Supreme Court Directs Nationwide Implementation of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers: Smruti Tukaram Badade vs. State of Maharashtra (2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Ensuring a safe and barrier-free environment for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Procedure

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

[Judgment Date]: January 11, 2022

Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 30

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

How can the justice system ensure that vulnerable witnesses, especially children and victims of sexual assault, can testify without fear or intimidation? The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, addresses this critical question by issuing comprehensive directions for the establishment of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) across the country. This decision aims to create a more supportive and dignified environment for vulnerable witnesses, ensuring their access to justice.

The bench comprised of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant. The judgment was authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The Supreme Court has been actively involved in ensuring a safe environment for vulnerable witnesses for over two decades. The Court has previously issued directions in cases like Sakshi v. Union of India and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh. These directions aimed to protect the dignity of vulnerable witnesses and ensure that their testimony is recorded in a conducive environment.

In 2018, the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat, directed the establishment of “special centres for examination of vulnerable witnesses” to create a more supportive environment. The Court also noted the guidelines issued by the High Court of Delhi for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses, which included setting up special centers.

This present case arises from a Miscellaneous Application in a Criminal Appeal, where the Court is further addressing the implementation of these previous directions by examining the current status of VWDCs across India.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the need for better infrastructure for vulnerable witnesses. The Court issued notices to all High Courts, and they appeared through their Counsel. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, amicus curiae, presented a detailed report on the infrastructure status of various High Courts as of October 25, 2021. Based on these submissions and deliberations, the Court issued further directions under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Legal Framework

The judgment references several legal provisions and previous Supreme Court decisions that form the basis for the directions issued.

• Section 327(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This provision deals with the place of inquiry or trial. The Court notes that this provision should also apply to offences under Section 354 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the Court interprets to include the dignity of a person and the right to a fair trial.
• Section 2(s) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: This section defines “mental illness,” and the Court includes witnesses suffering from mental illness as vulnerable witnesses.
• Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with who may testify, and the Court uses it to include people with mental illness as vulnerable witnesses.
• Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: This section defines a child, and the Court expands the definition of vulnerable witnesses to include gender-neutral victims of sexual assault under this Act.

The Court emphasizes that the dignity of a person, which is an intrinsic element of Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be left to insensitive procedures. The Court also notes that access to justice requires positive steps to create a barrier-free environment.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Court were primarily focused on the current status of implementation of previous directions regarding VWDCs. The amicus curiae presented a detailed report highlighting the varying levels of implementation across different High Courts.

The core arguments revolved around the need to expand the definition of “vulnerable witness” and the necessity for a uniform and effective implementation of VWDC schemes across the country.

The High Courts, through their Counsel, provided updates on the status of VWDC implementation in their respective jurisdictions. Some High Courts had made significant progress, while others lagged behind.

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the comprehensive approach to defining vulnerable witnesses and the emphasis on the need for a coordinated, nationwide implementation strategy for VWDCs.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

• The need to expand the definition of “vulnerable witness” to include various categories beyond child witnesses.
• The necessity for a uniform and effective implementation of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres (VWDCs) across all High Courts.
• The requirement for financial and logistical support from State Governments for the establishment and maintenance of VWDCs.
• The importance of training and sensitization programs for all stakeholders involved in the process of recording evidence from vulnerable witnesses.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court addressed the issues:

Authorities

The Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court issued several directions to ensure the effective implementation of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) across the country.

The Court’s view on the authorities is as follows:

• Sakshi v. Union of India [CITATION] and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [CITATION]: The Court relied on these cases to reiterate the importance of creating a safe and barrier-free environment for vulnerable witnesses.
• State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the necessity of setting up special centers for vulnerable witnesses.
• The Court also relied on the guidelines framed by the Delhi High Court as a model for other High Courts to follow.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a strong commitment to ensuring the dignity and safety of vulnerable witnesses. The Court emphasized the importance of creating a barrier-free environment where witnesses can testify without fear or intimidation. The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need to protect the rights of vulnerable individuals, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also recognized the need for a uniform and comprehensive approach to implementing VWDC schemes across the country.

The following table shows the ranking of sentiment analysis of reasons given by the Supreme Court:

The following table shows the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide:

The court’s reasoning was as follows:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them in favor of a comprehensive approach to ensure the safety and dignity of vulnerable witnesses. The Court emphasized that a piecemeal approach would not be sufficient to address the systemic issues.

The decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the need for immediate and comprehensive action. The Court highlighted the following reasons for its decision:

• The need to protect the dignity of vulnerable witnesses, which is an intrinsic element of Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The necessity of creating a barrier-free environment where vulnerable witnesses can testify without fear or intimidation.
• The importance of ensuring a fair trial for all individuals, including those who are vulnerable.
• The requirement for a uniform and comprehensive approach to implementing VWDC schemes across the country.
• The need for financial and logistical support from State Governments to ensure the effective functioning of VWDCs.

