Abstract:

The Witness Protection Scheme, implemented in India in 2018, marks a significant step toward
ensuring the safety of witnesses in criminal cases, especially in high-profile and sensitive trials.
This scheme, formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs and endorsed by the Supreme Court,
seeks to address the vulnerability of witnesses who often face threats, intimidation, or violence,
leading to compromised testimonies and, consequently, failed prosecutions. By providing
security measures such as identity protection, relocation, and financial assistance, the scheme
aims to bolster the criminal justice system by safeguarding the integrity of witness testimony.
This paper evaluates the efficacy of the Witness Protection Scheme, focusing on its legal
framework, practical implementation, and the challenges it faces in a complex socio-political
landscape. It explores case studies where the scheme has been successfully applied and
highlights gaps where protection measures have been insufficient or mismanaged. The Witness
Protection Scheme is a promising yet underutilized tool in India’s fight for justice. Its success
hinges on systemic reforms, increased funding, and enhanced cooperation between law
enforcement, the judiciary, and other stakeholders to protect witnesses and ensure the
conviction of perpetrators. The Ministry of Home Affairs in India launched the Witness
Protection Scheme in 2018 to address the risks witnesses experience and improve their
involvement in criminal proceedings. The plan intends to provide witnesses with protection,
security, and assistance, enabling them to testify honestly and fearlessly which is the objective
of the scheme. By introducing the Witness Protection Scheme,2018 to address the
vulnerabilities faced by witnesses and encourage their participation in trials.
Introduction:

The importance of witnesses in the criminal justice system cannot be overstated. They serve as
the legal systems' foundation and moral skeleton. In the pursuit of providing victims with
justice, witness testimony is indispensable. Witnesses execute a "sacred duty" by testifying
before the courts. As stated by Justice Wadhwa in Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, a criminal
case is built on evidence, specifically admissible in court. Whether it be direct evidence or
indirect evidence, witnesses are needed for that. But it frequently happens that witnesses
become hostile toward the end of a trial. As a consequence, those who were accused are cleared.
Slow trials, frequent cross-examinations, financial inducements, threats, intimidation, or fear
for their own lives or the lives of their loved ones are among the reasons given for antagonism
and withdrawing statements. The accused or any unconnected third parties may threaten
witnesses or the witnesses' families. The judiciary has emphasized the need of safeguarding
witnesses' safety on several occasions. "If the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give
false evidence that also would not result in fair trial," the Supreme Court of India stated in the
Best Bakery case. Witness protection laws are a requirement in order to guarantee witness
safety and boost public confidence in the criminal justice system. If the government doesn't
provide witnesses with protection, perpetrators could go free. Offenders will continue to avoid
responsibility for the crime they committed if there are no obligatory legal measures in place
to safeguard witnesses. Concerning provisions for witness protection, the international
community, especially the industrialized countries, has responded significantly. Many nations,
including the United States, Australia, Canada, and others, passed witness protection laws
decades ago. In contrast, countries without extensive and distinct witness protection laws
include Bangladesh and India. India launched its first Witness Protection Scheme (WPS) in
December 2018. This paper covers the key WPS provisions. It points out impediments to the
plan's accomplishment and makes recommendations on how to carry it out in letter and spirit.
A reasonable and efficient criminal justice system must include witness protection. Witnesses
are essential to the investigation and prosecution of crimes because they may offer testimony
and evidence. However, witnesses frequently confront serious dangers and difficulties,
including intimidation, reprisal, and concern for their own and their families' safety. These 1

1
Namit Saxena,Concise commentary on The Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Taxmann's Handbook on New Criminal Laws – Detailed, in-depth analysis on BNSS

2
dangers may discourage potential witnesses from testifying, which might result in a dearth of
data and flawed trials. Governments all across the globe have created witness protection
programmes and plans in recognition of the value of witness cooperation and protection. In
order to safeguard witnesses, a safe atmosphere must be created for them, and their safety and
participation in court processes must be supported. Programmes designed to safeguard
witnesses are meant to allay their concerns and remove any obstacles in their way, so increasing
their desire to testify and aid the cause of justice. The integrity and impartiality of the criminal
justice system depend on witness protection. In order to address witness vulnerabilities, ensure
their safety, and encourage their active engagement, India has to build a strong witness
protection programme. India can enhance its judicial system, defend the rule of law, and
promote a society where justice is available to everyone by offering a secure environment for
witnesses.

