Witness Protection Schemes In India
๐ What is Witness Protection?
Witness protection refers to legal and procedural measures to ensure the safety, anonymity, and integrity of witnesses during criminal investigations, trials, and even post-trial phases. It is crucial in ensuring:
Free and fearless testimony
Protection from threats, intimidation, or harm
Fair trial and justice delivery
๐ Legal Basis for Witness Protection in India
| Source | Provision |
|---|---|
| Constitution | Article 21 โ Right to life includes right to live without fear. |
| Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) | Sections 161, 164, 327 โ Relate to examination and protection of witnesses. |
| Indian Evidence Act | Section 132 โ Protection from self-incrimination. |
| Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 | Approved by the Supreme Court as enforceable law. |
| Police Acts / State Rules | Some states have their own witness protection rules. |
๐ Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 โ Key Features
Formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs and enforced through the Supreme Court judgment in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018).
๐น Salient Features:
Three categories of threat perception:
Category A: Threat to life of witness/family.
Category B: Threat to safety, reputation, or property.
Category C: Moderate threats during trial.
Protection measures include:
Identity change
Relocation
In-camera proceedings
Police escort/security
Installation of security gadgets
Holding trials via video conferencing
District Witness Protection Committee (DWPC):
Chaired by District & Sessions Judge.
Includes SP and DCP.
Witness Protection Fund:
Funded by state government and legal aid funds.
โ๏ธ Important Case Laws on Witness Protection
โ๏ธ 1. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (Best Bakery Case)
(2006) 3 SCC 374
๐น Facts:
Zahira turned hostile in court after receiving threats in the high-profile Best Bakery communal riot case.
๐งพ Judgment:
Supreme Court condemned the collapse of justice due to lack of witness protection.
Stated that a fair trial includes protecting witnesses from threats and coercion.
Directed stronger mechanisms for protecting and rehabilitating witnesses.
โ Importance:
One of the earliest strong calls for institutional witness protection.
Introduced the concept of โwitness hostility due to threatโ in mainstream legal discourse.
โ๏ธ 2. Mahender Chawla v. Union of India
(2019) 14 SCC 615
๐น Facts:
Petitioners were facing threats after testifying against a godman. They sought protection.
๐งพ Judgment:
Supreme Court approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 as law of the land under Article 141.
Directed all states and union territories to implement it.
Recognized witness protection as part of Article 21 (Right to life).
โ Importance:
Landmark judgment that gave statutory force to the 2018 scheme.
Judicially enforceable right to protection for witnesses was born.
โ๏ธ 3. Neelam Katara v. Union of India
(2003) (Del HC)
๐น Facts:
Neelam Kataraโs son was murdered by a politicianโs son. Witnesses turned hostile during trial due to pressure.
๐งพ Judgment:
Delhi High Court emphasized the necessity of a strong witness protection system.
Suggested in-camera trials, change of identity, and relocation for vulnerable witnesses.
โ Importance:
Early judicial call for comprehensive legislative action on witness protection.
Helped influence later policy decisions and the 2018 scheme.
โ๏ธ 4. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai
(2003) 4 SCC 601
๐น Facts:
Concerned recording of evidence via video conferencing when a witness was abroad.
๐งพ Judgment:
Supreme Court allowed video conferencing as a valid mode of testimony.
Acknowledged the need for modern technology to protect witness identity and safety.
โ Importance:
Enabled use of remote testimony as a protective measure.
Influenced the Witness Protection Scheme provision for video conferencing.
โ๏ธ 5. Sakshi v. Union of India
(2004) 5 SCC 518
๐น Facts:
Involved a PIL seeking protection and procedural safeguards for victims/witnesses in sexual assault cases.
๐งพ Judgment:
Directed that victim/witness should not be exposed to the accused during trial.
Suggested use of screens, in-camera proceedings, and video conferencing.
โ Importance:
Focused on sensitive witness protection in sexual offence cases.
Reinforced the psychological protection aspect of witness safety.
โ๏ธ 6. NHRC v. State of Gujarat (2009 SC Judgment on Bilkis Bano Case)
๐น Facts:
Bilkis Bano and her family were victims of gangrape and mass murder during Gujarat riots. Witnesses faced repeated threats.
๐งพ Judgment:
Supreme Court criticised the state machinery for failing to protect witnesses.
Directed relocation and long-term security for all key witnesses.
โ Importance:
Reinforced the obligation of the state to proactively protect witnesses, especially in communal and sensitive cases.
๐ง Key Takeaways
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Witness protection is part of Article 21 | Right to life includes right to testify without fear. |
| State has duty to ensure witness safety | Through physical, psychological, and procedural safeguards. |
| Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 is binding | Enforceable under Article 141 as declared by SC. |
| Modern tech can aid protection | Use of video conferencing, identity concealment, etc. |
| Failure to protect = failure of justice | Hostile witnesses and threats undermine the entire justice system. |
๐ Categories of Witness Protection
| Category | Type of Threat | Example of Protection |
|---|---|---|
| A | Threat to life | Relocation, armed security, anonymous identity |
| B | Threat to safety/reputation | Police escort, court entry control |
| C | Threat during trial | In-camera proceedings, screen between accused and witness |
๐ Conclusion
Witness protection is fundamental to the administration of justice. Without it, witnesses may turn hostile, evidence may be suppressed, and justice may be denied.
The judiciary has played a transformative role in establishing witness protection mechanisms in India. From the Best Bakery case to Mahender Chawla, the evolution has led to the formulation and implementation of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, now binding across all states.
This scheme, backed by judicial pronouncements, ensures that witnesses are no longer the forgotten stakeholders in our criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments