A man walked free after years on death row — but the Supreme Court wasn’t just letting him go. It raised a deeper, heavier question: who pays for the time stolen?
In a searing judgment delivered while acquitting a death row inmate in a case marred by flawed DNA evidence and investigative failure, a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta called for the enactment of a specific law to compensate those unjustly imprisoned.
India, the Court pointed out, is lagging behind global standards. Citing examples from the United States, where statutes exist at both federal and state levels to compensate victims of wrongful incarceration, the Court contrasted the Indian legal landscape — where no such dedicated mechanism exists. Justice Karol, authoring the opinion, noted that compensation in countries like the U.S. can be pursued through statutory claims, tort law, or even moral obligation bills.
The Indian Law Commission’s 277th report was not spared scrutiny. The bench criticized its narrow interpretation of “wrongful prosecution”, which, according to the Court, failed to meaningfully address long-term wrongful incarceration arising from systemic failure, not just malice or lack of good faith.
Citing Article 21 of the Constitution — the fundamental right to life and personal liberty — the bench observed that prolonged imprisonment of the innocent violates the very core of constitutional protections, thereby entitling victims to reparation. But with no statute in place, justice remains incomplete.
The case that prompted this commentary was particularly stark. The appellant had not only endured years behind bars — including time on death row — but had been entangled in a trial tainted by investigative lapses and mismanagement of crucial forensic evidence. His eventual release was not based on technicality, the Court emphasized, but on total exoneration — a “clean acquittal” that left no room for doubt.
Another Supreme Court bench had recently echoed a similar sentiment: that a clean acquittal after long incarceration should logically open the door to compensation. But without legislative intervention, that door remains bolted.
The judgment stopped short of issuing directives, placing the onus squarely on Parliament. Still, its message was unmistakable: if the system errs, it must also atone. For now, the scars remain — unhealed and uncompensated.
