The Supreme Court recently sought response from the State of Madhya Pradesh over its failure to frame and notify rules for witness protection under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [X vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.].

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice limited to this aspect, after hearing arguments in a petition filed by a minor Dalit girl through her mother.

The petition highlighted the absence of a statutory framework under Section 398 BNSS, which requires every State to operationalise a witness protection mechanism.

The case arose out of repeated incidents of sexual assault and intimidation in Ratlam district, where the minor victim and her family alleged relentless threats from the accused and his associates.

The petition stated that despite multiple complaints since 2023, the authorities failed to act promptly, leaving the victim and other witnesses unprotected. It argued that the lack of rules under Section 398 BNSS created a legislative vacuum, undermining both the POCSO Act and the victim’s rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Earlier, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had dismissed this relief, calling it academic in nature. It held that directions of a general nature to frame rules could not be issued in an individual writ petition.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed with that approach and decided to examine the issue of witness protection as a matter of public importance.

This marks the first time the Supreme Court has entertained a plea under Section 398 BNSS. The provision, which came into force in July 2024, replaced Section 195A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and gave statutory backing to the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.

The petitioners argued that without such rules, countless victims, particularly children and members of Scheduled Castes, remain exposed to threats and coercion. They relied on international conventions such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, stressing that effective witness protection is an essential part of a fair trial.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Yamak Sharma, Utkarsh Joshi, Haresh Raichura, Saroj Raichura, and Kalp Raichura.

[Read Order]