Judgment :- Gita Mittal, J. 1. The above criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of a writ for quashing the order dated 15th December, 2012 and 17th January, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner‘s revision petition for his failure to pay the entire arrears of maintenance as a pre-condition for entertainment of the petition. It is contended that this pre-condition is imposed pursuant to a decision of a learned Single Judge of this court which is also challenged herein. The respondent no.2 before us is the first wife of the present petitioner, while respondent nos.3 to 5 are their three children who are residing with the mother. 2. When the case was listed on 19th March, 2013, learned counsel for the petitioner was pressing for interim stay of the maintenance order which, if granted, would cause irretrievable damage to his wife and children. Maintenance needed today – is of little solace if delayed. And the delay traumatic, if not disastrous for those deprived of it. There was urgency in the matter as on the one side, a wife and children were awaiting maintenance while on the other, the petitioner was facing punitive action for noncompliance of the maintenance order. The matter was a family issue. We were exploring the possibility of referring the parties to mediation. Therefore, on the 19th March, 2013 when the matter was listed before us, we had issued a direction to the parties to remain present in person in court on the next date of hearing. 3. On the next date i.e. the 9th of April, 2013, the respondent nos.2, 3 & 5 were personally present. The petitioner was represented by counsel. However, no effective proceedings could take place as the petitioner was not present. The order dated 9th April, 2013 explains the reasons for his absence and we reproduce it hereafter: “1. Despite the matter having been passed over once, the petitioner – Sajid Ali has not appeared in person. It is now 12.10 pm. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in person has come to the Delhi High Court from Aligarh but has not been permitted to enter the court premises as he does not have photo identity card. It is now 12.10 pm. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in person has come to the Delhi High Court from Aligarh but has not been permitted to enter the court premises as he does not have photo identity card. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has filed an affidavit of the petitioner dated 5th April, 2013 to the effect that he is educated only upto 7th standard and is an unskilled labourer having no regular employment and living in the small town of Aligarh. For inability of the petitioner to produce the photo identity card he has not been granted a gate pass and has not been permitted access into the court premises. 3. The instant case raises a challenge by the petitioner to an award of maintenance in favour of his former wife - the respondent no.2 and their three children impleaded before us as respondent nos.3 to 5. 4. Pursuant to the notice issued by us on 19th March, 2013, respondent no.2 – Roshanara is present along with her daughters respondent nos.3 and 5 who are residing with the father of the respondent no.2 at Delhi. They state that they were issued the gate pass because they had photo identity cards in the nature of election cards. However, respondent nos.2, 3 and 5 submit that they have no means of livelihood at all and do not have the means to engage the services of a lawyer. They are directed to appear before the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee who shall assign them a legal aid counsel. 5. The present case is one in a series of cases where it has been brought to our notice the difficulty being faced by the litigants in accessing the court system in the current gate pass regime. 6. Today, in the present matter, for want of a photo identification a litigant who has come to attend this matter from Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh has been unable to enter the court premises, let alone appear before us in an issue relating to award of maintenance to the respondent nos. 2 to 5. This is a matter of extreme concern. As a result, we have not been able to pass effective orders in a matter relating to maintenance of the respondent nos.2 to 5 who claim to be impoverished. 7. 2 to 5. This is a matter of extreme concern. As a result, we have not been able to pass effective orders in a matter relating to maintenance of the respondent nos.2 to 5 who claim to be impoverished. 7. We have directed Mr. Atul Sharma, Deputy Registrar (General) to appear before us. He has placed the rules which are in vogue as well as the form which is required to be filled before issuing of gate pass to the litigants. This matter requires imperative consideration. Mr. Atul Sharma is directed to place a report before us about the working categories of all the litigants who have been finding it difficult to specify the requirements for issuance of the gate passes. 8. A direction shall issue to the ACP, Delhi High Court (Security) for appearance before us for further consideration of this issue on 15th April, 2013 at 12.00 noon. The Registrar (Administration) and Mr. Atul Sharma shall also remain present before us. 9. List the petition for consideration on 23rd May, 2013. The petitioner and the respondent nos.2 shall remain present on that date of hearing.” 4. We may note that similar difficulty in getting access to the court room had been brought to our attention in several cases. In this regard, as far back as on 12th December, 2012 in Crl. L.P. No.200/2012 State Vs. Azad Khan (a petition under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the respondent‘s acquittal by the trial court) we had directed as follows:- “xxx 3. We are finding that in every case especially in criminal matters, litigants are finding access to the court room with difficulty inasmuch as they are not aware of the security procedure requiring them to procure a gate pass. We are informed that a gate pass is issued only to a person who is possessed of identity proof. In case, a private person is represented by a counsel, the application for the gate pass is required to be counter signed by the lawyer concerned. Very often lawyers are not available or the litigants arrive before the lawyer especially when a lawyer is conducting case in different courts in Delhi. 4. In case, a private person is represented by a counsel, the application for the gate pass is required to be counter signed by the lawyer concerned. Very often lawyers are not available or the litigants arrive before the lawyer especially when a lawyer is conducting case in different courts in Delhi. 4. In this background, in the interest of justice and to facilitate access to the court by litigants wanting to attend the hearings, we issue the following direction:- Every notice which is issued by the Registry shall indicate that the party in person is required to produce the following documents in order to obtain the gate pass for entry to the High Court:- (i) Notice served upon the party or any other proof requiring his presence in the High Court. (ii) Identity proof (aadhar card, election identity card, ration card, driving licence or passport). 5. In case the respondent does not have such documentation, it shall be the responsibility of the SHO of the police station concerned to ensure that the respondent does not suffer any difficulty in accessing the court room.” 5. In several petitions, especially those under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the State, when we found that the private respondents were not appearing despite the State saying that they stood served. When we started waiting for the litigants to put in appearance, we found that this was interminable. Often no appearance was put in at all. Looking at the profile of the litigants and suspecting that the gate pass regime may be obstructing entry into the court room, in order to put an unwary litigant to notice, we had started passing the following directions:- “CRL.L.P. No. 1. Issue notice for the service of the respondents, returnable on _______________. The notice shall be served through the SHO of the police station concerned. 