Justice for all

There is an interesting saying in law "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done".  Nothing can be far from the truth in our courts. And I speak of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.  

One of the most cardinal rules of our judicial system is that the court proceedings are open to general public, in essence its public hearing.  This is as important as the actual application of rule of law. 

However, what does this really mean.  Does it mean that the Courts are open for all to come and see.  Or that the 'procedure' of judicial system should be so simple or may be uncomplicated, that the common man can actually 'dare' to exercise the option of going to court

I think it is both. For instance delays, procedural labyrinth etc. all indicate as to how the 'justice is not seen to be done'.  

My point of discussion however the former.  The accessibility of the public to actually step inside a court and witness a proceeding without being shunted away or questioned. 

This is precisely what the two major courts of India are doing.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.  This thought came into my mind when a young boy said he wanted to see what the Supreme Court looked liked from inside. I told him that it was difficult to actually take him inside without his matter being there.  I had to explain to him that a pass is made by the court wherein one has to disclose the matter listed and possibly attest the form from his advocate.  His response was so I cannot just walk in to see the supreme court of the land.  And it is this comment of his that got me thinking.  Why should he not be entitled to see the court? Is the court bigger than him? And mind you I am not talking of the law, I am talking of the court as a physical structure.  Is the very entity that is there to protect the person or for his/her benefit so inaccessible that he/she is forced to question it.  The processes followed in these courts are not exactly recording of visitors data.  It is more than that. Effectively it requires one to give a reason to be in the court. And I wonder why. Security? Well the courts have elaborate if not effective security systems in place. Then why should a person be prohibited.

Snobbery? One thing becomes certain.  By the simple act of making it inaccessible to the public, the officers of the court seem to have a granted themselves a powerful tool. It may not be much but it certainly adds up in snobbery value.