SC steps in to protect witnesses, curb ‘abusive’ cross-questioning
ISLAMABAD: In a significant step to protect witnesses from abusive cross-examination practices and physical hardship, the Supreme Court on Friday directed trial court judges to act as vigilant supervisors rather than silent spectators, ensuring that court proceedings are not used to scandalise, insult or annoy witnesses.
“The courtroom must remain a place where justice is administered not only with authority but with humanity,” observed Justice Salahuddin Panwhar in a judgement he authored, adding that presiding judges should not allow irrelevant, indecent or insulting questions to be put to persons standing in the witness box.
Justice Panwhar was a member of a three-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, which heard an appeal filed by Maham Fatima against the Lahore High Court’s June 25, 2025 decision rejecting her plea to consolidate trials arising from two FIRs registered at the Faisalabad women police station and the FIA cyber crime wing.
The complainant, Khadija Ghafoor, a medical student from Faisalabad, had lodged two separate FIRs concerning a series of incidents involving the same accused persons.
Witnesses should not be forced to stand for hours while testifying, Justice Panwhar observes
During the hearing, the SC was informed that the complainant had been subjected to inordinately lengthy cross-examinations continuing for days, while separate counsel for each accused repeatedly asked the same questions.
This resulted in a significant delay in concluding the trial despite earlier SC directions to expedite the proceedings, Justice Panwhar noted with concern.
Regretting the practice of prolonged cross-examination as a tool to exhaust witnesses through unnecessary and irrelevant questioning, the judge said such conduct amounted to a misuse of the right of cross-examination.
“A court of law is not merely a chamber where disputes are resolved; it is a place where the majesty of the law must walk hand in hand with the dignity of the individual,” Justice Panwhar emphasised.
Every person entering a courtroom whether as a litigant, accused, complainant or witness comes under constitutional protection. A witness who steps into the witness box does so not as a servant of the court but as a citizen assisting in the administration of justice, he observed.
While acknowledging the right of the accused to cross-examine the complainant, the judgement said judges must carefully balance this right with the guarantees of a fair trial and dignity enshrined in Articles 10-A and 14 of the Constitution.
Judges should not permit questions that are irrelevant, indecent, asked without reasonable grounds, or intended to insult or annoy a witness, Justice Panwhar said. The purpose of cross-examination, he explained, is to assist the court in discovering the truth by clarifying or exposing matters a witness may attempt to conceal.
In such circumstances, the presiding judge should not remain a silent spectator but act as a vigilant supervisor, since the right of cross-examination is neither unlimited nor unrestrained.
“If a judge observes that cross-examination is being abused through irrelevant questions meant to prolong proceedings or to scandalise, insult or annoy the witness, he should intervene and disallow such questions,” the judgement said.
Allowing such conduct, it added, defeats the spirit of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984, particularly provisions relating to the mode of examination, including Articles 131 and 143 to 148.
The court also expressed concern over the practice of requiring witnesses to stand in the witness box for prolonged periods, sometimes for several hours, regardless of their age, gender or physical condition.
There is no legal requirement under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984 for witnesses to remain standing while giving evidence, the judgement noted.
Such a practice serves no legitimate purpose in the administration of justice and is inconsistent with the dignity owed to individuals appearing before courts, Justice Panwhar observed.
Compelling witnesses, particularly in cases involving sexual offences, to stand for extended periods places unnecessary physical and psychological strain on them and may impair the clarity and composure of their testimony, the judgement said.
Allowing witnesses to remain seated while testifying does not diminish the sanctity of the oath or the dignity of judicial proceedings; rather, it promotes fairness and the orderly administration of justice, particularly in cases involving vulnerable, elderly or infirm witnesses.
The court emphasised that the state has a constitutional obligation to ensure a safe and reasonable environment for complainants and witnesses in courtrooms.
Protection of witnesses in Pakistan, the judgement said, is grounded in fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 9 and 10-A of the Constitution, which ensure security of person and the right to a fair trial and due process. These guarantees are further reinforced by the principle of human dignity embodied in Article 14.
Together, these provisions place a duty on the state to protect witnesses and victims from intimidation, coercion, humiliation or undue hardship so that testimony may be given freely and judicial proceedings conducted in accordance with the law.
The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act, 2017, along with corresponding provincial laws, provides mechanisms for protecting witnesses, including anonymity, relocation, security arrangements and testimony through video link.
“These legislative measures reinforce the guarantees of a fair trial and enable vulnerable witnesses, including women and minors, to depose without fear or unnecessary hardship,” Justice Panwhar said.
“The law requires a witness to speak the truth; it does not require that truth to be extracted through needless physical strain,” the judgement emphasised.
“Justice does not demand endurance; it demands truth. And truth is best spoken where the witness is afforded composure, security and respect.”
However, the SC ultimately upheld the Lahore High Court’s decision in the case.
Published in Dawn, March 7th, 2026