LEGAL ISSUE: Implementation of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers.

CASE TYPE: Criminal.

Case Name: Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

[Judgment Date]: 11 January 2022

Date of the Judgment: 11 January 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Surya Kant, J.

How can the justice system ensure that vulnerable witnesses feel safe and comfortable while giving their testimony? The Supreme Court of India has been addressing this critical question for over two decades, emphasizing the need for a barrier-free environment for vulnerable witnesses. This judgment directs all High Courts to establish Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) to facilitate a conducive environment for recording the statements of vulnerable witnesses. The bench comprised of Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant.

Case Background

The Supreme Court has been actively involved in creating a safe and barrier-free environment for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses for over two decades. This concern was initially highlighted in the case of Sakshi v. Union of India, where the Court issued directions to protect vulnerable witnesses during trials. Further, in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat, the Court emphasized the need for special centers to examine vulnerable witnesses. The present case arises from a miscellaneous application seeking to ensure the effective implementation of these prior directions. The Court had issued notice to all the High Courts, and based on the material placed before the Court by the amicus curiae, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, the Court issued further directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Timeline

Date Event
1996 Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh regarding vulnerable witnesses.
2004 Supreme Court decision in Sakshi v. Union of India, issuing directions for protecting vulnerable witnesses.
24 October 2017 Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat, directing the setting up of special centers for vulnerable witnesses.
25 October 2021 Amicus curiae, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, presents a tabulated statement of the infrastructure status in various High Courts.
11 January 2022 Supreme Court issues further directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to implement VWDCs.

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the need for effective implementation of previous directions regarding vulnerable witness protection. The Court issued notices to all High Courts, seeking updates on the establishment of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs). Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, the amicus curiae, presented a detailed report on the status of VWDCs across various High Courts. Based on the material presented and the responses from the High Courts, the Supreme Court issued further directions under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure the implementation of VWDCs across the country.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several legal provisions and previous judgments to support its directions. These include:

  • Section 327(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

    This provision allows for trials to be held in camera in certain cases, including those involving sexual assault. The Court has extended this to include offences under Section 354 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

    “The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 327 CrPC shall, in addition to the offences mentioned in the sub-section, also apply in inquiry or trial of offences under Sections 354 and 377 IPC.”
  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India:

    The Court emphasized that the dignity of a person, which is an intrinsic element of Article 21, cannot be left to insensitive procedures. Access to justice mandates positive steps to create a barrier-free environment for vulnerable witnesses.
  • Section 2(s) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017:

    This defines “mental illness” and is relevant to identifying vulnerable witnesses.
  • Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

    This provision relates to who can testify as a witness.
  • The Witness Protection Scheme 2018:

    This scheme provides protection to witnesses who have a threat perception.
  • Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012:

    This section defines a child and is relevant in cases of child sexual abuse.

The Court also referred to previous judgments, such as Sakshi v. Union of India and State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat, which laid the foundation for the current directions.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court primarily focused on the need for effective implementation of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) across the country.

  • Amicus Curiae’s Submissions:

    • The amicus curiae, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, presented a detailed report outlining the status of VWDCs in various High Courts.
    • The report highlighted that while some High Courts had made progress in establishing VWDCs, many others were lagging behind.
    • The amicus curiae emphasized the need for a uniform and comprehensive approach to ensure that vulnerable witnesses across the country have access to a safe and conducive environment for giving their testimony.
    • The amicus curiae also proposed specific guidelines for the functioning of VWDCs, drawing from the best practices adopted by the High Court of Delhi.
  • High Courts’ Responses:

    • Several High Courts submitted status reports detailing the steps taken by them to establish VWDCs.
    • Some High Courts highlighted the challenges they faced in setting up VWDCs, such as lack of infrastructure and financial constraints.
    • Some High Courts also sought clarification on the definition of “vulnerable witness” and the specific guidelines to be followed.
Main Submissions Sub-Submissions
Need for Effective Implementation of VWDCs
  • Status of VWDCs in various High Courts
  • Progress made by some High Courts
  • Lags in implementation by other High Courts
Uniform and Comprehensive Approach
  • Need for a uniform approach across the country
  • Access to a safe and conducive environment for all vulnerable witnesses
Guidelines for Functioning of VWDCs
  • Proposed guidelines based on best practices of Delhi High Court
Challenges Faced by High Courts
  • Lack of infrastructure
  • Financial constraints
  • Need for clarification on definition of vulnerable witness
  • Need for clarification on specific guidelines
See also  Supreme Court Addresses Promotion Quotas in Central Secretariat Service: Pankaj Kr. Mishra vs. Union of India (2018)

