Since the inception of the field of criminal law, through all its evolutions and transformations, an indispensable cog that is essential to make the wheels of effective criminal justice turn is that of ‘a witness.’ The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 was a first step towards securing rights for witnesses in India. However, unfortunately, the Scheme still remains riddled with problems in both its drafting and implementation. The present article aims to analyse a few questions which are required to be answered immediately, to bring the Scheme a step closer to what it set out to achieve.

The POCSO Act presumes an accused’s guilt through its reverse onus clauses. The basis for such clauses must be examined against a theoretical and legal framework in order to assess its suitability.

During the recent formulation of the Draft Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court has recognised the need for a fair disclosure of exculpatory documents to the accused. While judgements mandating disclosure are essential for this right, the rights of the accused shall continue to be impeded without immediate statutory amendments as well.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 is a piece of legislation which attempts, among other things, to help reduce the prevalence of money laundering, and to repossess any ill-gotten gains of money laundering. The first of its kind in India, it was introduced in order to combat threats against the Indian financial systems, and to fight the menace of money laundering. In order to achieve its goals, the Act provides for stringent measures, which empowers the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the agency responsible for investigating complaints under the Act, with sweeping powers.

Legal anthropologists Shrimoyee Ghosh and Haley Duschinski argue that Kashmir’s “permanent emergency” is sustained through a system of “indefinite incarceration” materialised through “proliferation of paperwork, jurisdictional complexity, and excessive legalism” (Ghosh and Duschinski 2020, 377). They note the manner in which, throughout a detainee’s “revolving-door detention”, it remains unclear which jurisdiction is being exercised – judicial, executive, or military – thus producing a state of “proliferating jurisdictions” .

In September 2022, the Supreme Court of India acknowledged concerns about the capital sentencing framework and ordered the setting up of a Constitution Bench to review it. For any meaningful reform, it will be crucial % for the Constitution Bench to take note of the nature and extent of the crisis in capital sentencing in trial courts.

Six years after being on death row a POCSO Special Court re-sentenced the accused to death in August 2022 in Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. Convicted for child rape and murder case in 2013 [“Anokhilal I”] by the Khandwa POCSO court, in 2019, the Supreme Court struck down Anokhilal I on the grounds of fair trial violations of the accused. The Court remanded the case and ordered that the trial court must ensure “real and meaningful” legal aid to the accused in the retrial [“Anokhilal II”]. In this article, we analyse Anokhilal II and find it to be repeating the same mistakes as Anokhilal I. Only this time, the due process lapses have grave consequences as Anokhilal II has reinstated the death penalty on a prisoner who has already languished on death row. We argue that trial courts are duty-bound to ensure scrupulous adherence to due process requirements, not only for the specific violations observed in the remand but in all processes of the retrial.

The right to free legal aid is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person accused of any offence. Accordingly, it is implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The state has the constitutional and statutory obligation to provide free legal services not only at the stage of trial but also at the stage when the accused is first produced before the magistrate or under circumstances of near-custodial interrogation.