Witness Protection Programme
“The edifice of administration of justice is based upon witnesses coming forward and deposing without fear or favour, without intimidation or allurement in Courts of law. If witnesses are deposing under fear or intimidation or for favour or allurement, the foundation of administration of justice not only gets weakened, but in cases it may even get obliterated”.
This landmark observation was made by the High Court of Delhi in the petition filed by Smt. Neelam Katara, mother of Nitish Katara who had been killed by certain influential persons in the night of 16-17 February, 2002. The mother, Smt. Neelam Katara had, filed this petition in the High Court of Delhi requesting the Court to issue directions pertaining to witness protection.
Witness protection is a much talked about topic in the last few months. The BMW case, Tandoor murder case, Best Bakery case, Muttoo murder case and lately the much talked about Jessica Lall case have all highlighted the urgent need to address this vital issue in our Criminal Justice system.
The Vohra Committee Report had critically talked about the growing nexus of politicians, bureaucrats and the criminals. It stated that criminalisation had struck at the very foundation of the Indian polity and there was an urgent need to deal with this matter in a surgical manner to prevent the morass from spreading further. It is common knowledge today that the prosecution is getting weaker by the day and the power of money, muscle and networking is proving difficult to handle. The percentage of cases ending in acquittal is on the rise. The legal process takes a lot of time and the common person feels harassed while trying to help the system. These are some of the many disincentives for people to come forward and perform the important public duty of assisting the Courts in deciding on the guilt or otherwise of the accused during trial of cases in the Courts. The Malimath Committee Report also reiterated the common perception that the witness today has no stake in the decisions of the criminal courts as he is neither an accused nor the victim. He is one who should be treated with great respect and considered a guest of honour if the law is to succeed.
In India it is being increasingly felt that the legal system in India is biased against weak, the poor and the helpless. It is the rich and those having the muscle who take advantage of the legal system by either delaying the entire process of police investigation and the trial in the Courts or buying out justice in their favour.
The witnesses appearing in the Courts these days are subjected to all kinds of harassment and intimidation, so that the cause for justice is not attained. More often than not, it is the accused, his relatives and friends who intimidate the witnesses so that the true picture does not emerge before the Courts. In some cases intimidation is followed by acts of violence and vandalism also. Physical assaults and damage to the property of witnesses are not uncommon. Because of the general impression prevalent in the public of law enforcement authorities as police etc. and the extremely time-taking and expensive legal procedures prevalent, a number of witnesses who are victims of intimidation, assault etc. do not report such incidents to the police and take the easier way out by deposing in favour of the accused persons in the courts.
“The edifice of administration of justice is based upon witnesses coming forward and deposing without fear or favour, without intimidation or allurement in Courts of law. If witnesses are deposing under fear or intimidation or for favour or allurement, the foundation of administration of justice not only gets weakened, but in cases it may even get obliterated”.
This landmark observation was made by the High Court of Delhi in the petition filed by Smt. Neelam Katara, mother of Nitish Katara who had been killed by certain influential persons in the night of 16-17 February, 2002. The mother, Smt. Neelam Katara had, filed this petition in the High Court of Delhi requesting the Court to issue directions pertaining to witness protection.
Witness protection is a much talked about topic in the last few months. The BMW case, Tandoor murder case, Best Bakery case, Muttoo murder case and lately the much talked about Jessica Lall case have all highlighted the urgent need to address this vital issue in our Criminal Justice system.
The Vohra Committee Report had critically talked about the growing nexus of politicians, bureaucrats and the criminals. It stated that criminalisation had struck at the very foundation of the Indian polity and there was an urgent need to deal with this matter in a surgical manner to prevent the morass from spreading further. It is common knowledge today that the prosecution is getting weaker by the day and the power of money, muscle and networking is proving difficult to handle. The percentage of cases ending in acquittal is on the rise. The legal process takes a lot of time and the common person feels harassed while trying to help the system. These are some of the many disincentives for people to come forward and perform the important public duty of assisting the Courts in deciding on the guilt or otherwise of the accused during trial of cases in the Courts. The Malimath Committee Report also reiterated the common perception that the witness today has no stake in the decisions of the criminal courts as he is neither an accused nor the victim. He is one who should be treated with great respect and considered a guest of honour if the law is to succeed.