The innovativeness of the arguments lay in the comprehensive approach and the emphasis on the need for a uniform implementation of VWDCs across the country, ensuring that all vulnerable witnesses have access to a safe and conducive environment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issues that the Court addressed were:

  • The need to expand the definition of “vulnerable witness” to include a wider range of individuals.
  • The necessity for all High Courts to adopt and notify a Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres Scheme.
  • The importance of setting up a permanent VWDC Committee in each High Court for continuous supervision.
  • The requirement for each High Court to estimate the costs for setting up VWDCs.
  • The need for periodic training programs for those managing and manning the VWDCs.
  • The need for State Governments to sanction the requisite funds for the establishment of VWDCs.
  • The need for setting up at least one permanent VWDC in every District Court establishment.
  • The potential use of ADR Centers for establishing VWDCs.
  • The role of NALSA and SLSAs in implementing sensitization and training programs.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Issue Court’s Decision
Expanding the definition of “vulnerable witness” The Court expanded the definition to include age-neutral victims of sexual assault, gender-neutral victims of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, victims under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, witnesses suffering from mental illness, witnesses with threat perception, and individuals with disabilities.
Adoption of VWDC Scheme by High Courts The Court directed all High Courts to adopt and notify a Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres Scheme within two months, with modifications if necessary, based on the Delhi High Court scheme.
Setting up a permanent VWDC Committee The Court directed each High Court to set up an in-house permanent VWDC Committee for continuous supervision and periodic assessment of VWDCs.
Estimation of costs for setting up VWDCs The Court directed each High Court to estimate costs for manpower and infrastructure to set up at least one permanent VWDC in every District Court establishment.
Periodic training programs for VWDCs The Court constituted a Committee chaired by Justice Ms. Gita Mittal to devise and implement an All India VWDC Training Programme.
Sanction of funds by State Governments The Court directed State Governments to sanction the requisite funds within three months of the submission of the proposal by the High Court.
Setting up permanent VWDCs in District Courts The Court directed High Courts to ensure that at least one permanent VWDC is set up in every District Court establishment within four months.
Use of ADR Centers for VWDCs The Court allowed High Courts to use ADR Centers for VWDCs to secure a safe environment.
Role of NALSA and SLSAs The Court requested the Chairperson of the Committee to engage with NALSA and SLSAs for effective implementation of the training scheme.

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Authority Legal Point How the authority was used
Sakshi v. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 518] – Supreme Court of India Protection of vulnerable witnesses The Court referred to the directions issued in this case regarding the protection of vulnerable witnesses during trials, including the use of screens and breaks during testimony.
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384] – Supreme Court of India Protection of vulnerable witnesses The Court referred to this case as the initial decision which contained directions regarding protection of vulnerable witnesses.
State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat [(2018) 11 SCC 163] – Supreme Court of India Setting up of special centers for vulnerable witnesses The Court referred to the directions issued in this case for setting up “special centers for examination of vulnerable witnesses” and emphasized the need for a conducive environment for recording statements.
Clause 3(a) of the ‘Guidelines for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in criminal matters’ of the High Court of Delhi Definition of “vulnerable witness” The Court used this definition as a basis for expanding the scope of “vulnerable witness” to include various categories of individuals.
Section 273 and 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Trial of sexual assault cases The Court referred to these sections in the context of age-neutral victims of sexual assault.
Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sexual assault The Court included age-neutral victims of sexual assault under this section in the definition of vulnerable witness.
Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Definition of a child The Court referred to this section in the context of gender-neutral victims of sexual assault.
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Unnatural offences The Court included age and gender-neutral victims of sexual assault under this section in the definition of vulnerable witness.
Section 2(s) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 Definition of mental illness The Court referred to this definition in the context of vulnerable witnesses suffering from mental illness.
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Competency of witnesses The Court referred to this section in the context of vulnerable witnesses suffering from mental illness.
Witness Protection Scheme 2018 Protection of witnesses The Court included witnesses with threat perception under this scheme in the definition of vulnerable witness.
Mahender Chawla v Union of India [(2019) 14 SCC 615] – Supreme Court of India Witness Protection Scheme 2018 The Court referred to this case, which approved the Witness Protection Scheme 2018.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds 1934 Constitution in Malankara Church Disputes: K.S. Varghese & Ors. vs. St. Peter’s & Paul’s Syrian Orth. & Ors. (2017)

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment focused on ensuring that vulnerable witnesses have a safe and conducive environment for giving their testimony. The Court’s approach was to build upon previous directions and provide specific guidelines for the implementation of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs).

