The Kerala High Court on Friday pulled up a Special NIA Court for granting witness protection without recording proper reasons, stressing that such orders cannot be passed mechanically, even in serious terror-related cases.
A division bench of the High Court of Kerala set aside two orders passed by the Special Court for NIA cases, Ernakulam, and asked it to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
The case was heard by Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan.
Read also:- Humiliation Is Not Justice: Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Placard Punishment for Student
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by R. Ragavendran and B.G. Krishnamurthy, accused numbers 6 and 7 in a case investigated by the National Investigation Agency.
They are facing charges under conspiracy and terror-related provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The NIA arrested them in November 2024, and the chargesheet was filed in May 2025.
During trial proceedings, the prosecution moved applications before the Special Court seeking to:
- Treat several witnesses as “protected witnesses”
- Withhold unredacted statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure law
- Supply only redacted documents to the accused
The Special Court allowed these requests in September 2025, prompting the accused to approach the High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the accused argued that the Special Court had failed to follow the mandatory legal safeguards under Section 44 of the UAPA. He pointed out that the trial court did not:
- Record clear satisfaction that the life of each witness was actually in danger
- Give individual reasons for granting protection
- Address the claim that the identity of at least two witnesses was already disclosed
Relying on a recent Supreme Court ruling, the defence submitted that witness protection cannot be granted on vague or general claims.
On the other hand, the NIA opposed the plea, arguing that the case involved serious allegations linked to terrorist activities. The prosecution maintained that revealing the identity of key witnesses could expose them to grave danger.
Court’s Observations
After examining the records, the High Court found serious flaws in the Special Court’s approach.
“The first requirement under Section 44 is that the court must record its satisfaction, based on materials, that the life of the witness is in danger,” the bench observed.
The judges noted that although the prosecution had made detailed claims, the trial court’s orders did not show:
- Any independent assessment of the material
- Any witness-wise evaluation of risk
- Any brief but clear reasons justifying the protective measures
The bench also pointed out that the Special Court merely stated that the reasons in the prosecution’s petition were “convincing,” without explaining why.
Importantly, the High Court recorded that the trial court failed to deal with the defence argument that the identity of certain witnesses had already been revealed - an issue that went to the very root of the protection request.
Decision of the Court
Concluding that the orders were “unsustainable in law,” the High Court allowed the petition.
The bench:
- Set aside the Special Court’s orders dated September 3, 2025
- Remitted the witness protection applications back to the Special Court
- Directed fresh consideration strictly in line with legal requirements
- Asked the trial court to dispose of the applications as expeditiously as possible
The High Court clarified that witness protection is a serious matter, but it must be granted only after careful judicial satisfaction and proper reasoning.
Case Title: R. Ragavendran & Anr. v. Union of India
Case No.: Crl.M.C. No. 10590 of 2025
Decision Date: 6 February 2026