Overview of India's Witness Protection scheme:

The Ministry of Home Affairs in India launched the Witness Protection Scheme in 2018 to
address the risks witnesses experience and improve their involvement in criminal proceedings.
The plan intends to provide witnesses with protection, security, and assistance, enabling them
to testify honestly and fearlessly which is the objective of the scheme.

Features of India's Witness Protection Scheme

Eligibility and Purpose: The scheme divides witnesses into three categories, based on the
severity of the threat they face. The most severe threats that extend to the lives of the witness
or their family members fall under Category A. Category B pertains to threats that may affect
the safety, reputation, or property of the witness or their family members. Category C covers
moderate threats, such as harassment or intimidation of the witness or their family members'
reputation.

Protective Measures: To protect witnesses, the scheme includes a number of protective

measures. These might involve changing one's identity, moving to safe homes or new
residences, giving one's self new identities, personal security, and tight protection. Based on an
evaluation of the dangers and hazards each witness faces which is ascertained by the Threat 2

2
Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab. (2000). 5 SCC 668. Indian Supreme Court.
Shukla, M., & Shukla, G. (2014). Witness Anonymity & Protection

3
Analysis Report prepared by police, particular protective measures are chosen by the
Competent Authority which is headed by a Judge, Public Prosecutor and head of the
district Police.

Risk Assessment and Protection Orders: The scheme appoints a competent authority in
charge of completing a thorough evaluation of the dangers and hazards to witnesses. The
competent authority provides protection orders outlining the appropriate protective measures
to be put in place for each witness based on this evaluation. The plan calls for the creation of a
Special Witness Protection Unit (SWPU) specifically designed to coordinate and carry out
witness protection measures in each state. The SWPU serves as the nodal institution in charge
of evaluating, approving, and overseeing protective measures. A witness protection fund has
been established to offer financial assistance for the execution of safety precautions. The money
from the fund is used to cover the costs of the protected witnesses' housing, transportation,
relocation, identity change, and other essential support services.

Confidentiality and non-disclosure: The scheme place a strong emphasis on the necessity of
upholding the secrecy and non-disclosure of the names and whereabouts of the protected
witnesses. It provides strict guidelines to make sure that personal data on witnesses is kept
private and shared only to those who need to know.

Protection Period Length: The scheme acknowledges the necessity of both immediate and
long-term protective actions. Long-term protection measures are also taken into consideration,
particularly in circumstances where the risk to the witness's safety may continue even after the
trial is over, even while immediate protection is offered during the trial phase.

An important step in addressing the difficulties witnesses confront and encouraging their active
involvement in legal procedures is the Witness Protection Scheme in India. By providing a
comprehensive framework for witness protection, the scheme aims to bolster the credibility of
the justice system, enhance witness cooperation, and strengthen the overall effectiveness of the
criminal justice process.

3
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr V. State Of Gujarat & Ors. (2004). 4 SCC 158. Indian Supreme Court.
Kaur, S. (2011). Potential challenges in a witness protection programme

4
Provisions of the witness protection scheme of 2018:

The WPS was sanctioned by the Supreme Court of India on December 5, 2018 under the
authority conferred to it by Articles 141 and 142 of the Indian Constitution. This significant
judgement was made in the case Mahender Chawla and Others v. Union of India and Others.
To protect the witnesses in the alleged rape of Asaram Bapu, a writ suit was lodged. The WPS
was created to prevent witness intimidation and fear from preventing them from testifying in
court and impeding the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of criminal offences. It was
thought that the criminal court system might acquire the confidence of witnesses to testify
provided they were assured of their safety. The plan also adopts a number of procedures to
safeguard the safety of the vulnerable witnesses in accordance with these goals and objectives.
The word "witness" and other terminology used in the scheme are defined in part one.
According to the plan, a witness is "any person who has knowledge or documentation regarding
any offenses".

