The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant ruling concerning the rights of the accused versus witness protection under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Court clarified that when a trial court decides to withhold the identity or statements of witnesses (redaction), it cannot pass a "blanket order." Instead, the court must individually assess the threat levels for each witness and record specific reasons for its decision.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, emphasized that the "mechanical" passing of such orders undermines the principles of a fair trial.

The matter reached the High Court through a petition filed by R. Ragavendran and others. The petitioners were accused of serious offences under the IPC and UAPA, including sections related to conspiracy and membership in unlawful associations (linked to the PFI Gazwa-E-Hind case).

The Union Government had approached the Special NIA Court with an application under Section 44 of the UAPA. They requested that eight witnesses be treated as "protected witnesses," meaning their identities would be kept secret and the accused would only receive "redacted" (edited) versions of their statements to prevent identification.

The Special Court allowed the government’s plea, stating simply that the "reasons stated in the petition are convincing." Aggrieved by this lack of detailed reasoning, the accused moved the High Court.

Section 44 of the UAPA allows for the protection of witnesses if the life of a witness is in danger. However, this power must be balanced against the right of the accused to know the evidence against them to prepare a proper defense.

The petitioners argued that:

The Special Court’s order was "non-speaking" (it didn't explain its logic).
The court did not look at the specific materials related to each of the eight witnesses.
The identities of two witnesses had already been leaked by the prosecution itself, making the protection order for them redundant.

The High Court scrutinized the Special Court's approach and found it lacking. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Mohammed Asarudeen v. Union of India, the Bench noted that judicial satisfaction is mandatory.

1. No Blanket Restrictions The Court held that a trial court cannot simply agree with the prosecution's general claim of danger. It must look at the specific materials for each witness. Does Witness A face the same threat as Witness B? The order must reflect this individual assessment.

2. Necessity of a "Speaking Order" The Bench remarked that the Special Court merely stated that the prosecution's reasons were "convincing" without explaining why. "The impugned orders do not reflect consideration of the materials on record... No reasons, at least in brief, are stated," the High Court observed.

3. The Redundancy Factor The Court also took note of the fact that if a witness’s identity is already known or has been revealed, the purpose of Section 44 is defeated. The Special Court failed to address the petitioners' claim that two witnesses were already identified.

The Kerala High Court set aside the Special Court's orders. It has sent the matter back (remitted) to the Special NIA Court for a fresh look. The Special Court must now pass a reasoned order after individually considering the safety requirements of each witness.

This judgment is a victory for procedural fairness in UAPA cases, where the law is often stringent. It ensures that while witnesses are protected from genuine harm, the prosecution cannot use "security" as a vague excuse to hide information from the accused without a valid, judicially-verified reason.

Case Title: R. Ragavendran and Anr. v. Union of India
Case No: Crl.MC No. 10590 of 2025