It is completely natural to want privacy when a murder case touches your life. Such trials often attract relatives, neighbours, journalists and curious onlookers, and every detail can feel exposed. You may be a grieving family member, a frightened eyewitness, or an accused worried about public judgment. Let me be clear from the start. An in-camera trial in a murder case is not automatic in India, because criminal trials are ordinarily held in open court. But the court does have power to close proceedings fully or partly when justice requires it, and there are well-established ways to request this.

The starting point is the principle of open justice. Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 366 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), states that the place where a criminal court holds a trial is deemed an open court. The public generally may have access, so far as the courtroom can conveniently hold them. Open trials ensure transparency, keep judges accountable and protect accused persons from secret proceedings. They are a core feature of our justice system.

The nature of the offence also matters. Murder was punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is now punishable under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), for offences on or after 1 July 2024. The punishment is death or imprisonment for life, with fine. Because murder is the gravest offence against society, public interest in how such trials are conducted is very strong. This is why courts generally keep murder trials open unless there is a compelling reason to restrict access.

That compelling reason can exist, and the law provides for it. The proviso to Section 327(1) CrPC, now Section 366(1) BNSS, allows the presiding judge, if he thinks fit, to order at any stage that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to or remain in the courtroom. This is a discretionary power available in every criminal trial, including murder. It means you cannot demand an in-camera trial as of right, but you can ask for it with good reasons.

Some cases require in-camera proceedings by law. Under Section 327(2) CrPC, now Section 366(2) BNSS, trials of rape and certain related sexual offences must be held in camera. Under Section 37 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, sexual offence trials involving children must also be held in camera. So, if a murder case also involves a charge of rape or sexual assault, for example under Section 66 BNS where rape results in death, those proceedings attract mandatory in-camera protection.

The Supreme Court has long recognised the court's inherent power to hold proceedings in camera. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966), a nine-judge bench held that open trial is the rule, but a court may hold proceedings in camera where publicity would defeat the ends of justice. A classic example is where a witness will not speak the truth in public out of fear. The Court held that the paramount object is doing justice, and openness must yield where it would obstruct justice.

Constitutional rights are balanced carefully in such decisions. Article 19(1)(a) protects free speech, including the media's right to report trials. Article 21 guarantees a fair trial and personal liberty, and includes the right to privacy recognised in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). In Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), the Court strongly endorsed open and accessible courts, including live-streaming, while recognising exceptions for sensitive matters. The trial judge weighs all of this when deciding your request.

Murder trials have a particular history that explains why courts sometimes close proceedings. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004), known as the Best Bakery case, witnesses turned hostile under intimidation, and the Supreme Court ordered a retrial outside the State. The Court emphasised that a fair trial requires witnesses to depose without fear. Such cases show that where intimidation is real, restricting public access, protecting identities or transferring the trial may be necessary to secure justice.

So when do courts actually grant in-camera hearings in murder cases? The strongest ground is a real threat to witnesses. Gang-related killings, honour killings, political murders and cases involving influential accused often carry that risk. Another ground is the presence of child witnesses, or witnesses who must describe sexual violence connected with the murder. A third ground is where evidence involves intensely private matters, such as family relationships or medical details, whose public airing would cause disproportionate harm.

Witness protection law gives formal support to these requests. In Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, and directed its implementation nationwide. The scheme expressly includes in-camera trials, concealment of identity and specially designed courtrooms among possible protective measures. Section 398 BNSS now requires every State to notify a witness protection scheme. An order from the competent authority under such a scheme greatly strengthens an in-camera application.

Courts have also accepted identity protection in serious prosecutions. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) and People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003), the Supreme Court upheld provisions under special anti-terror laws permitting in-camera proceedings and concealing witness identity. These cases arose under special statutes, but their reasoning is persuasive. They confirm that protecting witnesses from danger is a legitimate reason to limit publicity, even in the gravest prosecutions.

An in-camera order need not cover the whole trial. The court may direct that only a vulnerable witness's evidence be recorded in camera, with the rest remaining open. It may exclude specific persons, such as the accused's associates who are intimidating witnesses. It may allow screens so a witness does not see the accused, as recognised in Sakshi v. Union of India (2004). These targeted measures are often more realistic to obtain than a fully closed murder trial.

Technology offers further options. In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003), the Supreme Court upheld recording evidence by video conferencing. Section 254 BNSS now permits witness evidence through audio-video electronic means, and Section 530 BNSS allows proceedings in electronic mode. In Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra (2022), the Court directed that Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres be set up. A frightened witness can therefore testify away from the public gallery even if the trial remains formally open.

To request an in-camera hearing, your advocate or the Public Prosecutor must file a written application before the Sessions Court. The application should invoke the proviso to Section 366(1) BNSS and the inherent power recognised in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar. It must explain specifically why an open hearing would endanger someone or prevent truthful testimony. Vague fear is rarely enough. The judge needs concrete reasons.

