Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court, acting suo motu, laid down extensive guidelines for identifying, classifying, and protecting vulnerable witnesses in criminal trials. The Court directed that every trial court must proactively assess the risk to witnesses and adopt protective measures, including in-camera proceedings, non-disclosure of identity, use of screens or video-conferencing, and restricted cross-examination protocols. The judgment mandates the creation of a dedicated Witness Protection Cell in Delhi, aligned with the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, approved by the Supreme Court.
The Court emphasised that the right to fair trial under Article 21 extends equally to the accused and witnesses, and protecting witnesses—especially victims of sexual offences, children, whistleblowers, and those testifying against organised crime—is integral to the criminal justice system’s credibility.
Facts
The proceedings began when the High Court took cognisance of repeated incidents where witnesses in sensitive cases were intimidated, harassed, or silenced. Reports indicated that witnesses in cases involving sexual offences, gang violence, terrorism, and political corruption were particularly at risk.
The Court reviewed the functioning of existing witness protection mechanisms and found significant gaps, including lack of uniformity in implementation, inadequate infrastructure for video-conferencing, absence of standardised training for court staff, and delayed decision-making on protection requests.
This prompted the Court to initiate a suo motu PIL to address systemic issues, examine best practices from other jurisdictions, and evolve a comprehensive set of enforceable directions for Delhi’s criminal courts.
Issues
- Whether existing witness protection measures in Delhi were adequate to safeguard vulnerable witnesses and ensure truthful testimony.
- What classification criteria should be applied to identify “vulnerable witnesses” beyond the categories already recognised under the law.
- How trial courts should integrate witness protection into criminal proceedings without infringing the accused’s right to a fair trial.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The amicus curiae submitted that the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, though binding, lacked effective implementation in Delhi due to inadequate institutional mechanisms. He highlighted the need for:
- Expanding the definition of “vulnerable witnesses” to include whistleblowers, persons with disabilities, and witnesses in cases of caste-based violence.
- Setting up a dedicated Witness Protection Cell within Delhi Police to coordinate with courts.
- Providing judicial training for assessing witness vulnerability.
- Ensuring infrastructure for real-time audio-video linkage from secure locations.
The amicus stressed that without systemic reforms, witnesses would continue to turn hostile, undermining public faith in the justice system.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Delhi Government and Police assured the Court of their willingness to comply with strengthened guidelines. They stated that Delhi already has certain facilities like witness examination rooms, but admitted these were inadequate and unevenly distributed. They agreed that classification of vulnerability should be broadened and that protocols for in-camera proceedings, identity protection, and safe transportation of witnesses were necessary.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, noting that witness protection is essential to the administration of justice. It relied on Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and various provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, which permit in-camera trials and restriction of identity disclosure in certain offences.
Referring to the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, as approved in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018) 14 SCC 615, the Court held that the scheme forms part of the law under Article 141 and is binding on all states and UTs. However, implementation in Delhi required specific court-monitored measures and standard operating procedures.
Precedent Analysis
- Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018) – Supreme Court approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, making it binding nationwide.
- State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003) – Recognised evidence by video-conferencing as valid.
- Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) – Laid down protective measures for child witnesses in sexual offence cases.
- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) – Stressed the importance of protecting witnesses to ensure fair trials.
- National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat (2009) – Directed special measures for witness protection in riot cases.
The Court drew on these precedents to expand the scope of protection to all vulnerable categories, beyond statutory minima.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that witnesses are the “eyes and ears of justice,” and intimidation or harassment of witnesses not only jeopardises the trial but also erodes public confidence in the judiciary. While existing legal provisions provided for in-camera proceedings and identity protection in limited categories, the Court found it essential to extend similar safeguards to other vulnerable witnesses.
It held that witness vulnerability must be assessed at the outset of a trial and periodically thereafter. The classification must consider factors like the nature of the offence, relationship with the accused, age, physical/mental condition, and any credible threat perception.
The Court directed that trial judges must pass speaking orders on protection requests, ensure identity masking in records, use secure waiting areas, and allow testimony via video-link where necessary. It also mandated police to provide logistical support such as safe transport and escort.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court issued a binding set of guidelines for the identification and protection of vulnerable witnesses in criminal trials, enforceable until formal rules are framed. It ordered the establishment of a Witness Protection Cell in Delhi, regular training for judicial and police personnel, and periodic compliance reports. The Court emphasised that these measures were non-negotiable for ensuring fair trials and preventing miscarriage of justice.
Implications
This judgment significantly broadens the scope of witness protection in Delhi, ensuring safeguards for a wider range of vulnerable individuals, including whistleblowers, persons with disabilities, and witnesses in cases of political or organised crime. It strengthens the procedural framework and mandates institutional accountability, setting a precedent that other High Courts may adopt.
Short Note on Cases Referred
- Mahender Chawla v. Union of India: Approved and made the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 binding.
- Sakshi v. Union of India: Protective measures for vulnerable child witnesses in sexual offences.
- State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai: Validated video-conferencing evidence.
- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat: Underscored witness safety for fair trials.
- National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat: Directed special protection in riot-related cases.
FAQs
1. Who qualifies as a “vulnerable witness” under the new Delhi High Court guidelines?
Anyone at risk due to age, gender, disability, relationship with the accused, or threat perception, including whistleblowers and witnesses in organised crime cases.
2. Are the guidelines binding on all trial courts in Delhi?
Yes. They apply to all criminal trials in Delhi until replaced by formal statutory rules.
3. Can witnesses testify via video-conferencing under the guidelines?
Yes. The Court expressly permits testimony via secure video-link for vulnerable witnesses to ensure safety and comfort.