The Supreme Court of India has ruled against a blanket ban on disclosing witness statements under the UAPA, emphasizing the need for individualized threat assessments to uphold the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Ban on Witness Statement Disclosure Under UAPA

In a landmark judgment dated 29 May 2024, the Supreme Court of India ruled that courts cannot impose a blanket prohibition on the disclosure of witness statements in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) without a personalized assessment of threat to each witness.

Personalized Judicial Evaluation Is Mandatory

The Court clarified that any restriction on the defence’s access to prosecution witness statements must be supported by a well-reasoned judicial order. Such an order should demonstrate careful analysis of whether a specific witness’s life or safety is at risk, ensuring that protective measures are individualized and justified.

High Court and Special Court’s Blanket Ban Overturned

Initially, a Special Court barred disclosure of witness statements based on concerns raised by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), citing Sections 44 of UAPA and 17 of the NIA Act, 2008. This blanket ban was later upheld by the High Court, even after the examination-in-chief of the witnesses.

However, the Supreme Court bench—comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan—allowed the appeal, stressing that a universal restriction is unconstitutional without a case-by-case evaluation.

Appellant’s Argument: No Threat Assessment, No Justification

The Appellant, facing charges under UAPA for alleged involvement in terrorist activities, argued that while the law permits protective measures, these must be grounded in concrete threat perceptions per individual. Without any specific evidence of threat or protective steps for each of the 15 witnesses examined under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the blanket gag order violated the accused’s right to a fair trial.

Right to Fair Trial and Cross-Examination Must Be Preserved

Justice Oka emphasized that the right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to a fair trial. Courts cannot withhold statements mechanically—even when a threat is recorded—without providing a brief but reasoned justification for each case.

Omnibus Applications by Prosecutors Not Acceptable

The Supreme Court further warned that prosecutors must not file omnibus applications seeking protection for all witnesses under Section 44(2) of UAPA or Section 17(2) of the NIA Act. Applications must include specific averments for each witness, ensuring strict adherence to procedural fairness and transparency.

Final Judgment and Directive to NIA

The Supreme Court annulled the previous orders by the Special Court and the High Court. It directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to submit a fresh application within eight weeks, ensuring that individual threat assessments are presented for proper judicial scrutiny.

This judgment reinforces the balance between national security and constitutional rights, affirming that witness protection must not override the right to a fair and transparent trial.