In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized the necessity for individual threat assessments before imposing restrictions on the disclosure of witness statements in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The Court ruled that blanket orders barring the disclosure of such statements are impermissible, highlighting the importance of safeguarding the rights of the accused while ensuring the protection of witnesses.
The case in question involved an appellant facing trial under the UAPA for alleged involvement in terrorist activities. During the investigation, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) recorded statements of 15 prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Special Court, invoking Section 44 of the UAPA and Section 17 of the NIA Act, 2008, issued a blanket order to withhold the identities and statements of these witnesses, citing threats to their lives. The High Court upheld this decision, prompting the appellant to challenge the order in the Supreme Court.
The appellant contended that while Section 44 of the UAPA empowers courts to protect witnesses by concealing identities and limiting disclosure, such measures must be based on a judicially recorded satisfaction that there is a genuine threat to the life or safety of each witness. The appellant argued that the Special Court's blanket order lacked individualized assessments and did not specify the protective measures adopted for each witness, rendering the restriction unjustified.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, concurred with the appellant's arguments. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, observed that the protection under Section 44(2) of the UAPA must be tailored to each individual witness. The Court emphasized that any order limiting the disclosure of witness statements must be supported by a well-reasoned judicial order, demonstrating careful application of mind and consideration of the protective measures adopted for each witness. Without these elements being fulfilled, withholding disclosure of statements cannot be justified.
The Court further clarified that the normal rule is that the accused is entitled to copies of the statements of witnesses recorded by the police during the investigation. Therefore, any restriction on this right must be based on credible material indicating a real threat to the life or safety of each witness. The Court noted that the Special Court's blanket order failed to meet these criteria, as it did not provide specific details about the threat perception or the protective measures for each witness.
In light of these observations, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the Special Court to reconsider the matter. The Court instructed that the Special Court must conduct an individualized threat assessment for each witness and pass reasoned orders justifying any restrictions on the disclosure of their statements. The Court emphasized that such assessments must be based on credible material and must specify the protective measures adopted for each witness.
This judgment underscores the delicate balance that courts must maintain between protecting witnesses and ensuring the fair trial rights of the accused. While the protection of witnesses is paramount, it cannot come at the cost of depriving the accused of their right to a fair trial. The Court's emphasis on individualized threat assessments ensures that restrictions on the disclosure of witness statements are justified and proportionate to the threat posed.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision reaffirms the principle that the rights of the accused must be upheld, even in cases involving serious charges under the UAPA. By mandating individualized threat assessments and reasoned judicial orders, the Court has reinforced the importance of fairness and transparency in the criminal justice process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.