Balochistan HC intervenes over ‘faceless’ trials, restrictions on open court access

The Balochistan High Court has intervened over concerns surrounding so-called “faceless” trials and restrictions on access to court proceedings, raising questions about transparency and the right to a fair trial in the province. The issue came before the court following complaints about proceedings in which accused persons were allegedly produced through video links without their faces being visible to those participating in the hearing. Concerns have also been raised over restrictions preventing lawyers, relatives and members of the public from freely accessing certain courtrooms.

Court questions trial procedures

A division bench of the Balochistan High Court sought explanations from the authorities over the manner in which such proceedings were being conducted and the restrictions imposed on open court access.

The court questioned how the identity and physical condition of an accused could be properly established if the person appearing remotely could not be clearly seen. The issue assumes particular importance where defendants are in custody and their lawyers need to communicate with them and assess whether they are being produced before the court voluntarily and without coercion.

Petitioners have argued that the practice undermines basic safeguards associated with criminal trials. They have also challenged restrictions that allegedly prevent family members and other observers from attending hearings.

Open courts are considered an important element of judicial accountability because public access allows proceedings to be scrutinised and helps maintain confidence in the justice system.

Fair-trial concerns raised

The controversy has emerged against the backdrop of wider concerns over security-related cases in Balochistan, where authorities frequently cite threats to judges, lawyers, witnesses and court premises while imposing additional security arrangements.

Security considerations can justify measures such as video-link hearings in certain circumstances. However, concerns arise when such arrangements interfere with an accused person's ability to participate meaningfully in proceedings or communicate confidentially with legal counsel.

The High Court's intervention has therefore brought attention to the balance between security requirements and fundamental judicial safeguards.

The court sought details about the legal basis for restrictions imposed during the proceedings and the arrangements made to ensure that defendants retain meaningful access to their lawyers.

Transparency under scrutiny

The issue is particularly significant in cases involving serious criminal or security-related charges, where transparent proceedings can provide an important safeguard against allegations of arbitrary treatment.

Restrictions on courtroom access are not necessarily unlawful, particularly when authorities can demonstrate genuine security risks. However, departures from the principle of open justice generally require clear justification and should not become routine.

The High Court's scrutiny could now determine whether the existing arrangements provide sufficient safeguards for defendants while addressing legitimate security concerns.

At the centre of the dispute is a fundamental principle: technological or security measures may change how a hearing is conducted, but they cannot be allowed to make justice effectively invisible. The proceedings are expected to continue as authorities respond to the concerns raised by the court.