KNOWLEDGE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF VICTIM AND

WITNESS PROTECTIONS UNDER BNSS

INTRODUCTION
The introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) marks a
transformative step in the Indian criminal justice system, especially with its explicit
emphasis on victim and witness protection. Section 398 of the BNSS mandates every State
Government to frame and implement its own witness protection scheme, making witness
and victim safety a legal duty rather than just a policy recommendation. Witnesses, often
described as the "eyes and ears of justice," play a pivotal role in the judicial process , but
have traditionally faced risks of intimidation, threats, and retaliation which frequently
resulted in hostile testimonies or withdrawal from proceedings. By making protection a
statutory commitment, the BNSS aims to foster an environment where witnesses and
victims can testify without fear, upholding the integrity of the justice system.

The BNSS adopts a tiered approach to witness protection, classifying witnesses into three
categories according to their level of threat. Category A involves those who face direct
threats to their lives, Category B concerns threats to safety or property, and Category C
includes lower-level risks such as harassment. This structure allows authorities to allocate
protection proportionately, ranging from relocation and police escorts to concealing
identities or technological measures during court proceedings. Each district's Competent
Authority, led by the District and Sessions Judge, assesses protection requests through a
formal process and rapidly disposes of applications based on police threat analysis, ensuring
timely and efficient response. States are also required to establish Witness Protection Funds,
underlining the governmental prioritization of this issue.

Critically, the BNSS provision builds upon the Supreme Court-endorsed Witness Protection
Scheme of 2018, but offers much-needed statutory backing and clarity. By decentralizing
the design of protection schemes, the BNSS enables states to adapt to local crime realities,
expand the range of crimes covered, and respond more flexibly to changing threat
landscapes. The law also emphasizes stringent confidentiality, supporting witness
protection through penalties for unauthorized disclosure and providing witness assistance
cells at district levels for sustained support. The BNSS not only protects witnesses but also
recognizes certain rights of victims, such as mandating victims' right to be heard before
withdrawal from prosecution, further aligning Indian law with global standards on victim
protection and participation.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Patidar, S. (2025), "Witness Protection Scheme Under BNSS"

Patidar's comprehensive analysis examines the BNSS's tiered witness protection

framework, decentralization to states, and improved legal architecture for safeguarding
witnesses. The study discusses how the statutory backing provided by the BNSS
strengthens the implementation of witness protection compared to the pre-BNSS Supreme
Court-endorsed scheme. Patidar identifies the shift toward state-level autonomy as enabling
contextually appropriate protection schemes while also highlighting implementat ion
variability across states.

Bureau of Police Research & Development (2024), "Witness Protection Scheme Basic
Philosophy"

This Ministry of Home Affairs report details classification systems, protection categories,
state-level scheme design, and implementation challenges within India's witness protection
system. The report emphasizes that while the legal framework provides comprehensive
protections, practical implementation faces challenges including inadequate funding,
insufficient inter-agency coordination, and awareness gaps among frontline police and
judicial personnel.

Ministry of Home Affairs (2018), "Witness Protection Scheme, 2018"

The Supreme Court-approved framework establishes the foundational architecture for

witness protection including threat analysis, protection measures (relocation, anonymity),
and rights of witnesses against intimidation. This document sets baseline standards later
incorporated into the BNSS statutory framework.

Legal Bites (2025), "Can the Witness Protection Scheme Replace Bail Cancellation?"

This legal analysis examines the judicial distinctions between witness protection and bail
cancellation in criminal justice reforms, exploring whether protection schemes can serve
functions traditionally addressed through bail conditions. The analysis notes that while
protection schemes and bail modifications serve different purposes, coordinated application
can strengthen overall witness safety.

RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY

The study of victim and witness protection under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS) is critical due to the high incidence of witness intimidation and violence in India,
which undermines the criminal justice process. Statistics show that witness intimidation
remains prevalent in Indian courts, with many witnesses withdrawing testimony due to fear
or pressure from accused persons or their associates. The BNSS, by mandating state-level
witness protection schemes, represents a major legislative advancement aimed at ensuring
fair trial rights and fostering public trust in the legal system. Examining the knowledge and
implementation of these protections reveals gaps and opportunities necessary for effective
justice delivery. By collecting empirical data from three critical stakeholder groups police
officers, judicial officers, and victims this research bridges legislative intent with practical
implementation realities.

RESEARCH GAP
While legal provisions like the BNSS exist, there is insufficient empirical research on their
ground-level implementation, effectiveness, and awareness among stakeholders including
police, judiciary, and victims. The impact of decentralized state-level schemes and their
adaptability to diverse local contexts remains underexplored. Further, there is limited data
on witness experiences of protection services and consequent effects on trial outcomes. No
systematic empirical study has examined whether the three key stakeholder groups police,
judiciary, and victims possess adequate understanding of BNSS provisions or whether
implementation challenges.

PROBLEM STATEMENT
Despite statutory mandates under BNSS for victim and witness protection, challenges in
consistent implementation, awareness gaps, and infrastructural limitations hinder realizing
the full potential of these protections. The central problem is not legal insufficiency but
implementation deficiency stakeholders may lack awareness of BNSS provisions,
implementation practices may vary substantially across states, and resource constraints may
prevent effective protection delivery. Without empirical understanding of knowledge gaps,
implementation challenges, and context-specific barriers, policy interventions risk being
ineffective. This study aims to address the mismatch between the legal promise of BNSS
witness protection and practical enforcement of witness protection measures across states
in India.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Objective 1: To assess the level of knowledge and awareness of BNSS victim and witness
protection provisions among police officers, judicial officers, and victims across multip le
Indian states.

Objective 2: To examine implementation practices, challenges, and resource allocations

for witness protection schemes at the state level, identifying barriers and facilitating factors
affecting scheme operationalization.

Objective 3: To identify best practices in existing witness protection measures and

recommend evidence-based policy measures for strengthening protection mechanisms and
improving stakeholder coordination under BNSS.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 What is the current level of knowledge and awareness regarding victim and witness
protection provisions under the BNSS among police officers, judicial officers, and
victims?
 How are witness protection schemes under BNSS being implemented at the state
level, and what are the key challenges and resource allocation issues faced during
implementation?
 What best practices can be identified from existing witness protection measures,
and what policy recommendations can strengthen protection mechanisms and
stakeholder coordination under BNSS?

HYPOTHESIS
The hypothesis is that greater awareness and effective implementation of BNSS victim and
witness protection provisions lead to improved witness cooperation, reduced witness
hostility and withdrawal, stronger judicial outcomes, and increased public confidence in the
justice system. Additionally, it is hypothesized that: (1) awareness levels vary substantially
across stakeholder groups, with judicial officers showing higher awareness than police and
victims; (2) implementation challenges are primarily resource-driven in lower-capacity
states; and (3) inter-agency coordination gaps significantly impede protection scheme
effectiveness.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A comprehensive mixed-methods research design was employed to examine stakeholder
knowledge, implementation practices, and challenges in BNSS witness protection schemes.
Data were collected through a structured questionnaire administered via both online and
offline modes to ensure accessibility across diverse institutional settings and respondent
groups. Quantitative data (rating scales, frequencies) were analyzed using descriptive
statistics and comparative analysis, while qualitative responses were coded thematically to
identify recurring patterns, barriers, and recommendations.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

ANALYSIS FOR OBJECTIVE 1: Assessment of Knowledge and

Awareness of BNSS Victim and Witness Protection Provisions
Objective 1 Explanation:

This objective establishes baseline data on whether key stakeholders—police officers,

judicial officers, and victims possess adequate knowledge and awareness of BNSS victim
and witness protection provisions. Awareness is foundational to implementation:
stakeholders cannot effectively implement or utilize provisions they do not understand. The
empirical data reveals substantial awareness gaps across stakeholder groups and geographic
contexts, with important implications for scheme implementation effectiveness.

Awareness encompasses multiple dimensions: general awareness that BNSS contains

witness protection provisions, detailed understanding of specific provisions (tiered
categories, protection measures, competent authority processes), and knowledge of state-
specific schemes. The data demonstrates divergence across these dimensions. Some
respondents demonstrate general awareness while lacking detailed understanding; others
remain entirely unaware. These variations suggest that awareness-building interventions
must address different knowledge levels.

Furthermore, awareness appears to correlate with professional role and institutional

position. Judicial officers, responsible for approving protection requests, demonstrate
higher awareness than police officers responsible for threat assessment. Victims and
witnesses, who should be informed of available protections, demonstrate lowest awareness.
This pattern suggests that formal institutional position creates awareness advantages
independent of actual need.

Table 1: Awareness of BNSS and Witness Protection Provisions

 Awareness Level Police Judicial Victims/Witnesses
Officers (%) Officers (%) (%)
Very aware (detailed 23% 68% 7%
knowledge)
Somewhat aware (general 48% 26% 23%
knowledge)
Heard but don't know 23% 6% 43%
details
Not aware at all 6% 0% 27%

Detailed Explanation of Table 1:

This table reveals substantial divergence in BNSS awareness across stakeholder groups.
Sixty-eight percent of judicial officers report being "Very aware" with detailed knowledge,
reflecting that judges must understand witness protection provisions to process applications
and order protections. Their professional responsibility creates motivation to acquire
detailed knowledge.

Police officers demonstrate lower awareness: only 23% report "Very aware" status, while
48% report "Somewhat aware" and 29% report lower awareness levels ("Heard but don't
know details" or "Not aware"). This is concerning given that police conduct threat
assessments that form the basis for protection decisions. If police lack detailed knowledge
of protection categories and criteria, threat assessments may be inaccurate.

One police officer stated: "I know there's a witness protection scheme now under BNSS,
but honestly, the details are unclear. I'm not even sure what makes someone Category A
versus Category B. We just do what we think is necessary."

Most concerning is victims' and witnesses' awareness: only 7% report "Very aware" status,
23% report "Somewhat aware," 43% report having "Heard but don't know details," and
27% report being "Not aware at all." Combined, 70% of victims and witnesses lack detailed
knowledge of available protections. This is critically problematic: if witnesses don't know
what protections exist, they cannot request them or make informed decisions about
testifying.

One witness stated: "I didn't even know there was a specific protection scheme under BNSS.
I just knew there was some general protection. Nobody explained my options to me."

Table 2: Knowledge of Purpose and Importance of Witness Protection Schemes

Knowledge Police Officers Judicial Officers Victims/Witnesses

Assessment (%) (%) (%)
Very good 26% 74% 10%
understanding
 Moderate 52% 23% 30%
understanding
Poor understanding 16% 3% 40%
No understanding 6% 0% 20%

Detailed Explanation of Table 2:

This table assesses depth of knowledge regarding the purpose and importance of witness
protection schemes. Seventy-four percent of judicial officers demonstrate "Very good
understanding," reflecting that judges must comprehend scheme purposes to exercise
discretionary decision-making appropriately.

Police officers show moderate understanding: 52% report "Moderate understanding" and
26% report "Very good understanding," suggesting that most police possess functional
understanding but not deep comprehension. However, 22% report "Poor" or no
understanding, indicating significant knowledge gaps.

Victims and witnesses demonstrate poorest understanding: only 10% report "Very good
understanding," while 30% report "Moderate understanding," and 60% report "Poor" or no
understanding. This reflects that protection scheme purposes deterring intimidation,
enabling fearless testimony, ensuring fair trial rights are not well explained to those most
dependent on understanding them.

One victim stated: "I know they're supposed to protect me, but I don't understand the
purpose or whether what they're doing is actually protecting me. What makes some
protections 'witness protection' versus just normal precautions?"

Table 3: Perception of Witness Protection Importance for Justice System

Importance Rating Police Officers Judicial Officers Victims/Witnesses

(%) (%) (%)
Extremely 81% 90% 67%
important
Important 16% 10% 23%
Somewhat 3% 0% 7%
important
Not important 0% 0% 3%

Detailed Explanation of Table 3:

This table reveals strong consensus across all stakeholder groups that witness protection is
important for the justice system. Eighty-one percent of police officers rate it "Extremely
important," 90% of judicial officers do, and 67% of victims and witnesses do. This
consensus suggests that despite awareness and knowledge gaps, stakeholders recognize
witness protection's importance.

The slight variation in percentages may reflect that police and judges, operating within the
justice system, perceive institutional importance most acutely. Victims and witnesses,
though still rating protection as highly important, may rate it slightly lower if they
experience protection as ineffective or incomplete.

One judicial officer stated: "Witness protection is absolutely fundamental to justice system
legitimacy. Without it, witnesses won't come forward, accused persons escape
accountability, and society loses faith in courts."

This consensus on importance suggests that implementing better protection schemes would
likely receive stakeholder support if knowledge gaps are addressed and implementation
barriers are removed.

Table 4: Direct or Indirect Experience with Witness Intimidation

Experience Type Police Judicial Victims/Witnesses

Officers (%) Officers (%) (%)
Personal witness 42% 31% 53%
intimidation experience
Through others/case 48% 62% 31%
knowledge
No experience 10% 7% 16%

Detailed Explanation of Table 4:

This table reveals how common witness intimidation experiences are among respondents.
Ninety percent of police officers report either personal (42%) or indirect (48%) experience
with witness intimidation. Only 10% report no experience.

Ninety-three percent of judicial officers report experience with intimidation, either personal
(31%) or through cases and colleagues (62%). The higher percentage of indirect experience
reflects judges' visibility into multiple cases where intimidation manifests.

Eighty-four percent of victims and witnesses report experience with intimidation: 53%
personally experienced intimidation, while 31% experienced it indirectly through
acquaintances. This reflects that intimidation is pervasive in Indian criminal proceedings.

One victim stated: "After I agreed to testify against my neighbor who assaulted my family
member, he started following me to my workplace, leaving threatening messages. I was
terrified and almost dropped out of the case. I didn't even know I could ask for protection
until much later."
These high experience rates indicate that intimidation is a real problem for which protection
schemes must provide genuine protection. If protection mechanisms fail to protect
witnesses who experience actual intimidation, public confidence erodes.

Table 5: Assessment of Legal Provision Adequacy Under BNSS

Adequacy Police Officers Judicial Officers Victims/Witnesses

Assessment (%) (%) (%)
Fully adequate 13% 26% 3%
Partially adequate 58% 61% 27%
Inadequate 23% 10% 57%
Don't know 6% 3% 13%

Detailed Explanation of Table 5:

This table assesses whether respondents believe BNSS legal provisions are adequate to
protect victims and witnesses from threats and intimidation. Only 13% of police officers
and 26% of judicial officers rate provisions as "Fully adequate," while 58% and 61%
respectively rate them as "Partially adequate." This suggests that even those working within
the legal framework recognize that provisions, while improved, require further
enhancement.

Most concerning is victims' and witnesses' assessment: only 3% rate provisions as "Fully
adequate," 27% rate them as "Partially adequate," and 57% rate them as "Inadequate."
Combined, 70% of victims and witnesses believe BNSS provisions are inadequate for their
protection needs.

One victim stated: "The law says I can get protection, but when I actually tried to use it, I
encountered so many bureaucratic obstacles. The protections that exist on paper don't
translate to real protection in practice."

This gap between legal provisions and perceived adequacy suggests that the problem is not
merely lack of legal authority but rather implementation, resources, or practical
operationalization.

Table 6: Awareness of State-Level Witness Protection Schemes Under Section 398

BNSS

Awareness of State Police Officers Judicial Officers Victims/Witnesses

Schemes (%) (%) (%)
Yes, in detail 16% 42% 0%
Heard of some 32% 45% 13%
No 52% 13% 87%
Detailed Explanation of Table 6:

This table assesses awareness of state-specific schemes framed by state governments under
Section 398 BNSS. Significantly, 52% of police officers report having no knowledge of
state schemes, 32% have heard of some, and only 16% report detailed knowledge. This is
problematic: police are responsible for threat assessments that drive protection decisions,
yet majority lack detailed knowledge of state schemes.

Judicial officers show better awareness: 42% report detailed knowledge, 45% have heard
of some, and only 13% report no knowledge. This likely reflects that judges must reference
schemes when processing protection applications.

Critically, 87% of victims and witnesses report no knowledge of state schemes. No victim
or witness reports detailed knowledge of state-specific provisions. These means protection
beneficiaries are entirely unaware of the schemes designed to protect them they don't know
what their state has chosen to implement, what protections are available, or how to access
them.

One witness stated: "I have no idea what Maharashtra's witness protection scheme includes.
I just know I can ask for protection, but I don't know what specific protections exist or how
comprehensive they are."

ANALYSIS FOR OBJECTIVE 2: Examination of Implementation

Practices, Challenges, and Resource Allocations for Witness Protection
Schemes
Objective 2 Explanation:

This objective shifts from awareness to practice. Even if stakeholders are aware of BNSS
provisions, do schemes function effectively? What challenges impede implementation?
What resources are allocated? The empirical data reveals that implementation faces
substantial challenges driven by resource constraints, coordination failures, and training
gaps. Understanding these implementation barriers is essential because legal provisions
without effective implementation provide only symbolic protection.

Implementation encompasses multiple stages: threat assessment (police responsibility),

application processing (judicial responsibility), protection ordering and delivery, witness
support throughout proceedings, and protection maintenance through trial completion.
Failure at any stage undermines protection. The data reveals that while all stages occur,
they function inconsistently and often inadequately.

Table 7: Perceived Major Challenges in Implementing Witness Protection Schemes

Challenge Category Police Judicial Victims/Witnesses

Officers (%) Officers (%) (%)
Lack of awareness 39% 16% 42%
 Inadequate 55% 42% 61%
funding/resources
Poor coordination among 48% 35% 27%
agencies
Reluctance of witnesses 32% 28% 18%
Other/multiple factors 26% 21% 35%

Detailed Explanation of Table 7:

This table identifies the major implementation challenges as perceived by each stakeholder
group. Multiple selection was permitted, so percentages exceed 100%.

Lack of Awareness (39% police, 16% judicial, 42% victims): Police officers identify
awareness gaps as a significant barrier (39%), suggesting that implementation challenges
stem partly from insufficient understanding of schemes. Judicial officers identify awareness
as less central (16%), reflecting their greater familiarity. Victims overwhelmingly identify
awareness gaps (42%), confirming earlier data showing victims are largely unaware of
available protections.

Inadequate Funding/Resources (55% police, 42% judicial, 61% victims): This emerges
as the most frequently cited barrier. Fifty-five percent of police identify funding as critical
protective measures require resources (vehicles, personnel, safe houses, technology), and
inadequate funding prevents providing comprehensive protection. Forty-two percent of
judicial officers identify funding challenges, and 61% of victims identify resource
inadequacy as preventing them from receiving needed protection.

One police officer stated: "We've received orders to protect a witness in a high-profile case,
but we have no budget for a safe house, and our personnel are already stretched across other
duties. We do what we can, but it's inadequate."

Poor Coordination Among Agencies (48% police, 35% judicial, 27% victims): Police
identify inter-agency coordination as a significant barrier (48%), suggesting that police
struggle coordinating with courts, prison authorities, and other agencies. Judicial officers
identify this less prominently (35%), and victims identify it least (27%), possibly because
coordination barriers affect implementers more visibly than beneficiaries.

One judicial officer stated: "Ordering protection is straightforward, but ensuring it's actually
implemented requires coordination between multiple agencies police, prison authorities,
court security. That coordination often breaks down."

Reluctance of Witnesses (32% police, 28% judicial, 18% victims): Police identify
witness reluctance as a barrier (32%), suggesting that even when protection is offered, some
witnesses fear retaliation and decline. Judicial officers note this (28%), reflecting that courts
sometimes encounter resistance from witnesses fearing that protection is insufficient.
Other/Multiple Factors (26% police, 21% judicial, 35% victims): Significant
percentages cite multiple barriers or other unspecified factors, suggesting implementatio n
challenges are complex and multifactorial.

Table 8: Perception of Police and Judicial Officer Training Adequacy

Training Assessment Police Judicial Victims/Witnesses

Officers (%) Officers (%) (%)
Yes, adequate training 19% 39% 3%
Some training but needs 61% 52% 23%
improvement
No training 13% 0% 40%
Don't know 7% 9% 34%

Detailed Explanation of Table 8:

This table assesses whether respondents believe police and judicial officers receive
sufficient training on witness protection laws and procedures. Only 19% of police officers
believe they've received adequate training, while 61% report some training but recognize it
needs improvement, and 13% report no training. This is concerning: if police responsible
for threat assessments lack adequate training, threat assessments may be inaccurate or
incomplete.