A State witness protection fund is also to be established as part of the plan. The state
government's financial allocation, donations and contributions, money raised through CSR
initiatives, and expenses imposed or required to be paid by the courts or tribunals would all be
included in the fund. Any witness who feels threatened or at risk may submit a request to the
appropriate authority. Every district is obligated to evaluate these petitions through a permanent
committee headed by the District and Sessions Judge and composed of the Head of the District
Police and the Head of the District Prosecution as its Member Secretary. The witness may
submit the application and any supporting materials through the Member Secretary. A Threat
Analysis Report is immediately ordered by the Member Secretary when the application is
submitted. Five days must pass before the report is due. Threat perception is categorized in the
study, which also offers recommendations for necessary safety precautions. Additionally, the
authority will speak with the witness's family members and conduct hearings on the application
behind closed doors. After the application is submitted, the entire procedure is meant to be
finished in 10 days with the utmost discretion. The competent authorities may impose
temporary protection if the witness is in immediate danger or under threat. The plan includes a
4

4
Supreme Court of India, Mahender Chawla & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156
of 2016.

5
clause requiring the supervision of the protection order's execution. It further specifies that a
follow-up report submitted by the Witness Protection Cell will serve as the basis for a quarterly
evaluation of the implementation. The plan stipulates safeguards that are universally adopted
to guarantee witnesses' security and give them the confidence to speak freely in court. Physical
protection by police officers, the placement of CCTVs close to their homes, the prompt
recording of statements without needless delays, in-camera trials, identity concealment and
change, temporary relocation, financial assistance, and the use of vulnerable witness
courtrooms are some of the measures that are briefly discussed.

Witness Protection Scheme under Section 398 of the BNSS:

Overview
The Witness Protection Program's primary goal is to safeguard the safety of witnesses whose
cooperation is essential to prosecuting high-stakes criminal cases. These witnesses often
possess first-hand knowledge of grave offenses such as organized crime operations, drug
cartels, terrorist organizations, and other nefarious activities where witness intimidation and
reprisals are serious threats.

History and development

The concept of witness protection emerged in the mid-20th century as a response to the
challenges of prosecuting organized crime, where fear of retaliation often deterred witnesses
from testifying. Prior to the formal establishment of WITSEC, individuals were hesitant to
cooperate with law enforcement due to concerns for their safety and the well-being of their
families. The creation of the program aimed to address these anxieties and encourage witnesses
to come forward without fearing for their lives, ultimately strengthening the pursuit of justice
against criminal organizations.

Eligibility and Admission

To qualify for the witness protection program, individuals must meet specific criteria
determined by federal law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and the USMS. These criteria 5

5
Ministry of Home Affairs, Witness Protection Scheme 2018, December 2018.

6
include the seriousness of the crime, the witness's credibility, and the potential danger posed
by the defendants or their associates. Notably, those who cooperate in the prosecution of
criminal cases are generally eligible.

Duration and Exit

The duration of protection varies significantly, tailored to the individual needs of each case.
While some witnesses may only require protection for a few months, others may need lifelong
assistance. Witnesses have the option to voluntarily leave the program when they no longer
feel threatened or their cooperation is no longer required. This process involves careful
planning to ensure the safety and security of the witness and their family, minimizing the risk
of exposure and ensuring a smooth transition.

Impact and Effectiveness

The Witness Protection Program has proven to be a vital tool in securing convictions against
high-profile criminals. By offering protection to witnesses who might otherwise be afraid to
testify, the program empowers the justice system to hold perpetrators accountable and
reinforces the rule of law.

Section 398 of the BNSS:

Every State Government shall prepare and notify a Witness Protection Scheme for the State
with a view to ensure protection of the witnesses.

