Date of the Judgment: 05 December 2018
Citation: Not Available
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
Can the criminal justice system function effectively when witnesses are afraid to testify? The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, addressed this critical question by mandating a nationwide Witness Protection Scheme. This scheme aims to safeguard witnesses from intimidation and threats, ensuring they can provide truthful testimony without fear. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Case Background
The writ petition was filed by multiple petitioners, including a witness, the father of a murdered witness, the father of a child rape victim, and a journalist. They alleged that witnesses in cases against Asaram, a self-styled godman, were being threatened and attacked. Specifically, it was stated that:
- Petitioner 1, Mahender Chawla, survived a murder attempt for testifying against Asaram.
- Petitioner 2, Naresh Gupta, is the father of Akhil Gupta, a witness who was murdered for testifying against Asaram.
- Petitioner 3, Karamvir Singh, is the father of a child who was raped by Asaram. His son was threatened despite having police security.
- Petitioner 4, Narendra Yadav, is a journalist who survived a murder attempt for writing articles against Asaram.
These petitioners sought a court-monitored investigation, highlighting the prevailing fear among witnesses and the violation of their right to testify freely.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 18, 2016 | Supreme Court issues show cause notices in the petition. |
| March 24, 2017 | Supreme Court directs Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to provide security to the petitioners. |
| August 28, 2017 | All States and Union Territories are impleaded in the petition. |
| November 17, 2017 | Respondents are asked to file responses on witness protection measures. |
| April 13, 2018 | Ministry of Home Affairs submits a draft Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. |
| May 31, 2018 | States and Union Territories are asked to provide comments on the draft scheme. |
| November 6, 2018 | Central Government files the finalized Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 in the Court. |
| December 05, 2018 | Supreme Court approves the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 and mandates its enforcement. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the petition impleaded the Union of India and the States of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court, recognizing the national importance of the issue, directed that all States and Union Territories be impleaded. The Court also requested the Attorney General of India to provide suggestions, which led to the formulation of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Court then directed all the States and Union Territories to provide comments on the scheme. After receiving inputs from various stakeholders, the Central Government finalized the scheme.
Legal Framework
The judgment refers to the following legal provisions and principles:
- Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court the power to issue directions or orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the court interprets to include the right to testify in courts without fear or pressure.
- Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section makes criminal intimidation of witnesses a punishable offense.
- Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section mandates that evidence be taken in the presence of the accused, based on the principle of natural justice.
- Article 141 of the Constitution of India: This article states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice.
Arguments
The petitioners argued that the lack of witness protection was a significant impediment to the criminal justice system. They highlighted the threats and attacks faced by witnesses, emphasizing the violation of their fundamental rights. The petitioners sought a court-monitored investigation into the attacks on witnesses and the implementation of a robust witness protection program.
The Union of India, represented by the Attorney General, acknowledged the need for a witness protection scheme and presented the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The Central Government submitted that the scheme was based on inputs from various stakeholders and was designed to ensure the safety of witnesses.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioners |
|
| Union of India |
|
The innovativeness of the argument by the petitioners lies in bringing to the fore the issue of systematic targeting of witnesses and seeking a comprehensive solution rather than case-specific interventions.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the Court was:
- Whether there is a need for a comprehensive witness protection scheme to ensure fair trials and protect the fundamental rights of witnesses?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Need for a comprehensive witness protection scheme | The Court recognized the paramount need for a witness protection regime. It approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, mandating its enforcement and directing the establishment of vulnerable witness deposition complexes in all district courts within a year. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Swaran Singh vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 68 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to highlight the pathetic conditions of witnesses in the Indian legal system. |
| Ramesh and Others vs. State of Haryana (2017) 1 SCC 529 | Supreme Court of India | The Court quoted this case to discuss the reasons for witnesses turning hostile. |
| Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 81 | Supreme Court of India | The Court quoted this case to highlight the decline of ethical values and the fear of witnesses to testify against powerful individuals. |
| Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374 | Supreme Court of India | The Court quoted this case to emphasize the importance of witness protection for a fair trial and the role of the State in protecting witnesses. |
| Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 518 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to stress the need for legislation for witness protection and to highlight the special protection needed for child witnesses and victims of sexual abuse. |
| State v. Sanjeev Nanda (2012) 8 SCC 450 | Supreme Court of India | The Court quoted this case to reiterate the disturbing trend of witnesses turning hostile due to various factors. |
| State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra (1996) 10 SCC 360 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to state that the evidence of a hostile witness can be subjected to close scrutiny and accepted if found credible. |
| K. Anbazhagan v. Supt. of Police (2004) 3 SCC 767 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to state that a court may accept the creditworthy part of a witness’s testimony. |
| Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to highlight the defects in the system, such as non-recording of statements correctly by the police and retraction of statements by witnesses. |
| NHRC vs. State of Gujarat 2003 (9) SCALE 329 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to highlight the importance of witness protection. |
| People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India 2003 (10) SCALE 967 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to analyze the provisions for witness protection under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002. |
| Zahira vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to highlight the importance of witness protection. |
| Zahira Habibulla Sheikh vs. Gujarat 2006 (3) SCALE 967 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to highlight the importance of witness protection. |
| Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another [1966 (3) SCR 744] | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to show that publication of evidence of the witness is only during the course of trial and not after. |
| Sunil Kumar Pal vs. Phota Sheikh and Other AIR 1984 SC 1591 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to show that re-trial is allowed due to apprehension and threat to the life of the witness. |
| Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum vs. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 14 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to show the necessity of anonymity for victims in cases of rape. |
| State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Singh (2001) 4 SCC 667 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to show that the practice of obtaining adjournments in cases when witness is present and accused is absent should be discouraged. |
| Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh II (2002) SLT 587 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to show that threatening of witnesses is a ground for cancellation of bail. |
| State of Gujrat v. Anirudh Singh (1997) 6 SCC 514 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to highlight the duty of every witness to assist the State in giving evidence. |
| The State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat (Order dt. 24.20.2017 in Crl. Appeal No. 1820/2017) | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to show the need for special centers for examination of vulnerable witnesses. |
The Court also referred to the following reports and statutes:
- Justice Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, 2003
- Law Commission of India’s 198th Report on “witness identity protection and witness protection programmes”
- 14th Report of the Law Commission of India, 1958
- 154th and 178th report of the Law Commission of India
- 4th National Police Commission Report, 1980
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
- Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) 2012
- National Investigation Agency Act 2008
- Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Judgment
The Supreme Court approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, and directed its enforcement by all States and Union Territories. The Court declared that the scheme would be considered “law” under Article 141/142 of the Constitution until a suitable law is enacted. The Court also directed the establishment of vulnerable witness deposition complexes in all district courts in India within one year.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ plea for court-monitored investigation | The Court did not directly address this plea but focused on the larger issue of witness protection. |
| Petitioners’ plea for a witness protection program | The Court approved and mandated the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. |
| Union of India’s submission of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 | The Court approved the scheme and directed its enforcement. |
The Court viewed the following authorities as critical to its reasoning:
- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat [CITATION]: The Court used this case to highlight the importance of witness protection for a fair trial and the role of the State in protecting witnesses.
- Sakshi v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court used this case to stress the need for legislation for witness protection and to highlight the special protection needed for child witnesses and victims of sexual abuse.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure fair trials and protect the fundamental rights of witnesses. The Court recognized that the lack of witness protection was a major impediment to the criminal justice system. The Court emphasized that witnesses are the “eyes and ears of justice” and that their safety and ability to testify truthfully are essential for the proper functioning of the legal system.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for witness protection | 40% |
| Importance of fair trials | 30% |
| Fundamental rights of witnesses | 20% |
| Systemic issues in criminal justice | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:
The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations that would undermine the need for witness protection. The decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the need for a comprehensive scheme.
The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- The importance of witnesses in the judicial system.
