"It's a disappointment," said Ranjana Kumari of the Centre for Social Policy. "The demand was to have an open case so everyone will know exactly what happened to the victim. It is unfortunate."
The hearing in Delhi's Saket District Court opened to a heavily overcrowded public gallery and was marred by angry scenes as lawyers threatened an advocate who applied to represent the five defendants. Vijay Joshi of the Saket Bar Association said his members had passed a resolution that none would represent the defendants . "We feel it's a very heinous crime," he told The Telegraph.
Metropolitan Magistrate Namita Aggarawal adjourned the hearing and later returned to say that overcrowding and the refusal of lawyers and members of the public to wait outside had made it unsafe for the accused to be brought in. She complained that even the court reader and stenographer had been crowded out.
The accused could not be brought into the court for "the want of space or safe passage," she said. To protect their safety, she ruled that trial be held 'in camera' and ordered all members of the public, journalists and lawyers not involved in the case to leave the court.
Dozens of police officers in khaki uniforms later formed a protective cordon, several rows deep, outside court 207 to push back observers and allow the five adult accused to enter the room unidentified. All the men shielded their faces as they were ushered in, two wore hooded dark jackets while another had a woolly hat pulled down over his head. Two of the men, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta, have sought to become "approvers" or state witnesses against their fellow accused Mukesh Kumar, Ram Singh and Akshay Thakura. The sixth defendant, alleged by the victim's father to have been the most brutal of the attackers, is likely to be tried in a juvenile court.
[SUB]A police van believed to be carrying the five men accused of the gang rape of a woman arrives at a district court in New Delhi[/SUB]
Proceedings were adjourned until January 10 and a trial is expected to begin soon after. The evidence against the men, which includes DNA samples allegedly linking them to the scene of the attack, will be heard by a single judge who will deliver a verdict, rather than a jury – jury trials were abandoned in India in 1960 over fears of public and media influence.
Retired Supreme Court Judge Justice Markandey Katju said the first requirement of the Indian courts is to provide justice rather than for justice to be seen to be done.
"If the judge feels that that the general public may impede the path of justice, then the court may decide to have in camera proceedings or shift them to jail – it is at the judge's discretion," he said.
He criticised local lawyers who passed a resolution urging their colleagues to boycott the defendants because their alleged crimes were so "heinous."
"It was most improper for the lawyers to behave in an unruly manner. It is against professional ethics – everyone has the right to be defended. Even in the Nuremburg trials, the Nazis were defended," he said.
The hearing in Delhi's Saket District Court opened to a heavily overcrowded public gallery and was marred by angry scenes as lawyers threatened an advocate who applied to represent the five defendants. Vijay Joshi of the Saket Bar Association said his members had passed a resolution that none would represent the defendants . "We feel it's a very heinous crime," he told The Telegraph.
Metropolitan Magistrate Namita Aggarawal adjourned the hearing and later returned to say that overcrowding and the refusal of lawyers and members of the public to wait outside had made it unsafe for the accused to be brought in. She complained that even the court reader and stenographer had been crowded out.
The accused could not be brought into the court for "the want of space or safe passage," she said. To protect their safety, she ruled that trial be held 'in camera' and ordered all members of the public, journalists and lawyers not involved in the case to leave the court.
Dozens of police officers in khaki uniforms later formed a protective cordon, several rows deep, outside court 207 to push back observers and allow the five adult accused to enter the room unidentified. All the men shielded their faces as they were ushered in, two wore hooded dark jackets while another had a woolly hat pulled down over his head. Two of the men, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta, have sought to become "approvers" or state witnesses against their fellow accused Mukesh Kumar, Ram Singh and Akshay Thakura. The sixth defendant, alleged by the victim's father to have been the most brutal of the attackers, is likely to be tried in a juvenile court.
[SUB]A police van believed to be carrying the five men accused of the gang rape of a woman arrives at a district court in New Delhi[/SUB]
Proceedings were adjourned until January 10 and a trial is expected to begin soon after. The evidence against the men, which includes DNA samples allegedly linking them to the scene of the attack, will be heard by a single judge who will deliver a verdict, rather than a jury – jury trials were abandoned in India in 1960 over fears of public and media influence.
Retired Supreme Court Judge Justice Markandey Katju said the first requirement of the Indian courts is to provide justice rather than for justice to be seen to be done.
"If the judge feels that that the general public may impede the path of justice, then the court may decide to have in camera proceedings or shift them to jail – it is at the judge's discretion," he said.
He criticised local lawyers who passed a resolution urging their colleagues to boycott the defendants because their alleged crimes were so "heinous."
"It was most improper for the lawyers to behave in an unruly manner. It is against professional ethics – everyone has the right to be defended. Even in the Nuremburg trials, the Nazis were defended," he said.