CHENNAI: Stating that special courts cannot issue orders mechanically for protection of witnesses in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the Madras High Court has directedthe framing of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the special courts to be followed in dealing with petitions for witness protection.
A division bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan directed the amicus curiae advocate Sharath Chandran to frame the SOP.
“An order under Section 44 of UAPA is not final in any respect, but is subject to revision by the Court, either suo motu or at the instance of the witness/Public Prosecutor based on the fluctuations in circumstances and in the gravity of threat and other parameters,” it observed.
“Since we are given to understand that there is no specific procedure that is followed by the Court in deciding applications for witness protection, we request Sharath Chandran, Amicus, to circulate an SOP in this regard,” the bench said.
The order was passed recently on the petition filed by four persons, including Syed Abu Thahir belonging to the Popular Front of India (PFI), accused in the murder of a Hindu Munnani leader in Coimbatore in 2016. Advocate I Abdul Basith appeared for the petitioners.
The bench said Section 44 of UAPA “is meant to be a protection/shield to the witnesses from threats” and “not a sword in the hands of the prosecution to curtail or abridge the valuable right of cross-examination.”
Stating that the special court accepts the redactions made by the investigating officer without examination, the bench said this is not only contrary to the purport and object of Section 44 of the UAPA but would also pave the way for affording undue advantage to the prosecution in the adversarial system that we follow.
It added that the special court judge shall take into consideration particular facts and circumstances of the case, its peculiarities, the threat perception and all other available material before taking a decision.
“There is no one-size-fits-all formula as far as witness protection is concerned,” the bench said, and noted that the only rule that reigns is “application of mind” by the special court.