Munmun Kaur-
Published On: December 09, 2021 at 15:59 IST
The Bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath while hearing a miscellaneous application on Wednesday, orally remarked that it will clarify that the definition of ‘vulnerable witness’ may not be constrained to ‘child Witnesses’.
The miscellaneous application was in regards to the issue of the need to establish vulnerable Witness Courtrooms in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu. Earlier, the Court had observed, “Such centres ought to be set up with all necessary safeguards. Our attention has been drawn to guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in criminal matters and also the fact that four special centres have been set up at Delhi for the purpose. We find merit in the above suggestion”
Amicus Curiae in the matter, Senior Advocate Vibha Dutta Makhija told the Court that in the Delhi scheme the definition of the Witness was restricted to “child witness”, she further requested the court to look into the categorization of vulnerable Witness stating “There are witnesses in corruption cases who may be uncomfortable in depositions, those in matters of section 377 IPC, those suffering from mental distress. The Delhi guidelines are snowballing into other High Courts also”.
To this Justice Chandrachud observed that it was not a constraining factor as Delhi rules were not 142 direct that everyone should follow. It was upto the High Court to adopt the appropriate definition.
Justice Chandrachud while making a point on the issue of training requirements said that Justice Gita Mittal brought about the Delhi scheme and it was found that training was very important as without that having separate Court rooms was not possible. The judges have stated that they will look into the issues which could be faced during training and the same will be discussed during the next Hearing scheduled on 16th December.