Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Smruti Tukaram Badade (S) v. State Of Maharashtra And Another (S) (2022 INSC 39), reaffirmed the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the dignity and ensuring the protection of vulnerable witnesses during criminal proceedings. This landmark judgment addressed the systemic challenges faced by vulnerable witnesses, including victims of sexual assault, individuals with mental illness, and those with disabilities, in accessing justice within a hostile and often insensitive courtroom environment.

The petitioner, Smruti Tukaram Badade, challenged the State of Maharashtra on the grounds of inadequate facilities and procedures for recording evidence from vulnerable witnesses. The core issue revolved around the necessity for a safe, barrier-free environment that upholds the dignity of such witnesses, thereby ensuring a fair trial and the pursuit of substantive justice.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, emphasized the critical need for establishing Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers (VWDCs) across India. Building upon precedents like Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) and State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat (2018), the Court issued comprehensive directives aimed at mainstreaming the protection and facilitation of vulnerable witnesses in the criminal justice system.

Key directives issued under Article 142 of the Constitution included:

• Expanding the definition of "vulnerable witness" to encompass a broader range of individuals, including age-neutral and gender-neutral victims, those with mental illnesses, and individuals with disabilities.
• Mandating all High Courts to adopt and notify a Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres Scheme within two months, with at least two such centers in each High Court's jurisdiction within three months.
• Establishing in-house permanent committees within High Courts to oversee the implementation and periodic assessment of VWDCs.
• Allocating funds and resources efficiently, with State Governments required to sanction funds within three months of proposal submissions.
• Creating training programs to sensitise judicial officers, legal practitioners, and court staff, ensuring a compassionate and supportive environment for vulnerable witnesses.

The Court also directed the creation of an All India VWDC Training Programme, chaired by Justice Gita Mittal, to ensure uniformity and effectiveness in the implementation of these measures across all jurisdictions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced prior landmark cases that laid the groundwork for protecting vulnerable witnesses:

• Sakshi v. Union of India (2004): This case highlighted the necessity of creating a sensitive and non-intimidating environment for vulnerable witnesses, especially in cases of sexual assault and abuse.
• State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996): Early directions were issued here, emphasizing the importance of recording evidence without exposing the witness to the accused's face or body.
• State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat (2018): Reinforced the establishment of VWDCs, aligning with the Delhi High Court's guidelines to facilitate the fair recording of vulnerable witnesses' testimonies.
• Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2019): Pertaining to the Witness Protection Scheme, it informed the inclusion of witnesses with threat perceptions in the definition of vulnerable witnesses.

These precedents collectively underscore a judicial trajectory aimed at enhancing the protection and dignified treatment of vulnerable witnesses, ensuring their testimonies contribute effectively to the pursuit of justice.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal reasoning centered on the intrinsic link between the dignity of the individual, as protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and the fair administration of justice. The Court posited that the integrity of the judicial process is significantly influenced by how vulnerable witnesses are treated and how their testimonies are recorded.

Key principles applied include:

• Dignity of Person: Upholding the sanctity and respect owed to every individual, especially those in vulnerable positions.
• Access to Justice: Ensuring that all witnesses, regardless of their vulnerabilities, have unimpeded access to the legal system.
• Barrier-Free Environment: Eliminating both physical and psychological barriers that hinder the effective recording of testimonies.
• Stakeholder Sensitization: Training and sensitizing all parties involved in the judicial process to handle vulnerable witnesses with empathy and professionalism.

The Court recognized that a hostile or insensitive environment can deter victims from coming forward or alter the authenticity of their testimonies, thereby impeding justice. Therefore, establishing VWDCs is not merely an infrastructural enhancement but a pivotal step towards a more humane and effective justice system.

Impact

The directives issued in this judgment are poised to have far-reaching implications on the criminal justice landscape:

• Standardization of Practices: Uniform guidelines across High Courts will ensure consistency in handling vulnerable witnesses nationwide.
• Enhanced Accessibility: With VWDCs in every district, vulnerable witnesses will find it easier to provide testimonies without the added trauma of confronting adversarial presences.
• Improved Training: Regular training programs will cultivate a judiciary and legal fraternity that are more attuned to the needs of vulnerable individuals.
• Resource Allocation: Clear directives on funding and infrastructure will streamline efforts to establish VWDCs, reducing bureaucratic delays.
• Substantive Justice: By ensuring that vulnerable witnesses can testify comfortably and truthfully, the quality of justice delivered will significantly improve.

In the long term, these measures are expected to bolster public confidence in the legal system, encouraging more victims to seek redressal without fear of retribution or humiliation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Smruti Tukaram Badade (S) v. State Of Maharashtra And Another (S) marks a significant stride towards a more empathetic and effective criminal justice system in India. By mandating the establishment of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers and expanding the definition of vulnerable witnesses, the Court has institutionalized the protection and dignified treatment of those who are most susceptible to intimidation and trauma during legal proceedings.

This landmark decision not only reinforces the constitutional guarantee of dignity and access to justice but also sets a precedent for other jurisdictions worldwide. The comprehensive directives ensure that the implementation is systematic, well-resourced, and standardized, thereby enhancing the overall efficacy of the legal system in addressing the needs of vulnerable populations.

Ultimately, this judgment embodies the judiciary's commitment to evolving and adapting its practices to uphold the principles of equity, compassion, and justice, ensuring that the legal process is accessible and fair for all, regardless of their personal vulnerabilities.