Jurisence
Home AI Legal Hub Advocacy Lab Study Skills About Podcast Academy soon Opportunities soon

LANDMARK CASE

Mahender Chawla v. Union of India

(2019) 14 SCC 615 · Supreme Court of India · Criminal justice

At a glance

  • Citation: (2019) 14 SCC 615
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Area of law: Criminal justice
  • In one line: The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 was approved and made binding until legislation.

1 Facts

Witnesses in a case faced threats and attacks.

2 Issue

Should there be a witness protection scheme?

3 What the court decided

The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 was approved and made binding until legislation.

4 Why it matters

Witness protection is now required under the BNSS.

5 Think about it

How can witness protection improve conviction rates?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

How to analyse a judgmentHow to cite this caseTrial Advocacy

7 More cases on Criminal justice

  • Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 14
  • Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81
  • Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 427
  • M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC 544
  • Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1
  • Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Mahbub Shah v. EmperorManeka Gandhi v. Union of India →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.

Jurisence

The Algorithm for Next-Gen Legal Minds

Explore

Home AI Legal Hub Advocacy Lab Study Materials Word of the Day Case of the Day Weekly Quiz My Jurisence Podcast Skill Roadmaps About

Legal

Privacy Policy Terms of Service Disclaimer

Connect

Contact Instagram Threads Facebook LinkedIn

© Jurisence. All rights reserved.

Educational content only — not legal advice.