Witness Protection in India

Abstract

The witness protection issue has again sparked up as an essential ingredient to implement justice. This article deals with evolution of legal safeguards for witnesses, focusing on the Supreme Court-endorsed Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. This scheme breaks down how witnesses are categorized by their threat levels and outlines protective measures like changing identities, relocating, and providing police escorts. It dives into key judicial rulings that stress the significance of keeping witnesses safe to ensure fair trials, particularly in high-profile cases. The article sheds light on the unique challenges faced by young witnesses, including intimidation, tampering, and delays in legal processes. It also looks at the gaps in how witness protection is actually put into practice and the social and legal consequences of insufficient protection. Moreover, it emphasizes the need for a thorough, multi-agency strategy to improve justice delivery, protect human rights, and build public confidence. The piece suggests that future initiatives should prioritize strict enforcement, the use of technology, and ongoing reforms to bolster witness protection systems in India.

Keywords: Witness Protection, Vulnerable Witnesses, Fair Trial, Psychological Impact, Identity and Dignity, US approach

I. Introduction

The term “witness” is frequently employed to describe an individual who was present at an incident and may have the ability to provide information about it. According to Black’s Law Dictionary,[1] a witness is defined as “a person who has knowledge of an event.” Because viewing an occurrence is the most direct way to learn about it, the term “witness” refers to someone who is present at and witnesses a transaction.

Witness protection is essential for the criminal justice system to work properly. In India, courts have addressed the need for witness protection through various judgments. However, in the landmark case of Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India,[2] the Supreme Court of India introduced the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 to address witness vulnerabilities and encourage their participation in trials. However, practical challenges have hampered the scheme’s effectiveness. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of witness protection and stated that if a witness is threatened or forced to submit false evidence, it will not result in a fair trial.[3] Witness testimony is crucial for ensuring justice for victims. Witnesses fulfil a “sacred duty” by testifying in court. Thus, safeguarding them is also important to secure the dispensation of justice. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin phrase that means “false in one thing, wrong in everything.” In fact, it is a common law notion that a witness who testifies erroneously about one issue is not reputable to testify about another. This would mean disrupting the flow of events, which are required in completing the process of trial and conclusively justice.[4]

It is pertinent to note that out of the groups of witness, there remains a more vulnerable section, who may be tender enough to process the events. Thus, it is commonly acknowledged that using juveniles as witnesses and informants in criminal investigations and prosecutions puts them at risk as a result of increasing incidents of witness intimidation. Their inability to protect themselves may possibly be due to their lowered risk aversion.[5] In light of this principle, the use of minors is normally restricted to instances in which it is absolutely necessary, and no other practical alternative exists.

Though it is considered reliable evidence for and against the accused, it may be susceptible to certain flaws. Through social experiments conducted by an American Psychologist, Loftus and her colleagues, it has been found out that encoding of events may be overwritten by misleading questions. So, one must device prudent methods for interacting with witnesses to ensure productive and accurate conversations.[6] On the other hand, some errors may be difficult to control, as they may be caused due to affective nature of events that produce strong emotions, which may be perceived variedly by different people.

Witness intimidation and tampering are continuous issues in India’s legal system due to its diverse population and complex social structure. Witnesses frequently face severe risks. Victims may face physical, social, and financial consequences, especially when dealing with powerful individuals or criminal organizations. Without sufficient witness protection, the legal system is vulnerable to manipulation, contaminated trials, and loss of public trust.[7]

The witness protection program and the witness protection legislation are simply required. The absence of these laws has strengthened criminals and offenders. However, in India, such programs and legislation are not implemented to provide enough protection. The witness is not even greeted with respect or offered water. The only provisions available were in-camera trials, witness anonymity, and police escorts as directed by the court. However, following the heinous 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, discussions on instituting a comprehensive witness protection plan became more intense. Devika Roawan, who became the youngest witness to identify Ajmal Kasab in these aspects was given some financial assistance of Rs. 10 lakhs but the request to give her housing under EWS quota is still pending. Jeremy Bentham, a prominent thinker, once said, “witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that “it is the salutary duty of every witness who has knowledge of the commission of the crime, to assist the State in giving evidence.”[8] It is ironic that severe legislation such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987[9] and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002[10] provided for the safety of witnesses. The Court could even avoid mentioning the names and addresses in its decision or judgment. It is widely assumed that these regulations were enacted not to protect the witnesses, but to prevent the accused from mounting an effective defence and to deprive fair trial.

