Witness Protection in India: Policy and Challenges

An opinion in the Business Standard on witness protection in India a few months ago got me thinking. I recalled the rather unappealing film, Did you hear about the Morgans?, starring Sarah Jessica Parker and Hugh Grant which revolved around a couple under the United States Witness Protection Program.  The Program, which is operated by the US Marshals Service, seeks to protect witnesses during and after trial, often assigning them with a new identity in another location in the country.

Like the opinion illustrates, in India we do not have such sophisticated witness protection systems. Witnesses who require high level protection are often provided with negligible police protection.  This was finely illustrated in the 2013 Hindi film, Jolly LLB when a frail, trembling police officer is assigned to Jolly (Arshad Warsi’s character in the film) for his protection. Despite his enthused attitude to protect Jolly, regardless of his ability to do so, this funny depiction highlights a point- a lack of a comprehensive witness protection system is a rot in our justice system in itself. This was evidenced in the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati, a key witness in the Sohrabuddin killings.

There is definitely a need for a comprehensive law on witness protection in India. But that solves only a part of the problem. One of my favourite quotes from Nani Palkhivala is “Too many laws, and too little justice” and a witness protection law without adequate financial and infrastructural backing from the State would epitomise just that. Our police force are perhaps the most over-worked and under-paid in the world. This is not to undermine the need to formulate a law for witness protection- we will definitely need a law on witness protection before we proceed to build any infrastructure for witness protection (for which we will also need money) as we do not want more instances like the killing of witnesses in the Asaram Bapu rape trial.

Yet, I still argue, that having a witness protection law is just solving one part of the problem. It must and should be followed by active steps to create infrastructure to protect witnesses. Could we look at the American model of providing them with new identities, and having them reside in another part of the country as someone else? Do we have enough financial resources to establish and work with such a model? The Delhi government seems to think so. In what I believe is a welcome move, the Delhi Government introduced the Delhi Witness Protection Program 2015 in July. The Program seeks to provide a new identity to the witnesses and seeks to ensure their safe relocation as well as steps to ensure that the accused or their accomplices do not approach them. With this, they also have enhanced measures for protection of their real identity. The program seeks to establish a Witness Protection Fund and seeks to receive funds from budgetary allocations, fines and penalties from courts and donations from individuals and institutions. While the witness protection fund is a novel idea, accepting contributions from individuals and institutions may create some additional challenges. Law and order in society falls within the exclusive domain of the State, and its one of the reasons the State collects a large sum from taxpayers every year.

Thus, the Witness Protection Program of 2015 by the Delhi Government is a welcome move, and I hope it paves the way for a comprehensive witness protection law in India, to go hand in hand with the protection of whistleblowers under the new Whistleblowers law. Yet, witness protection will truly be achieved not just with comprehensive laws, but with strong infrastructure and finances in place. A strong infrastructure for witness protection may created by not only strengthening existing police force (complete reform in pay and structure, I do not delve too deeply into this in this post as it demands more nuanced arguments), as well as the creation of a specialised police force for witness protection. One would also need to look at innovative financial structures to keep financial resources flowing into the infrastructure, albeit within the power of the State.

The Choice to Eat: Dear State, you are not my mother

I’ll be moving to Bombay Mumbai next year, and my TamBrahm GultBrahm and DiggaBrahm roots are ecstatic that I’m moving to the most racially diverse and cosmopolitan city in the country. Yet, I’ve got myself asking if that’s what Mumbai really is. Is it really the most racially diverse and cosmopolitan city in the country? One misconception we tend to have of cities that are a melting pot of cultures, are that their inherent cosmopolitan nature is devoid of ethnic and racial clashes. In fact, the more racially diverse, the more the probability of clashes and conflicts. But then again, my own argument is weakened by the fact that attitudes towards ethnically diverse population is held. For instance, Bangalore for decades has largely been tolerant. It is only the last decade that intolerance towards “North Indians who can’t speak Kannada” and “North-Easterns” has arisen.

Where does this intolerant attitude rise from? Where does this anger stem from, is it the outcome of a statehood pride being wounded? I often identify most closely with Kannada, even though three other languages are spoken at home. It is the first language I identify with. Then, why, why do a feel a small feeling somewhere when people don’t speak Kannada in Bangalore? As long as I continue to speak the language to those who can understand, does it really matter if a substantial population in Bangalore does not speak Kannada?

Last month, the Mumbai Municipality banned the sale of meat for four days on occasion of the celebration of the 8 day Jain festival of paryushan. My roommate at law school is a staunch practising Jain from Mumbai, and believes this move is wholly unwarranted (and she doesn’t even eat potatoes). She believes that this festival has gone on for centuries without a meat ban accompanying and in all those years, the community has not pressurised anyone else to give up meat or fast. It’s a choice.

And for me too, the (dishonourable) Brahmin who eats meat there is a choice. My roommate has never given me a lecture on my consumption of potato or meat or anything for that matter. In the same way, I don’t really care what my boyfriend eats for dinner (well, as long as its healthy most of the time). Similarly, the State shouldn’t care what I’m eating or not eating on any day of the year. The State is not my mother, who is concerned about my daily intake of fruits and vegetables, or how many times I eat French fries in a month. There are times when the State should not and must not be paternalistic, and one of those times includes what I’m eating. My roommate can eat or not eat what she does not want to, and I’m nobody to question her.

If we’re to really preserve the remaining tolerant attitude and enhance the cosmopolitan nature of our cities, there is a need for less interference from the State. The present Prime Minister’s motto is minimum government and maximum governance, banning meat and indirectly regulating what people eat on any day of the year is not governance. It is a blatant interference and in some instances violation of my freedoms, in broad daylight. The State should instead focus on the more important things, like addressing water shortages and power cuts in the city (instead of rendering them as a municipal election campaign), rather than trying to regulate what people should or should not eat.