The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 has been approved by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgement of Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India,

The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 has been approved by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgement of Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India, making it the first attempt to bring the protection of witness under the ambit of law and putting the responsibility on the State to implement it effectively.

HIGHLIGHTS

Supreme Court approved the government's draft Witness Protection Scheme

States have been asked to follow the draft rules until a law is made

The scheme prescribes a number of measures to be taken to protect a witness

The Supreme Court today gave its seal of approval to a draft witness protection plan prepared by the government. The plan, called the Witness Protection Scheme, will have to be implemented by all states, except Jammu and Kashmir (which has a separate constitution), until Parliament turns the draft into law, the Supreme Court ruled today.

A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice A K Sikri said it has made some changes to the draft plan, which has been prepared by the Centre in consultation with the states.

The hearing in the Supreme Court today was on a petition that had sought protection for witnesses in the rape cases involving Asaram Bapu. (Witnesses in those cases have come under sometimes fatal attacks.)

During a previous hearing, the government had told the Supreme Court that it had formed a draft witness protection scheme that would be turned into a law "in due course".

Until then, the government said, the Supreme Court could ask states to follow this draft scheme.

Today, the Supreme Court did just that, asking states to follow the draft Witness Protection Scheme until it is made into a law.

According to a previous draft published by the government, the Witness Protection Scheme allows for various measures that must be undertaken in order to protect people who appear as witnesses in criminal cases.

This could range from ensuring that witnesses do not come face-to-face with the accused to giving them close proximity protection.

Some of the other protective measures include monitoring of mail and phone calls, change of phone number, installation of CCTV cameras at the witness's home and concealment of identity.

In exceptional cases, the government can also help change a witness's identity.

Attorney-Client Privilege In India

A "privileged professional communication" is a protection awarded to a communication between the legal adviser and the client. Professional communications and confidential communications with the legal advisors have been accorded protection under The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("the Act").

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution addresses criminal procedure and other aspects of the Constitution. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment applies to every level of the government, including the federal, state, and local levels, as well as any corporation, private enterprise, group, or individual, or any foreign government in regard to a US citizen or resident of the US. The Supreme Court furthered the protections of this amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

One provision of the Fifth Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury. Another provision, the Double Jeopardy Clause, provides the right of defendants to be tried only once in federal court for the same offense. The self-incrimination clause provides various protections against self-incrimination, including the right of an individual to not serve as a witness in a criminal case in which they are the defendant. "Pleading the Fifth" is a colloquial term often used to invoke the self-incrimination clause when witnesses decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate them. In the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the self-incrimination clause requires the police to issue a Miranda warning to criminal suspects interrogated while under police custody. The Fifth Amendment also contains the Takings Clause, which allows the federal government to take private property for public use if the government provides "just compensation."

Like the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment includes a due process clause stating that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Fifth Amendment's due process clause applies to the federal government, while the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to state governments. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause as providing two main protections: procedural due process, which requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, and substantive due process, which protects certain fundamental rights from government interference. The Supreme Court has also held that the Due Process Clause contains a prohibition against vague laws and an implied equal protection requirement similar to the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

loco parentis,

The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent" refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. Originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law.

The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent"^[1] refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. Originally derived from English common law, it is applied in two separate areas of the law.

First, it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties.^[1]

Second, this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent.^[2]

The in loco parentis doctrine is distinct from the doctrine of parens patriae, the psychological parent doctrine, and adoption.^[3]

voir dire,

Lawyers and judges select juries by a process known as “voir dire,” which is Latin for “to speak the truth.” In voir dire, the judge and attorneys for both sides ask potential jurors questions to determine if they are competent and suitable to serve in the case.

pugilistic

The pugilistic attitude is an extremely typical post-mortem body posture that is similar to a kneeling position but is involuntary. ( MM: "Force Majeure") The condition generally occurs several hours after death and is caused by a coagulation of muscle proteins when the body is exposed to extremely high temperatures. (

subpoena

A subpoena (/səˈpiːnə/; also subpœna or supenna) or witness summons is a writ issued by a government agency, most often a court, to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure.