 Act (UAPA).webp)
The Delhi High Court has held that before declaring a witness as "protected" under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), courts must independently assess the threat faced by each witness instead of issuing blanket protection orders. It also ruled that courts cannot automatically refuse to disclose the identity of protected witnesses without examining whether continued anonymity is genuinely necessary in each individual case. The Court directed the Special NIA Court to reconsider whether the names, addresses and identities of two protected witnesses should remain concealed from accused Bilal Mir before their testimony is recorded.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the judgment on July 29, 2026, while deciding two connected petitions filed by Bilal Mir challenging orders concerning protected witnesses in an NIA case.
Background of the Case
The case arises out of an NIA investigation registered in October 2021 under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code relating to an alleged terror conspiracy in Jammu and Kashmir. According to the prosecution, several individuals were charge-sheeted after the investigation. Bilal Mir was later arrested and named as one of the accused in the charge sheet.
When the charge sheet was filed, the NIA sought protection for multiple prosecution witnesses under Section 44 of the UAPA and Section 17 of the National Investigation Agency Act. The Special Court accepted the requests in 2022 and 2023, granting protected status to a number of witnesses and directing that their identities be concealed in the copies supplied to the accused.
Later, Bilal Mir sought unredacted copies of the statements of two protected witnesses identified only as X-5 and X-11 arguing that without knowing their identities he could not effectively prepare for cross-examination. The Special Court rejected that request, prompting the present petitions before the High Court.
Court's Observations
The High Court observed that witness anonymity under the UAPA is an exception to the ordinary rule of criminal trials and must be exercised cautiously. The Court stressed that a Special Court must independently assess the circumstances of every witness instead of issuing blanket protection orders.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed,
“The Special Judge is required to independently apply his mind to each witness and record some finding of the reasons for which each witness is declared as a Protected Witness.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mohammed Asarudeen v. Union of India, noting that protection orders should contain reasons and should reflect satisfaction regarding the threat faced by each individual witness rather than adopting a common approach for all witnesses.
At the same time, the High Court emphasised that witness protection remains an important part of ensuring a fair criminal trial, especially in cases involving allegations under special laws such as the UAPA. It noted that witnesses should be able to depose freely without fear where a genuine threat exists.
The Court further explained that an accused also enjoys the constitutional right to a meaningful defence. Whether the identity of a protected witness should remain concealed at the stage of evidence depends on balancing witness safety with the accused's right to conduct an effective cross-examination.
Justice Krishna observed,
“The accused has a right to a fair trial and must be granted an effective and meaningful opportunity for cross-examination of the Protected Witnesses.”
The Court added that if disclosure of identity would genuinely endanger a witness, the Special Court may still withhold those details, but only after recording reasons.
Court's Decision
The High Court reached different conclusions on the two petitions.
It refused to interfere with the earlier 2022 and 2023 orders declaring witnesses as protected, holding that those orders had not been challenged for a considerable period and that the challenge at the stage of recording evidence was belated. Accordingly, that petition was dismissed.
However, the Court allowed the second petition challenging the Special Court's refusal to consider disclosure of the identities of witnesses X-5 and X-11. It set aside the order dated July 24, 2025, and remanded the matter to the Special Judge to examine, before recording their evidence, whether disclosure of their names, addresses and identities would pose a real threat to their lives.
Depending on that assessment, the Special Court must either protect or disclose the information by passing a reasoned order.
The parties have been directed to appear before the Special Court on August 10, 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Bilal Mir v. National Investigation Agency (Connected Matters)
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 5129/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5130/2025
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Decision Date: 29 July 2026
