Delhi High Court Directs Sessions Court to Decide CBI Complainant's Witness Protection Plea Within a Week

1 day ago

4 min read

Updated: 7 hours ago

The Delhi High Court has directed a Sessions Court to decide, within one week, a pending application for police protection filed under India's Witness Protection Scheme, after the applicant complained that the application had sat undecided for five days. Justice Girish Kathpalia disposed of the writ petition with a short, direct order compelling a decision rather than ruling on the protection claim itself.

The Case at a Glance

Case: Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Rana vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Citation: W.P. (Crl.) 3003/2026 and Crl.M.A. 29969/2026
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia
What was sought: A direction for police protection, and for the competent authority to decide a pending Witness Protection Scheme representation
Order dated: September 24, 2026 (oral judgment)

Background: A Representation Left Undecided

The petitioner is a de facto complainant in a CBI case bearing RC No. 0032024A0041. On September 19, 2026, he filed a representation before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, the competent authority under the Witness Protection Scheme, seeking protective measures. When that representation remained undecided, he approached the Delhi High Court through this writ petition seeking police protection directly.

The Order: A Deadline, Not a Ruling

Rather than deciding the protection claim on its own merits, the Court, at the petitioner's own counsel's request after part submissions, disposed of the petition by directing the competent authority to decide the pending representation as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within one week.

The petition is disposed of, directing the competent authority, i.e., the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, to decide the representation dated 19.09.2026 of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but positively within one week from today.

The Court also directed that a copy of the order be sent immediately to the competent authority for compliance.

Why This Matters for Practice

This order is a reminder that a writ petition under Article 226 can be an effective, fast route when a statutory authority sits on a pending application, even where the underlying substantive claim, here, witness protection, is left entirely undecided by the High Court itself. Under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, approved by the Supreme Court in Mahender Chawla vs Union of India, applications for protection are meant to be decided by a Witness Protection Cell headed by the District and Sessions Judge, and delay in that process is itself something a court can be moved to correct, independent of whether protection is ultimately granted.

Drafting a writ petition that seeks a time-bound direction rather than a ruling on the underlying merits, a useful tool when the real problem is delay rather than an adverse decision, is covered under the Criminal Law Drafting module of ILW's Advanced Legal Drafting course, for law students and practising lawyers building a criminal law practice.

For more case breakdowns like this one, join ILW's WhatsApp channel for updates.

Keywords

Witness Protection Scheme 2018 India, writ petition delay in decision, Article 226 mandamus pending application, complainant de facto CBI case, criminal law drafting course

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018?

It is a scheme approved by the Supreme Court in Mahender Chawla vs Union of India and adopted across India, allowing witnesses and complainants in criminal cases to seek protective measures such as police protection, identity concealment, or relocation, decided by a Witness Protection Cell typically headed by the District and Sessions Judge of the concerned area.

Can a High Court be approached if a Witness Protection application is not decided in time?

Yes. As this order shows, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be used to compel the competent authority to decide a pending representation within a fixed timeframe, even without the High Court ruling on whether protection should actually be granted.

What does it mean to be a complainant de facto in a CBI case?

A de facto complainant is the person who actually initiated or reported the matter that led to the criminal case, as distinct from the state or investigating agency, which is technically the prosecuting party. A de facto complainant can independently seek protective measures such as those available under the Witness Protection Scheme.

Did the Delhi High Court rule on whether the petitioner was entitled to protection?

No. The Court did not decide the merits of the protection claim. It only directed the competent authority, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts, to decide the petitioner's pending representation within one week.

What is the case citation and outcome in this matter?

The case is Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Rana vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., W.P. (Crl.) 3003/2026. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the petitioner's Witness Protection Scheme representation within one week.