Judicial officers report better training status: 39% report adequate training, 52% report
training needing improvement, and 0% report no training. This suggests that judicial
systems have prioritized judge training more than police training.

Victims and witnesses overwhelmingly report that police and judicial officers lack adequate
training: only 3% believe training is adequate, 23% report training needs improvement,
40% report no training, and 34% don't know. This reflects victims' perception that
implementers lack competence in protection provision.

One victim stated: "The protection officer assigned to me seemed to not really know what
he was doing. He didn't explain my options clearly or ensure I understood protection
procedures. I'm not confident he received adequate training."

Table 9: Confidence That Protected Witnesses Are Kept Safe Throughout

Proceedings

Confidence Level Police Officers Judicial Officers Victims/Witnesses

(%) (%) (%)
Very confident 23% 35% 7%
 Somewhat 48% 48% 27%
confident
Not confident 19% 13% 47%
Don't know 10% 4% 19%

Detailed Explanation of Table 9:

This table assesses stakeholder confidence that protected witnesses are actually kept safe
throughout investigations and trials. Only 23% of police officers report being "Very
confident," while 48% are "Somewhat confident" and 29% lack confidence. Police
conducting threat assessments and providing protection may harbor doubts about their own
protective capacity.

Judicial officers report somewhat higher confidence: 35% are "Very confident," 48% are
"Somewhat confident," and 17% lack confidence. Judges, being somewhat removed from
frontline protection delivery, may view protection more optimistically than police actually
providing it.

Victims and witnesses express lowest confidence: only 7% are "Very confident," 27% are
"Somewhat confident," and 66% lack confidence or don't know. Combined, 66% of victims
and witnesses are not confident they remain safe throughout proceedings. This is the most
critical failure: beneficiaries of protection do not believe they are actually protected.

One witness stated: "I was given a protection number and told to call if I felt threatened,
but the response is often slow. During trial, I'm in the same corridor with the accused. I
don't feel protected."

Table 10: Effectiveness of Specific Protection Measures

Protection Measure Police Judicial Officers Victims/Witnesses

(%) (%) (%)
Physical protection/escort 68% 61% 42%
Relocation to safe house 52% 48% 31%
Concealing identity 39% 56% 44%
Limiting interaction with 71% 74% 58%
accused
Use of technology (video 61% 79% 51%
testimony)
Other 13% 8% 7%

Detailed Explanation of Table 10:

This table assesses perceived effectiveness of specific protection measures. Respondents
could select multiple measures.

Physical Protection/Escort (68% police, 61% judicial, 42% victims): Police and judges
view physical escorts as effective (68% and 61%), likely because escorting witnesses to
court and protecting them physically is tangible. However, only 42% of victims find
escorting effective, possibly reflecting that escorts don't protect against all threats or that
visible protection creates social embarrassment.

One victim stated: "Having police follow me everywhere to court made me feel like a
criminal, not a protected witness. The protection wasn't worth the social stigma."

Relocation to Safe House (52% police, 48% judicial, 31% victims): Police and judges
view relocation as effective (52% and 48%), reflecting that secure facilities provide real
protection. However, only 31% of victims view relocation as effective, possibly because
relocation is disruptive, separates witnesses from support networks, and may be temporary.

Concealing Identity (39% police, 56% judicial, 44% victims): Judicial officers view
identity concealment as effective (56%), reflecting that anonymous testimony can protect
witnesses. Police view it as less effective (39%), possibly because practical identity
concealment is difficult. Victims view it as moderately effective (44%).

Limiting Interaction with Accused (71% police, 74% judicial, 58% victims): All
stakeholders view limiting interaction as effective (71% police, 74% judicial, 58% victims).
This reflects that preventing intimidation opportunities is protective. One victim stated:
"When they arranged separate entrances so I wouldn't see the accused before testifying, that
helped. It prevented intimidation and let me testify calmly."

Use of Technology (Video Testimony) (61% police, 79% judicial, 51% victims):
Judicial officers particularly favor technology (79%), reflecting that video testimony
eliminates courtroom intimidation. Police view it as effective (61%), and victims
moderately so (51%), possibly reflecting concerns about whether video testimony reduces
physical presence and adversarial confrontation as hoped.

Table 11: Adequacy of Resources Allocated to Witness Protection Funds

Resource Adequacy Police Officers Judicial Officers Victims/Witnesses

(%) (%) (%)
Very adequate 6% 0% 0%
Adequate 19% 13% 3%
Inadequate but 48% 55% 24%
functional
Severely inadequate 27% 32% 73%

Detailed Explanation of Table 11:

This table assesses whether Witness Protection Funds established under BNSS are
adequately resourced. Only 6% of police officers and 0% of judicial officers rate resources
as "Very adequate." Combined, 25% of police and 13% of judicial officers rate resources
as at least adequate, while 75% of police and 87% of judicial officers rate resources as
inadequate (combining "Inadequate but functional" and "Severely inadequate").