Section 398 of the BNSS has emerged as a transformative provision in the realm of witness
protection. This pioneering amendment places witness safety at the heart of the criminal justice
system. By mandating every State Government to establish and implement a Witness Protection
Scheme (WPS), Section 398 ensures that witnesses can participate in legal proceedings without
fear of intimidation or reprisal. However, any state has not notified the Witness Protection
Scheme.

The ground-breaking nature of Section 398 lies in its comprehensive approach to witness
safety. The WPS must include measures to conceal witnesses' identities, provide secure 6

6
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

7
accommodation, facilitate relocation, and offer legal assistance and counselling. By addressing
both the physical and psychological well-being of witnesses, Section 398 empowers
individuals to speak out against crime with confidence, enhancing the effectiveness of the
criminal justice system and promoting public safety.

Law commission report related to witness protection:

The Law Commission of India has made several reports on witness protection, including:

154th Report (1996)

This report recommended that witnesses should be protected from the accused and that they
should be examined on the day they are summoned. It also recommended that witnesses should
be paid a realistic allowance for attending court and that they should be given adequate facilities
to stay in the court premises.

198th Report (2006)

This report was dedicated to witness protection and suggested a structured Witness Identity
Protection and Witness Protection Program. It recognized that witness testimony is often
compromised without legal safeguards.

The need for witness protection has been emphasized by Law Commission reports and court
judgments for years. The Supreme Court of India approved the Centre's draft witness protection
scheme in 2018 and directed all states to implement it.

Recommendations made by the Malimath committee:

To overcome the hurdles faced by the witness, the Committee has made the following
recommendations:

(i) Witness who comes to assist the court should be treated with dignity and shown due
courtesy. An official

should be assigned to provide assistance to him.

(ii) Separate place should be provided with proper facilities such as seating, resting, toilet,
drinking water etc. for the convenience of the witnesses in the court premises. 7

7
Law Commission of India, 198th Report on Witness Identity Protection and Witness Protection Programmes,
2006.

8
(iii) Rates of traveling and other allowance to the witness should be reviewed to compensate
him for the expenses that he incurs. Proper arrangements should be made for payment of the
allowances due to the witness on the same day when the case is adjourned without examining
the witness he should be paid T.A. and D.A. the same day.

(iv) A law should be enacted to give protection to the witnesses and their family members on
the lines of the laws in the USA and other countries.

(v) Courts should list the cases in such a manner as to avoid the witnesses being required to
come again and again for giving evidence. The trial should proceed on day to day basis and
granting of adjournments should be avoided. The Judge should be held accountable for any
lapse in this behalf. High Court should ensure due compliance through training and supervision.

(vi) Evidence of Experts falling under Sections 291, 292 and 293 of the Court may as far as
possible received under Affidavit.

(vii) DNA experts should be included in Subsection 4 of Section 293 of the Code.

(viii) The witness should be provided a seat for him to sit down and give evidence in the court.

(ix) The Judge should be vigilant and regulate cross-examination to prevent the witness being
subjected to harassment, annoyance or indignity. This should be ensured through training and
proper supervision by the High Courts.

Key Recommendations

a. Witness Identity Protection

One of the main recommendations of the report was to protect the identity of witnesses in
sensitive cases. The Commission suggested several measures to safeguard the anonymity of
witnesses:

In-camera trials: Proceedings should be conducted behind closed doors when necessary to
prevent exposure of witnesses to the public. 8

8
Saurabh Bindal, "Protection of Witnesses in India: Need for a Legal Framework," Journal of Indian Law,
Volume 27, Issue 4, 2017.

9
Sealing of records: Records revealing witness identity, including documents, should be sealed
and only accessible to authorized individuals.

b. Creation of a Witness Protection Program

The Law Commission advocated for a comprehensive witness protection program modeled
after similar programs in countries like the U.S. and the U.K. Key features of the proposed
program included:

Relocation and change of identity: In cases involving extreme risk, witnesses and their families
could be relocated and given new identities to protect them from potential harm.

Financial support: Witnesses whose livelihood was affected due to the need for protection
should be provided with financial support by the state.

