Hearing on 'Aisha' gag order challenge moved behind closed doors without explanation from High Court

The High Court has decided to hold hearings in secret in the case filed by a journalist challenging the Criminal Court’s gag order over content published by Adhadhu.

The court did not state why the proceedings are being closed to the public. The hearing is scheduled for Monday morning. The case was also conducted behind closed doors at the Criminal Court.

The decision marks a departure from the High Court’s usual practice of livestreaming hearings in cases of significant public interest. The bench comprises Justices Abdul Rauf Ibrahim, Hussain Mazeed, and Fatimath Farheeza.

The gag order prohibits circulating any content or narrative related to the Adhadhu documentary 'Aisha' and bans any direct or indirect reference to the narratives contained in it. It also bars making any statement about the parties involved, or the victim.

Under Article 42 of the Constitution, everyone has the right to a public hearing. However, judges may close proceedings in certain circumstances.

Trials are typically held in secret when the nature of the case makes open proceedings ethically inappropriate, for example, cases involving sexual offences. Hearings may also be closed when public order could be compromised by keeping the trial open, or when sensitive information related to national security may be disclosed.

In exceptional circumstances, cases involving the best interests of children, family matters, or situations where open proceedings may compromise the administration of justice are also conducted in confidence.

Procedure for closing hearings

A request to hold a hearing in secret may be made by the prosecution or any party to the case. Judges may also decide on their own initiative to close proceedings. In some cases, only specific parts of the hearing or certain testimony may be taken confidentially.

Even when hearings are held in secret, judgments must be delivered in a public sitting. However, courts may withhold sensitive information contained in the judgment, such as details identifying the victim.