A special court on Tuesday refused to order in-camera proceedings in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, in which Bharatiya Janata Party Member of Parliament Pragya Singh Thakur is a prime suspect.

An in-camera hearing is conducted in private with only the judge, lawyers, accused and witnesses concerned in attendance. The proceedings of such hearing are not made known to the media or the public.

It also permitted interviews of the parties concerned provided that a copy of conversation should be placed on record immediately in an affidavit to the court. The court warned of legal action in case of breach.

The court’s order came after the NIA filed an application for trial to be held in-camera because it was a “sensitive matter” that pertained to communal harmony. The court also cited threat to the witnesses. The court rejected the arguments saying that the agency had placed no evidence of “internal security threat or communal disharmony”, nor did it substantiate the claim that there could be some threat to witnesses.

Special NIA judge V S Padalkar rejected the National Investigation Agency’s request for in-camera proceedings saying the court wanted to conduct the trial in a “transparent manner”. The court said that the press was the “main pillar of democracy” that was “bent upon to publish the matter according to actual events that took place in the court”.

The judge however imposed certain restrictions on the press: reporters covering the trial must submit true copies of their identity cards issued by their respective media houses; there should not be use of any electronic device; and only facts must be reported. The court also barred any editorial, personal opinion or discussion until the end of trial.

The court also said that no witness had complained of threat, or applied for protection under the Maharashtra Witness Protection and Security Act, 2017, so far.

“Had it been a fact that on account of incorrect publication, the person’s dignity, honour, is defamed, then a legal remedy was available to prosecute the person who published it. But not a single notice has been forwarded against media by accused or NIA for calling upon explanation,” the court observed.