Uttarakhand High Court
X vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 15 October, 2019
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Alok Singh, Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No.1495 of 2019
X ........... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ............Respondents
Present: -
Petitioner is present in person.
Mr. V. K. Gemini, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. S.S. Adhikari,
A.G.A for the State of Uttarakhand.
Coram: Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Pursuant to the directions dated 23.09.2019, an affidavit has been filed by Shri Atar Singh, Additional Secretary, Home Department, State of Uttarakhand. This matter is being taken up along with WPCRL No. 1741 of 2019, in which a few queries were raised by the Court on 26.09.2019. Queries no. 2 & 3 are pertinent to mention here, they are as under:-
"2. When were those representation placed before the competent authority, as defined in the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 and what action was taken thereon?
3. If the representation of the petitioner was never placed before the competent authority, whose fault is it? Who should be held responsible for defying the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized is Law and if so, why action be not taken against such erring officer/official."
2. Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar, was requested to file a detailed affidavit replying the queries. Affidavit has been filed but queries are not responded. S.S.P. Udham -2- Singh Nagar was requested to assist the Court. Today, he is present. According to him, efforts are now being made to implement the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, (for short 2018 scheme) as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mahender Chawla vs. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online SC 2679. The Court restrains to make any observation at this stage.
3. In the instant matter, district wise details have been given by Mr. Atar Singh, in his affidavit. In the case of District Udham Singh Nagar it is open for examination before this Court because in the connected writ petition it is informed that in district Udham Singh Nagar, 2018 Scheme is yet to be operationalised; the competent authority is yet to be constituted, whereas, along with the affidavit of Mr. Atar Singh, in the district wise details with regard Udham Singh Nagar, at point no. 5 it is stated that in the year 2019 no application seeking protection under the 2018 Scheme, was received. The writ petitioner in the connected writ has, infact, applied for protection. The problem is with the person who is responsible to operationalise the 2018 Scheme not with the person seeking protection. The application was not placed before the competent authority as constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahender Chawla case (supra). The competent authority is not opertionalised in district Udham Singh Nagar.
4. The petitioner would submit that she has been called by the Investigating Officer for her examination at Pauri Garhwal, but, security has not been provided to her. Let it be ensured that whenever the petitioner is called, she would be provided adequate protection. The petitioner also urged that whenever her statement is recorded in district Pauri Garhwal, she is confronted with the -3- accused. She requests that this situation should be avoided as she had been attacked in the past. SSP Pauri Garhwal shall also consider this aspect.
5. It is informed that in the connected writ petition the petitioner is being taken care of by the police.
6. In this petition, on behalf of the S.S.P. Pauri Garhwal it is stated that on the C.M. portal it was inadvertently uploaded that the petitioner does not require protection. How was this lapse? Who was given login of this on the portal? When did S.S.P. notice it? Who was the subordinate who was at fault? What was the basis for uploading this information? Who was responsible and what action has been taken against him? All these details may also be produced before the Court before 22.11.2019 by the learned State counsel.
7. This Court in this case is examining the operation of 2018 Scheme, in the State of Uttarakhand. Strangely, till date no person in this state has been given protection under this scheme. In fact, there is no data as to how many persons have ever applied for protection. Witnesses are definitely eyes and ears of the Court. Before the affidavit filed by the State Department is analyzed and any observation is made, this Court requests to Mr. Karan Anand to assist the Court. He would simply be provided the paper book of both the cases. He is required to place before the Court, in tabular form, steps taken by the State Government, district wise, pursuant to the decision of the Ho'nble Supreme Court in the case of Mahender Chawla (supra) before 22.11.2019.
-4-8. In addition to it, learned State Counsel would furnish the details of the publicity mode to the 2018 scheme to Mr. Karan Anand.
9. Learned State Counsel shall also submit the progress report with regard to the constitution of competent authority under the 2018 Scheme. All the details in this regard including the following shall be placed before the Court;
1. In how many districts competent authority has been designated?
2. How many applications were received in different districts seeking protection by witnesses? District wise details?
3. How many applications were placed before the competent authority?
4. In how many applications reports were sought and what action was taken?
10. The details would be provided within next three weeks by learned State Counsel to learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Karan Anand. Mr. Anand shall also file compilation of the same. A copy of it shall be provided to each of the petitioners.
11. List this case on 26.11.2019.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) (Alok Singh, J.)
15.10.2019
Nahid/Pant