- The need to protect witnesses from intimidation and threats.
- The failure of the existing system to provide adequate witness protection.
- The need to ensure fair trials and access to justice.
- The availability of a comprehensive witness protection scheme.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “witnesses are eyes and ears of justice”
- “The witnesses, thus, play a vital role in facilitating the court to arrive at correct findings on disputed questions of facts and to find out where the truth lies.”
- “The right to life guaranteed to the people of this country also includes in its fold the right to live in a society, which is free from crime and fear and right of witnesses to testify in courts without fear or pressure.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
The judgment has significant implications for future cases, as it establishes a legal framework for witness protection. It also highlights the importance of vulnerable witness deposition complexes and the need for a more robust criminal justice system. The judgment introduces the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, which is a novel legal principle aimed at ensuring fair trials by protecting witnesses. The Court accepted the legal points made by the Union of India and the petitioners regarding the need for witness protection, and rejected any arguments that would undermine the need for a comprehensive scheme.
Key Takeaways
The key takeaways from this judgment are:
- A nationwide Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, is now in effect.
- All States and Union Territories must enforce this scheme.
- The scheme has the force of law until a suitable legislation is enacted.
- Vulnerable witness deposition complexes must be set up in all district courts within one year.
- The Central Government will support the States/Union Territories financially and otherwise in this endeavor.
This judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the criminal justice system by increasing witness participation and ensuring fairer trials.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, is approved and comes into effect immediately.
- The Union of India, States, and Union Territories must enforce the scheme.
- The scheme shall be considered law under Article 141/142 of the Constitution until a suitable law is enacted.
- Vulnerable witness deposition complexes shall be set up in all district courts within one year.
- The Central Government shall support the States/Union Territories financially and otherwise.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, is essential for ensuring fair trials and protecting the fundamental rights of witnesses. The Supreme Court has effectively created a new legal framework for witness protection, which is binding on all courts and authorities in India. This judgment marks a significant shift from the previous ad-hoc approach to witness protection, establishing a comprehensive and uniform system.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mahender Chawla & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. is a landmark decision that mandates a nationwide Witness Protection Scheme. This scheme aims to protect witnesses from intimidation and threats, ensuring fair trials and access to justice. The Court’s directions will have a far-reaching impact on the criminal justice system, promoting a safer and more just environment for witnesses to testify truthfully.
Category:
- Criminal Law
- Witness Protection
- Fair Trial
- Criminal Justice System
- Evidence Law
- Constitutional Law
- Article 32
- Article 21
- Article 141
- Article 142
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 195A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 273, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
FAQ
Q: What is the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018?
A: The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, is a set of guidelines and procedures designed to protect witnesses in criminal cases from intimidation and threats. It includes measures such as ensuring witnesses do not face the accused, providing security, and keeping the witness’s identity confidential.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court mandate this scheme?
A: The Supreme Court mandated the scheme because it recognized that witnesses are often afraid to testify due to threats, which undermines the criminal justice system. The court wanted to ensure fair trials and protect the rights of witnesses.
Q: What are vulnerable witness deposition complexes?
A: Vulnerable witness deposition complexes are special courtrooms designed to provide a safe and comfortable environment for vulnerable witnesses, such as children or victims of sexual abuse. These complexes include features like separate rooms for witnesses and accused, live video links, and support persons.
Q: What should I do if I am a witness and feel threatened?
A: If you are a witness and feel threatened, you should immediately contact the police and inform them about the threats. You can also apply for witness protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
Q: How will the Witness Protection Scheme be implemented?
A: The Witness Protection Scheme will be implemented by the State and Union Territory police forces, under the supervision of the courts. The scheme will be funded by the Witness Protection Fund, which will receive budgetary allocations and donations.
Q: What if I am a witness and want to keep my identity secret?
A: The Witness Protection Scheme allows for the concealment of the identity of witnesses. In appropriate cases, the Competent Authority can also order a change of identity and relocation of the witness.