Protection during the investigation and trial: Constant police protection should be offered to
high-risk witnesses during both the investigative and trial phases of the case.

c. Statutory Framework for Witness Protection

The Commission proposed enacting a law specifically aimed at protecting witnesses, as India
lacked a legislative framework for this purpose. The Commission noted that such a law would
provide greater authority for implementing protective measures and ensure that courts have the
power to enforce witness protection orders.

d. Witness Vulnerability Assessment

The Commission recommended establishing a procedure for evaluating the level of risk faced
by witnesses. A committee comprising judicial and police officials should be responsible for
conducting risk assessments and deciding on appropriate protection measures. 9

9
G. Singh, "Challenges in Implementing Witness Protection in India," Asian Journal of Criminology, Volume
12, Issue 3, 2021.

10
e. Special Courts for Sensitive Cases

To expedite cases involving high-profile accused and vulnerable witnesses, the Commission
suggested setting up special courts to handle such cases. This would not only help in speeding
up the trial process but also reduce the time during which witnesses are exposed to threats and
intimidation.

Judicial view on witness protection:

 In recent time the judiciary has been giving significant amount of

encouragement to establishing witness protection programs in India.
 On 8th August 2003, in the case of National Human Rights Commission v. State of
Gujarat15, the Supreme Court regretted that "no law has yet been enacted, not even a
scheme has been framed by the Union of India or by the State Government for giving
protection to the witnesses."
 In Ms Neelam Katara v. Union of India16, the Delhi High Court, has on 14thOctober
2003, issued certain guidelines to the police in providing protection to the witnesses
in cases pertaining to life imprisonment or death sentences. The ruling is an attempt to
check witnesses from turning hostile under threats from the accused.
 The Delhi High Court has given the following guidelines in giving witness
protection:

1. The Court has also made it compulsory for the investigating officer of a case to
inform the witness about the new guidelines.

2. The Court has appointed the Member Secretary of the Delhi Legal Services Authority to
decide whether a witness requires police protection or not.

3. The competent authority shall consider the nature of security risk to him/herfrom the
accused, while granting permission to protect the witness. 10

10
R. Venkataramanan, “Witness Protection in India: A Critical Analysis”, Indian Journal of Law, Volume 9,
Issue 2, 2019.

D. Krishnan, "Witnesses Under Threat: The Jessica Lal Murder Case," Journal of Contemporary Law, Volume
15, 2015.

11
 4. Once the permission is granted, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner of Police togive
protection to the witness. The High Court said that its order would operate until legislation
is passed in this regard.

 PUCL v. Union of India,17 while dealing with the validity of section 30 of

the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, the Supreme Court has referred in detail
to the subject of ‘protection of the witnesses’ and to the need to maintain a just
balance between the rights of the accused for a fair trial (which includes the
right to cross examine the prosecution witnesses in open court) and to the
need to enable (1)prosecution witnesses whose identity is known to the accused to
give evidence freely with being overawed by the presence of the accused in the Court
and (2) protection of the identity of witnesses who are not known to the accused, – by
means of devices like video-screen which preclude the accused from seeing the witness
even though the Court and defence counsel will be able to see and watch his demeanour.
 In the case of Zahira v. State of Gujarat18, while transferring what is known as the Best
Bakery Case, to Mumbai by its Order dated 12th April, 2004, directed: "The State of
Gujarat shall also ensure that the witnesses are produced before the concerned court,
whenever they are required to attend them, so that they can depose freely without
any apprehension of threat or coercion from any person. In case any witness asks for
protection, the State of Maharashtra shall also provide such protection as deemed
necessary, in addition to the protection to be provided for by the State of Gujarat."
the Supreme Court observed that “Legislative measures to emphasise prohibition
against tampering with witnesses, victim or informant, have become the imminent and
inevitable need of the day”. The Court also referred to “Witness Protection
Programmes” formulated in various countries. It said: “The Witness Protection
Programmes are imperative as well as imminent in the context of alarming rate of
somersaults by witnesses”. In fact, the Court has since sought responses from various
States on the question of witness protection. 11

