The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to consider a witness protection programme inbuilt in law as a rule for all sensitive cases involving high-profile persons. The suggestion came on a petition filed by Mahender Chawla, a key witness who was critically wounded after he deposed in the rape trial against controversial godman Asaram Bapu.
Giving the reference of a witness protection scheme contained in Section 17 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 a Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan asked Attorney General KK Venugopal whether it was possible to have a similar provision as part of sensitive criminal trials.
“In NIA Act there is a specific provision for witness protection. Why can’t the lead be taken from this by the Centre. We are not saying have it in all cases. But those cases which are sensitive can be carved out as a special category. Why cannot the Ministry of Home Affairs bring out some draft programme by which the location and identity of witnesses can be screened or kept confidentialIJ”, the court observed.
Venugopal informed the court that the process of providing such a security cover to witnesses can be considered in such a way that nobody comes to know about their location and whereabouts of family. His suggestion was in line with Section 17 of NIA Act which states, “On an application made by a witness in any proceeding before it or by the Public Prosecutor in relation to such witness or on its own motion, if the Special Court is satisfied that the life of such witness is in danger, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, take such measures as it deems fit for keeping the identity and address of such witness secret.”
In order to achieve this end, the Special Court trying such cases has power to hold proceedings at a place to be decided by it, withholding the mention of names and addresses of witnesses, issuing directive to keep the identity and address of witnesses secret, and ordering in-camera trial to avoid reporting of the proceedings.
Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appointed as amicus curiae by the court informed the Bench that all States have been intimated to disclose the content and form of witness protection scheme. The Bench gave six weeks to all States to file their responses. The court even requested A-G to assist in the matter with his suggestions.