Submission by the Parties How the Court Treated the Submission
Need to expand the definition of “vulnerable witness” The Court accepted this submission and expanded the definition to include age-neutral victims of sexual assault, gender-neutral victims of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, victims under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, witnesses suffering from mental illness, witnesses with threat perception, and individuals with disabilities.
Need for a uniform VWDC scheme across all High Courts The Court directed all High Courts to adopt and notify a Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres Scheme within two months, with modifications if necessary, based on the Delhi High Court scheme.
Need for continuous monitoring of VWDCs The Court directed each High Court to set up an in-house permanent VWDC Committee for continuous supervision and periodic assessment of VWDCs.
Need for financial resources to set up VWDCs The Court directed each High Court to estimate costs for manpower and infrastructure to set up at least one permanent VWDC in every District Court establishment, and directed the State Governments to sanction the requisite funds.
Need for training of personnel managing VWDCs The Court constituted a Committee chaired by Justice Ms. Gita Mittal to devise and implement an All India VWDC Training Programme.
Need for setting up of VWDCs in every District Court The Court directed High Courts to ensure that at least one permanent VWDC is set up in every District Court establishment within four months.

The Court’s treatment of the authorities is as follows:

  • Sakshi v. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 518]*: The Court followed the directions issued in this case regarding the protection of vulnerable witnesses during trials.
  • State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384]*: The Court referred to this case as the initial decision which contained directions regarding protection of vulnerable witnesses.
  • State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat [(2018) 11 SCC 163]*: The Court followed the directions issued in this case for setting up “special centers for examination of vulnerable witnesses” and emphasized the need for a conducive environment for recording statements.
  • Mahender Chawla v Union of India [(2019) 14 SCC 615]*: The Court referred to this case, which approved the Witness Protection Scheme 2018.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a strong commitment to ensuring access to justice and upholding the dignity of vulnerable witnesses. The Court’s reasoning emphasized the need for a safe and barrier-free environment for recording the statements of these witnesses. The Court highlighted that the dignity of a person, which is an intrinsic element of Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be left to the vagaries of insensitive procedures and a hostile environment. The Court also recognized the practical challenges in implementing VWDCs and provided specific directions to address these challenges.

Sentiment Percentage
Dignity of Vulnerable Witnesses 30%
Access to Justice 25%
Need for Safe Environment 20%
Implementation Challenges 15%
Constitutional Mandate 10%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 30%
Law 70%

The Court’s reasoning was influenced more by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects of the case (30%).

Need for Safe Environment for Vulnerable Witnesses

↓

Review of Previous Directions and Status Reports

↓

Expansion of the Definition of “Vulnerable Witness”

↓

Direction to High Courts to Adopt VWDC Scheme

↓

Establishment of Permanent VWDC Committees

↓

Estimation of Costs and Sanction of Funds

↓

Implementation of Training Programs

↓

Setting up of VWDCs in District Courts

The Court considered the alternative of allowing High Courts to implement VWDCs at their own pace. However, this was rejected in favor of a more structured approach with specific timelines and guidelines to ensure uniform implementation across the country. The Court also considered the financial implications of setting up VWDCs but emphasized that the need for a safe environment for vulnerable witnesses outweighs the financial constraints.

The Court’s decision can be summarized as follows:

  • The definition of “vulnerable witness” has been expanded to include various categories of individuals.
  • All High Courts are directed to adopt and notify a Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres Scheme within two months.
  • Each High Court must set up a permanent VWDC Committee for continuous supervision.
  • High Courts must estimate the costs for setting up VWDCs and State Governments must sanction the funds.
  • A Committee chaired by Justice Ms. Gita Mittal will devise and implement an All India VWDC Training Programme.
  • At least one permanent VWDC must be set up in every District Court establishment within four months.

The Court’s reasoning is supported by the following quotes from the judgment:

“The dignity of person, which is an intrinsic element of Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be left to the vagaries of insensitive procedures and a hostile environment.”

“Access to justice mandates that positive steps have to be adopted to create a barrier free environment.”

“There is a pressing need to facilitate the salutary purpose underlying the creation of a barrier free environment where depositions can be recorded freely without constraining limitations, both physical and emotional.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this judgment.

The judgment has significant implications for future cases involving vulnerable witnesses, as it provides a clear framework for ensuring their protection and dignity. The establishment of VWDCs will create a more conducive environment for recording statements, which will likely lead to more accurate and reliable testimonies.