2. The notice which is issued shall be accompanied by a copy of the application form for issuance of a gate pass. The notice which is issued shall indicate that the party in person is required to produce the following documents in order to obtain the gate pass for entry to the High Court:- (i) Notice served upon the party or any other proof requiring his presence in the High Court. (ii) Identity proof (aadhar card, election identity card, ration card, driving licence or passport). 3. (ii) Identity proof (aadhar card, election identity card, ration card, driving licence or passport). 3. In case the respondents do not have such documentation, it shall be the responsibility of the SHO of the police station concerned to ensure that the respondent does not suffer any difficulty in accessing the court room. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that the compliance report was filed in the Registry on _____________and she shall take steps to bring the same on record.” 6. As per the above directions, notice is required to be served through the SHO of the police station concerned, who would be responsible for ensuring that the respondent faces no difficulty in accessing the High Court complex. However, this may not be without difficulty. Police officials at the police station may have changed since the case and there may be none available who recognises the respondent. Moreover, the SHO may not have the human recourses to escort the respondents. 7. Yet another petition being Crl.L.P. No.42/2012 State Vs. Kallu @ Khajla & Ors. was filed by the State under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal judgment was listed on 18th of December, 2012. In this case, the respondent no.2 was unable to access the court complex. He had faced grave difficulty in entering the court complex for want of identification document. We had called the Deputy Registrar (General) and the following order had been recorded by us again as far back as on the 18th of December, 2012:- “1. The service report under the signature of SHO P.S. Tilak Nagar, Delhi has been filed. It is reported that notice issued to respondent no.1 could not be served. Respondent No.2 is present pursuant to receipt of the notices. He submits that he is earning livelihood by plying rickshaw in village Shahjaan and he does not have any document of identification. He further submits that he does not have the means to engage the service of a lawyer. Respondent no.2 has expressed extreme difficulty in gaining access to the court for the reason that he has no proof of identify to obtain the requisite gate pass. 2. We have accordingly called Mr. He further submits that he does not have the means to engage the service of a lawyer. Respondent no.2 has expressed extreme difficulty in gaining access to the court for the reason that he has no proof of identify to obtain the requisite gate pass. 2. We have accordingly called Mr. Atul Sharma, Deputy Registrar (General Administration) to ascertain the applicable procedure and we are informed that litigant fills the form required for the gate pass along with the copy of the identity proof and that the procedure of storing details of the persons who have been issued gate pass by biometrics device is under active consideration. 3. It is to be noted that the difficulty with regard to non-possession of any document of identification would arise not only to the persons seeking access to the Court in criminal matters but also would arise in the case of parties in the civil litigation. The plaintiff/petitioner/appellant in other cases could also be a person without any document of identification. Such a person would also not have the benefit of possession of any summon or notices which could facilitate the gate pass section with regard to the particulars of his/her case or the fact that the same was listed on another particular date. There is also the matter with regard to appearance on second date of hearing for which no fresh notices are issued. 4. No litigant should have any difficulty in accessing the court to attend their cases. Access to the justice system is a basic and fundamental right of every citizen of this country. 5. In this background, we have been informed that the matter is under active consideration by the Delhi High Court Security Section as well as General Administration of the Delhi High Court. In view of the above, we direct as follows:- (i), (ii), & (iii) xxx xxx xxx (iv) The Registry shall furnish the report with regard to the matter noticed by us in paras 3 and 4 within two weeks from today. List for examining the report of the Registry on 15th January, 2013. (Emphasis supplied)” Despite the above direction, nothing has been placed by the Registry till date. 8. Pursuant to the directions made by us in the present case on 9th April, 2013, Mr.Dheeraj Singh Bhandari (OSD), Mr.S.K. Sharma, Registrar (General Administration), Mr. Atul Sharma, Deputy Registrar (General) and Mr. List for examining the report of the Registry on 15th January, 2013. (Emphasis supplied)” Despite the above direction, nothing has been placed by the Registry till date. 8. Pursuant to the directions made by us in the present case on 9th April, 2013, Mr.Dheeraj Singh Bhandari (OSD), Mr.S.K. Sharma, Registrar (General Administration), Mr. Atul Sharma, Deputy Registrar (General) and Mr. Sarabjeet Singh, Assistant Commander of Police (Security) were present in court. Mr. Atul Sharma, Deputy Registrar has placed a detailed Report before us enclosing relevant documents including the application for issue of the visitors‘ gate pass as well as the entry pass regime which is in vogue in the Supreme Court of India. We note that along with the Report, a copy of our order dated 12th December, 2012 passed in Crl.L.P. No.200/2012 State Vs. Azad Khan, has also been placed. In view of the above directions to the Registry, it was fully aware of the difficulties litigants are facing in accessing the court building. The Registry was also aware of the imperative concerns in the matter. Yet no action was taken. 9. Inasmuch as the Report placed before us by the Registry gives the entire background into the Security Instructions as well as the impact thereof, the same is set down in extenso hereinafter as follows:- 1. “That after the bomb blast on 07.09.2011, the Facilitation Centre, on the recommendation of the ACP (Security) was shifted to the building known as NDMC School Block opposite the entry gate No. 7 of this Court. There 8 No. of counters are functioning for the entry of the litigants and public from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. In addition, one more entry pass counter was made functional in the underpass of Multi-level Car Parking which is functional from 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM. 1200-1300 entry passes are being issued from these 9 No. of entry pass counters per day on Courts‘ working days namely Monday-Friday, however, on Saturday less number of entry passes are issued. For issuance of the entry pass, the following procedure is adopted:- (a) The visitor/litigant has to submit a prescribed application form duly filled (Annexure-A) containing various details. The set form is to be forwarded by his advocate in case he is represented by some person. (b) The entry otherwise can also be issued in case the petitioner is appearing in person. The set form is to be forwarded by his advocate in case he is represented by some person. (b) The entry otherwise can also be issued in case the petitioner is appearing in person. In that case, the applicant has to provide the details of his case which in turn is examined by the dealing clerk at the pass counter as the entry pass section is on local area network and the cause list is always available online. On his satisfaction, the entry pass is issued to the litigants appearing in person. (c) Out of 8 No. of counters, one each has been reserved for litigants appearing (i) in person, (ii) ladies, & (iii) senior citizens. (d) Along with the prescribed form, the applicant has to enclose a copy of the photo identity proof for this Court‘s record which is tallied with the original photo ID and thereafter the visitor/litigants photograph is captured through web cameras which is printed on the entry pass issued to the visitor. 2. That recently some instances have been noticed when a litigant was not issued entry pass due to any of the following reasons:- (i) that his entry pass form was not properly filled in, i.e. for want of particulars such as Court No./item No. or date of hearing. (ii) for want of attestation by his/her Advocate. (iii) for want of copy of his/her identity proof. (iv) he/she has not been impleaded as necessary party in the given case but he/she is merely accompanying the necessary party. 3. That this Hon‘ble Court was also pleased to notice one such incident where due to not proper attestation by an Advocate, a litigant could not be present before this Court on time; and this Hon‘ble Court was pleased to pass orders as at Annexure =B‘. 4. It may be mentioned here that on an average we have been issuing gate entry passes to as many as 1200 to 1300 persons on daily basis except on Saturday. Out of these 1200-1300 persons, about 25 to 30 persons are such who do not carry any identity cards with them, while equal no. of persons do not carry identity proof such as Ration Card, Election Identity Card, Passport, Aadhar Card or Driving License as per the requirement of pass section. 5. Out of these 1200-1300 persons, about 25 to 30 persons are such who do not carry any identity cards with them, while equal no. of persons do not carry identity proof such as Ration Card, Election Identity Card, Passport, Aadhar Card or Driving License as per the requirement of pass section. 5. Since the undersigned remains present at the pass section during peak hours between 9 AM to 11:30 AM, the entry of the persons with above deficiency is facilitated after verifying from the concerned persons of the urgency/requirement of him/her to attend the Court and after being satisfied that he/she is a genuine person. 6. It has also been noticed that although summons are issued in the name of complainant/prosecutrix in the Criminal matters and the other proceedings, most of the time the prosecutrix is accompanied by male/female members of her family who also apply for Gate Entry Pass. But since the Passes are issued to the Parties to the proceedings; they are not issued entry passes. In such a case the complainant/prosecutrix feels discouraged to attend the Court to pursue her matter resulting in prolonging the litigation. 7. Similarly, in Mediation matters where the Parties are directed to appear before the Mediator; their companions are not issued passes being stranger to Suit/Proceeding. In such a case useful Mediation can not take place and the case is sent back to Court, unresolved. 8. In some other matters where the parties have solemnized inter-caste marriages, there are lot of relatives on either side to seek entry in the Court, but the passes are not issued to them because of them being not the necessary parties, the cases of such nature suffer for want of reconciliation between the parties at dispute. Submitted please.” (Emphasis by us) 10. The above Report refers to the procedure followed for issuance of gate pass. So far as the requirements in place are concerned, these are sourced from the following “Security Instructions” issued by the Registrar General of this Court: “SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS 1. All members of public and litigants are informed that due to security reasons, entry into A, B and C Blocks, Delhi High Court Building shall be restricted through issuance of Gate Passes and subject to frisking. Entry shall be only through the Main Entrance Gate of `A’ Block. 2. All members of public and litigants are informed that due to security reasons, entry into A, B and C Blocks, Delhi High Court Building shall be restricted through issuance of Gate Passes and subject to frisking. Entry shall be only through the Main Entrance Gate of `A’ Block. 2. All members of public and litigants desiring to seek entry into A, B and C Blocks are required to obtain Gate Passes at the Reception Office, near Gate No.4. 3. Entry shall be allowed to only such members of public/litigants whose cases are listed in Court for the day or who are to seek inspection of records, subject to furnishing details of their cases, on the form prescribed. 4. Passes to such members of public/litigants as are represented by Counsel shall be issued after due verification and recommendation by their respective advocates under their signatures and stamp, on the form prescribed. 5. Such members of public/litigants as are prosecuting/defending their cases in person may obtain passes, subject to furnishing details of their cases listed for the day. 6. In case a member of public/litigant requires to appear in Court in the absence of his Counsel, he would also have to furnish details of his case for the day, on the form prescribed. 7. All valid Identity Cards holders of the Govt. of India/Govt. of NCT of Delhi/Delhi Police/Armed/Security Forces/Supreme Court of India/District and Subordinate Courts, Delhi, will be permitted entry in A, B and C Blocks, without obtaining Gate Pass, but subject to frisking and search of baggage, if any. 8. Public/Litigants etc. are not allowed to carry their Cell phones into the Building which should be deposited with security personnel at the entry point. 9. Public/Litigants may get the passes 4-5 days in advance for appearing in the Courts of Hon’ble Judges/Joint Registrarsfrom the Reception Counter. 10. No fee is payable for entry passes. BY ORDER OF THE COURT REGISTRAR GENERAL” 11. So far as the application for issuance of a visitor‘s pass for entry into the Delhi High Court complex is concerned, the following form is prescribed: “APPLICATION FOR ISSUE OF VISITOR’S PASS FOR ENTRY INTO DELHI HIGH COURT 1. Name(s):__________Sex: Male/Female Age:______Years 2. Father’s/Husband’s Name:__________________________ 3. Present Address:_________________________________ 4. Permanent Address:______________________________ 5. Pass required for entry to: Court No._ Item No.__ Date___ 6. Name(s):__________Sex: Male/Female Age:______Years 2. Father’s/Husband’s Name:__________________________ 3. Present Address:_________________________________ 4. Permanent Address:______________________________ 5. Pass required for entry to: Court No._ Item No.__ Date___ 6. Purpose of Visit:_________________________________ *I certify that I am appearing in person in the above matter and that the information given by me is correct. In case it is found to be wrong, I shall be liable to such consequences as permissible under the Rules/Law. 7. Recommended by: Mr./Ms._____Sr. Advocate/Advocate/ Officer of the Court Mobile No._____________ Telephone No.__________ Enrolment No.__________ SIGNATURE WITH SEAL/STAMP OF ADVOCATE Applicant seeking entry pass should submit photocopy of ID proof (Voter’s Card/Driving Licence/Passport/Laminated ID Card issued by Govt./Semi-Govt./PSU) (Original to be shown at the time of preparation of entry Card) * Applicable for litigants not represented by Advocates (Delete, if not applicable)” 12. Mahatma Gandhi said that there is peace if there is justice. Courts are the institutions that guarantee the enforcement and protection of peoples= rights through the sanction of law. It is trite law that right to a fair court proceedings and access to justice is a basic fundamental and human right. Inherent in the expression `access to justice‘ is not only use of the justice system, but first and foremost, the physical entry thereto. This flows from the well known doctrine ubi jus ibi remedium i.e that is when there exists a right, a disputant must have a remedy. Thus, any impediment on accessing the court room is an impediment to the fundamental and human right of access to justice. Impeding entry into the dispute resolution mechanism could lead to disastrous consequences. 