I can understand why you are asking this. Criminal trials involve deeply personal details, and it is natural to worry about strangers, relatives, neighbours or the media watching and judging. You may be the victim who fears exposure or retaliation, a witness afraid of being identified, or an accused worried about reputation. Here is the honest answer at the outset. An in-camera trial in an attempt to murder case is not automatic under Indian law, because criminal trials are ordinarily held in open court. However, the court does have power to hold proceedings, fully or partly, away from public view when justice requires it, and there are clear ways to ask for this.

Let me begin with the general rule. 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 an inquiry or trial is deemed an open court. The public generally may have access, so far as the courtroom can conveniently hold them. This principle of open justice is a foundation of our legal system. It ensures transparency, keeps judges accountable and builds public confidence in verdicts.

The offence itself also shapes the answer. Attempt to murder was punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. For offences committed on or after 1 July 2024, it falls under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It is a serious, cognizable and non-bailable offence tried by a Court of Session. Because it is an offence against society, not merely against an individual, the public interest in open proceedings is considered significant. That is why in-camera hearings are the exception rather than the rule in such cases.

Now the important exception. The same provision, Section 327(1) CrPC, now Section 366(1) BNSS, has a proviso. It 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 room or building used by the court. This is a discretionary power. It applies to any criminal trial, including one for attempt to murder. So while you have no automatic right to an in-camera trial, the judge can grant it where the facts justify it.

It is useful to understand the difference between this discretionary power and mandatory in-camera trials. Under Section 327(2) CrPC, now Section 366(2) BNSS, inquiries and trials of rape and certain related sexual offences must be conducted in camera. Under Section 37 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, trials of sexual offences against children must also be held in camera. An attempt to murder case does not fall into these mandatory categories by itself. But if your case also includes sexual offence charges, the in-camera requirement will apply to those proceedings.

The Supreme Court has recognised the court's power to restrict public access for decades. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966), a nine-judge bench held that open trial is the rule, but a court has inherent power to hold proceedings in camera where publicity would defeat the ends of justice. For example, this applies where a witness would not give truthful evidence in public. The Court made clear that the overriding consideration is the administration of justice itself. This principle directly supports an in-camera request in serious cases where witnesses face fear.

Constitutional values point in both directions here, and the court balances them. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects freedom of speech, which includes the public's and media's interest in reporting trials. Article 21 guarantees a fair trial and the right to life and personal liberty. It also includes the right to privacy, recognised by a nine-judge bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). In Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018), the Court strongly endorsed open courts, while acknowledging exceptions for sensitive matters.

So when does a court actually order in-camera proceedings in an attempt to murder trial? The most common ground is witness safety. If there is credible evidence that witnesses are being threatened, and that public testimony would expose them to danger or prevent truthful deposition, courts are more willing to restrict access. Another ground is where the victim is a child, a woman facing sexual or intimate allegations alongside the assault, or a person whose privacy would be seriously harmed by public exposure. Organised crime or gang-related attacks are further examples.

Witness protection law strongly supports these requests. In Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, and directed all States to implement it. The scheme expressly contemplates measures such as in-camera trials, concealment of the witness's identity and use of specially designed vulnerable witness courtrooms. Section 398 BNSS now requires every State Government to prepare and notify a witness protection scheme. These schemes give a formal basis to request that proceedings be held away from public view.

Courts have also accepted identity protection in serious cases. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), the Supreme Court upheld provisions allowing in-camera proceedings and protection of witness identity under special anti-terror laws. In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003), it upheld similar provisions under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. These were special statutes, but they show that the Court accepts that protecting witnesses can justify limiting publicity. The same reasoning can guide a Sessions Judge exercising discretion in an ordinary attempt to murder case.

It is worth knowing that an in-camera order does not need to be all or nothing. The court can order only the evidence of one vulnerable witness to be recorded in camera, while the rest of the trial stays open. It can exclude particular persons, such as the accused's associates who are intimidating witnesses, rather than the entire public. It can use screens so a witness does not see the accused, as recognised in Sakshi v. Union of India (2004). Such tailored measures are often easier to obtain than a complete in-camera trial.

Technology has created additional options. In State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003), the Supreme Court upheld recording evidence by video conferencing. Section 254 BNSS now expressly allows witness evidence to be recorded through audio-video electronic means. Section 530 BNSS allows trials and proceedings in electronic mode. A vulnerable witness can therefore testify from a separate location, reducing exposure to the public gallery and the accused, even where the trial is not formally in camera.

Let me now explain how you can actually ask for an in-camera hearing. Your advocate, or the Public Prosecutor if you are a prosecution witness, should file a written application before the Sessions Court. The application should invoke the proviso to Section 366(1) BNSS and the court's inherent power recognised in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar. It should clearly set out the specific reasons, such as threats received, the vulnerability of the witness or privacy concerns. General fear, without details, is unlikely to succeed.

Supporting material greatly strengthens such an application. Attach copies of police complaints about threats, screenshots of threatening messages, call records and medical records where relevant. If you have applied under the State witness protection scheme, include the threat analysis report or the competent authority's order. Explain why a public hearing would prevent truthful testimony or endanger someone. The more concrete and credible the material, the more likely the judge will exercise discretion in your favour.

