Law panel to suggest need for witness protection programme in report on death penalty

NEW DELHI: The need for a comprehensive legislation to protect witnesses in sensitive cases is likely to be one of the key recommendations of the Law Commission as part of its report on death penalty. So far Delhi is the only state in the country that has a witness protection programme.

The law panel, headed by Justice A P Shah, is also likely to moot reforms in the criminal justice system and rehabilitation of victim's family, a key component of the witness protection measures adopted by many countries across the world. The panel is expected to submit its report on Monday to the Supreme Court and the law ministry.

Reforms in the criminal justice system, including police reforms, emphasis on reducing government litigation, regular review of under-trials and addressing juvenile delinquency are also likely to be among the Commission's suggestions. The panel has also recommended a minimum compensation of two years wages or Rs 2 lakh as compensation for victims and their families.

Despite several known cases of intimidation and threat to life of key witnesses, there is no central legislation in India on witness protection or to deal with threat to their life from criminals and people in position of power. In recent times there have been as many as 48 deaths linked to Madhya Pradesh's Vyapam scam forcing the state to hand over the case to the CBI.

Among the provisions in Delhi's witness protection programme are ban on publication or revealing, in any manner, directly or indirectly, the name, address and other particulars which may lead to the identification of a witness; changing the identity of a witness; relocating the person, facility for in-camera proceedings and 'live link', in which a witness can depose without coming to court.

Other measures to protect witnesses include taking steps so that an accused is not able to confront the witness or monitor the person's calls and mails and changing the phone number of the witness or providing him or her with an unlisted number. Installing security devices at the person's home, guarding the person's residence, providing escort vehicles to the witness will be some of the other measures for protection.

In the recent past, the Jessica Lal murder case saw many witnesses turning hostile leading to the prosecution launching perjury cases against them. The Delhi high court asked the state government to frame a comprehensive witness protection scheme which finally led to the legislative initiative in the capital.

The Law Commission has made several attempts to draft a witness protection law and stressed the importance of a legislative initiative on the Centre, but has met with little success. The last law panel report was sent to government in 2006.

There are well-defined witness protection laws in all developed countries which include changing identity of the witness to providing them security, shelter and livelihood.

For instance, in the US, protection is provided not only to a witness but even to his or her close relatives and to a potential witness. The laws in US and Canada make it incumbent on the government to provide housing, medical care, job training, employment and subsistence funding.

In the UK, the English laws consider threat to a witness as a contempt of court. In 1994, UK enacted the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act which provides for punishment for intimidation of witnesses. Section 51 of the Act provides for protection of the witness and also a potential witness who is helping or could help with the investigation of a crime.

Times View

One of the reasons for the alarmingly low conviction rates for heinous crimes in India is the frequency with which prosecution witnesses turn 'hostile', often because they have been bought out or have been terrified into remaining silent or changing their original testimony. For this to change we need both a rigorous witness protection programme, which will give witnesses the courage to speak out. At the same time, there should be prosecution for perjury to ensure that witnesses are not easily bought out. Obviously, witness protection must be ensured before we start prosecuting witnesses for perjury. Else, witnesses could be caught between the accused threatening them and the law also doing so.