13. These principles have been articulated by the Supreme Court in (2009) 13 SCC 729 , Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra, in which the Supreme Court opined that “any person may as of right have access to the courts of justice.”Moreover, in (2003) 6 SCC 230 , Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lrs. and Another v. B.D. Agarwal and Others, the Court also held that “any procedure which comes in the way of a party in getting a fair trial would be violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India.” 14. Finally, in (2011) 8 SCC 568 , Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign Etc. and Another v. B.D. Agarwal and Others, the Court also held that “any procedure which comes in the way of a party in getting a fair trial would be violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India.” 14. Finally, in (2011) 8 SCC 568 , Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign Etc. & Ors., the Court clarified that Article 39A of the Constitution of India requires the state to secure the just operation of the legal system “on a basis of equal opportunity” and to “ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.” It appears to be settled law, then, that physical access to courts is an essential part of the fundamental and constitutionally protected rights of the rights to access to justice and to equal treatment before the law. 15. These well settled first principles need no elaboration. Unfortunately, as the present case bears out – there is necessity of not only reinforcement, but of a strong reminder of these rights and an emergent examination of the matter. 16. It is equally well settled as an essential and intrinsic component of the judicial system that is the open court principle which enables anyone who is concerned to physically see the enforcement of the rule of law. It needs no elaboration that an open court system is perceived as a fair independent and impartial court system. The judiciary in India follows the open court principle. Such transparency also reinforces confidence in the courts and leads to regulation of the system as well as efficiency in justice dispensation and case disposal. 17. The security instructions and the gate pass application, however, suggest that only parties to cases listed on particular day or parties who seek to inspect the record in their cases should be allowed entry. This is contrary to the Delhi High Court Rules which permit inspection in decided cases to third parties as well. Furthermore, persons interested in following the court proceedings could include academicians, students, writers, visitors to the country or city. Legal activists include members of the public who would be concerned with hearings of public causes and, therefore, deserve to get access into the court. 18. The right to witness court proceedings is available to all and not to the parties alone, unless the court has directed in-camera proceedings. Legal activists include members of the public who would be concerned with hearings of public causes and, therefore, deserve to get access into the court. 18. The right to witness court proceedings is available to all and not to the parties alone, unless the court has directed in-camera proceedings. It is evident that on the basis of this principle alone, the existing gate pass entry system in place violates the right of members of the public to access justice. 19. In India, a civil court conducting proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure (=CPC‘) retains discretion to order “in camera” proceedings only in a suit or proceedings relating to matters concerning the family, or if either party so desires [Ref.: Order XXXII A Rule 23 CPC]. Of course, the courts may prohibit entry of any person in the exercise of their inherent powers. However, the open court system is the rule, camera proceedings an exception. 20. Similarly, Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the place in which any proceeding is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence, shall be deemed to be “an open court to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them.” The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the presiding Judge or Magistrate retains discretion to order, at any stage of an inquiry or trial, that the public or any particular person shall not have access to, or shall not remain in, the court room or building. By virtue of sub-section (2), an inquiry or trial of rape or any of the offences so specified in Indian Penal Code must be conducted in camera with the Presiding Judge empowered to allow any particular person to have access to, or remain in, the room or building used by the court. 21. In the contemporary criminal context, it is worth highlighting the words of the Supreme Court of India in (1988) 3 SCC 609 , Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) where the staging of a trial in jail along with concomitant reporting restrictions was considered. 21. In the contemporary criminal context, it is worth highlighting the words of the Supreme Court of India in (1988) 3 SCC 609 , Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) where the staging of a trial in jail along with concomitant reporting restrictions was considered. The following discussion by the Supreme Court explains the importance of the open court system: “But apart from it even the Criminal Procedure Code as it stood before the amendment had a provision similar to s. 327 which was s. 352 of the Old Code and in fact it is because of this that the criminal trial is expected to be open and public. In our Constitution phraseology difference from the United States Constitution has been there. Art. 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. So far as this aspect of open trial is concerned the procedure established by law even before our Constitution was enacted was as is provided in s. 327 Cr.P.C. The language of s. 327 shows that any place where a criminal Court holds its sitting for enquiry or trial shall be deemed to be an open Court to which the public generally may have access provided the same can conveniently contain them. The language itself indicates that even if a trial is held in an private house or is held inside jail or anywhere no sooner it becomes venue of trial of a criminal case it is deemed to be in law an open place and everyone who wants to go and attend the trial has a right to go and attend the trial except the only restriction contemplated is number of persons which could be contained in the premises where the Court sits…As soon as a trial is held whatever the place may be the provisions of Sec. 327 are attracted and it will be an open Court and every citizen has a right to go and unless there is evidence or material on record to suggest that on the facts in this particular case public at large was not permitted to go or some one was prevented from attending the trial or that the trial was in camera…” (Emphasis supplied) 22. There are several cases in the court system which require the physical presence of a party at the time of hearing. There are several cases in the court system which require the physical presence of a party at the time of hearing. Some instances where physical appearance of the party/litigant is required/or may have been directed by the court include the following: (i) an accused person before the criminal court; (ii) a complainant who has filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.; (iii) a person seeking to initiate indigenous person‘s application under Order 32 of the CPC; (iv) a person who has been directed by the Court to personally appear before the Court on any particular date; (v) an alleged contemnor in proceedings under the Contempt of Court (vi) in execution proceedings (vii) for compliance of the mandate of Section 89 CPC to explore an alternate dispute redressal mechanism 23. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in our country especially this city would have a large population which is adversely placed economically who do not have any kind of official documents of identification. Such persons would include the migrant population; labour in the huge unorganized industrial sector; the homeless; the aged; destitute; deserted women; orphaned/abandoned children; the disabled etc. It is common knowledge that securing any official identification documents itself may require a dwelling, if not permanency of abode. What does one do if there is none? How can a woman thrown out of her matrimonial home prosecuting a Section 406 IPC complaint, be expected to produce her ID document – which though in existence, but stands retained by some unscrupulous husband and/or in-laws? How can any such persons be expected to produce identity documents – still an unfortunate reality in our great Nation. 24. It is, therefore, noteworthy that limits on physical access to courts including those imposed by the gate pass system in the instant case, clearly disproportionately affect the right of the poor or economically weaker to access justice vis a vis the rights of those economically empowered to approach the courts. 25. We have been deeply pained to see the inability of the petitioner to access our court because he did not have official documents identification. Some others have struggled before they could gain entry. 26. 25. We have been deeply pained to see the inability of the petitioner to access our court because he did not have official documents identification. Some others have struggled before they could gain entry. 26. A bare reading of the Report filed before us would show that as a result of the existing security regime, about 25 to 30 persons who may be having cases in courts, are unable to secure the gate pass and are unable to enter and are thereby deprived appearance in their cases. The other categories of persons detailed in paras 6, 7 & 8 of the report are also unable to enter the court rooms. To say the obvious, this number of persons (say 25 to 30) may be equivalent to the entire board of court in some jurisdictions in this court. This is an extremely serious matter. We may note that the number of litigants denied entry may on a given day be even more. It is even distressing to visualize the trauma that a litigant who does not have either identification documents or a lawyer faces when he seeks to access this court building on a date of hearing. 27. Even if the Report placed before us was to be ignored, the order dated 9th April, 2013 passed by us in the present case itself manifests the impediment by the existing gate pass regime on such recognized fundamental and human right. It has the effect of being an absolute entry point barrier at the gate of the court building. 28. Interestingly the Security Instructions afore-noticed do not contain any specific prescription for production of ID proof. The requirement of furnishing identity documents thus has been mentioned on the application for the gate pass. The security instructions also confer no discretion on any court official to relax any of the conditions. Therefore strictly speaking the Deputy Registrar at the Gate Pass Section has no authority to deviate or draw any exception. 29. In this background, our judicial conscience compels us to pose to ourselves some pertinent questions. Is it legally permissible, with the object of security, to effectuate such prohibitions which prevent the general public from entering a court complex? Therefore strictly speaking the Deputy Registrar at the Gate Pass Section has no authority to deviate or draw any exception. 29. In this background, our judicial conscience compels us to pose to ourselves some pertinent questions. Is it legally permissible, with the object of security, to effectuate such prohibitions which prevent the general public from entering a court complex? More specifically, is it permissible to put in place a security regime that could have the effect of keeping members of the general public (including bona fide litigants) without identification documentation from accessing the courtroom? Could such a regime be legally permitted to violate the open court principle by reducing court proceedings to “in camera” proceedings where access is restricted to a privileged few? We are facing these questions of grave concern on an almost daily basis, including in the present case. 30. While it is unquestionable that security concerns cannot be trivialised, it is equally important to respect and protect the rights enshrined in Article 21 and 39A of the Constitution of India as well as the open court principle. Therefore, it is the task of all concerned to strike an appropriate balance between current security realities and the rights the Constitution guarantees. 31. Security measures are required to be directed towards securing life and property— they should not be directed at identification and entry. We note here that even the heavily used services provided by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation have been secured through a system that manages to handle security of several lakhs of people every day without impeding physical access through stringent identification requirements and use of the metro facility. Thus, we find that security in the court complex must be pursued by means other than those that effectively block the public from accessing the courtroom. 32. Banks implementing `Know Your Customer‘ requirements (also inter alia, on account of security concerns) have found a way out and are providing `No FRILLS ACCOUNT” facilities to those without identification. 33. It goes without saying that security measures for securing the court complex as well as courtrooms are required to ensure protection of life and property. Security measures in place include electronic screening and physical frisking. These are essential to prevent dangerous articles from entering into the court and could be made more stringent. 33. It goes without saying that security measures for securing the court complex as well as courtrooms are required to ensure protection of life and property. Security measures in place include electronic screening and physical frisking. These are essential to prevent dangerous articles from entering into the court and could be made more stringent. However, even persons accused of serious or dangerous crimes appear before the courts for their trials and are entitled to attend their court hearings. 34. Courts for a large percentage of people, if not most people, are the last resort. We are still grappling with and struggling to overcome psychological, social, financial, technical, technological, geographical barriers to access to justice and a security regime which provides for an absolute entry point barrier; it results in an exclusion which is complete. Such exclusion from the court is constitutionally impermissible. Security concerns, therefore, must be balanced against the public interest in zealously guarding the constitutionally protected right to access justice, in ensuring the right of physical access to courts as well as in protecting the open court principle. 