Witnesses are the backbone of the criminal justice system, as their testimony often determines whether justice is delivered. However, in India, witnesses have historically been described as the weakest link in the chain of justice. Intimidation, harassment, inducement, and threats from powerful accused persons often result in witnesses turning hostile, leading to acquittals even in serious cases. The lack of a robust witness protection mechanism undermines the credibility of trials, erodes public confidence in the judiciary, and compromises the constitutional promise of fair trial under Article 21. Ensuring the safety, security, and dignity of witnesses is therefore central to strengthening India’s justice system.
The need for witness protection has been repeatedly emphasized by the judiciary. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004), popularly known as the Best Bakery case, the Supreme Court lamented the collapse of justice due to witnesses turning hostile under threats and pressures, and called for a comprehensive witness protection programme. Similarly, in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018), the Court directed the implementation of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, observing that protecting witnesses is essential for the rule of law. These judicial pronouncements underline that a fair trial cannot exist without witness confidence.
For decades, India lacked a formal statutory witness protection law, relying instead on piecemeal provisions such as in-camera trials under Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, disclosure bans on the identity of victims in sexual offences, and relocation in rare cases. Recognizing the inadequacy of these measures, the Supreme Court approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, which became the first pan-India programme dedicated to safeguarding witnesses. The scheme provides for three categories of witness protection—ranging from police escorts and identity protection to relocation and financial aid—depending on the threat perception. It also establishes Witness Protection Cells in States to evaluate threats and recommend protective measures.
Despite this progress, challenges in implementation persist. The scheme, while progressive, is not yet backed by parliamentary legislation, raising questions about its enforceability and uniformity. Funding remains a major obstacle, as the scheme requires States to establish witness protection funds, but many States have been slow to allocate resources. Awareness among police officials, prosecutors, and even witnesses themselves is limited, leading to underutilization of available protections. Delays in assessing threat levels and bureaucratic hurdles often reduce the effectiveness of protection. In addition, India’s vast diversity and uneven law enforcement capacity mean that witness protection may work better in some States than others.
High-profile cases have demonstrated both the urgent need and the difficulties of witness protection. In the Nirbhaya gang rape case, special measures were taken to protect witnesses and victims’ families. Conversely, in several cases involving organized crime or political violence, witnesses have retracted their statements due to intimidation, reflecting the absence of reliable safeguards. The frequent phenomenon of hostile witnesses remains a major challenge, weakening prosecutions and allowing criminals to escape punishment.
Comparatively, many countries have enacted strong statutory witness protection laws with dedicated agencies, including the United States Witness Security Program and European models that provide relocation, new identities, and long-term financial support. India’s reliance on an executive scheme falls short of these standards, though it represents an important beginning. The Law Commission of India, in its 198th and 270th Reports, has repeatedly recommended comprehensive legislation to protect witnesses and ensure their cooperation in trials.
In conclusion, witness protection in India has moved from being a neglected area to gaining recognition through judicial intervention and the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. However, the current scenario remains far from satisfactory, with inconsistent implementation, lack of resources, and continuing intimidation of witnesses. The road ahead requires the enactment of a dedicated witness protection law, adequate funding, training of law enforcement officials, and greater sensitivity to the needs of vulnerable witnesses. Only by ensuring that witnesses can testify without fear or pressure can India hope to secure fair trials, strengthen its criminal justice system, and uphold the constitutional promise of justice for all.