11
Dhananjay Mahapatra, “Sohrabuddin Case: 90% Witnesses Turn Hostile,” The Times of India, December
2018.

12
Challenges and Suggestions:

Despite its strengths, the Witness Protection Scheme faces several challenges that hinder its
full efficacy:

a. Inadequate Implementation at the State Level

The scheme’s implementation varies across states. Some states have established robust
systems, while others have been slow to set up witness protection cells or funds. Lack of
political will and bureaucratic hurdles at the local level further impede the effective
implementation of protection measures.

b. Funding Issues

The Witness Protection Fund faces financial constraints. States with lower financial resources
struggle to allocate sufficient funds, leading to ineffective or inadequate protection measures.

c. Lack of Awareness

Many potential witnesses are unaware of the scheme, particularly in rural areas. This limits the
number of people who come forward to report or testify in criminal cases.

d. Threats from Powerful Entities

Witnesses often face threats from influential people, especially in cases involving political
corruption, organized crime, or corporate malfeasance. The state’s capacity to protect them
from such powerful entities is often limited.

e. Limited Scope of Protection

Protection measures such as identity shielding and relocation are challenging to implement in
practice, especially when the witness is well-known in their community or the accused is
powerful. The current scheme is sometimes inadequate in providing long-term security,
particularly after the case concludes. 12

12
M. Wilson, "Witness Protection in the United States: Lessons for India," Comparative Criminal Law Review,
2014.

13
Suggestions:

1. Enact Comprehensive Legislation

- *Statutory Backing*: The Witness Protection Scheme currently lacks a statutory framework.
A dedicated law governing witness protection would ensure uniformity in implementation
across states and provide accountability. This law should cover various aspects such as witness
categorization, threat assessment, funding, long-term protection, and penalties for non-
compliance.

- *Special Witness Protection Court*: Establish special courts focused on cases involving
vulnerable witnesses, ensuring faster trials and minimizing prolonged exposure to threats.

2. Enhance Funding and Resources

- *Central Government Support*: The financial burden on state governments can be

substantial. To ensure uniform implementation, the central government should provide
financial assistance to states that lack resources to implement the scheme effectively.

- *Private Sector Collaboration*: In high-risk cases, collaboration with private security

agencies can help provide better protection where state resources are stretched thin.

3. Establish Dedicated Witness Protection Units

- *Specialized Police Units*: Create specialized units within the police force to handle witness
protection, with officers trained in handling sensitive cases and providing round-the-clock
protection. These units should work independently from local police to prevent political or
external pressure.

- *Dedicated Witness Relocation and Rehabilitation Cells*: A separate wing should be set up
to handle witness relocation, housing arrangements, and new identity setups for those requiring
long-term protection. A multidisciplinary team comprising police, legal experts, and
rehabilitation counsellors should manage these cases.13

13
Bajpai, G. S. (2009). Witness in the criminal justice process: A study of hostility and problems associated
with witness. Bhopal: National Law Institute University.

14
4. Strengthen Witness Anonymity Measures

- *Use of Technology*: Virtual testimony through secure, anonymized video conferencing

should be widely promoted for witnesses in high-risk situations. This helps minimize direct
exposure to threats and intimidation.

- *Sealing Court Records*: Court records that identify witnesses should be sealed and only
accessible to authorized personnel, preventing public disclosure of sensitive information.
Courts should also be empowered to issue strict witness anonymity orders where necessary.

5. Streamline Threat Assessment Procedures

- *Centralized Threat Assessment Teams*: A dedicated team of experts should conduct regular
and thorough threat assessments for witnesses in sensitive cases. These teams, consisting of
law enforcement, judicial officers, and social workers, can ensure consistent threat evaluation
across cases.

- *Dynamic Risk Evaluation*: Continuous risk assessment must be done throughout the trial
process, not just at the initial stages. Witnesses might face fluctuating threats as the trial
progresses, necessitating ongoing monitoring.

6. Long-Term Support and Rehabilitation

- *Post-Trial Support*: Protection should not end with the conclusion of a trial, especially in
cases involving organized crime or terrorism. Witnesses who remain at risk after the trial should
be provided long-term protection, including relocation and new identities.

