The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot pass blanket orders to block the disclosure of witness statements in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). It made clear that such restrictions can only be imposed if there is a case-by-case assessment showing a real danger to each witness’s life or safety.
Read also: Rahul Gandhi Alleges Savarkar’s Family Link with Godse in Pune Defamation Case
The Court stated, "The accused has a right to see the witness statements recorded by the police during the investigation." A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an appeal where the accused was on trial under UAPA for alleged terrorist activities. During the National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe, statements of 15 prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The Special Court invoked Section 44 of UAPA and Section 17 of the NIA Act, 2008, issuing a blanket order to block the identities and statements of these witnesses, citing potential threats to their lives.
The High Court later upheld this order, even after the witnesses had already given their chief examination. This decision was then challenged in the Supreme Court. The accused argued that while the law does allow protection for witnesses—like hiding identities, in-camera hearings, and limiting disclosure—this should only happen if the court is convinced, based on evidence, that there’s a genuine threat. Since there was no individual assessment for each witness or any detailed protective measures noted, the blanket order was unjustified.
Read also: Supreme Court Questions Haryana Govt On NHRC's Concerns Over FIR Against Ali Khan Mahmudabad
Justice Oka, writing the judgment, noted, “Protection under Section 44(2) of UAPA must be applied to each witness based on specific threats. Blanket orders cannot replace fair trial rights, including the right to cross-examine.”
Even if the court sees danger to a witness, it cannot automatically ban disclosure of statements. The Court highlighted, “In each case, the court must think carefully about what protective steps to take, including whether to keep the witness’s identity secret. The court must give brief reasons for its decisions.”
Read also: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer of Four High Court Chief Justices
The Supreme Court stressed that courts should not act mechanically when handling applications by the prosecution to block witness statements. It said, “The court must think about the danger to each witness. The prosecution cannot make a general application for all witnesses. Specific details for each witness must be given. Section 44(2) of UAPA (also Section 17(2) of NIA) must be strictly followed because it directly impacts the accused’s right to defend.”
Case Title: MOHAMMED ASARUDEEN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Adv. Mr. A. Noufal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Shankar Dixit, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. B. Mohan, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sarkar, Adv.