In India it is being increasingly felt that the legal system in India is biased against weak, the poor and the helpless. It is the rich and those having the muscle who take advantage of the legal system by either delaying the entire process of police investigation and the trial in the Courts or buying out justice in their favour.
The witnesses appearing in the Courts these days are subjected to all kinds of harassment and intimidation, so that the cause for justice is not attained. More often than not, it is the accused, his relatives and friends who intimidate the witnesses so that the true picture does not emerge before the Courts. In some cases intimidation is followed by acts of violence and vandalism also. Physical assaults and damage to the property of witnesses are not uncommon. Because of the general impression prevalent in the public of law enforcement authorities as police etc. and the extremely time-taking and expensive legal procedures prevalent, a number of witnesses who are victims of intimidation, assault etc. do not report such incidents to the police and take the easier way out by deposing in favour of the accused persons in the courts.
Protection of witnesses - past history
It is interesting to note that as far as back as 1932, the section 31 of Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act, 1932 empowered the Special Magistrate to exclude persons or public from the premises of the Court in order to protect the identity of certain witnesses. Similarly, section 13 of TADA-1985 and section 16 of TADA-1987 also provided for the protection of identity and address of a witness. Even POTA-2002, which has since been repealed, also had a similar provision to protect the identity of the witness and help him depose fearlessly and truthfully in the court to support the cause of justice.
Initiatives in recent past
On 8th of August, 2003 in the case of National Human Rights Commission vs State of Gujarat, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “that no law has yet been enacted, not even a scheme has been framed by the Union of India or by the State Government for giving protection to the witnesses”. However, in the case of Zaheera Vs. State of Gujarat when the Supreme Court ordered for the transfer of Best Bakery case to Mumbai in its order dated 12.4.2004, the Court directed the State Government to take appropriate action to ensure that the witnesses when produced before the Courts could depose freely without any apprehension, threat or coercion from any person. The Supreme Court also directed the State of Maharashtra to provide protection to any witness in case a request was made by them, in addition to the protection that was to be provided by the State Government of Gujarat.
However, Justice P. Nandrajog and Justice Usha Mehra of High Court of Delhi in their order dated 14.10.2003 in response to a petition filed by Smt. Neelam Katara stated that till the time a suitable Legislation was brought on the Statute Book, guidelines known as Witness Protection Guidelines will operate for the protection of witnesses. The order defined a witness, an accused and the competent authority. The competent authority, on receipt of request from a witness, was to determine whether the witness required police protection, to what extent and for what duration. The competent authority was also to consider the nature of risk to the witness, the importance of such a witness and his deposition and the cost of providing such police protection to the witness.
The 14th report of Law Commission of India (1958) did refer to witness protection, but in a very limited sense, relating to proper arrangements to be provided to the witnesses in the Courts and the extent of travelling and daily allowance to be given to them. The 4th report of National Police Commission (1980) also talked about the travails that the witnesses have to undertake while attending proceedings, and nothing more. The 154th report of Law Commission (1996) had a chapter on the need for protection and facilities to witnesses. This was the first report which categorically stated that necessary confidence has to be created in the minds of witnesses that they would be protected from the wrath of the accused in any eventuality. However, this report stopped short at this juncture and did not recommend any measures for the physical protection of the witnesses or how to make their depositions - anonymous or pseudonymous. Similarly the 172nd report of the Law Commission (2000) also talked about witness protection but in a very limited sense pertaining to the evidence of a minor in the case of a sexually abused child only. The report suggested that the Court be permitted to use a video taped interview of the child abused. It went on to recommend that the prosecution must have the option to request the Court to provide a screen so that the child victim did not see the accused during the trial.
178th report of the Law Commission (2001) again referred to the fact of witnesses turning hostile. The Malimath Committee on reforms of Criminal Justice System also made recommendations to prevent witnesses from turning hostile. The Report recommended the insertion of a new Section 164-A to provide for recording of statements of material witnesses in the presence of a Magistrate where the offences were punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more (with or without fine) including an offence punishable with death. On the basis of this recommendation, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2003 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha. This has since been passed by both the houses of the Parliament but the due notification is still pending. The Malimath Committee in its Report (2003) mentioned about the serious concern being voiced by all about witnesses who came to the Courts and gave false evidences with impunity. This was a big factor contributing towards the failure of the Criminal Justice System. The Report went on to state that many witnesses gave false evidence because of threats to them or their family members. The Report, therefore, urged the Government to enact a law for giving protection to the witnesses and their family members on the lines of similar laws prevalent in US and other countries.