35. We cannot permit the High Court or the courts subordinate to it, to become a privileged space accessible only to those with ration cards, driving licenses or identity documents by making courts inaccessible to the disadvantaged who are less likely to have government-issued documents of identification. We also cannot allow unreasonable restrictions on the right of public access to courts to stand, reach whereof is beyond addressing contemporary security concerns. To hold otherwise would not only violate a range of constitutionally protected interests, but would also infringe well-established principles central to our system of justice. Reasons for Urgency 36. We may also pen down the reasons for our concern as to why this matter is immediate. The Report filed before us manifests that the exclusion of persons, including bona fide litigants, is not an isolated or a `one off‘ occurrence. It is happening everyday. It is happening despite our orders dated 12th December, 2012, 18th December, 2012, 9th April, 2013 and the several other orders passed by us. We have issued gentle reminders to the Registry while expressing our concerns in several orders (including those noticed above) for the last almost six months, no effort has been made to effect any change and now something requires to be done urgently. We have issued gentle reminders to the Registry while expressing our concerns in several orders (including those noticed above) for the last almost six months, no effort has been made to effect any change and now something requires to be done urgently. As a result Sajid Ali – petitioner before us has not been able to appear. 37. Given the nature of the rights and numbers of persons impacted (25 to 30 litigants everyday as well as others assisting them according to the Report) this matter brooks not even a day‘s further delay. As a consequence of non-appearance, a litigant‘s case (if a plaintiff/petitioner/appellant) may stand dismissed; or if a defendant/respondent, may stand allowed against him. If he is to appear in a criminal case (as in a petition under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C.), warrants of arrest may unjustly stand issued against him. This very requirement of ID documents may be utilized by convincing and unscrupulous litigants to avoid an inconvenient court appearance. All that a person needs to do is to leave his ID documents at home and create the excuse that he was not issued a gate pass and therefore could not appear. 38. The exclusion of the litigant is occurring not only in matters before this Bench but as is evident from the Report of litigants in other courts, apart from members of the public, bona fide wishing to enter the court room. The exclusion is on a daily basis. For these reasons, in our view, this matter cannot brook even a single day‘s delay and we would be failing in our judicial duty if we did not take immediate steps. 39. No dispute can be raised with regard to the recognized human and constitutional rights and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, especially those addressing primarily concerns of access to justice and the constitutional rights of the people. Access to justice to all has to be the heart beat of every Judge and the `mantra‘ of every court‘s administration. 40. While dictating this order, another critical consequence of indiscriminate measures under the shield of security is revealed. Concerned only with ensuring controlled entry into a building, the first step which is taken as a security measure is to completely block multiple entry/exit points. As a result even emergency exits are blocked indiscriminately. 40. While dictating this order, another critical consequence of indiscriminate measures under the shield of security is revealed. Concerned only with ensuring controlled entry into a building, the first step which is taken as a security measure is to completely block multiple entry/exit points. As a result even emergency exits are blocked indiscriminately. Building regulations, especially those relating to public buildings (which includes courts) stipulate emergency exits taking the comprehensive requirements of all concerns, security being only one of several equally imperative considerations. The correct balance between security and say, effective building evacuation and rescue operations at times of disasters – natural as well as manmade - has to be arrived at after a careful examination and close empirical analysis. As a result of indiscriminately blocking exits, we may have severely compromised building evacuation and rescue operations, which is also not permissible. 41. The above narration and the annexures to the Report amply manifest that the court, the police and the Bar alone would neither have the requisite information nor the expertise to take a holistic view in the matter. 42. The turn of events thus in the recent past is a strong argument for an expert evaluation of the issue of court security on priority basis. Instances of violence in court premises; judicial officer being attacked; witnesses and parties being targeted have also occurred. The concerns of the experts on disaster and the geology of the land on which Delhi is located, clearly manifest that the evaluation and the recommendation requires multi-dimensional inputs on almost priority. Such expert evaluation would bear in mind the suggested security measures from their impact, if any, on the constitutional and human rights of the people as well. 43. Delhi has the benefit of being the seat of the premier expert bodies on the several issues involved which would include the Ministry of Home Affairs, Intelligence Bureau, the National Intelligence Agency, the National Institute for Disaster management and the Central Industrial Security Force. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi would be required to implement the recommendations. The Governments, Delhi High Court, Delhi Police, the representatives of the Bar would require to be joined. 44. Inasmuch as the matter of court security is being examined, security of the district courts could also require to be considered. 45. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi would be required to implement the recommendations. The Governments, Delhi High Court, Delhi Police, the representatives of the Bar would require to be joined. 44. Inasmuch as the matter of court security is being examined, security of the district courts could also require to be considered. 45. Looked at from any angle, a relook requires to be urgently given to the security instructions issued under the order of the Registrar General with regard to the documentation requirement for obtaining the gate pass as well as alternative measures for ensuring adequate and effective security of the court premises so that access to the court premises is ensured to all without in manner compromising on the security or the life of any person. 46. It would also appear that the linguistic barrier has escaped notice while directing the security instructions which ideally should be available in vernacular. These deserve to be kept in mind. Conclusions: 47. Restricting public access to the courts and the imposition of identification or documentation requirements on litigants represent significant barriers to access to justice. 48. Such obstacles that prevent the economically weak from accessing courts could effectively reduce court proceedings to de facto in camera proceedings. Barring the public from courtrooms is thus a clear violation of the open court principle. Moreover, stringent identification documentation requirements disproportionately affect the ability of the poor and economically weaker section to access courts. 49. Security Instruction nos.3 and 4 and the Note on the Application for Issue of Gate Pass therefore may directly impede the right of a person of access to justice, which may be constitutionally and legally impermissible. 