Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Government's Response On Steps Taken For Implementation Of Witness Protection Scheme 2018

A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Saurabh Lavania has asked the Government to file a counter affidavit, within two weeks, so that it may proceed on merits.

The bench has also asked the Government to furnish on record all the letters and documents, which the AGA said were sent to all the District Authorities for immediate and effective implementation of the aforesaid Scheme.

The Petitioner, Rannsamar Foundation (a foundation under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950) through Advocate Abha Singh has approached the Lucknow Bench of the High Court, seeking effective implementation of the decision in Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 615, whereby the Supreme Court approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, prepared by Union of India and directed all the states and union territories to enforce the same in letter and spirit.

SC Approves Witness Protection Scheme, 2018; Directs Centre, States, UTs To Set Up Vulnerable Witness Deposition Complexes In Every District Within A Year

A bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer had ordered that the scheme shall be 'law' under Article 141/142 of the Constitution till the enactment of suitable parliamentary and/or state legislations on the subject. It had also directed that vulnerable witness deposition complexes shall be set up by the states and union territories within a period of one year, i.e., by the end of the year 2019.

In the present PIL, the Rannsamar Foundation submitted that the above directions/ guidelines are 'seldom enforced' and the same is evident from the manner in which witnesses in the Hathras killings and Unnao rape case were 'intimidated and tortured'.

It emphasized on the following key measures contemplated by the Top Court in order to avert witness intimidation and urged the Court to issue necessary directions to implement the same:

• Establishment of a Competent Authority to prepare a "Threat Analysis Report" concerning the life safety of witnesses;
• Creation of Witness Deposition Complexes in the District Courts;
• Creation of a Witness Protection Fund;
• Numerous other measures seeking protection of witnesses.

The organization was represented by its President, Advocate Abha Singh.

The matter is listed for hearing on December 20, 2020.

Related News:

Recently, the Madras High Court expressed displeasure over non-implementation of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. "Though the Witness Protection Scheme has been evolved in the year 2018, still the system is not providing confidence to the witnesses to come out with the truth as against the hard-core criminals", observed the Bench.

Though Witness Protection Scheme Evolved In 2018, System Not Instilling Confidence In Witnesses To Come Out With Truth Against Hard-Core Criminals: Madras HC

The Court explained that as per the directions of the Apex Court, the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 is evolved to give confidence to the witnesses to come forward to assist law enforcement and judicial authorities with full assurance of safety and aiming to identify series of measures that may be adopted to safeguard witnesses and their family members from intimidation and threats against their lives, reputation and property. The bench enumerated that Section 7 of the Scheme provides the following protection measures:

• Ensuring that witness and accused do not come face to face during investigation or trial;
• Monitoring of mail and telephone calls;
• Arrangement with the telephone company to change the witness's telephone number or assign him or her an unlisted telephone number;
• Installation of security devices in the witness's home such as security doors, CCTV, alarms, fencing etc;
• Concealment of identity of the witness by referring to him/her with the changed name or alphabet;
• Emergency contact persons for the witness;
• Close protection, regular patrolling around the witness's house;
• Temporary change of residence to a relative's house or a nearby town;
• Escort to and from the court and provision of Government vehicle or a State funded conveyance for the date of hearing;
• Holding of in-camera trials;
• Allowing a support person to remain present during recording of statement and deposition;
• Usage of specially designed vulnerable witness court rooms which have special arrangements like live video links, one way mirrors and screens apart from separate passages for witnesses and accused, with option to modify the image of face of the witness and to modify the audio feed of the witness' voice, so that he/she is not identifiable;
• Ensuring expeditious recording of deposition during trial on day to day basis without adjournments;
• Awarding time to time periodical financial aids/grants to the witness from Witness Protection Fund for the purpose of re- location, sustenance or starting a new vocation/profession, if desired;
• Any other form of protection measures considered necessary.

The Supreme Court also called for proper implementation of the scheme vide order dated November 4, 2020, in the case relating to pendency of criminal cases against legislators.

"The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, approved by this Court in the case of Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 615 should be strictly enforced by the Union and States and Union Territories. Keeping in mind the vulnerability of the witnesses in such cases, the Trial Court may consider granting protection under the said Scheme to witnesses without their making any specific application in this regard," it had observed.

Following this, the Karnataka High Court also directed the State government to issue an order constituting a competent authority as prescribed in the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, within two weeks.

"There cannot be any dispute in the cases pending before the special court prominent political personalities will be the accused. There is a possibility that some of the prosecution witnesses may become vulnerable witnesses. We are therefore of the view that it is all the more necessary to implement the witness protection scheme, in relation to the prosecution witness in the cases pending before the special court," a Division bench of the High Court said.

Also Read: Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable When Detention Is Under The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018: MP HC

Case Title: Rannsamar Foundation v. State of UP & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order