Fair trial safeguards in riot cases: continued investigation, witness protection, stronger prosecution and day-to-day trial supervision.

The Court permitted the Special Investigation Team to continue until completion of the riot trials and recognised that further investigation could proceed in law, including by supplementary charge-sheets under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. To secure a fair and speedy trial, it directed witness protection, consultation with the Special Investigation Team for appointment or replacement of experienced public prosecutors, designation of courts for day-to-day hearing, and continued supervisory reporting. The ruling treats continued investigation, prosecutorial strengthening and trial management as necessary safeguards where witness intimidation and public confidence in criminal justice are at stake.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Special Investigation Team should continue to function, with liberty to undertake further investigation and to file supplementary charge-sheets in the pending riot cases; (ii) what directions were necessary to secure a fair trial, including witness protection, appointment of public prosecutors and day-to-day conduct of the trials.

Issue (i): Whether the Special Investigation Team should continue to function, with liberty to undertake further investigation and to file supplementary charge-sheets in the pending riot cases.

Analysis: The reports showed substantial progress by the Special Investigation Team, including identification of additional accused and collection of further material. The need for continued investigation was recognised, and further investigation was held permissible in law under the criminal procedure framework. The Court therefore treated the Special Investigation Team as an integral mechanism for completing the pending process and supervising any additional investigative steps that might arise.

Conclusion: The Special Investigation Team was directed to continue until completion of the trials, and further investigation could be undertaken in accordance with law, including under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (ii): What directions were necessary to secure a fair trial, including witness protection, appointment of public prosecutors and day-to-day conduct of the trials.

Analysis: Fair trial was treated as inseparable from the discovery of truth, the protection of victims and witnesses, and the maintenance of public confidence in criminal justice. In the facts of the riot cases, the Court found that witnesses required protection from intimidation and that the prosecution had to be strengthened by experienced public prosecutors appointed in consultation with the Special Investigation Team. The Court also emphasised expeditious completion of these sensitive matters through designated courts, day-to-day hearing, and continuing supervisory reports from the Special Investigation Team.

Conclusion: Directions were issued for witness protection, consultation with the Special Investigation Team for appointment and replacement of public prosecutors, designation of courts for day-to-day trial, and continued reporting and supervision, all to ensure a fair and speedy trial.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were resolved by continuing the investigative process under the Special Investigation Team while putting in place a structured trial mechanism to safeguard witnesses, strengthen prosecution and accelerate adjudication in the riot cases.

Ratio Decidendi: In serious criminal cases, especially where witness intimidation and public confidence are at stake, the Court may direct continued investigation, witness protection and structured prosecutorial supervision to secure a fair and expeditious trial.

---