Despite the occasional and inadequate addresses previously available, these instances and judicial opinions underscored the critical need for a comprehensive, structured approach to witness protection in India. In order to protect witnesses,[11] the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 divides them into three groups: Category A, which includes the most serious threats to life; Category B, which includes threats to safety, reputation, or property; and Category C, which includes moderate threats like harassment or intimidation. According to the unique risks found in each case, the program provides a full range of protective measures, such as identity change, relocation, personal security, and safe housing. After the police have produced a thorough Threat Analysis Report, a Competent Authority comprising a judge, public prosecutor, and district police chief decides on these actions. The plan also requires each state to set up a Special Witness Protection Unit (SWPU), which serves as the main authority for assessing, authorizing, and supervising the application of protective measures. A special “Witness Protection Fund” has been established to pay for necessary support services like accommodation, transportation, relocation, and alteration of identity for protected witnesses in order to guarantee efficient implementation.

Prior to the WPS’s passing in India, various cases acknowledged the importance of witness protection and preventing interference. However, this problem received little attention. Three witnesses testified that Manu Sharma murdered Jessica Lal in 1999. The accused was acquitted because eyewitnesses and 29 other witnesses contradicted their police accounts. In 2013, the Delhi High Court ordered the trial of witnesses who refused to testify, citing their hostile behaviour. Later, the court cleared seventeen witnesses of perjury charges.[12] One of the witnesses to the Naroda-Patiya[13] massacre was stabbed to death as soon as he left his house. The massacre occurred during the 2002 Gujarat riots. Ironically, the Supreme Court requested police protection for a deceased witness. In 1996, the Law Commission’s 154th report recommended eliminating unnecessary adjournments, protecting witnesses from the accused, and providing adequate remuneration.[14] In the subsequent reports, need for anonymity and physical protection were the crucial areas where attention was to be laid along with the protection of witnesses throughout all phases of a case. Witnesses to crimes resulting in death or life sentences are protected under these regulations. Witness protection was expanded to include offenses besides terrorism and sexual assault, as was customary prior to the new guidelines.

The fact that these proposals mostly dealt with police protection of witnesses and neglected to address witness identity protection was one of their primary flaws. In addition to witnessing a crime, especially one that was severe, witnesses may also feel stressed out by the wait. Previous research has shown that eyewitnesses’ genuine positive responses were less common under severe stress than under slight strain. Delays in court processes also affect witnesses’ remembrance of past events. The witnesses must also be provided with access and support for social and psychological counselling. Staff workers with trauma experience, especially trauma related to sexual assaults, should be the primary witnesses in most rape cases. On analysis, one of the main causes of witnesses withdrawing their earlier testimony throughout the trial is the danger to their lives. Nothing in the law, aside from these parts, shields witnesses against outside threats, coercion, or intimidation. Other factors that contribute to witnesses becoming hostile[15] during a trial include political pressure, self-inflicted terror of the police and the court system, a lack of fear of the law of perjury, an insensitive law enforcement apparatus, and corruption.

Delving into Indian legislation, it is crucial to examine the laws that address witnesses and provide for their protection. The new criminal law allows only police personnel to examine witnesses, as stated in Section 180[16] as well as open court trials and in-camera trials, as stated in Section 366.[17] Furthermore, the act emphasizes the importance of witness testimony, which can be obtained in the absence of the accused under Section 299 which ensures that critical evidence is kept even if the accused escapes, thus protecting the trial’s integrity. Furthermore, Section 191[18] of the code specifies that a witness on his way to deliver testimony or evidence shall not be unduly escorted by police escorts, confined, or subjected to any inconvenience by the police. It safeguards witnesses’ dignity and comfort by limiting unnecessary police escorts and restraints, reducing intimidation during their court appearances.