- *Financial Assistance*: Witnesses often lose their livelihood as a result of relocation or

participating in witness protection programs. Financial assistance programs and job placement
services should be introduced to rehabilitate witnesses after the trial concludes.

- *Psychological Counselling*: Witnesses and their families often experience trauma, anxiety,
and psychological stress. Providing access to psychological counselling or therapy is essential
for their long-term well-being. 14

14
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr V. State Of Gujarat & Ors. (2004). 4 SCC 158. Indian Supreme Court
N. Kumar, "Expediting Justice Through Fast-Track Courts in Witness Protection

15
7. Fast-Track Trials

- *Expediting Sensitive Cases*: Trials involving vulnerable witnesses should be fast-tracked

to minimize the duration witnesses are exposed to threats. Lengthy trials increase the risk of
intimidation and witness fatigue. The establishment of special courts for handling such cases
could assist in this regard.

Conclusion:

The criminal justice system in India has long disregarded its provisions for witness protection.
The development of WPS is a positive step for the protection of human rights and the
advancement of the Indian legal system. In actuality, the plan should be fully focused on the
witnesses. If officials fail to safeguard witnesses, it ought to hold them responsible. It is
important to plan so that witnesses won't have to ask for security or constantly worry about
their safety. It ought to encourage witnesses to come forward and give evidence against the
accused instead. Delivering justice, a value stated in the Indian constitution, would arise from
this. In this research paper, we have explored the issues and challenges surrounding the witness
protection scheme in India. Through an analysis of the background, significance, legislative
framework, international perspectives, and recommendations, several key findings have
emerged: Witnesses in India face significant risks and challenges, including threats,
intimidation, and fear for their safety and the safety of their families. The Witness Protection
Scheme in India, introduced in 2018, represents a significant step towards addressing these
challenges and ensuring the safety and participation of witnesses in criminal proceedings.
There is a need for enhanced coordination, resource allocation, and training for parties involved

in witness protection because the present legal framework does not contain complete laws
devoted exclusively to witness protection. The necessity of comprehensive laws, multi-agency
collaboration, long-term assistance for witnesses, and the inclusion of technical improvements
are all highlighted by international viewpoints and best practises, which provide insightful
information.

In conclusion, it is critical to solve the problems and obstacles in witness protection in order
to preserve witnesses' rights, improve the criminal justice system, and promote the values of
fairness, equality, and access to justice in India. By putting the suggested steps into practise,
you may create a safer and encouraging atmosphere for witnesses, encouraging their active
engagement and preserving the fairness of the judicial system.

16
References:

1. Rehandle, P. (2019). Witness protection: A comparative analysis of Indian and Australian

legislation. Journal of The Gujarat Research Society, 11(3), 141–149.

2. Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab. (2000). 5 SCC 668. Indian Supreme Court.

3. Bajpai, G. S. (2009). Witness in the criminal justice process: A study of hostility and
problems associated with witness. Bhopal: National Law Institute University.

4. Kaur, S. (2011). Potential challenges in a witness protection programme in Malaysia. Per

Tanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 19(2), 363–368.

5. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Amr V. State of Gujarat & OR’s. (2004). 4 SCC 158. Indian
Supreme Court.

6. Shukla, M., & Shukla, G. (2014). Witness Anonymity & Protection: Balancing under
criminal law. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 1(2), 97–108.

7. Law Commission of India. (1996). Law Commission of India one hundred and fifty fourth
report on the code of criminal procedure 1973 (act no. 2 of 1974). New Delhi: Government of
India.

8. The Law Commission of India. (2004). Consultation paper on witness identity protection
and witness protection Programme. Government of India. New Delhi: Government of India.

9. Khanna, N. (2013). Jessica Lal murder case: Shayan Munshi, another witness to face perjury
trial. Retrieved November 25, 2019.

10. Ministry of Home Affairs. (2018). Wines protection scheme, 2018. New Delhi: Ministry of
Home Affairs.

17