"Open trial is a rule" and the proceedings in the December 16 gangrape case can be accessed by the media as "seering public interest" is attached to it, the Delhi High Court today said quashing the order of the special fast track court barring journalist presence and reporting on it.

"To deny that there is a seering public interest in the prosecution of the case, would be to act like an ostrich, whose head is buried in sand," Justice Rajiv Shakdher said while allowing a representative each from national dailies and news agencies including PTI to cover the day-to-day hearing of the sensational case that had sparked national outrage.

"Open trial is a rule, and wherever exceptions are carved out, they are made only to secure the ends of justice," the bench said.

Slamming Delhi police, the court said it had no business to issue an advisory prohibiting reportage of the proceedings.

"In my opinion, the State had no business to issue an advisory in that behalf. Therefore, the argument of Dayan Krishnan that the advisory was issued by the police only as a measure of 'courtesy' to the media, is completely untenable, keeping in mind the statutory purpose and the manner in which Courts are required to function.

"By such an action, the State in a sense sought to usurp the discretion which was vested entirely in the court," it said.

The court said that no concrete direction, "which are cast in stone", can be issued regarding media coverage of a case of such nature.

It, however, issued certain guidelines on the plea, filed by some scribes through lawyer Meenakshi Lekhi, outlining the procedures to be adopted by media persons in reporting the proceedings in the case.

"The reporting shall not disclose the names of the victim or those of the members of the family of the victim or the complainant or witnesses cited in the proceedings. The reportage shall exclude the part of the proceedings which the trial court specifically so directs," it said.

The court, in its 38-page judgement, said, "There is a huge public interest, apart from the criminality, in knowing whether there was a lapse, if any, in the working of the State apparatus. The case will perhaps provide empirical material to bring about a systemic change in the state apparatus."

Dealing with a provision of the CrPC that empowers a court to declare the proceedings as in-camera, it said, "the contention on behalf of Respondents that if there is an inquiry or a trial of an offence of rape and other allied offences referred to in Sub Section (2) of Section 327, then as a matter of law, the proceedings will have to be held in camera without the court employing the necessary discretion in the matter, is a submission which cannot be accepted.

"The scheme of Section 327, in my opinion, runs counter to the submission made on behalf of the Respondents."

Setting aside the order of the special trial court, the bench said, "...Even in a rape trial, the court is required to consider the various facets and dimensions obtaining in the case before taking a decision one way or the other. A mechanical approach is to be abjured."

Holding in-camera trial on the grounds that a large number of people entered the courtroom was untenable, the bench said, but added that other appropriate regulatory measures be put in place to ensure smooth proceedings.

"The courts below seem to have been overtaken by the event. A gathering of large number of people can never be reason for imposing complete ban on access to court proceedings. These concerns can be addressed by putting in place appropriate regulatory measures. The State will have to lend its might to ensure that court proceedings are held without impediment in a smooth and orderly fashion," it said.

"The advisory dated January 05, 2013 and order dated January 22 passed by the ASJ are set aside.... The Sessions court shall hereon allow access to court in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 29 of the judgement," it said.

The court noted that the domestic media has acted with "maturity and self-restraint" in this case.

"The victim is dead. The identity of the victim and family members is known. The domestic media, in this case, as expected has acted with maturity and self-restraint by refraining from disclosing either the identity of the accused or that of the family members. The orders of the court below show at least one of the accused demanded, though orally, that proceedings be made open to public," it said.