The Law Commission of India has lately released a Consultation Paper on the issue of witness protection. It has talked about the two broad aspects relating to witness protection - anonymity and physical protection. The Consultation Paper has highlighted the urgent need to give witnesses the option of firstly, deposing anonymously and secondly, relocating them at a different location as is provided in the witness protection programmes of a number of countries. This Consultation Paper deals with a number of practical aspects related to this problem - changed identity of a witness, police protection being made available to the witness and his family members, witness being relocated elsewhere in the country or abroad and whether a memorandum of understanding, suggesting the rights and obligations of the witnesses and the Law Enforcement authorities, is an appropriate method of going about this programme. The enormous expenditure involved in implementing such a witness protection programme has also been kept in mind.
The Law Commission of India has taken up this subject on its own, on account of the observations of the Supreme Court in certain important cases and also because of its relevance in our country today. The Commission has invited responses from all sections of the society which, if found fit, would be incorporated in the recommendations to be sent to the Government along with the Draft Bill on witness protection.
United States
The Witness Security Reform Act of 1984 set up the platform for the relocation and protection of witnesses in proceedings related to organized criminal activity, drug trafficking or any other serious offence. This protection can also be extended to the immediate family or a person closely associated with such a witness if he felt endangered on account of his participation as a witness in judicial proceedings. The Attorney General of US is the final authority to decide whether a person is to be granted entry into the Witness Security Programme. This protection is meant only for those witnesses whose evidence is considered essential for successful prosecution of a criminal case and in which the life and liberty of the witness and his family members are also at risk.
The three main organisations which maintain the witness security programme in the US are - US Marshal Services - which provides security, health and safety of the witnesses, US Department of Justice (Office of Enforcement Operations) - which authorizes the admission into the programme of witnesses whose lives are endangered and the Federal Bureau of Persons - which maintains the custody of witnesses in prison.
The programme in the US has been considered quite successful and since its inception in the year, 1970, the programme has achieved an overall conviction rate of 89%. As a result of the evidence given by protected witnesses more than 10,000 criminals have been convicted.
United Kingdom
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) provides for punishment for persons who intimidate witnesses. Section 51 of the Act protects persons who are going to give evidence during trial and also those who help him in the investigation of crime. The Director of Prosecutions created in 1989, and appointed by the Attorney General from amongst the Members of Bar, administers the witness protection programme in UK. He discharges all his functions under the superintendence of the Attorney General.
Canada
The Witness Protection Act (1996) lays down the parameters for deciding whether a witness needs to be admitted to this programme. The anonymity of a witness is granted if there is material to show that not doing so will jeopardize his life and liberty. The Attorney General has to consider the nature of risk to the witness, the danger that the witness can pose to the community if he is admitted to this programme, the importance of witness in the investigation and prosecution, the value of information available with the witness and the cost of maintaining such a witness in the programme, before a witness can be admitted in this programme.
Australia
The Witness Protection Act (1994) established the National Witness Protection Programme of this country. The Commissioner of Australian Federal Police is the final authority to decide whether or not a witness is to be included in this programme. He is the one who arranges for the protection and other related assistance for the witnesses. It is also considered obligatory for witnesses in this programme to inform all details about themselves before they are admitted to this programme.
The Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia) in 1995 approved the ‘non-disclosure of names and addresses of informers and undercover police officers as well as other witnesses whose personal safety could be endangered by the disclosure of their identity’. The protected witnesses in the programme sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Police authorities. The seriousness of the offence, the nature and importance of the evidence to be given, the perceived danger to the witness and the nature of his relationship with other witnesses are prime considerations to be looked into before a witness is included in this programme.
New Zealand
The New Zealand Evidence Act (1908) provides protection to undercover police officers in cases involving drug offences, where there is a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. In 1997 Section 13(g) was included in this Act making such a protection applicable to all witnesses if it was felt that their lives were endangered. This Act also has a provision to issue an order for anonymity, if the judge is satisfied that the safety of the witness is likely to be endangered if his identity is disclosed.
South Africa
The Witnesses Protection Act (1988) makes the Director, in the Office for Witness Protection under the Department of Justice, responsible for the protection of witnesses and other related persons. A witness who believes that there is a threat to his life and liberty can apply for being placed under protection. The Director of this programme then considers the nature and extent of risk and safety of the witness, the importance of his evidence and its relevance etc. before deciding who is to be placed under protection.