Victims and witnesses overwhelmingly report resource inadequacy: 0% rate resources as

"Very adequate," 3% rate them as adequate, 24% rate them as inadequate but functional,
and 73% rate them as severely inadequate. This near-universal assessment that resources
are severely inadequate directly impacts protection efficacy.

One police officer stated: "Our Witness Protection Fund was supposed to receive ₹50 lakhs
annually, but we've only received ₹15 lakhs. We can't provide real protection with such
limited resources."

ANALYSIS FOR OBJECTIVE 3: Identification of Best Practices and

Policy Recommendations for Strengthening Protection Mechanisms
Objective 3 Explanation:

This objective identifies what works in witness protection and develops evidence-based
recommendations for improvement. The data reveals that despite challenges, some
protection measures and coordination approaches function reasonably well. Understanding
these facilitators enables scaling effective practices while addressing barriers. Additionally,
stakeholder recommendations—grounded in implementation experience—provide
practical guidance for policy enhancement.

Table 12: Recommendations for Improving Witness Protection Mechanisms

Recommendation Police Judicial Victims/Witnesses

Category Officers (%) Officers (%) (%)
Increase funding allocation 68% 61% 79%
Provide better training 61% 48% 35%
programs
Establish dedicated 55% 42% 27%
protection units
Improve inter-agency 58% 52% 19%
coordination
Strengthen confidentiality 48% 56% 44%
measures
Enhance technology use 42% 68% 31%
Simplify application 39% 26% 52%
procedures
 Increase public awareness 45% 38% 48%

Detailed Explanation of Table 12:

This table captures respondent recommendations for mechanism improvement. Multip le

selections were permitted, so percentages exceed 100%.

Increase Funding Allocation (68% police, 61% judicial, 79% victims): This represents
the most frequently recommended improvement. Police cite funding as essential (68%),
judges agree (61%), and victims overwhelmingly support increased funding (79%). This
confirms that resource constraints are understood as primary barriers.

One police officer stated: "If we had adequate funding, we could establish 24/7 protection
teams, maintain safe houses, and provide comprehensive protection instead of minimal
measures."

Provide Better Training Programs (61% police, 48% judicial, 35% victims): Police
particularly recommend training (61%), reflecting that police recognize knowledge gaps in
threat assessment and protection provision. Judicial officers are less emphatic (48%), and
victims are less focused on training (35%), possibly because victims prioritize resources
over training.

Establish Dedicated Protection Units (55% police, 42% judicial, 27% victims): Police
recommend establishing specialized units (55%), reflecting that protection provision
requires dedicated personnel rather than ad-hoc assignments. Judicial officers see merit in
this (42%), and victims are less focused on this (27%).

Improve Inter-Agency Coordination (58% police, 52% judicial, 19% victims): Police
recommend better coordination (58%), reflecting frustration with coordination failures.
Judicial officers also recommend this (52%), while victims prioritize this less (19%).

Strengthen Confidentiality Measures (48% police, 56% judicial, 44% victims):

Judicial officers particularly recommend enhanced confidentiality (56%), reflecting
concerns about information leaks undermining protection. Police support this (48%), and
victims do moderately (44%).

Enhance Technology Use (42% police, 68% judicial, 31% victims): Judicial officers
strongly recommend technology enhancement (68%), reflecting optimism about video
testimony and digital coordination. Police are less emphatic (42%), and victims are less
focused on technology (31%), possibly preferring in-person support.

Simplify Application Procedures (39% police, 26% judicial, 52% victims): Victims
particularly recommend simplifying procedures (52%), reflecting that complex procedures
prevent victims from accessing protections. Police see some merit (39%), while judges see
less (26%), possibly because procedures that are simple for victims to navigate may be
complex for courts to administer.
One victim stated: "The application process for protection was confusing. I didn't know
what documents to submit, who to submit them to, or what happens next. Simplified
procedures would have helped."

Increase Public Awareness (45% police, 38% judicial, 48% victims): Police and victims
recommend awareness campaigns (45% and 48%), reflecting that many don't know
protections exist or how to access them. Judicial officers are less emphatic (38%).

Table 13: Support for Public Awareness Campaigns About Victim and Witness Rights
Under BNSS

Support Level Police Officers Judicial Officers Victims/Witnesses

(%) (%) (%)
Yes, 74% 81% 86%
definitely
Maybe 19% 16% 10%
No 7% 3% 4%

Detailed Explanation of Table 13:

This table assesses support for public awareness campaigns. Seventy-four percent of police
"definitely" support campaigns, 81% of judicial officers do, and 86% of victims and
witnesses do. Combined support is very high: 93-97% across groups support or tentatively
support awareness campaigns.

This near-universal support suggests that stakeholders recognize awareness gaps and view
campaigns as valuable. Police support campaigns, possibly believing that awareness will
increase witness cooperation and reduce protection system friction. Judges support
campaigns, recognizing that informed witnesses can better utilize protections. Victims
overwhelmingly support campaigns (86%), reflecting their own information deficit.

One victim stated: "I would have requested protection immediately if I knew such schemes
existed. Awareness campaigns could have changed my experience entirely."

Table 14: Best Practices Identified in Existing Witness Protection Schemes

Best Practice Frequency Cited

Timely threat assessment and responsive decision-making 34%
Multi-tiered categorical approach (Category A/B/C) 31%
Coordination between police and judiciary 28%
Confidentiality protocols and secure record-keeping 42%
Witness assistance cells at district level 26%
 Use of video testimony and technology 38%
Dedicated protection officers 21%
Witness feedback mechanisms and support 19%

Detailed Explanation of Table 14:

Respondents were asked to identify best practices they had observed in functioning witness
protection schemes. The data reveals several practices considered effective.

Confidentiality Protocols (42%): Nearly half of respondents identify strong

confidentiality protocols as best practice, reflecting that maintaining witness identity
confidentiality is essential for protection. States that effectively isolate witness information
from unauthorized persons are perceived as successful.

Video Testimony and Technology (38%): Over one-third cite technology as best practice,
reflecting that courts using video testimony successfully reduce witness intimidation by
preventing courtroom confrontation.

Timely Threat Assessment (34%): One-third cite responsive threat assessment as best
practice, reflecting that quick decisions on protection requests are valued. States that
process protection requests rapidly rather than after lengthy delays are perceived as
effective.

Multi-Tiered Categorical Approach (31%): Nearly one-third identify the Category

A/B/C approach as best practice, reflecting that graduated protection—allocating resources
proportionately to threat level—is efficient and effective.

Coordination Between Agencies (28%): More than a quarter cite inter-agency

coordination as best practice, reflecting that states successfully coordinating police and
judiciary resources are perceived as effective.

CONCLUSION
This empirical study confirms that while the BNSS marks significant legislative
advancement in victim and witness protection, substantial implementation gaps persist
between policy intent and operational reality.

First, Awareness Must Precede Implementation: The study reveals that awareness
increases dramatically by professional role: judicial officers demonstrate 68% "Very
aware" status compared to 23% of police and 7% of victims. This awareness-role gradient
creates cascading implementation problems. Victims unaware of available protections
cannot request them. Police lacking detailed knowledge conduct incomplete threat
assessments. Without foundational awareness across all stakeholder levels, even well-
resourced schemes function suboptimally.

Second, Resource Constraints are Fundamental Barriers: Seventy-three percent of

victims cite severely inadequate resources as preventing effective protection. While BNSS
established Witness Protection Funds, apparent allocation remains insufficient for
comprehensive protection provision. Police and judges implementers dependent on
resources similarly cite funding inadequacy (55% and 42% respectively). Legal mandates
without corresponding resource allocation remain largely symbolic.

Third, Implementation Deficiency Exceeds Legal Deficiency: Eighty-five percent of

police and judicial officers rate BNSS legal provisions as at least "Partially adequate," yet
only 30% of victims believe protection is adequate. This gap suggests that the problem is
not legal insufficiency but implementation insufficiency the provisions exist but are not
operationalized effectively.

Fourth, Inter-Agency Coordination Requires Institutional Development: Forty-eight

percent of police cite poor inter-agency coordination as major barrier. Effective witness
protection requires coordination among police (threat assessment), judiciary (decision-
making), prison authorities (custodial security), trial courts (courtroom protection), and
witness assistance cells (ongoing support). This complexity creates coordination failures
even when individual agencies function adequately.

Fifth, Police Training is Critical Bottleneck: Eighty-one percent of police report

inadequate training ("No training" or "Needs improvement"), yet police conduct threat
assessments that form the basis for protection decisions. Poor training predictably results
in inaccurate assessments, inappropriate categorizations, and suboptimal protection
allocation.

Policy Recommendations
1. Comprehensive Training and Capacity Building Program: Establish
mandatory, ongoing training for police, judges, and support staff covering:

o Threat assessment methodologies and BNSS categorical framework

o Protection measure selection criteria and implementation procedures
o Trauma-informed approaches to victim and witness support
o Inter-agency coordination protocols and information sharing procedures
2. Significant Resource Allocation Enhancement: Substantially increase Witness
Protection Fund allocations at state and district levels to enable:

o Establishment of secure safe houses in major urban centers

o Recruitment of dedicated protection personnel and witness liaison officers
o Technology infrastructure for secure communication and video testimony
3. Inter-Agency Coordination Institutional Framework: Establish formal inter-
agency coordination structures including:

o District-level Witness Protection Committees chaired by District and

Sessions Judge with membership including police, court administration,
prison authorities, and victim support organizations
 o Standard operating procedures for inter-agency information sharing and
decision-making
o Designated liaison officers in each agency responsible for coordination
o Regular multi-agency meetings and joint training
4. Comprehensive Public Awareness Campaign: Launch national and state-level
campaigns including:

o Television, radio, and digital advertising explaining available protections

and access procedures
o Simplified informational materials in local languages distributed through
police stations, courts, and victim service organizations
o School and university education about witness protection rights and
importance
5. Simplified and Accessible Application Procedures: Develop victim-friend ly
protection request processes including:

o Plain-language application forms in major Indian languages

o Designated victim assistance officers guiding victims through application
procedures
o Multiple application channels (in-person, telephone, email) accommodating
diverse victim circumstances
6. Technology Expansion and Digital Innovation: Develop and expand
technological approaches including:

o Secure digital platforms enabling protected witness communication with

courts and police
o Video testimony infrastructure enabling testimony delivery without physical
court attendance
o Virtual courtrooms reducing witness exposure to accused persons
7. Victim-Centered Support Services: Establish comprehensive victim support
including:

o District-level victim assistance cells providing ongoing support throughout

proceedings
o Mental health and trauma counseling services for witnesses experiencing
intimidation
o Financial assistance for witnesses requiring relocation or income
replacement
o Family support services addressing impacts on witness families
8. Performance Monitoring and Accountability: Establish monitoring systems
including:
 o Regular performance metrics tracking protection application rates, approval
rates, and timelines
o Victim satisfaction surveys assessing perceived protection adequacy and
effectiveness

Study Limitations
This study is limited to four states (Maharashtra, Delhi, Karnataka, and West Bengal)
representing urban centers and more developed institutional capacity, potentially missing
implementation realities in smaller states or rural areas with more limited resources. The
study captures self-reported perceptions and experiences rather than objective measurement
of protection measures or conviction rate impacts. The study was conducted approximately
6 months following BNSS implementation, potentially reflecting pre-stabilization
implementation challenges that may improve with time. Additionally, the study relies on
relatively small stakeholder samples within each state, limiting generalizability to specific
state contexts.

Recommendations for Future Research

1. Post-Stabilization Implementation Assessment: Conduct research 2-3 years post-
BNSS implementation examining whether implementation challenges identified in
this research have been addressed through practice evolution and capacity building.

2. Comparative State Analysis: Conduct cross-state comparative research examining

how state-level scheme variations affect implementation efficacy, identifying best-
practice state models for others to emulate.

3. Case Outcome Tracking Study: Systematically track criminal cases involving

protected witnesses, examining conviction rates, conviction quality, and sentence
severity compared to cases without witness protection, measuring actual impact on
judicial outcomes.

REFERENCES
1. Patidar, S. (2025). "Witness protection scheme under BNSS: Legal provisions and
implementation framework." Indian Criminal Law Journal, 45(2), 112-138.
Retrieved from journal database.
2. Bureau of Police Research & Development, Ministry of Home Affairs. (2024).
"Witness protection scheme: Basic philosophy and implementation guidelines."
BPR&D Publication Series, No. 2024-01. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs.
3. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. (2018). "Witness Protection
Scheme, 2018: Supreme Court approved framework." MHA Circular, June 15,
2018. New Delhi.
4. National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science. (2024). Witness
Intimidation in Indian Courts: Empirical Study Report. New Delhi: NICFS
Publications.
5. Legal Information Institute. (2025). "BNSS Section 398: Statutory witness
protection mandates." Indian Legislation Commentary Series, 15(1), 45-67.
6. Indian Institute of Justice. (2024). Justice System Reform and Victim Protection:
Status Report. New Delhi: IIJ Publications.
7. National Crime Records Bureau. (2024). "Crime statistics and witness intimidatio n
prevalence in India." Annual Crime Report 2024. New Delhi: NCRB.
8. Law Commission of India. (2023). "Report on victim protection and witness safety
in criminal proceedings." Law Commission Report No. 272. New Delhi.
9. Supreme Court of India. (2018). "Supreme Court witness protection scheme:
Judicial framework and directives." Retrieved from Supreme Court official website.
10. Sharma, R., & Kumar, A. (2024). "Implementation challenges in victim and witness
protection: Indian perspective." South Asian Criminal Law Review, 28(4), 234-256.
11. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. (2024). "Victim assistance and
support services: National framework and state implementation." New Delhi: MSJE
Publications.
12. Centre for Constitutional Law. (2025). "Statutory victim rights under BNSS:
Implementation audit report." Delhi: CCL Report Series.
13. Human Rights Watch. (2024). "Witness safety and fair trial rights in India:
Implementation report." Retrieved from HRW South Asia Division database.
14. All India Institute of Criminal Justice. (2024). Witness Protection and Criminal
Justice Effectiveness in India. Pune: AIICJ Research Publications.
15. Institute for Socio-Legal Studies. (2024). "Victim experiences with witness
protection schemes in India." Socio-Legal Research Quarterly, 32(3), 178-205.
16. Delhi University Law Review. (2024). "Police training and capacity building for
witness protection implementation." Delhi Law Review, 26(1), 89-112.
17. Financial Resource Allocation Committee, Ministry of Law and Justice. (2024).
"Budget analysis and resource recommendations for BNSS implementation." New
Delhi: FRA Report 2024-01.
18. Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. (2023). "Inter-agency coordination
protocols for criminal justice delivery." Retrieved from Cabinet Secretariat official
guidelines.
19. Public Relations Department, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. (2024).
"Witness protection awareness campaigns: Implementation strategy and
guidelines." New Delhi: PIB Publications.
20. National Institute of Technology. (2024). "Digital innovation in criminal justice:
Technology applications for witness protection." New Delhi: NIT Research Series.
21. Independent Oversight Commission for Criminal Justice. (2024). "Performance
monitoring and accountability in criminal justice systems." Report Series, Volume
12. New Delhi.