Supreme Court Expands Definition of Vulnerable Witnesses and Mandates Deposition Centers

LEGAL ISSUE: Defining “vulnerable witness” and ensuring a safe environment for their testimony.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Procedure

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

[Judgment Date]: 11 January 2022

Date of the Judgment: 11 January 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 392
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Surya Kant, J
Can the justice system better protect vulnerable witnesses during court proceedings? The Supreme Court of India has addressed this critical issue by expanding the definition of “vulnerable witnesses” and mandating the establishment of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) across the country. This judgment aims to create a more sensitive and secure environment for those who are most at risk during legal proceedings. The judgment was authored by Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, with a bench comprising of himself and Surya Kant, J.

Case Background

The Supreme Court has been actively working towards creating a safe and barrier-free environment for vulnerable witnesses for over two decades. This concern was initially addressed in the cases of Sakshi v. Union of India and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, where directions were issued to protect the dignity of vulnerable witnesses. More recently, in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat, the Court directed the establishment of “special centres for examination of vulnerable witnesses.” This led to the current case, where the Court reviewed the progress of these directions and issued further guidelines to ensure their effective implementation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the need for better implementation of its previous directions. The Court issued notices to all High Courts, and they appeared through their respective counsels. The Court reviewed the material presented, including a tabulated statement prepared by the amicus curiae, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, which detailed the infrastructure status of various High Courts concerning vulnerable witness deposition centers.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several key legal provisions and previous judgments to underscore the importance of protecting vulnerable witnesses:

• Section 327(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This provision allows for trials to be held in camera in certain cases, which was extended to include offences under Sections 354 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court emphasized that the dignity of a person is an intrinsic element of Article 21, and it cannot be left to insensitive procedures.
• Section 2(s) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: Used to define “mental illness” in the context of vulnerable witnesses.
• Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Related to the competency of witnesses.

The Court also referred to the Witness Protection Scheme 2018, approved in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, highlighting the need to protect witnesses who have a threat perception.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court focused on the need to expand the definition of vulnerable witnesses and ensure that deposition centers are established and functional across all districts. The amicus curiae presented a detailed report on the status of implementation of previous directions, highlighting the gaps and inconsistencies across different High Courts.

The arguments can be categorized as follows:

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the comprehensive approach to defining vulnerable witnesses, moving beyond child witnesses to include a broader range of individuals who may require special protection during court proceedings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed by the Court were:

• What constitutes a “vulnerable witness” in the context of criminal proceedings?
• What steps are necessary to ensure a safe and barrier-free environment for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses?
• How can the implementation of previous directions for the establishment of VWDCs be expedited and made more effective?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to support its decision:

The Court also referred to the following legal provisions:

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

• Sakshi v. Union of India [2004] 5 SCC 518: The Court followed the directions given in this case regarding in-camera trials and protection of vulnerable witnesses.
• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [1996] 2 SCC 384: The Court referred to this case as the basis for initial directions on protecting vulnerable witnesses.
• State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat [2018] 11 SCC 163: The Court reiterated the directions given in this case for setting up special centers for vulnerable witnesses.
• Mahender Chawla v. Union of India [2019] 14 SCC 615: The Court used this case to highlight the need to protect witnesses under threat, as per the Witness Protection Scheme 2018.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was deeply concerned with ensuring that the justice system is accessible and sensitive to the needs of vulnerable witnesses. The Court emphasized the importance of creating a barrier-free environment where witnesses can depose freely and without fear. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to uphold the dignity of every individual, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and constitutional mandates, with a strong emphasis on the practical implementation of these principles. The Court considered the factual context of the lack of infrastructure and the need for a more comprehensive approach to protecting vulnerable witnesses.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them in favor of a more inclusive and comprehensive approach. The final decision was aimed at ensuring that all vulnerable witnesses are protected and that their testimony is recorded in a safe and dignified manner.

The Court’s decision is based on the following reasons:

• The need to uphold the dignity of vulnerable witnesses as a part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The necessity to create a barrier-free environment for recording depositions.
• The importance of a fair trial and access to justice for all.
• The need to implement previous directions effectively.
• The recognition that vulnerable witnesses include various categories of individuals.

The Court quoted 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. The decision was unanimous.

The implications for future cases include a more sensitive and inclusive approach to handling vulnerable witnesses, ensuring that their rights are protected and that they feel safe while giving testimony.

The Court introduced the concept of expanding the definition of “vulnerable witness” to include various categories of individuals, which is a significant development in the jurisprudence relating to witness protection.

Key Takeaways

• The definition of “vulnerable witness” has been expanded to include age and gender-neutral victims of sexual assault, those with mental illnesses, and witnesses under threat.
• All High Courts are required to establish Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) in every district.
• State Governments are mandated to provide the necessary funds for the establishment of VWDCs.
• Training programs will be conducted for judicial officers, members of the Bar, and court staff to sensitize them on handling vulnerable witnesses.
• The judgment aims to create a more sensitive and barrier-free environment for vulnerable witnesses in court proceedings.

The judgment is expected to have a significant impact on how vulnerable witnesses are treated in court proceedings, ensuring that their rights are protected and that they can testify without fear.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The definition of “vulnerable witness” is expanded to include various categories.
2. High Courts shall adopt and notify a Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres Scheme within 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.
5. A Committee chaired by Justice Ms Gita Mittal is constituted to devise and implement an All India VWDC Training Programme.
6. State Governments shall sanction the requisite funds within three months.
7. The High Courts shall ensure that at least one permanent VWDC is set up in every District Court within four months.
8. High Courts can ensure that the VWDC is made available within the premises of the ADR Centre, where available.
9. NALSA and SLSAs have a vital stake and role in devising and implementing sensitization and training programmes.
10. The Chief Justices of the High Courts would be at liberty to take all appropriate steps to monitor compliance.
11. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi is requested to make available a workspace for the office of the VWDC Committee Training Centre.
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 definition of “vulnerable witness” must be expanded to ensure that all individuals who require special protection during court proceedings are covered. This judgment also mandates the establishment of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) across all districts, marking a significant change in the law and procedure related to witness protection. This is a change from the previous position of law, which did not have such a broad definition of vulnerable witnesses and did not mandate the establishment of VWDCs in all districts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. is a landmark decision that expands the definition of “vulnerable witnesses” and mandates the establishment of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) across India. This ruling aims to create a more sensitive and secure environment for vulnerable witnesses, ensuring their dignity and facilitating a fair trial. The Court’s directions are a significant step towards a more inclusive and just legal system.