The government of Maharashtra on Monday submitted before the Bombay high court a draft of a proposed Act that seeks to provide security to witnesses in criminal cases. The court was also informed that the government is ready to provide protection to RTI activists and whistleblowers.
The division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Gautam S. Patel was hearing a suo motu PIL on the reports of Pune-based RTI activist Satish Shetty’s murder.
Following the submission of the draft of “Maharashtra Witness Protection Act 2015” the bench sought opinion of amicus curiae (friend of court) D.D. Madon, who said that the Act only covers witnesses and not RTI activists and whistleblowers.
On this, government pleader Nitin Deshpande told the court that the government had decided to extend it (the scope of the Act) to these two categories as well.
Advocate Madon also contended that the power to give protection to witnesses has been conferred upon the investigating agencies, but this power should be extended to the trial judges. Advocate Deshpande said that the government was ready to consider this suggestion, but added that in case a trial court grants protection to a witness then there is an apprehension that this order could be challenged before a higher court and in such a situation the trial would be stalled for that period.
Another suggestion put forth by advocate Madon was that the proposed Act is applicable to cases in which offences are punishable with life or death sentences, but it should be extended to all criminal cases.
On this, the government informed the court that at present the government intends to give protection to witnesses of serious crimes only. “The government will have to take into account the availability of the police force and budgetary provisions and even otherwise it should be made workable,” said advocate Deshpande. He also added that if these important factors are not taken into account and everybody is included then it would become difficult to implement it and the Act will remain only on paper.
During the hearing, the bench opined that the proposed Act gives protection only to witnesses and not to investigating officers. On this advocate Madon said that the definition of “witnesses” is wide enough to include policemen also. The government pleader also joined him and said that the proposed Act could be extended to policemen too. On this, the bench observed, “Please do not leave anything for inferences and interpretation.”
The judges then posted the matter for further hearing on February 6 next year when the government is supposed to inform the court about further progress.
In December last year, the court had directed the government to frame a fresh policy within three months to provide protection to witnesses. While issuing directions the judges had shown displeasure on current policy and pointed out that the term ‘witness’ should include not only those who are going to depose in courts, but also those who possess information and documents related to any crime. The bench had also directed that pending framing of policy, protection should be provided immediately to whistleblowers and witnesses even during the investigation stage if such a person makes a request for protection.
On completion of three months the matter came up for hearing and the court was informed that instead of a mere policy the government would soon come up with a law on the issue and now a draft proposal is submitted before the court.
