UAPA | Order Barring Disclosure Of Witness Statements Must Record Reasons For Each Witness: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has clarified that an order passed under Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act barring disclosure of witness statements must separately consider materials relating to each witness and record reasons for its decision.

The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan was considering a petition preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita challenging orders passed by the Special Court for NIA Cases.

The petitioners were accused of the offences under Sections 120B, 121A, 122 of IPC and Sections 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 of UAPA. They were arrested in 2024 and chargesheet was submitted in 2025. The case is pending before the Special Court.

While so, the Union government filed a petition under Section 44 of the UAPA before the Special Court praying for an order to treat 8 court witnesses as protected witnesses and not to supply their statements as per Section 161 Cr.P.C and connected documents, which tend to disclose their identity. This was allowed by the Special Court along with another petition to issue only redacted part of the documents in the chargesheet. Aggrieved, the petitioners have come before the High Court.

The petitioners contended that the identity of two of the witnesses ordered to be protected was already revealed and therefore, the purpose under the Section is defeated. It was also argued that the impugned orders were non-speaking orders and do not record satisfaction for each individual witness but merely states some vague reasons.

This was opposed by the Union alleging that the offences alleged are serious and there is danger to life of witnesses.

The Court looked into Section 44 of the UAP Act and relied on Mohammed Asarudeen v. Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court had held that there cannot be a blanket restriction on the disclosure of witness statements and that an order limiting the accused's access to the statements must be based on individual assessments, specifically whether a real threat exists to the life or safety of each witness.

The Bench noted that in the present case, the prosecution made an application for 8 witnesses and though there were specific averments for each of them, the Special Court has not recorded a clear satisfaction that the lives of the witnesses are in danger, based on materials. It also took note of the fact that the identity of the two witnesses were revealed by the prosecution and that purpose of Section 44 UAPA is defeated, which was also not considered by the Special Court.

“the impugned orders does not reflect consideration of the materials on record, before deciding the measures to be taken for keeping the identity of the witnesses secret. No reasons, at least in brief, is also not stated for allowing the application and the order merely says that “the reasons stated in the petition are convincing”. That apart, the Special Court has also not considered the case of each witnesses separately, regarding the possible dangers to their lives based on the materials on record and has merely allowed the application by finding that no prejudice is caused to the accused,” the Court remarked.

It felt it appropriate to set aside the orders and remitted the petitions back to the Special Court for considered. The Court thus allowed the petition.

Case No: Crl.MC No. 10590 of 2025

Case Title: R. Ragavendran and Anr. v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 78

Counsel for the petitioners: Thushar Nirmal Sarathy, P.A. Shyna

Counsel for the respondents: O.M. Shalina - Deputy Solicitor General of India

Click To Read/Download Order