Supporting material is essential. Attach police complaints about threats, threatening messages, call records and, where relevant, medical or psychological reports. If you have applied under the State witness protection scheme, include the threat analysis report or protection order. Explain the relationship between the accused and the threats. The more specific and credible the material, the more likely the court will exercise its discretion in your favour.

The accused will usually be heard and may oppose the application, arguing his right to a public trial. The judge will balance that right against witness safety and privacy. Importantly, the accused and his lawyer remain present even in an in-camera hearing, subject to screens or video links. Section 273 CrPC, now Section 308 BNSS, requires evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused or his pleader. In-camera orders exclude the public, not the defence.

There are also protections regarding publication. Under Section 327(3) CrPC, now Section 366(3) BNSS, it is unlawful to print or publish anything relating to in-camera proceedings without the court's permission. Disclosure of the identity of certain sexual offence victims is punishable under Section 72 BNS, formerly Section 228A IPC. In other cases, courts may pass postponement orders on reporting. In Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. SEBI (2012), the Supreme Court recognised the power to temporarily restrain publication to protect a fair trial.

If you are the accused, you should know that courts rarely close murder trials merely to protect an accused's reputation. Open justice is also a safeguard for the accused against arbitrary proceedings. However, you can seek directions against prejudicial media coverage, since a media trial can undermine your right to a fair trial under Article 21. Your advocate can also request that specific sensitive evidence, such as medical or family matters, be heard with restricted access.

If you are the family of the deceased, you have independent rights. You can engage your own advocate to assist the prosecution under Section 24(8) CrPC, now Section 18(8) BNSS, and participate under Section 301(2) CrPC, now Section 338(2) BNSS. Your advocate can raise privacy and safety concerns directly. Victim compensation is also available under Section 357A CrPC, now Section 396 BNSS. These rights ensure your concerns are heard even though the State prosecutes.

What if the Sessions Court refuses your request? You may approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, invoking its inherent power to secure the ends of justice. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution can seek supervisory correction of an unreasonable order. Where threats are grave and the State fails to protect witnesses, a writ petition under Article 226 may also be considered.

Where the environment around the trial itself is hostile, transfer may be the better remedy. Under Section 407 CrPC, now Section 447 BNSS, the High Court can transfer a case within the State. Under Section 406 CrPC, now Section 446 BNSS, the Supreme Court can transfer it to another State, as it did in the Best Bakery case. Transfer is granted only on a reasonable apprehension that a fair trial cannot otherwise take place.

Because these orders are discretionary, drafting and presentation matter greatly. You can discuss your circumstances with our legal team at Aapka Legal Advice, who handle sensitive criminal matters confidentially. Experienced Top Criminal Lawyers in India| Aapka Legal Advice can prepare a well-supported in-camera application, coordinate with the Public Prosecutor, seek video testimony or screens, and pursue witness protection or transfer where needed.

A common misconception is worth clearing up. An in-camera trial does not change the law, the burden of proof or the rules of evidence. The prosecution must still prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused retains every right of defence. The only difference is who is present and what may be published. In-camera proceedings protect people and evidence. They do not make a trial faster or more lenient.

There are steps you can take right away. Avoid discussing the case on social media, since public statements weaken a privacy request. Record every threat or approach connected with the case. Apply promptly under the State witness protection scheme if you feel unsafe. Share all relevant facts with your advocate, including sensitive ones, so your application can be as strong as possible.

If you have been threatened, counter-action is available. Threatening a witness to give false evidence is punishable under Section 232 BNS, formerly Section 195A IPC. Criminal intimidation is punishable under Section 351 BNS. If police do not act, approach the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, now Section 175(3) BNSS. Evidence of threats also supports cancellation of the accused's bail under Section 439(2) CrPC, now Section 483(3) BNSS. If reckless media coverage has harmed you, defamation under Section 356 BNS or a complaint to media regulators may be considered with legal advice.

To sum up, an in-camera trial in a murder case is not automatic, because Section 366(1) BNSS makes open court the rule in trials under Section 103 BNS. However, the court's discretion under the proviso, its inherent power recognised in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, and witness protection under Section 398 BNSS allow proceedings to be closed where justice requires. Partial measures, video testimony under Section 254 BNSS and publication restrictions are often easier to secure. If refused, remedies lie under Section 528 BNSS, Article 227 and transfer provisions.

Your safety and privacy deserve protection, and the law provides real means to achieve it. The key is a specific, well-evidenced application made early by an experienced criminal lawyer, guided where needed by a retired judge. Take legal advice now so that your request for an in-camera trial in a murder case is presented with strength and your protection begins before the first witness steps forward.