Special Court directed to reassess witness protection applications with clear reasoning and individual consideration
In a significant development, the Kerala High Court has set aside the orders of the Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam, which had earlier designated certain witnesses as protected under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and P.V. Balakrishnan on February 6, 2026.
The case, titled R. Ragavendra v. Union of India, revolved around the Special Court's orders that allowed for the protection of witnesses by keeping their identities confidential. The petitioners, accused in a case involving serious charges under the Indian Penal Code and UAPA, contested the orders, arguing that the Special Court failed to adequately justify the need for witness protection.
The High Court found merit in the petitioners' argument, emphasizing that the Special Court did not record a clear satisfaction that the lives of the witnesses were in danger based on the material available. The court reiterated the necessity for the Special Court to apply its mind and provide specific reasons when deciding on witness protection measures.
In its judgment, the High Court highlighted that the orders from the Special Court were non-speaking and lacked sufficient reasoning. It noted that while the prosecution had presented specific averments for witness protection, the Special Court's orders merely stated that the reasons in the petition were convincing without delving into the details.
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mohammed Asarudeen v. Union of India, the High Court underlined that the satisfaction regarding the threat to witnesses' lives must be based on the materials presented before the court. It is imperative for the court to consider each witness's case individually and record brief reasons for any protective measures adopted.
The High Court's decision remits the applications for witness protection back to the Special Court for a fresh consideration. The Special Court is instructed to re-evaluate the applications in accordance with the observations made by the High Court and to proceed with the matter expeditiously.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring due process and transparency in the application of witness protection laws, especially in sensitive cases involving national security and terrorism.
Bottom Line:
Protection of witnesses under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Special Court must record clear satisfaction that life of witnesses is in danger, based on material on record - Court must apply its mind and record reasons for measures adopted to keep identity and address of witnesses secret.
Statutory provision(s): Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 44, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
R.Ragavendra v. Union of India, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2850340
