Supreme Court Calls for Law on Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration

In a powerful and emotional judgment, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (July 15) called for a legal framework to compensate individuals who have been wrongly jailed—especially in cases where they spent years behind bars, even on death row, only to be proven innocent later.

The court was hearing the case of a man who had spent several years in prison, including time on death row, before being acquitted due to serious mistakes in the investigation, including mishandling of DNA evidence and long delays in the legal process.

No Law in India for Compensation:

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta observed that India does not yet have a specific law that allows for compensation to people who are wrongfully incarcerated. The court emphasized that while it recognizes this serious issue, it is up to the Parliament to create such a law.

Justice Sanjay Karol, who authored the judgment, highlighted how countries like the United States have clear laws that ensure people who are proven innocent after long jail terms can claim compensation. In the U.S., this can be done through:

• Tort claims or civil rights lawsuits

• Statutory compensation (laws created specifically for this purpose)

• Moral bills of obligation passed by states

  
  

Article 21: A Right to Life and Liberty:

The Court also said that being kept in prison wrongly, especially for a long time, is a clear violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Therefore, people who suffer such injustice deserve to be compensated, even if the way compensation is given may vary from country to country.

Law Commission's Limited View:

The bench also pointed out that although the Law Commission of India discussed this issue in its 277th report, its focus was mostly on "malicious prosecution" (where someone is prosecuted without good reason). The report did not fully cover the issue of wrongful incarceration after a wrongful conviction.

Clean Acquittal and Moral Responsibility:

Importantly, this was not a case of acquittal based on technical grounds or loopholes. The Supreme Court said it was a “clean acquittal”—meaning the man was completely innocent and the prosecution had completely failed in its job.

In recent times, another bench of the Supreme Court had also spoken about the need to compensate people who have been fully acquitted and had suffered in prison without any fault of their own.

Final Thoughts:

This case shines a light on the urgent need for legal reform in India. Innocent people who have lost years of their life in jail due to flawed investigations or unjust trials should not be left to suffer without any support or compensation.

As the Court rightly said, it's now the responsibility of Parliament to make a law that ensures justice does not stop at acquittal—but also provides dignity, compensation, and healing for those wronged by the system.