OPEN COURT CONCEPT

Open court is normal court where proceedings of the court are

conducted. To the extent practical, every person is allowed to watch the
proceedings of the court. The concept of hearing in an open court is
practiced because it brings transparency in administration of justice. The
parties get to know what is happening and inculcate discipline and
caution in the minds of all those involved in administering justice.

But there are instances where it is not practical to accommodate persons

other than parties to the proceedings. Therefore, such proceedings are
held in camera. This means that the proceedings are held in a closed
room where the public will not have access to watch the proceedings.
Matrimonial disputes are one example.

In criminal cases like rape, it is necessary to protect the identity and

modesty of the victim. These cases are held in camera. All the persons,
including the advocates practicing in that court and the litigants are
asked to vacate the court room. Only the accused, the rape victim,
counsels for prosecution and defence and the witnesses (at the time
when they are giving witness) are allowed to be present in the in-camera
proceedings.

COURT COURT CONCEPT

the term "closed court" is used to refer to a court proceeding where members
of the public are restricted from access to the court room proceedings due to
the nature and sensitivity of the case.In criminal matters, usually juvenile
cases are held in closed court unless the minor is charged with specific violent
crimes or asks the court to open the proceedings.In civil matters,most family
law proceedings and mental competency hearings are delt with in closed
court.

 Dissenting opinion

A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion in a legal case in

certain legal systems written by one or more judges expressing
disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its
judgment. When not necessarily referring to a legal decision, this can
also be referred to as a minority report.[1][2]

Dissenting opinions are normally written at the same time as the majority
opinion and any concurring opinions, and are also delivered and
published at the same time. A dissenting opinion does not create binding
precedent nor does it become a part of case law. However, they can
sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive authority in subsequent
cases when arguing that the court's holding should be limited or
overturned. In some cases, a previous dissent is used to spur a change
in the law, and a later case may result in a majority opinion adopting a
particular understanding of the law formerly advocated in dissent. As
with concurring opinions, the difference in opinion between dissents and
majority opinions can often illuminate the precise holding of the majority
opinion.

The dissent may disagree with the majority for any number of reasons: a
different interpretation of the existing case law, the application of
different principles, or a different interpretation of the facts. Many legal
systems do not provide for a dissenting opinion and provide the decision
without any information regarding the discussion between judges or its
outcome.

Basic structure doctrine

The basic structure doctrine is an Indian judicial principle that the

Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or
destroyed through amendments by the parliament.[1] Key among these
"basic features", as expounded by its most prominent proponent Justice
Hans Raj Khanna, are the fundamental rights granted to individuals by
the constitution.[1][2][3] The doctrine thus forms the basis of a limited
power of the Supreme Court to review and strike down constitutional
amendments enacted by the Parliament which conflict with or seek to
alter this "basic structure" of the Constitution. The basic structure
doctrine applies only to constitutional amendments. The basic features
of the Constitution have not been explicitly defined by the Judiciary, and
the claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a "basic"
feature is determined by the Court in each case that comes before it.
The basic structure doctrine does not apply to ordinary Acts of
Parliament, which must itself be in conformity with the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's initial position on constitutional amendments was
that any part of the Constitution was amendable and that the Parliament
might, by passing a Constitution Amendment Act in compliance with the
requirements of article 368, amend any provision of the Constitution,
including the Fundamental Rights and article 368. The "basic features"
principle was first expounded in 1964, by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in his
dissent, in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. He wrote,
It is also a matter for consideration whether making a change in a basic
feature of the Constitution can be regarded merely as an amendment or
would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the latter,
would it be within the purview of Article 368?
In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions in Golaknath
v. State of Punjab. It held that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of
the Constitution are given a "transcendental position" and are beyond
the reach of Parliament. It also declared any amendment that "takes
away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III as
unconstitutional. By 1973, the basic structure doctrine triumphed in
Justice Hans Raj Khanna's judgment in the landmark decision of
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.[4] Previously, the Supreme
Court had held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
was unfettered.[1] However, in this landmark ruling, the Court adjudicated
that while Parliament has "wide" powers, it did not have the power to
destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the
constitution.[5]
Although Kesavananda was decided by a narrow margin of 7-6, the
basic structure doctrine has since gained widespread acceptance and
legitimacy due to subsequent cases and judgments. Primary among
these was the imposition of a state of emergency by Indira Gandhi in
1975, and her subsequent attempt to suppress her prosecution through
the 39th Amendment. When the Kesavananda case was decided, the
underlying apprehension of the majority bench that elected
representatives could not be trusted to act responsibly was perceived as
unprecedented. However, the passage of the 39th Amendment by the
Indian National Congress' majority in central and state legislatures,
proved that in fact such apprehension was well-founded. In Indira Nehru
Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Minerva Mills v. Union of India, Constitution
Benches of the Supreme Court used the basic structure doctrine to
strike down the 39th Amendment and parts of the 42nd Amendment
respectively, and paved the way for restoration of Indian democracy. [3]
The Supreme Court's position on constitutional amendments laid out in
its judgements is that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot
destroy its "basic structure".