50. Security measures are inextricably connected with disaster concerns and a comprehensive evaluation and action plan is required on priority basis. Who would be competent to consider the matter and recommend appropriate measures? Security, especially today is not a casual matter. The nature of threats to public spaces especially buildings merits evolution of basic policy and norms. 51. We find that the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in the USA has published the report titled ‘Steps to Best Practices for Court Building Security’ in February, 2010. This report has been authored by Timothy Fautsko, the Principal Staff at NCSC with three security consultants Steven Berson, James O‘ Neil and Kevin Sheehan. 51. We find that the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in the USA has published the report titled ‘Steps to Best Practices for Court Building Security’ in February, 2010. This report has been authored by Timothy Fautsko, the Principal Staff at NCSC with three security consultants Steven Berson, James O‘ Neil and Kevin Sheehan. The report identifies the categories, topics and steps to best practices in court security. During the process of its finalization, the report was reviewed by three practioners in the field who made important recommendations incorporated in the final draft. These experts with wide experience in the field of court security and emergency preparedness included:- - Malcolm Franklin, Senior Manager, Emergency Response and Security from Administrative Office of Courts in California. - Frank Lalley, Judicial Security Administrator, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. - Carol Price, Court Security Director, Administrative Office of Courts, Itah. Valuable guidance could be drawn from this report and other court security polices which are in place. 52. The consideration involves technical matters about which courts or the police would not have the expertise possessed by expert organizations as the National Investigation Agency, the Special Protection Group, the Disaster Management experts. The National Institute for Disaster Management has a special section for Policy and planning headed by a senior expert. The Central Industrial Security Force is trained and experienced in institutional security including airport security. 53. So far as the courts are concerned, the footfall in the district courts is much heavier than that in the High Court. The judges in the District Courts have hands down experience in facing and dealing with large number of persons, security concerns and violent situations. Their presence in an security evaluation of a court building is indispensable. Additionally leadership and capacity building amongst judicial officers must be ensured and encouraged. So far as this court is concerned, the Registrar (General Branch) is concerned with security arrangements. The Registrar (Vigilance) and Joint Registrar (Rules) are the senior judges of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service working in all areas of functioning as well as on drafting of rules in this court and would have the knowledge to ensure that the Constitutional Rights of the litigants and other persons are not violated without compromising on the court security in any manner by a security regime which may be recommended. 54. The Delhi Police would be implementing the security measures. 54. The Delhi Police would be implementing the security measures. It also has the factual information and assessment of the ground reality situation. No security discussion can be addressed without their presence and inputs. The Government of NCT of Delhi is concerned with the issue and would be responsible for ensuring installation and implementation of the security measures in the courts. Directions 55. For all the foregoing reasons, we direct as follows:- (I) A Committee is appointed which shall consist of the following:- (i) Expert to be nominated by Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Room No.113, North Block, New Delhi. (ii) Expert to be nominated by the Director General, Intelligence Bureau, 35, S.P. Marg, New Delhi. (iii) Expert to be nominated by Director General, National Investigation Agency, 4th Floor, Splendor Forum, District Central, Jasola, New Delhi – 110 025. (iv) Expert to be nominated by Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. (v) Expert to be nominated by Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. (vi) Expert to be nominated by National Institute of Disaster Management, 5-B, IIPA Campus, I.P. Estate, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 (vii) Expert to be nominated by Chief Secretary of Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, New Delhi. (viii) Professor Santosh Kumar, Professor (Policy & Planning), National Institute of Disaster Management, 5-B, IIPA Campus, I.P. Estate, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 (ix) Ms.R. Kiran Nath, Registrar (Vigilance); Mr.Bharat Parashar, Joint Registrar (Rules) and Mr.S.K. Sharma, Registrar (General Branch), Delhi High Court (x) Mr.A.K. Chawla, Principal District Judge and Mr. P.S. Teji, District & Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. (xi) Standing Counsel (Criminal) of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. (xii) President & Secretary of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (xiii) Ms.Rebecca Menezes, Sr. Advocate and Mr.Dayan Krishnan, Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal). (II) (i) The Principal District Judge is appointed Chairperson of the Committee. (ii) Mr. P.S. Teji, District & Sessions Judge, East District and Professor Santosh Kumar, Professor (Planning & Policy) shall be the Convenors of the Committee. (iii) The Registrar (General Branch) shall be responsible for coordination; correspondence (receipt & dispatch); communication and provision of administrative and secretarial assistance. (II) (i) The Principal District Judge is appointed Chairperson of the Committee. (ii) Mr. P.S. Teji, District & Sessions Judge, East District and Professor Santosh Kumar, Professor (Planning & Policy) shall be the Convenors of the Committee. (iii) The Registrar (General Branch) shall be responsible for coordination; correspondence (receipt & dispatch); communication and provision of administrative and secretarial assistance. (iv) The proceedings of the Committee shall be expeditiously conducted in available and suitable conference room in Delhi High Court (III) The nominations shall be informed to the Registrar (General) within one week of the receipt of the order by the concerned. The nominations shall give the mobile numbers and e-mail IDs of the nominees (IV) The first meeting of the committee shall be held on 16th May, 2013 when a schedule for the further proceedings shall be laid down. (V) Notices for the meetings shall be served at the e-mail addresses of the Members of the Committee. (VI) The first meeting shall be attended by all the Members who may decide the procedure to be adopted in this meeting. (VII) Suggestions and comments thereon may be exchanged electronically and draft of the recommendations be finalised using the electronic mode. (VIII) The draft recommendations shall be closely examined by the Members of the Committee and a final report of the Committee shall be submitted by the Chairperson of the Committee to the Registrar General within two months, in any case, not later than 15th July, 2013 who shall place the same before Hon‘ble the Chief Justice for consideration and appropriate orders. (IX) The Committee shall also submit its recommendations qua the District Courts not later than four months from the date of the first meeting to the Registrar General of this Court who shall place the same before the Chief Justice for consideration and appropriate orders. (X) The Compliance Reports of the present proceedings shall be filed under the signatures of the Chairperson in the present proceedings as well. It is ordered accordingly. Gita Mittal, J. 1. I have received the order proposed by my learned Brother disagreeing with my above opinion only this morning. I have, therefore, barely had occasion to glance through the same. It is necessary to clarify some aspects of the matter raised therein which I proceed to record hereafter. 