The Court quoted the following 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 minority opinions in this case.

The Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving vulnerable witnesses. It establishes a clear framework for the establishment and operation of VWDCs, ensuring that vulnerable witnesses are treated with dignity and respect.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines but reinforced the existing principles of fair trial and the protection of vulnerable individuals.

Key Takeaways

• The definition of “vulnerable witness” has been expanded to include various categories, ensuring broader protection.
• All High Courts are mandated to establish Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) with specific guidelines.
• State Governments are required to provide financial and logistical support for the establishment and maintenance of VWDCs.
• Training programs will be conducted to sensitize all stakeholders involved in the process.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of creating a barrier-free environment for vulnerable witnesses, ensuring their access to justice.

The decision is expected to have a significant impact on the way vulnerable witnesses are treated in the Indian justice system. It is expected to lead to a more supportive and dignified environment for those who are most in need of protection.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The definition of “vulnerable witness” is expanded to include:
   • Age-neutral victims of sexual assault under Sections 273 and 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
   • Gender-neutral victims of sexual assault under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
   • Age and gender-neutral victims of sexual assault under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
   • Witnesses suffering from “mental illness” under Section 2(s) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
   • Witnesses with threat perception under the Witness Protection Scheme 2018.
   • Speech or hearing-impaired individuals or persons with other disabilities.
   • Any other witness deemed vulnerable by the court.
2. High Courts must adopt and notify a Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres Scheme within two months, using the Delhi High Court’s scheme as a reference.
3. Every High Court should set up an in-house permanent VWDC Committee to supervise implementation and assess the need for VWDCs.
4. High Courts are required to estimate the costs for manpower and infrastructure for VWDCs within three months.
5. A Committee chaired by Justice Ms. Gita Mittal will devise and implement an All India VWDC Training Programme.
6. State Governments must sanction funds for VWDCs within three months of the proposal or by the end of the financial year, whichever is earlier.
7. At least one permanent VWDC must be set up in every District Court establishment within four months.
8. High Courts may use ADR Centres for VWDCs where available.
9. NALSA and SLSAs are to be engaged in sensitization and training programs.
10. Chief Justices of High Courts are authorized to take necessary steps to monitor compliance.
11. The High Court of Delhi is requested to provide workspace and staff for the VWDC Committee Training Centre.
12. The Ministry of Women and Child Development will designate a nodal officer for coordinating the implementation and providing logistical support.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the definition of vulnerable witness has been expanded and directions have been given for the establishment of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) across the country. This judgment reinforces the existing principles of fair trial and the protection of vulnerable individuals and provides a comprehensive framework for the implementation of these principles. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but there is a clarification on the definition of vulnerable witness and a comprehensive plan for implementation of VWDCs.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Smruti Tukaram Badade vs. State of Maharashtra is a landmark decision that aims to create a more supportive and dignified environment for vulnerable witnesses. By expanding the definition of “vulnerable witness” and directing the establishment of VWDCs across the country, the Court has taken a significant step towards ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their vulnerability, have access to justice. This decision underscores the importance of protecting the rights and dignity of vulnerable individuals within the legal system.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Procedure

Child Category: Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers

Child Category: Section 327, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Category: Article 21, Constitution of India

Child Category: Section 354, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 2(d), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Child Category: Section 2(s), Mental Healthcare Act, 2017

Child Category: Section 118, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

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. These centers often include features like screens to shield the witness from the accused, separate waiting areas, and trained staff.

Q: Who is considered a “vulnerable witness” according to this judgment?

A: The Supreme Court has expanded the definition of “vulnerable witness” to include:
✓ Age-neutral victims of sexual assault.
✓ Gender-neutral victims of sexual assault.
✓ Witnesses suffering from mental illness.
✓ Witnesses with threat perception.
✓ Individuals with speech or hearing impairments or other disabilities.
✓ Any other witness deemed vulnerable by the court.

Q: What are the key directions issued by the Supreme Court in this judgment?

A: The Supreme Court has directed all High Courts to:
✓ Establish VWDCs in every district.
✓ Adopt and notify a VWDC scheme.
✓ Set up a permanent VWDC Committee.
✓ Estimate costs for infrastructure and manpower.
✓ Conduct training programs for stakeholders.
State Governments are also directed to provide financial support for these centers.

Q: How will this judgment impact the way vulnerable witnesses are treated in court?

A: This judgment aims to create a more supportive and dignified environment for vulnerable witnesses. By providing them with a safe space to testify, it is expected to reduce trauma and ensure that their testimony is given fairly and accurately.

Q: What is the role of the State Governments in implementing these directions?

A: State Governments are required to provide the necessary financial support and nominate a nodal officer to coordinate with the High Courts in establishing and maintaining VWDCs.