The magistrate's order was challenged by advocates D K Mishra and Poonam Kaushik, seeking setting aside of the decision for an in-camera hearing and had alleged that the courtroom was crowded because of the presence of a large number of policemen.
In their application moved on behalf of "the concerned lawyers and the citizens of the country," the advocates had said, "Passing the order, the metropolitan magistrate has cast a number of apprehensions and allegations on lawyers and mediapersons assembled there, being the representatives of nation who have been hurt.
"The whole nation is interested in knowing the proceedings of the case. In-camera trial cannot be done at the stage of pre-trial. It could have been done after case is committed to sessions court."
The police had earlier filed an application for in-camera proceedings in the case before the magistrate under section 327 (2) and (3) of the CrPC.
The Delhi police had also issued an advisory on January 5, saying the proceedings in the case cannot be reported as the court has already taken cognisance of the charge sheet.
The magisterial court on January 5 had taken cognisance of the chargesheet against the five adult accused under sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 376 (2)(g) (gang-rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 395 (dacoity), 396 (murder in dacoity), 201 (destruction of evidence), 394 (hurting in dacoity), 120-B (conspiracy), 34(common intention) and 412 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the IPC.
The case of the sixth accused -- a minor -- is being heard by a Juvenile Justice Board.
The victim, a paramedical student, was raped and assaulted in a moving bus in New Delhi on the night of December 16 and died of her injuries on December 29 in multi-speciality Mount Elizabeth Hospital in Singapore.HALL OF SHAME! 15 worst gaffes on rape incidents
Delhi gang-rape: Time to instil the fear of law
After bus ride, Mantriji agrees Delhi roads are unsafe
This is not my good-old Delhi Police: Kiran Bedi
A woman alone in the forest