The South African Criminal Procedure Code permits criminal proceedings to be held in camera to provide privacy to the witnesses. The Courts have also permitted witnesses to give evidence behind closed doors and ensure their anonymity.
Philippines
The Witness Protection Security and Benefit Act aims at protecting witnesses who are to depose in cases of grave offences, by granting them certain rights and benefits to ensure their appearance in Courts. The protected witnesses are expected to sign a Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Justice which outlines the duties and responsibilities of the witnesses under this witness protection programme. The witness, once under the aegis of this programme, is entitled to housing, means of livelihood, subsistence allowance, travelling expenses, free medical treatment and hospitalization and substantial monetary compensation to his relatives in case of his/her death.
International Criminal Court
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is one of the most extensive guides on witness protection. The victims and witnesses herein are both entitled to witness protection under the Rome Statute. The Courts also have the authority to conceal the identity of witnesses, when they deem it appropriate. The International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has dealt with and discussed in detail matters relating to protection of witnesses, anonymity, and specific measures for their protection. Similarly, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has also formulated a set of rules to provide for the protection of victims and witnesses and has also circulated a Consultation Paper to elicit more opinion in this regard.
United Nations
The UN Declaration of Basic principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power has stated that judicial and administrative measures must be taken to minimise inconvenience, protect privacy and ensure safety of victims and witnesses. The above was declaration adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 40/34 of 29th November, 1985 which stated that individuals who have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, economic loss etc. in violation of criminal laws operating in the country are the persons who need protection of the State.
European Convention on Human Rights
A significant step was taken by this Convention pertaining to witness protection in the landmark Doorson case in which it was decided that the statement made by an anonymous witness can also be used, if there is enough corroborative evidence.
Council of Europe
Witness protection has been discussed in a variety of situations in Recommendations on the Intimidation of Witnesses and Rights of the Defence. The significant recommendations include protecting witnesses from a face to face confrontation with the accused, resorting to audio visual recording of statements, revealing identity of witnesses only at the later stages of the proceedings and excluding media and public from all or part of the trial. This Council has also requested all Member States to set up such witness protection programmes in their countries.
Italy The Central Protection Services administers the witness protection programme in this country.
A number of other countries as Germany, Netherlands, Ireland also have similar witness protection programmes.
Need for witness protection programmes
The need for a Witness Protection Programme in India has been felt for a long time. The Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act (1932), TADA (1985), POTA (2002) etc did feel that the identity and other details of witnesses needed to be kept a secret where there was danger to life - either of the witness, his relatives or to his property. This on the one hand, protected the witnesses by giving them anonymity and on the other hand helped them support the cause of prosecution fearlessly and truthfully during the course of trial in the Courts, without having the fear of incurring the wrath of the accused persons, his friends or relatives.
In the absence of any such law in India, the criminals and the offenders have often felt emboldened and have intimidated crucial witnesses to give deposition in their favour and thereby subverted the criminal justice system. In India the crime rate is high and the rate of conviction is abysmally low. The police investigation and the Court procedures take agonizingly long periods to reach any conclusion and this is a significant reason why crucial witnesses lose vital interest in the cases. Considering that the number of cases pending in the Courts all over the country is increasing each day, it is indeed a tall order to expect the police, the traditional guardians of witnesses, to protect all crucial witnesses all the time. It is therefore imperative that a line be drawn and a witness protection programme is taken up as early as possible in our country. For a start this programme could be taken up for selected crimes only, especially ones that have an impact on the safety and the security of the country, the economy of the nation and those related to organized crime.
Today, the transnational nature of organized crime is posing an ever increasing challenge to the law enforcement agencies all over the world. This is so because the real perpetrators of such organized crimes are difficult to identify, they do not directly involve themselves in the actual commission of crime and the evidence against them is difficult to build up. It is therefore absolutely essential that the inter-agency and international cooperation is taken to a much higher level to pin down the perpetrators of such transnational organized crimes.
In India, in the recent past the BMW case, Nitish Katara murder case, Best Bakery case, Priyadarshini Mutto case and the Jessica Lall case - all point towards an increasing tendency of the witnesses to turn hostile because of various reasons. Similarly inspite of a large number of deaths, the record of conviction in the communal anti-Sikh Riots of 1984 and the Gujarat clashes of 2002 is shameful, to say the least. A large number of cases dragging in the Courts today are of persons related to mafia, underworld elements indulging in anti-national activities, arms and drugs smuggling syndicates, terrorist organizations etc. which on the one hand are detrimental to the safety and security of the nation and on the other hand embolden the criminal elements because of the ineffective approach of the law enforcement agencies. The disinterest shown by the crucial witnesses and the extraordinary long time taken by the Courts in deciding the cases are only contributing to this malaise. Only the fear of prompt stringent legal action can act as a check on such anti-national and criminal syndicates. The presence of a credible Witness Protection Programme can go a long way in helping the cause of justice, encourage people to speak up against the criminal and other anti-social elements who flaunt money and muscle and thereby improve the governance in the country and ensure security of the nation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while delivering judgement in Vishakha Vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) observed that “in the absence of a domestic law occupying the field, any international convention not inconsistent with the fundamental rights and the harmony with its spirit may be read into Municipal Law”. Similarly, in another judgement of the Supreme Court as 2002(5) of SCC 294 it was observed that if need be “the courts have the necessary power, by issuing directions to fill the vacuum till such time the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role”.
The High Court of Delhi while giving its order in response to a petition filed by Smt. Neelam Katara in Oct 2003 stated that “the society has an interest in the administration of justice and it may be true that let a hundred accused escape but let not even a single innocent be punished. But this cannot be stretched to mean an escape route should be provided to the accused to hijack administration of justice and secures his innocence as a result of might being righ”t. The Court went on to give out Witness Protection Guidelines, which are to operate for the protection of witnesses till the enactment of suitable Legislation.
A good Witness Protection Programme is essential for witnesses whose evidence is crucial for the successful prosecution of criminal cases and wherein the life of witness and his family members is also at risk. It must be ensured that the evidence to be given by the witness far out weighs the burden on the State exchequer in terms of manpower and money in securing the interests of justice, up-holding the law of the land and instilling a sense of confidence in the law abiding public. This programme also has the capacity to generate a sense of fear amongst the anti-social and the anti-national elements.
In case such a Witness Protection Programme is introduced, the extent of anonymity to be provided to the witnesses, the security to be given to him and his relatives and friends, relocating of the crucial witness elsewhere in the country or abroad, providing him with suitable employment and housing and taking necessary care of his medical, transportation and other needs etc. can be extended in a phased manner taking into account the extent of resources available with the State and the country. Considering the financial constraints of our country, it may not be possible to provide a protectee witness with all the benefits stated above and on a scale as expansive as is being provided to witnesses in developed countries. However, a beginning needs to be made and even a small step would be a step in the right direction.
A number of agencies as Judiciary, Police, Prisons etc. are involved in the Witness Protection Programme. It is therefore imperative to ensure that the officials who run this programme are persons of absolute trust and integrity. The data base managing the identity of such protected witnesses must be scrupulously guarded, otherwise criminal elements will pose a threat to the life and liberty of the witnesses and his family members and thwart the ends of justices by finding out the true identity and the location of such protected witnesses and either intimidating them to change their evidence in the court or eliminating them. Strict penal provisions must exist for violations observed on part of the officials who run the Witness Protection Programme. If violations are found to exist on part of witnesses enrolled in this Programme they too should be penalised.
The benefits to be obtained from such a witness protection programmes are immense. The members of organized crime syndicates, terrorist organizations and other anti-social elements would run the risk of not knowing the witnesses and yet the truth coming out squarely in their faces in the open courts. The overall conviction rate in heinous offences would go up and this will make a difference to the safety and security in our society and will have a telling effect on the economy of the country also. The social, political and economic benefits will far outweigh the cost that will be incurred in running such a programme.
India today is an emerging super power in the Asian Region. Foreign investments coming to the country are on the rise every year. It is, therefore, important that the law is held supreme by all and the terrorists, anit-national organisations and the organized criminal gangs do not come in the way of subverting the economy and getting cases decided in their favour from the Courts. Witness Protection Programme is the need of the hour. We must start with a programme, howsoever small, to take the criminal justice system forward in the right direction.
***********************
Bibliography
1. Mrs. Neelam Katara Vs UOI & Others, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, CRL W No. 247/2002, dt 14 Oct, 2003.
2. Vohra Committee Report, Ministy of Home Affairs, 5th Oct,1993.
3. Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Report, March 2003.
4. Law Commission of India’s Consultation Paper on Witness Protection, Chapter III, 13 August, 2004.
5. Zaheera Vs State of Gujarat, 12 April 2004, SCC (Crl) 999.
6. Mrs. Neelam Katara Vs UOI & Others, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, CRL W No. 247/2002, dt 14 Oct, 2003.
7. Law Commission of India, 14th report on Reform of Judicial Administration (Vol.I), 1958, pp 482, 485.
8. National Police Commission, 4th report, 1980, pp 16.
9. Law Commission of India, 154th report on The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act No 2 of 1974) (Vol. I), 1996, pp 43-44.
10. Law Commission of India, 172nd report on Review of Rape Laws, 2000, pp 82.
11. Law Commission of India, 178th report on Recommendations for Amending various Enactments, Both Civil and Criminal, 2001, pp 116 – 124.
12. Law Commission of India’s Consultation Paper on Witness Protection: Chapter I-VIII, 13 August, 2004.
13. Vishakha Vs State of Rajasthan, 13 August 1997 (6), SCC-241.
14. Harish Chandra Tiwari Vs Baiju, 8 January 2002 (5), SCC-294.
****************
Abstract
Witness protection is a much talked about topic today. The Vohra Committee Report, the Malimath Committee Report have all mentioned about this critical pillar of the Criminal Justice system.
Even as far back as 1932, Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act and recently the TADA and POTA have had provisions to help witnesses depose fearlessly in the Courts. The various reports of the Law Commissions have also dealt with this aspect in detail. In the absence of any such law in India, the criminals and the offenders have often intimidated crucial witnesses to depose in their favour. The benefits to be obtained from a Witness Protection programmes are immense. The criminals would run the risk of not knowing the witnesses and yet the truth coming out squarely in their faces in the open courts. The Witness Protection Guidelines issued by the High Court of Delhi in Neelam Katara Vs UOI & Others(2003) could be starting point in this direction.
Witness Protection is the need of the hour. We must start with a Programme, howsoever small, to take the Criminal Justice system forward in the right direction.
1. Mrs. Neelam Katara Vs UOI & Others, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, CRL W No. 247/2002, dt 14 Oct, 2003.
2. Vohra Committee Report, Ministy of Home Affairs, 5th Oct,1993.
3. Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Report, March 2003.
4. Law Commission of India’s Consultation Paper on Witness Protection, Chapter III, 13 August, 2004.
5. Zaheera Vs State of Gujarat, 12 April 2004, SCC (Crl) 999.
6. Mrs. Neelam Katara Vs UOI & Others, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, CRL W No. 247/2002, dt 14 Oct, 2003.
7. Law Commission of India, 14th report on Reform of Judicial Administration (Vol.I), 1958, pp 482, 485.
8. National Police Commission, 4th report, 1980, pp 16.
9. Law Commission of India, 154th report on The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act No 2 of 1974) (Vol. I), 1996, pp 43-44.
10. Law Commission of India, 172nd report on Review of Rape Laws, 2000, pp 82.
11. Law Commission of India, 178th report on Recommendations for Amending various Enactments, Both Civil and Criminal, 2001, pp 116 – 124.
12. Law Commission of India’s Consultation Paper on Witness Protection: Chapter I-VIII, 13 August, 2004.
13. Vishakha Vs State of Rajasthan, 13 August 1997 (6), SCC-241.
14. Harish Chandra Tiwari Vs Baiju, 8 January 2002 (5), SCC-294.
****************
Abstract
Witness protection is a much talked about topic today. The Vohra Committee Report, the Malimath Committee Report have all mentioned about this critical pillar of the Criminal Justice system.
Even as far back as 1932, Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act and recently the TADA and POTA have had provisions to help witnesses depose fearlessly in the Courts. The various reports of the Law Commissions have also dealt with this aspect in detail. In the absence of any such law in India, the criminals and the offenders have often intimidated crucial witnesses to depose in their favour. The benefits to be obtained from a Witness Protection programmes are immense. The criminals would run the risk of not knowing the witnesses and yet the truth coming out squarely in their faces in the open courts. The Witness Protection Guidelines issued by the High Court of Delhi in Neelam Katara Vs UOI & Others(2003) could be starting point in this direction.
Witness Protection is the need of the hour. We must start with a Programme, howsoever small, to take the Criminal Justice system forward in the right direction.
( published in Indian Police Journal : Apr - Jun 2006 )
******
