New Delhi: The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Allahabad High Court for routinely passing template orders that treat the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 as a substitute for bail cancellation. The apex court warned that such practices undermine established legal principles and dilute judicial authority.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta expressed concern over the repetitive nature of orders issued by the High Court. It noted that at least 40 such orders were passed in the past year alone, many of them verbatim copies, continuing a trend observed for more than two years.
Bench Rejects ‘Template’ Approach
According to the Supreme Court, the High Court wrongly viewed the scheme as an alternative remedy. “We are at pains to note that we came across at least 40 recent orders … as per the records available from the official website of the Allahabad High Court,” the bench remarked.
The judges said public prosecutors also failed in their duty by advising complainants to seek protection under the 2018 scheme, rather than pressing for cancellation of bail, even in cases where accused persons allegedly threatened or intimidated witnesses.
Case That Triggered SC’s Intervention
The case before the Court was filed by Phireram, who had sought cancellation of bail for accused persons in a murder case, alleging threats to his life. The Allahabad High Court dismissed his plea and instead directed him to seek protection under the Witness Protection Scheme.
The Supreme Court set aside that order, terming it “very curious,” and sent the matter back to the High Court for hearing on its merits. It held that bail cancellation must be decided by applying settled principles, not by diverting complainants to the protection scheme.
Also Read: Supreme Court Rebukes Allahabad HC Over 43 Bail Adjournments, Emphasises Urgency in Liberty Case
Witness Protection vs Bail Cancellation
The bench clarified that the Witness Protection Scheme was never intended to replace provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in bail matters. While the scheme ensures security for threatened witnesses, bail cancellation is preventive, ensuring that accused persons do not misuse liberty to obstruct justice.
The judges explained that bail comes with serious obligations under Sections 437(3) and 439(2) CrPC. Substituting these with a protective mechanism, they said, makes bail conditions meaningless. The scheme, they added, applies to grave offences like those punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of seven years or more, but cannot be used as a universal solution in all cases.
SC Orders Corrective Steps
The Court stressed that both bail cancellation and witness protection serve distinct but complementary purposes to ensure fair trials. The bench directed circulation of its ruling to all High Courts, and specifically to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, to ensure corrective measures.
