Whether the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh can direct the State Government to implement a victim‑centred witness protection scheme when the complainant in a human‑trafficking case fears re‑victimisation, and what principles govern the court’s discretion in granting such remedial orders?

Legislative and Constitutional Backdrop for Victim‑Centred Protection

The statutory architecture governing the protection of victims in criminal matters has undergone a transformative shift with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). These statutes replace the antiquated provisions of the former penal and procedural codes and embed a victim‑centred philosophy that requires the judiciary, especially the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, to balance investigative imperatives with the fundamental right to dignity and safety of the complainant. In the context of human trafficking, the offence is recognized as a grave violation of personal liberty, and the modern legislative language expressly mandates that the State ensure the protection of witnesses and victims from intimidation, harassment, or any form of re‑victimisation. The constitutional guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, interpreted expansively by the Supreme Court, obliges the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh to fashion protective orders that are not merely perfunctory but effectively shield the complainant from the trauma that may otherwise be exacerbated by the trial process. The convergence of these statutory and constitutional imperatives creates a robust framework within which a criminal lawyer representing a victim of human trafficking can argue for a remedial scheme that is tailored to the specific vulnerabilities of the complainant, thereby compelling the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh to scrutinise the adequacy of existing state mechanisms and, where necessary, direct the State Government to institute a comprehensive witness protection scheme that aligns with the principles of victim‑centred justice.

Jurisprudence of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on Victim‑Centred Protection

Over the past decade, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has articulated a clear trajectory in its judgments that foregrounds the protection of victims, particularly in cases involving human trafficking. The court has repeatedly emphasized that the essence of a victim‑centred approach lies in the proactive assessment of risk, the provision of secure accommodation, and the assurance of anonymity where required. In landmark decisions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has held that the State’s duty to protect the complainant extends beyond the mere issuance of a protection order; it obliges the State to design a scheme that integrates physical security, psychological counselling, and legal assistance. These rulings have established a binding precedent that a criminal lawyer can invoke to demonstrate that the absence of a structured protection scheme constitutes a breach of the State’s statutory obligations under BNSS. Moreover, the court has consistently ruled that when a victim of human trafficking expresses a credible fear of re‑victimisation, the onus shifts to the State to present a concrete plan for protection, failing which the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh is empowered to issue interlocutory orders that compel the State Government to either adopt an existing scheme or formulate a new victim‑centred framework. This body of jurisprudence underscores the pivotal role of a criminal lawyer in framing the factual matrix that evidences the threat to the complainant, thereby enabling the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh to exercise its remedial jurisdiction with precision.

Discretionary Principles Guiding the Court’s Remedial Orders

The discretion exercised by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in granting protective orders is anchored in a set of well‑defined principles that emanate from both legislative intent and judicial philosophy. First, the principle of proportionality requires that any remedial order be calibrated to the level of risk identified, ensuring that the protective measures are neither excessive nor insufficient. Second, the principle of necessity mandates that the court intervene only when there is a demonstrable need to safeguard the victim, thereby preventing the imposition of undue constraints on State resources. Third, the principle of fairness demands that the protective scheme be implemented in a manner that does not prejudice the substantive rights of the accused while simultaneously upholding the dignity and safety of the complainant. Fourth, the principle of transparency obliges the court to articulate, within its order, the factual basis for protection, the scope of the scheme, and the timeline for implementation, thereby providing the State with a clear directive. A criminal lawyer adept at navigating these principles can effectively argue that the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh must invoke its discretionary power to direct the State Government to adopt a victim‑centred witness protection scheme, particularly when the complainant in a human trafficking case has articulated a credible fear of re‑victimisation. The court’s reliance on these principles ensures that remedial orders are not isolated directives but integrated components of a broader protective architecture that aligns with the legislative reforms introduced by BNS and BNSS.

Role of the Criminal Lawyer in Shaping Protective Orders

A criminal lawyer representing a victim of human trafficking stands at the intersection of advocacy, statutory interpretation, and strategic litigation, and plays an indispensable role in compelling the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh to issue victim‑centred protective orders. The lawyer’s first task is to meticulously document the nature of the threat, drawing upon police reports, threat letters, and expert testimony to construct a factual narrative that satisfies the court’s requirement of proportionality and necessity. By framing the narrative within the ambit of BNS and BNSS, the criminal lawyer can demonstrate that the State has a statutory duty to provide comprehensive protection, thereby reinforcing the court’s jurisdiction to direct the State Government. Additionally, the lawyer must articulate the specific components of the protection scheme, such as relocation, identity concealment, and psychosocial support, to satisfy the transparency principle and guide the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in formulating precise interlocutory orders. The criminal lawyer’s advocacy also extends to highlighting precedents set by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, thereby establishing a continuum of jurisprudence that the court can rely upon when exercising its discretion. By leveraging these legal strategies, the criminal lawyer not only secures immediate protection for the complainant but also contributes to the evolution of victim‑centred jurisprudence within the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, ensuring that future human trafficking victims benefit from a robust protective framework.

Practical Implications for Human Trafficking Victims and the Justice System

The practical impact of a victim‑centred witness protection scheme, when ordered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, reverberates through every stage of the criminal justice process for human trafficking cases. For the victim, the assurance of safety mitigates the psychological trauma that often deters testimony, thereby enhancing the likelihood of successful prosecution. The scheme’s provisions—ranging from secure accommodation to legal counsel—empower the complainant to participate actively without fear of retaliation, which aligns with the overarching objectives of BNS and BNSS to foster a justice system that is responsive to the needs of victims. From the perspective of law enforcement and the prosecutorial apparatus, a well‑implemented protection scheme facilitates the collection of reliable evidence, as witnesses are less likely to withhold information due to security concerns. This, in turn, strengthens the case presented by criminal lawyers and contributes to the efficient administration of justice. Moreover, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh’s willingness to exercise its discretionary powers reinforces the message that the State is committed to upholding the rights of victims of human trafficking, thereby enhancing public confidence in the judiciary. The ripple effect of such protective orders also encourages legislative bodies to periodically review and refine victim‑centred policies, ensuring that the legal framework remains dynamic and attuned to emerging challenges. In sum, the convergence of statutory mandates, judicial discretion, and proactive advocacy by criminal lawyers creates a synergistic environment in which victims of human trafficking receive the protection they deserve, while the justice system as a whole becomes more resilient, equitable, and effective.