The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, 7 October 2026, rejected a plea by the accused in the 2018 murder of Student Federation of India (SFI) activist Abhimanyu, who had sought an in camera trial, holding that criminal proceedings are ordinarily required to be conducted in open court. The ruling upholds the foundational principle of judicial transparency in one of Kerala's most high-profile campus violence cases.

What the Court Ruled

Justice C.S. Dias upheld the earlier order of the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court, which had similarly rejected the closed-door trial request. The High Court held that Section 366 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) clearly recognises open court proceedings as the general rule, with in camera trials being a recognised exception — not a default entitlement for the accused.

The court also noted that the apprehension raised by the accused related to the possibility of their being exposed to witnesses, and not to any threat, intimidation, or disturbance during the trial itself — a distinction that weighed against granting the plea.

Key Safeguards Directed by the Court

While rejecting the plea, the court issued measured protective directions. It directed the trial court, in coordination with the police, to ensure that nobody photographs or video records the trial or the accused while inside the courtroom. It also said the trial court could consider restricting entry of the public or particular persons during the examination of eyewitnesses, if circumstances warrant it to ensure a fair trial.

Background: The Abhimanyu Murder Case

The case centres on the killing of 21-year-old Abhimanyu, an SFI activist, at Maharaja's College in Ernakulam on 1 July 2018. He was allegedly stabbed during a clash reportedly linked to a dispute over putting up campus posters. Four other SFI activists were also attacked in the incident.

Police filed the charge sheet in September 2018, yet the trial has remained pending for more than seven years. The case is currently before the Ernakulam Sessions Court against 16 accused, with investigation continuing against 10 others.

Arguments Raised by the Accused

The accused had argued that extensive media coverage of the trial created a risk of eyewitnesses identifying them from photographs or video recordings in the press. They also pointed out that no test identification parade had been conducted, heightening their concern about dock identification during trial.

The prosecution opposed the plea, arguing that open court proceedings were the rule under the BNSS and that arrangements had already been made to prevent law and order problems and ensure witness safety.

What Happens Next

With the in camera plea dismissed, the trial before the Ernakulam Sessions Court will proceed in open court, subject to the High Court's directions on photography and video recording. The case — already delayed over seven years — now awaits fresh scheduling for witness examination. How the trial court manages public and media access during sensitive witness testimony will be closely watched.