See also  Supreme Court clarifies Assured Career Progression (ACP) eligibility for Accounts Clerks: Amresh Kumar Sinha & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (25 April 2023)

The judgment introduces a more comprehensive definition of “vulnerable witness” and mandates the establishment of VWDCs, which will significantly impact the way vulnerable witnesses are treated in court proceedings.

Key Takeaways

  • All High Courts must establish Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) within a specified timeframe.
  • The definition of “vulnerable witness” has been expanded to include a wider range of individuals.
  • State Governments are required to provide the necessary financial support for the establishment of VWDCs.
  • Training programs will be implemented to sensitize all stakeholders involved in the process.
  • The judgment aims to create a more accessible and dignified justice system for vulnerable witnesses.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

  1. The definition of “vulnerable witness” has been expanded.
  2. The High Courts shall adopt and notify a Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres Scheme within a period of two months.
  3. Every High Court should set up an in-house permanent VWDC Committee.
  4. Every High Court is requested to make an estimation of costs towards manpower and infrastructure required to set up at least one permanent VWDC in every establishment of the District Court.
  5. A Committee chaired by Justice Ms Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, has been constituted to devise and implement an All India VWDC Training Programme.
  6. The State Government shall expeditiously sanction the requisite funds within a period of three months from the date of the submission of the proposal.
  7. The High Courts shall ensure that at least one permanent VWDC is set up in every District Court establishment within a period of four months.
  8. The High Courts would be at liberty to ensure that the VWDC is made available within the premises of the ADR Centre.
  9. The Chairperson of the Committee appointed by this Court is requested to engage with NALSA and SLSAs.
  10. The Hon’ble Chief Justices of the High Courts would be at liberty to take all appropriate steps either on the administrative side or on the judicial side in furtherance of the present directions and to monitor compliance on a periodic basis.
  11. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi is requested to make available a work space/room for the office of the VDWC Committee Training Centre and requisite staff.
  12. The Ministry of Women and Child Development of the Union Government shall designate a nodal officer for coordinating the implementation of these directions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court has mandated the establishment of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) across the country, with specific guidelines and timelines for implementation. This judgment expands the definition of “vulnerable witness” and provides a framework for ensuring a safe and conducive environment for recording their testimony. This represents a significant change in the previous position of law, which had not provided a uniform and comprehensive approach to the protection of vulnerable witnesses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. is a landmark decision that mandates the establishment of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) across the country. The judgment expands the definition of “vulnerable witness,” provides specific directions for implementation, and emphasizes the need for a safe and barrier-free environment for recording the statements of these witnesses. This decision is a significant step towards ensuring access to justice and upholding the dignity of vulnerable witnesses in India.

Category

  • Criminal Law
    • Vulnerable Witness
    • Witness Protection
    • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
      • Section 327, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
    • Indian Penal Code, 1860
      • Section 354, Indian Penal Code, 1860
      • Section 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860
    • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
      • Section 2(d), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
    • Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
      • Section 2(s), Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
    • Indian Evidence Act, 1872
      • Section 118, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
  • Constitutional Law
    • Article 21, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What is a Vulnerable Witness Deposition Center (VWDC)?

A: A VWDC is a special center designed to provide a safe and comfortable environment for vulnerable witnesses to give their testimony in court.

Q: Who is considered a vulnerable witness?

A: According to this judgment, avulnerable witness includes age-neutral victims of sexual assault, gender-neutral victims of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, victims under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, witnesses suffering from mental illness, witnesses with threat perception, and individuals with disabilities.

Q: What are the main directions issued by the Supreme Court?

A: The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to establish VWDCs, adopt a VWDC scheme, set up a permanent VWDC committee, estimate costs for setting up VWDCs, implement training programs, and ensure that at least one VWDC is set up in every District Court establishment.

Q: How will the VWDCs be funded?

A: The State Governments are required to sanction the necessary funds for the establishment of VWDCs within three months of the High Court submitting the proposal.

Q: What is the timeline for setting up VWDCs?

A: The High Courts are directed to adopt and notify a VWDC scheme within two months, and at least one permanent VWDC must be set up in every District Court establishment within four months.

Q: What is the role of the Committee chaired by Justice Ms. Gita Mittal?

A: The Committee is responsible for devising and implementing an All India VWDC Training Programme.

Q: What is the role of NALSA and SLSAs?

A: The Chairperson of the Committee is requested to engage with NALSA and SLSAs for effective implementation of the training scheme.

Q: Can ADR Centers be used for VWDCs?

A: Yes, the High Courts are at liberty to ensure that the VWDC is made available within the premises of the ADR Centre.

Source: Supreme Court Directs Nationwide Implementation of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers