Witness Protection Scheme – Supreme Court’s initiative to bring justice
-Aryan Thakur, Adv.Deevaina, Vaishali Jaiswal
Justice is similar to coal, and witnesses serve as one of those artisans who contribute their own insights and observations to aid the victim carve out the diamond, but jeopardy is put to their life.
Why was the need felt to protect the witnesses?
“Witness” as addressed by the Apex court of the land is the individual who has first-hand knowledge of the incident occurred who communicates that knowledge to the court of law either in oral or written format based on his direct observation to the act committed. But this costed life of many intimidations of witness, killings, threats, leading to hostile witness and compromised trials. Due to which justice was not served in the manner it should have been which brought failed prosecution, wrongful acquittals and loss of public trust in the legal system. Witness have lost their right to life and liberty in cases involving high profile criminals, having connection with the political leaders or criminal syndicates which uses the witness’s weakness and turn them hostile either by fear or money. Viewing the compromising state of being a main witness Supreme Court brought in The Witness Protection scheme 2018, which is an initiative to save the witness and bring faith in the judiciary.
Overview of The Witness Protection scheme
Aim: Prevent witness from turning hostile due to any kind of fear.
Categories of witness which are recognized based on threat levels i;e A) life threatening danger B) Reputation, Safety or property at stake C) Threat during investigation or trails having no immediate danger.
The key highlights of the scheme are
- Identity Protection.
- Police security, Escort services and home surveillance.
- Relocation or change of identity.
- Video conferencing for testimony.
- State witness protection Fund.
Implementation and challenges
By submitting a protection request, assessing the threat, and assigning security measures including in-camera trials, police cover, identity change, and relocation, the Witness Protection Scheme is put into action. Authorities ensure proper execution through funding, supervision, and regular evaluations. Effective deployment requires resource allocation, quick processing, and strict enforcement for witness protection[2]. By ensuring their safety and encouraging truthful testimony, the 2018 Witness Protection Scheme aims to shield witnesses who are in danger. Its execution includes protection requests, threat assessments, and security measures such as in-camera trials, police cover, identity change, and relocation. However, discrepancies are caused by a number of factors, including bureaucratic delays, geographic imbalances, political interference, and inadequate funding. Uneven implementation reduces its effectiveness, and many witnesses are still unaware of their rights. Ensuring consistent and efficient execution requires bolstering legal support, expanding financing, and simplifying processes. Justice, fair trials, and the rule of law depend on a strong protection system. Implementing the 2018 Witness Protection Scheme is hampered by a number of issues. While bureaucratic delays slow down urgent protection needs, a lack of funding and resources hinders effective implementation[3]. Rural witnesses are more vulnerable due to regional injustices and poor infrastructure. Its effectiveness is diminished by inconsistent application, and many witnesses are still unaware of their rights. Increasing funding, streamlining procedures, and fortifying legal support are all necessary to guarantee reliable and effective execution. A robust protection system is necessary to uphold justice, fair trials, and the rule of law[4].
Though Indian Judiciary safeguards the witnesses with the help of the scheme still it remains voluntary on the part of authorities and discretion of the court as it lacks legal backing as parliament has not converted it into law. The 2023 bill presented to Rajya Sabha stays in back books waiting for a legislative action to it.
A Comparative Analysis of Witness Protection: India versus International Practices Overview of Key Differences Legal Foundation
Indian witness protection frameworks exist mainly through the Witness Protection Scheme of 2018, which the country introduced within the last decade. International jurisdictions established robust legal frameworks representing decades of development throughout their jurisdictions. The United States runs its witness protection program under the Organized Crime Control Act, and Australia uses the Witness Protection Act 1994. The different bases for legal authority shape how protection measures operate and affect their levels of enforceability and effectiveness.
Implementation Structure and Control
The U.S. WITSEC program, along with international protection programs, exercises its control through dedicated federal agencies to ensure consistency and maintain accountability operations. India’s response mechanism works through separate agencies across each state, which results in diverging implementation quality across states. The decentralized structure of protection measures causes extensive challenges for the country to maintain consistent security standards. The absence of a single governing body creates difficulties between different state agencies, which results in unreliable implementation of security protocols.
Protection Measures and Services
Protection services provided in India possess different levels of scope when compared to both national and international security protocols. The protection approach in India centres on physical security instead of employing strategies such as voice modulation and anonymity orders and extensive witness screening that Great Britain utilizes. International safety programs provide comprehensive protection services, which include identity alteration programs and financial support together with relocation help and psychological care. The scheme extends its support base through long-term mechanisms that help with job placements and continuous security examinations, although this type of comprehensive assistance does not exist in India at present.
Resource Management and Allocation
The difference stems from how countries handle the management and distribution of resources. International jurisdictions create separate budgets to support witness protection initiatives as well as specialized staff and specialized infrastructure facilities. The current resource challenges and distribution problems within India’s framework make the overall protection program less effective and accessible to potential participants. A mismatch in resource distribution impacts both protection service quality as well as sustained witness security and information privacy guarantees.
Program Effectiveness and Outcomes
The success rates of international witness protection initiatives outperform domestic programs when it comes to protecting witnesses alongside the prosecution process. Established national systems in advanced countries have proven time and again their ability to safeguard witnesses while achieving successful criminal prosecutions. India’s recently established witness protection system needs advanced development to reach the effectiveness levels of similar programs.
Technological Integration
International witness protection networks implement contemporary technological innovations to boost witness security measures. The implementation of advanced surveillance methods and secure communication networks with digital identity defence systems represents significant elements of the modern approach to witness protection programs. Modern developments within international frameworks integrate contemporary challenges by adding advanced technologies while resolving emerging dangers. The Indian system has shown substantial development but requires substantial technological modernization to achieve conformity with global standards.
Training and Expertise
The training process and professional qualifications that protect witnesses constitute a fundamental distinction between Indian and international programs. Protection officers employed in international programs receive substantial specialized education about psychological support techniques along with risk assessment methodologies and advanced security protocols. India needs to establish complete training initiatives and specialized expertise development systems to build superior quality witness protection programs.
Mohd. Akhtar vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir on 7 May 2018:
Kathua Rape Case: Highlighting Issues in Witness Protection:
Background of the case
On 7TH January Sanji Ram told the juvenile to kidnap the Bakerwal girl to create fear in the Bakerwal Muslim community which would force them to leave the region the girl often used to visit the forest behind his house for grazing the horses, on 8th of January 2018 another accused Mr. Deepak Khajuria lured the juvenile to kidnap the Bakerwal girl on the assurance that he would help him pass the board exams through cheating. The juvenile shared the whole plan with Sanji Ram, Deepak Khajuria, and Pravesh Kumar who was the juvenile’s friend and provided his help and assistance to work the entire plan further Sanji Ram directed the juvenile to execute the plan of kidnapping that was to give some intoxicant to the girl and thereafter to captive her inside the temple.
An 8-year girl goes missing for 6 days she was drugged, gang-raped, and bashed to death after that they kept her inside the Devisthan under the table over two chatayees and covered her with two dhurries and kept her intoxicated on the 11thof January Juvenile informed another accused Vishal Jangotra through telephone about rape and around 8:30 am on 13 January 2018 Vishal Jangotra raped the 8-year-old girl and further they killed the Victim and juvenile disposed of the dead body by throwing it inside the jungle.[5]
Facts of the case:
Accused: 1. Sanji Ram, ex revenue officer, (mastermind) 2. Juvenile, 15 Sanji Ram’s Nephew, 3. Pravesh Kumar (Key role in abduction and gang rape), 4. Deepak Khajuriya, Special police officer (co-conspirator) 5. Vishal Jangotra (Sanji Ram’s Son), 6. Surinder Kumar, Special Police Officer (Co-conspirator- seen at the crime scene) 7. Anand Dutta, Sub-Inspector (destroyed evidence) 8. Tilak Raj, Head Constable (destroyed evidence).
Inquiry and legal proceedings:
- The body was found on January 17, 2018, and the investigation started disclosing horrific details of the crime.
- Some Police officers and government officials were involved in protecting the accused and drawing a veil over the crime, local lawyers and political groups obstructed the legal process by organizing protests.[6]
- Due to political and social pressure in Jammu and Kashmir, the case was transferred from Kathua to Pathankot (Punjab) to ensure a fair trial.
Judgement: The court ruled the crime was pre-planned and committed with brutality in June 2019 the fast track court convicted all the accused and held that
- The Juvenile was sent to the juvenile home
- Sanji Ram, Vishal Jangotra was convicted of rape and murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Deepak Khajuria and Pravesh Kumar for their roles in the crime were sentenced to life imprisonment.
- And others were convicted but the case against them was less severe.
The case caused national turmoil and prolonged protests due to issues raised including gender violence, community tensions, as well as hindrance to justice. Further, the reports said that police officers, witnesses, and investigators faced death threats and harassment from the local group The Hindu Ekta Manch supporting the accused
Disparities in the Witness Protection Scheme
Interference with legal proceedings and threats to witnesses lead to the following problems:
- Irregular enforcement of witness protection scheme: Only with the order of the Supreme Court witness protection began the delay in providing protection increasing fear and pressure on witnesses they were scared to testify due to death threats and pressure from powerful people.[7]
- There were delayed consequences for those hampering justice: the lawyer, police officer, and politician hampered the legal proceedings and were not held accountable immediately.
- The discrepancy in the application of the witness protection scheme: The national application of this scheme failed consistently during the application in Jammu and Kashmir.
Measures required to improve witness protection:
- Strict punishment: any person obstructing justice through their powerful influence such as a lawyer or politician should be punished stringently.
- A national witness protection enforcement agency for witnesses so that they could feel secure and dare to come forward and testify.
Overall, this case reminds us how powerful local forces can influence and obstruct justice and expose witnesses and victims to danger it also highlighted the need for a proper working witness protection system and political and legal reforms to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
[1] Witness protection scheme,2018 – mha.gov.in
[2] Witness Protection Scheme- A way to protect witness from criminal retaliation- papers.ssrn.com
[3] Need for witness protection in India: Legal analysis- dehradunlawreview.com
[4] Right of witness protection: A comparative overview – docs.manupatra.in
[5] Tnn, & India, T. O. (2018, April 12). ‘Rape-murder in Kathua meant to drive out Muslim tribe’. The Times of India.https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rape-murder-in-kathua-meant-to-drive-out-muslim-tribe/articleshow/63721581.cms
[6] Pti. (2018, April 14). BJP ministers who took part in rally in support of Kathua rape case accused submit resignation. The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/kathua-rape-two-bjp-cabinet-ministers-quit/articleshow/63752377.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com&from=mdr
[7] Digital, M. N. (2018, November 14). Kathua rape & murder case: Victim’s family removes Deepika Singh Rajawat as attorney citing threat to her life. Times Now. https://www.timesnownews.com/mirror-now/in-focus/article/kathua-case-8-year-old-victims-family-removes-advocate-deepika-singh-rajawat-as-attorney/314224
