#dnaEdit: Aam Aadmi Party led Delhi government sets an example

The Aam Aadmi Party government’s decision to notify the country’s first witness protection scheme addresses the need of the hour and puts the onus on other states to follow suit. In the capital city’s case, the scheme comes in the backdrop of the Delhi high court issuing witness protection guidelines in the Jessica Lal and Nitish Katara murder cases where witnesses turned hostile. In addition, the recent murder of a 19-year-old girl in West Delhi by her neighbours, after she resisted a molestation attempt and made futile complaints to the police of threats, appears to be the immediate trigger for notifying the policy. For decades now, it has been common knowledge that victims and witnesses in criminal cases face immense social pressure and physical threats from accused persons. Such pressures have derailed many a criminal case with witnesses turning hostile during trial. It is surprising and unacceptable that none of these institutions — the executive, legislature, judiciary or the police force have so far felt the need to put in place systemic measures to shield witnesses. But now, the State and its institutions have been left with nowhere to hide after the recurring deaths in the Vyapam scam and the Asaram Bapu cases. These have dominated the public discourse if only because of the sheer brazenness of these acts, and the murkiness associated with them.

The proposed Delhi scheme categorises witnesses by threat perception: Category A offers long-term protection for witnesses who face threats for a substantial period, Category B protects witnesses until the culmination of trial; and Category C protection ends after investigation is complete and charge sheets are filed. Under the guidelines, the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) will receive applications, take decisions on threat perception, and conduct periodical reviews. The Delhi Police will have a new arm — Witness Protection Cell — to implement the orders passed by the DLSA. Interestingly, the scheme goes beyond the conventional practice of merely posting a police constable to accompany the witness at all times. It envisages monitoring of telephone calls, installing security cameras at witnesses’ homes, concealment of witness identity by referring to him/her with a different name, temporary change of address, and ensuring that witnesses and accused do not cross paths during investigation and trial. While calling a witness by a different name or facilitating a temporary change of address might fall short of the US system — where the FBI creates new identities for witnesses and their families — the Delhi scheme is a fine start in a system that for long has left witnesses to fend for themselves. 

Much of the scheme’s success will depend on the quantum of funds allocated to it. It could also prove to be a logistic challenge for the police as more and more witnesses begin to avail of the provisions of the scheme. Already stretched thin by manifold responsibilities and long work hours, offering individual protection will be low on the policing priorities. But in the long run, witness protection schemes will improve conviction rates as well as the credibility of the police, besides creating a robust criminal justice delivery system. Recall that an analysis by The Hindu of 583 rape cases decided in 2013 found that in nearly one-fourth of the cases, the victim did not appear in court or turned hostile. The possibility of rape victims facing threats or being forced to settle out of court could not be dismissed. In 141 cases, the alleged rapist was known to the victim — as a neighbour, acquaintance or relative. Where the victim and the accused are related or live in close proximity, victims are more vulnerable. To be effective, the witness protection scheme must be supplemented with punishments for police personnel if and when witnesses in their custody are endangered. At the end, the absence of witness protection policies implicates the State for failing to address a basic governance need for so many decades. Other states must follow Delhi’s example without losing more time.