Supreme Court Enforces Witness Protection Scheme to Ensure Fair Trials

The case of Mahender Chawla & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. is a landmark ruling that establishes the need for witness protection in India’s criminal justice system. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated December 5, 2018, emphasized that witnesses are the backbone of justice and must be protected to ensure fair trials.

The petitioners had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, raising concerns over the safety and security of witnesses in criminal cases, particularly in high-profile matters where powerful accused individuals often intimidate or harm witnesses. The Court, recognizing the deficiencies in the current legal framework, approved and enforced the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 as law until appropriate legislation is enacted.

Background of the Case

The petitioners included individuals who had faced threats for testifying against the self-styled godman Asaram Bapu and his son Narayan Sai in cases of sexual assault. Several witnesses in these cases had been attacked, and at least three had been murdered. The petitioners argued that the absence of a witness protection mechanism had created a climate of fear, discouraging people from testifying truthfully in courts.

The Supreme Court noted that witness protection had been discussed in various Law Commission reports and earlier judgments but had never been systematically implemented. The absence of legal safeguards had resulted in frequent instances of witnesses turning hostile, leading to a significant number of acquittals.

Legal Issues Considered

The Supreme Court examined the following key issues:

• The role of witnesses in the criminal justice system and their vulnerability to threats and intimidation.
• The necessity of a structured witness protection program to ensure that justice is not compromised.
• The feasibility of implementing a standardized framework across all states and union territories in India.
• The constitutional validity of imposing the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, as law until legislation is enacted.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners contended:

• Many witnesses in high-profile cases are routinely threatened, leading to compromised trials.
• The right to testify in courts freely and fearlessly is a fundamental aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• Existing laws do not offer adequate safeguards, and an enforceable witness protection program is necessary.
• The government had failed to implement previous recommendations on witness protection, necessitating judicial intervention.

Arguments by the Government

The Union of India and various state governments responded:

• They acknowledged the need for a witness protection mechanism but argued that policymaking is a legislative function.
• The Ministry of Home Affairs had already prepared a draft Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, incorporating suggestions from various stakeholders.
• States and union territories needed time to examine and implement the scheme at the administrative level.
• Ensuring witness protection was a matter of governance, and a phased approach would be ideal.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and S. Abdul Nazeer, ruled in favor of implementing the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The Court observed:

• “The ability of a witness to testify in court without fear or intimidation is essential to the rule of law.”
• “The present legal system in India takes witnesses for granted. Many times, they are made to appear long after the crime has occurred, significantly hampering their ability to recall details.”
• “A witness protection program is necessary to ensure that justice is neither delayed nor denied due to fear or coercion.”
• “Until Parliament enacts a suitable law, the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, shall be considered law under Article 141 of the Constitution.”

Key Features of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018

The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, introduced by the Supreme Court, includes the following provisions:

• Threat Perception Assessment: The police will prepare a Threat Analysis Report for witnesses facing danger.
• Protection Measures: These include relocation, change of identity, in-camera trials, and police security.
• Witness Protection Fund: States will establish funds to support witness relocation and security measures.
• Non-Disclosure of Identity: Courts may allow anonymous testimonies in certain cases.
• Immediate Protection Orders: Authorities must act swiftly when a witness reports a threat.

Final Directions

The Supreme Court ordered:

• All states and union territories must implement the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, in letter and spirit.
• The scheme will be binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution until Parliament enacts legislation.
• Vulnerable witness deposition complexes must be established in all district courts within one year.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case is a significant step toward strengthening India’s criminal justice system. By enforcing the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, the Court has ensured that witnesses can testify without fear, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial process.

This judgment is expected to improve conviction rates in serious crimes, reduce instances of witnesses turning hostile, and reinforce public confidence in the legal system. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individuals who play a crucial role in delivering justice.

Petitioner Name: Mahender Chawla & Ors..
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 05-12-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Mahender Chawla & Or vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-12-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Declared Infructuous
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category