The accused will usually be heard on such an application, and he may oppose it. The judge will then balance the accused's right to a public trial against the need to protect witnesses and victims. Importantly, even in an in-camera trial, the accused and his lawyer remain present, subject to measures like screens or video links. Under Section 273 CrPC, now Section 308 BNSS, evidence must be taken in the presence of the accused or his pleader. In-camera proceedings restrict the public, not the accused's right to defend himself.

There are also important protections regarding media and publication. Under Section 327(3) CrPC, now Section 366(3) BNSS, where proceedings are held in camera, it is unlawful to print or publish any matter relating to them except with the court's permission. Disclosure of the identity of victims of certain sexual offences is separately punishable under Section 228A IPC, now Section 72 BNS. For other cases, the court 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, your interests are slightly different. You may worry about reputational damage from media coverage. Courts are generally slow to hold trials in camera merely to protect an accused's reputation, because open justice also protects the accused against secret proceedings. However, you can seek directions against sensational or prejudicial reporting, and you may seek protection of privacy on specific sensitive matters. Your right to a fair trial under Article 21 includes protection against a media trial that prejudices the court.

If you are a victim, there are further rights to keep in mind. Victims have the right to engage their own advocate to assist the prosecution under Section 24(8) CrPC, now Section 18(8) BNSS, and to participate under Section 301(2) CrPC, now Section 338(2) BNSS. Your advocate can independently raise privacy and safety concerns before the court. Victims of violent crime may also be entitled to compensation under Section 357A CrPC, now Section 396 BNSS. These rights ensure your voice is heard even though the State is the prosecutor.

What happens if the trial court refuses your in-camera request? You can challenge the order before the High Court. A petition under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, invoking the High Court's inherent powers to secure the ends of justice, is usually the appropriate remedy. In suitable cases, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution can challenge the order for supervisory correction. Where the threat is severe and the State is failing to protect witnesses, a writ petition under Article 226 may also be considered.

In rare cases where the atmosphere around the trial itself is hostile, a transfer may be appropriate. Under Section 407 CrPC, now Section 447 BNSS, the High Court can transfer a case from one court to another within the State. Under Section 406 CrPC, now Section 446 BNSS, the Supreme Court can transfer a case from one State to another. Transfers are granted only where there is a genuine apprehension that a fair and impartial trial cannot be held. Intimidation of witnesses by an influential accused is one such ground.

Because in-camera orders are discretionary, the way the application is drafted and argued matters enormously. You can discuss your situation confidentially and reach out via Aapka Legal Advice for guidance on whether your case justifies such a request. You can also connect with experienced Top Criminal Lawyers in India| Aapka Legal Advice who handle Sessions trials and High Court petitions. They can draft a focused application, gather supporting material, coordinate with the Public Prosecutor, and seek complementary protections such as video testimony and witness protection.

Retired Judges Panel: Aapka Legal Advice also makes available a panel of retired High Court judges and retired District and Sessions Judges who consult alongside its criminal lawyers on sensitive trials.

This bench perspective can be particularly valuable for in-camera requests. Retired judges have themselves weighed open justice against witness safety in serious cases. They can tell you what kind of material persuades a trial judge, and whether a partial in-camera order, video testimony or screens is more realistic than a fully closed trial. They can also advise on the strength of a High Court challenge if your application is refused. That practical insight helps you avoid weak applications and focus on what works.

Let me also address a common misconception. Some people believe that an in-camera trial will be faster or more lenient. It is not. The same law, the same standard of proof and the same rules of evidence apply. The only difference is who may be present in the courtroom and what may be published. In-camera hearings are about protecting people and the integrity of evidence, not about changing the outcome.

There are practical steps you can take right now while your application is pending. Avoid discussing the case publicly or on social media, as this can undermine a privacy request. Keep a record of every threat or approach connected with the case. If you feel unsafe, apply to the competent authority under the State witness protection scheme without delay. Tell your advocate everything, including details you find embarrassing, so they can present the strongest case for protection.

If threats have been made against you, counter-action is available and advisable. Threatening a witness to give false evidence was punishable under Section 195A IPC and is now covered by Section 232 BNS. Criminal intimidation is punishable under Section 351 BNS. You can file a police complaint, and if police fail to act, approach the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, now Section 175(3) BNSS. Evidence of threats also strengthens your in-camera application, and can support cancellation of the accused's bail under Section 439(2) CrPC, now Section 483(3) BNSS.

If media coverage has already harmed you with false or reckless reporting, further recourse may exist. You may consider a civil action for defamation or a criminal complaint for defamation under Section 356 BNS, formerly Section 499 and 500 IPC, where the reporting is false and damaging. You can also complain to bodies such as the Press Council of India or the relevant broadcasting standards authority. Any such step should be taken carefully with legal advice, because truthful reporting of open court proceedings is generally protected.

To sum up, an in-camera trial in an attempt to murder case is not automatic, because Section 366(1) BNSS makes open court the rule. But the proviso to that section, the court's inherent power recognised in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, and witness protection under Section 398 BNSS allow the judge to restrict public access where justice demands it. Partial measures such as screens, video conferencing under Section 254 BNSS and restrictions on publication are often easier to secure. If refused, the High Court can be approached under Section 528 BNSS or Article 227.

Your privacy and safety matter, and the law gives you real tools to protect them. The key is a well-supported application, presented early by an experienced criminal lawyer, and where needed, guided by a retired judge's understanding of how courts think. Take legal advice now so that your request for an in-camera trial in an attempt to murder case is framed strongly and your protection begins before your testimony does.