2. It is ordered accordingly. Gita Mittal, J. 1. I have received the order proposed by my learned Brother disagreeing with my above opinion only this morning. I have, therefore, barely had occasion to glance through the same. It is necessary to clarify some aspects of the matter raised therein which I proceed to record hereafter. 2. The issue which was raised in the matter is whether Sajid Ali (petitioner in this case) seeking to enter the court for his hearing, can be denied entry into the court building on the 9th of April, 2013 and our court room because he does not have documentary proof of identification which is being imposed as a security requirement? The fact that this effects other litigants is brought out from the Report placed before us. 3. Criminal Writ Petitions of the present nature are not our roster allocation. This writ petition was specifically marked to this Bench. Sajid Ali - the petitioner made efforts to be present in the hearing but was denied entry on the ground of enforcing security measures. The circumstances show that he would be denied entry again and again for the same reasons. 4. Denial of access to a party in the litigation before the court is fundamental to accord a fair hearing to her/him – Sajid Ali before us. It has to be addressed by the Bench hearing Sajid Ali’s case and none other. This court was thus bound to decide whether Sajid Ali could be denied entry on account of security regime in place. 5. It is to answer the above question that the report had to be called for from the Registry which revealed that there was not one, but several persons like Sajid Ali who are being denied entry for the same reason everyday and that there are other categories of persons as well seeking entry who are not permitted entry for this very reason. 6. The issue of denial of access to the court even in the case of a single Sajid Ali requires a holistic consideration. His non-appearance on the last date and appearance on the next date is an issue directly before us in this writ petition. Merely because the consideration of the issue has to be wide would also not convert the issue of denial to Sajid Ali’s entry before us in this case into a PIL. 7. His non-appearance on the last date and appearance on the next date is an issue directly before us in this writ petition. Merely because the consideration of the issue has to be wide would also not convert the issue of denial to Sajid Ali’s entry before us in this case into a PIL. 7. The violation of the rights of the petitioner to accessing the court room is a fact placed before this court. In as much as the same is a violation of fundamental rights and basic human rights, the same cannot be ignored by the court before which it is brought out. In these circumstances, no separate challenge is necessary to decide on the rights of the present petitioner to enter this court room in his pending case – it is an issue which is brought out during the proceedings. 8. The consideration of the concerns which we have pointed out does not depend on whether it is a single Sajid Ali or several of them. The impact of the denial of the access to a single person as Sajid Ali raises the same questions and has to receive the same importance and consideration as that may be given to several Sajid Alis. The mere reference to the group of litigants denied access in my order and the concerns noticed by me are, therefore, within the permissible limits of the roster allocation to our Bench especially when this case has been marked to us. 9. It may be observed that the matter of appearance of party in case marked to the court is a matter which has to be decided by it. Merely because it may benefit other parties as well would not convert it into a public interest litigation. In my humble view, suo moto cognizance of a newspaper report or a letter has not been taken in this case nor is there any adjudication of work not assigned to this Bench. This court would not over reach roster allocation and has always strictly abided by judicial discipline. 10. There is no ‘lis’ (or litigation) requiring adjudication of competing rights in considering whether Sajid Ali can be kept out of court - only concerns (access to the court vis a vis security) which are not coalescing in this consideration. 11. There is no considered policy at all on court security as is manifested from the Instructions. 10. There is no ‘lis’ (or litigation) requiring adjudication of competing rights in considering whether Sajid Ali can be kept out of court - only concerns (access to the court vis a vis security) which are not coalescing in this consideration. 11. There is no considered policy at all on court security as is manifested from the Instructions. The Security Instructions placed before us do not reflect a consideration by the experts noticed above. As the issue is directly concerned with security of a public building, the matter requires inputs from the experts who could still recommend the same measures as are in place that Sajid Ali be kept out of court. They could recommend even more stringent measures. 12. Just as every judgment resolves an issue/dispute and impacts society (including those who are not litigants before the court), so could the benefit of our order in Sajid Ali’s case permeate to others. If a strict view was taken, every issue therein why may impact those who are not party to the litigation would have to be treated as a Public Interest Litigation. 13. Reference to judicial orders (which have been placed in the public domain) and precedents is legally permissible. 14. Law permits every court to request for expert assistance and local examination. The Expert Committee suggested by me in my order is only rendering this assistance. Furthermore, the Committee of experts has been constituted for making recommendations which are to be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration and orders. No view has been expressed by me on the recommendations which the Committee has to make. In fact it has been directed to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice who would then pass appropriate orders on the Report, which could include whether it required to be treated as a public interest litigation or not. No orders may be required if the committee reiterated the existing measures. 15. I may caution that inputs considered by experts recommending a security policy and regime are required to be kept confidential. Strategically and in order to be effective, they cannot be the subject matter of litigation. Hence the directions by me carefully constituting the committee to make its recommendations. 16. Even in PILs, referral courts often collect the relevant material which is referred for placing before the PIL Bench. Strategically and in order to be effective, they cannot be the subject matter of litigation. Hence the directions by me carefully constituting the committee to make its recommendations. 16. Even in PILs, referral courts often collect the relevant material which is referred for placing before the PIL Bench. This, in sum and substance, is the effect of the order by me. Given the conclusion by my learned Brother that there is no denial of access to justice to Sajid Ali (and others like him) by the security regime, there would be no issue of public interest which has to be referred to any other Bench of this court. In any event, looked at from any angle, the issue deserves priority, attention, judicial (because we have differed on whether the measure impacts access to justice) and administrative, which I am positive that, irrespective of the judicial view which may be taken in the matter, would be given.