be held in camera under Section 11 of the Family Courts Act, and counselling and mediation are confidential.

Your privacy and safety deserve protection, and the DV Act gives you a clear legal tool to secure it. With an experienced lawyer, and a retired judge's guidance where helpful, you can make the right request at the right time. Take advice early, because a well-protected in-camera trial in a Domestic Violence Act case begins with a timely application and careful protection of sensitive information.