On the analysis of US structured approach to Witness Protection, India could also implement a dedicated witness security unit, which is responsible for safeguarding witness and their families, including relocation and maintenance of secrecy. It is also pertinent to streamline the application process for witness protection requests giving ample time for suitability assessments and support services. The Witness protection scheme in India includes the provisions for financial assistance for improvement in the conditions and necessities, which resonate with the US program related to financial support.[19] In addition to this, categorization of witnesses into three groups based on the perceived level of threat is a structured approach to threat assessment. This even helps the US government to implement the strict judicial procedures for the betterment of witnesses and upholding justice.

II. Conclusion

In order to protect witnesses’ rights, enhance the criminal justice system, and advance the ideals of justice, equality, and fairness in India, it is imperative that the issues and barriers surrounding witness protection be resolved. The criminal court system in India has traditionally disregarded its requirements for witness protection. The formation of WPS is a great step towards protecting human rights and improving the Indian legal system. The implementation should be fostered rigorously and security mechanism should be updated like video conferencing, legitimate and reasonable tracking for upholding justice in true sense. The plan should be totally concentrated on the witnesses. If officials neglect to protect witnesses, it should hold them accountable. Comprehensive laws, multi-agency collaboration, long-term witness support, and technical advances are all carefully researched and executed.

References

[1] Bryan A Garner (ed), Black’s Law Dictionary (11th edn, Thomson Reuters 2019).
[2] Mahendra Chawla v Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Crl.) No 156 of 2016 (SC, 5 December 2018).
[3] Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh & Anr v State of Gujarat & Ors (2004) 4 SCC 158.
[4] Qamrush Zehra and others, ‘Critical Examination Of Applicability Of The Principle Of “Falsus In Uno, Falsus In Omnibus”‘ (2023) TIJER International Research Journal <https://tijer.org/tijer/papers/TIJER2306205.pdf> accessed 12 November 2025.
[5] R Elliott, ‘Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses’ (1998) <https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz3631/files/problems/witness_intimidation/PDFs/Elliot_1998.pdf> accessed 12 November 2025.
[6] [Author’s in-text reference to Loftus research lacks a full citation. Please supply the specific publication details for footnote 6.]
[7] Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 (MHA 2018) <https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-08/Documents_PolNGuide_finalWPS_08072019%5B1%5D.pdf> accessed 14 November 2025.
[8] State of Gujarat v Anirudh Singh (1997) 6 SCC 514.
[9] Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (Act No 28 of 1987, India).
[10] Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 (Act No 15 of 2002, India).
[11] Rashmi Rekha Baug, ‘Witness Protection Scheme in India – Issues and Challenges’ (2023) IJCRT <https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2306881.pdf> accessed 16 November 2025.
[12] State (Delhi) v Manu (2006) 116 DLT 96 (Del HC).
[13] ‘Witness Protection in India’ (ResearchGate, 2021) <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351942191_Witness_Protection_in_India> accessed 16 November 2025.
[14] Law Commission of India, 154th Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure (1996) (Government of India, New Delhi).
[15] ‘India: Why Witnesses Turn Hostile – A Study of the Factors That Influence Witness Cooperation’ (HG.org, 2024) <https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/india-why-witnesses-turn-hostile-a-study-of-the-factors-that-influence-witness-cooperation-65220> accessed 16 November 2025.
[16] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 180.
[17] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 366.
[18] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 191.
[19] ‘Witness Protection: A Comparative Study Between USA and India’ (Scribd, 2025) <https://www.scribd.com/document/512374329/COMPARATIVE-STUDY-OF-WITNESSPROTECTION-SCHEME-BETWEEN-USA-INDIA> accessed 16 November 2025.