Hearing the student-protest matter, the Supreme Court stopped a vulnerable witness from speaking in open court because the proceedings were being live-streamed, and directed that such witnesses receive protection no less than that given to protected witnesses in judicial proceedings, including a dedicated helpline.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday took special care to protect vulnerable witnesses and victims of gender-based violence in the batch of petitions concerning alleged police excesses against student protesters, stopping a witness from identifying himself in open court because the hearing was being live-streamed, and directing that the High-Powered Committee (HPEC) extend to such witnesses a standard of protection “no less than the protection given to vulnerable or protected witnesses in judicial proceedings” [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the matter, in which a portion of the hearing was devoted specifically to ensuring that the most vulnerable participants, particularly women who allege gender-based violence, are not deterred from placing their accounts before the Committee. This report deals with a sensitive subject and confines itself to the Court’s directions on witness protection; it does not identify or describe any individual.
The Court halts a witness in open court
The concern crystallised when counsel told the Court that a vulnerable witness was present and wished to place his concerns before the Bench, and the witness began to speak, stating that he was a vulnerable witness. The Chief Justice immediately intervened to prevent any disclosure of identity, noting the risk created by the live broadcast of the proceedings:
“Please wait. There are wider ramifications, especially because the proceedings are being live-streamed and the witness could be identified. If a person giving information is himself a victim, or otherwise connected with the matter, and wants his identity to remain confidential, the Committee can protect that confidentiality. The information can be received and considered without disclosing the identity of the source.”
The Court explained that making statements in open court, rather than before the Committee, could trigger multiple versions and reactions and might ultimately embarrass or expose the person concerned, which would be neither convenient nor beneficial for a vulnerable witness. It emphasised that any application, document, memorandum or material could instead be submitted directly to the Committee.
The fear of identity leaks
Counsel pressed a practical concern: that even routing material through the nodal counsel appointed for the proceedings could deter vulnerable victims. It was submitted that particularly young women are often reluctant to come forward because they fear their identities may be disclosed, and that the more hands the information passes through, the greater the risk of a leak. There was also a concern, counsel said, that vulnerable victims who cannot speak for themselves or appear personally may get sidelined in the process, and that after an earlier hearing some petitioners and witnesses without access to the nodal officers felt they had been left out.
The Court responded by removing the intermediary where it caused apprehension. The Chief Justice observed that if going through nodal counsel created any sense of intimidation, vulnerable witnesses could file directly before the Secretary of the Committee, and that there could be no objection to that, since “there should be no gap in accessibility between the Committee and vulnerable witnesses.”
A dedicated helpline and the standard of protection
Setting the benchmark for how such witnesses are to be treated, the Chief Justice held that the level of protection available to them should be no less than that given to protected witnesses in judicial proceedings, and that, depending on the facts, the Committee could extend that same standard. He described the Committee as effectively an “extended arm” of the Court that would record witnesses’ statements, protect them, and place the material before the Court, adding that “no witness should have any apprehension or fear about approaching the Committee.”
To bridge access for those unable to approach the Committee directly, the Court proposed a dedicated mechanism:
“What we can do is ask the Committee, while issuing the public notice, to also provide a dedicated helpline for vulnerable witnesses who are unable to approach the Committee directly or who face any special difficulty. We are confident that the Committee will evolve an appropriate mechanism to ensure that their statements are recorded safely and ultimately placed before this Court.”
Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover added that technology could be used for the purpose, pointing out that the Vulnerable Witness Guidelines already provide mechanisms for recording evidence while protecting confidentiality and identity. A request for a third dedicated nodal counsel specifically to assist vulnerable victims was raised, with counsel noting that only the Court, and not the Committee, could make such an appointment; the Court indicated that it could ask the Committee to provide security and additional protection wherever necessary after examining the individual facts.
Why the directions matter
The Court’s handling of this strand reflects a growing sensitivity, in an era of live-streamed hearings, to the paradox that transparency can itself endanger the vulnerable. Open justice is a constitutional value, but a victim of gender-based violence who is named or identifiable on a live broadcast may be re-traumatised or deterred from participating at all. By halting the witness before he could identify himself, routing sensitive submissions directly to the Committee’s Secretary rather than through multiple intermediaries, and importing the established standard of protection for protected witnesses, the Court sought to reconcile the openness of its proceedings with the confidentiality that genuine participation by such victims requires.
The direction for a dedicated helpline, and the endorsement of technology-enabled, identity-protecting evidence recording under the Vulnerable Witness Guidelines, are practical measures aimed at a real problem: that the more hands a confidential complaint passes through, the greater the risk of exposure, and that those unable to appear in person are often the first to be sidelined. The Court’s insistence that there be “no gap in accessibility” between the Committee and vulnerable witnesses is the principle underlying each of these measures. Whether the Committee’s eventual mechanism succeeds in drawing out accounts that victims would otherwise withhold will be a measure of how well the inquiry serves those it is most meant to protect.
Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Date of Hearing: September 10, 2026