Supreme Court Issues Notice to Madhya Pradesh Over Failure to Frame Witness Protection Rules Under BNSS

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh on a petition raising concerns over the State's failure to frame witness protection rules under Section 398 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 

The Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice limited to Prayer 'E' of the writ petition, which specifically sought directions to the State to frame and notify comprehensive rules for witness protection as mandated under Section 398 of BNSS.

The court's intervention signals its recognition of the issue as one of constitutional and statutory importance, particularly in the context of vulnerable victims such as minors in sexual assault cases under the POCSO Act.

The matter stems from a petition originally filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, by a minor girl through her mother, highlighting the repeated sexual assault and intimidation she faced in Ratlam district. Despite multiple complaints since 2023, the petitioner alleged that the local police failed to act, forcing her to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petition sought directions to ensure victim safety and systemic reforms by invoking Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, read with Sections 19, 33, and 40 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 396 to 398 of the BNSS.

While the High Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations, it declined to issue directions on the specific prayer concerning the Witness Protection Scheme, terming the request “academic and abstract in nature.” The court observed that such reliefs, being in the nature of policy formulation, could not be granted in an individual writ petition filed at the instance of a victim.

Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, confining her challenge to the limited issue of State inaction in implementing Section 398 of BNSS.

Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that the State’s continued failure to frame rules under Section 398 even after the nationwide enforcement of the BNSS on July 1, 2024, undermines the legislative intent behind the provision and leaves countless victims unprotected. The counsel emphasized that the legislative mandate under Section 398 is not discretionary but obligatory, requiring each State to establish and operationalize a witness protection framework ensuring confidentiality, relocation, and security of witnesses and victims during investigation and trial.

The petition further invoked international legal instruments such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985), and the UN ECOSOC Resolution 2005/20 on child witnesses, arguing that India’s domestic law must be harmonized with its global commitments to protect vulnerable witnesses.

The Top Court’s decision is expected to reignite debate on the implementation of witness protection mechanisms under the BNSS, which replaced Section 195A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and codified the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, earlier approved by the Supreme Court in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 615. 

The order's timing is particularly significant as the BNSS, which came into force last year in July, was introduced to modernise criminal procedure law and strengthen the rights of victims and witnesses. Section 398 explicitly obligates State governments to frame detailed rules for implementing the witness protection framework envisioned by Parliament. However, several States, including Madhya Pradesh, are yet to do so, raising concerns about the efficacy of statutory protections intended under the BNSS.

The limited notice issued by the Supreme Court thus places the onus squarely on the State to justify its inaction and could pave the way for the formulation of uniform witness protection rules across India. 

If pursued to its logical conclusion, the case could establish a judicial precedent clarifying the enforceability of Section 398 BNSS and delineate the contours of State responsibility in operationalising statutory witness protection schemes. 

Counsel for the Petitioner: Yamak Sharma, Utkarsh Joshi, Saroj Raichura, Kalp Raichura, Advs., Haresh Raichura, AOR

Case Title: Victim X (Minor) v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Order: October 10, 2025