Recently the Supreme Court acquitted a death row inmate and urged Parliament to consider legal compensation for those acquitted after long incarceration.

About ‘Incarceration of Individuals’

• Incarceration, the state of being imprisoned, is a form of punishment or detention for individuals who have been convicted of crimes or are awaiting trial.
• It involves restricting an individual’s liberty and confining them to a prison or other correctional facility.
• Wrongful incarceration refers to the imprisonment of individuals who are later proven to be innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted.

Factors Responsible for Wrongful Incarcerceration

• Media Trials: Public opinion shaped by media coverage, like in the Rhea Chakraborty–Sushant Singh Rajput case, can prejudice investigations and judicial processes.
• Poor Investigation: Lack of proper training, procedural lapses, and inadequate forensic resources in police investigations can lead to misidentification and false charges.
• Stringent Laws: Laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act permit prolonged detention without timely trial, raising the risk of incarcerating innocents.
• Judicial Delays: Delays in court proceedings, due to heavy caseloads and procedural inefficiencies, result in prolonged undertrial incarceration even without conviction.

Need for Compensation for  Wrongfully Incarcerated Individuals

• Long-Term Incarceration Without Proven Guilt: Many individuals spend years in prison based on flawed trials and are later found innocent, yet receive no restitution for the injustice suffered
  • In December 2001, 127 accused were arrested under UAPA; after 19 years, a Surat court acquitted them due to insufficient and unreliable prosecution evidence.
• Emotional, Social, and Economic Trauma: Wrongful incarceration leads to psychological damage, social stigma, loss of livelihood, and broken family ties, with no formal means of redress or rehabilitation.
• Lack of Statutory Remedy: India currently lacks a legal mechanism to compensate acquitted individuals for years lost in prison, unlike many developed nations that offer statutory relief.
• Call for Legislative Action: The Supreme Court suggested Parliament look into foreign compensation frameworks and consider enacting laws that ensure justice even post-acquittal.

Other Supreme Court Cases Calling for Compensation

• Babloo Chauhan v. State (Delhi NCT) (2017): The Delhi HC urged Parliament to enact a law compensating wrongfully prosecuted individuals, citing violation of Article 21 (Right to Life).
• Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab Case (2012): Though Kasab was convicted, the case raised discussions around the burden of fair investigation and how its breach could affect innocent accused.
• Rini Johar v. State of MP (2016): The SC awarded compensation for wrongful arrest and abuse of power, stressing the need for mechanisms to address misuse of legal processes.
• Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994): The Court emphasized protection against arbitrary arrest and called for accountability and safeguards to prevent wrongful detentions.

Grounds for Providing Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration

• Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty; wrongful incarceration directly violates this fundamental right.
• Article 14 ensures equality before the law; victims of wrongful detention face unequal treatment
• Law Commission of India (277th Report, 2018) recommended a statutory framework to compensate and rehabilitate such individuals promptly.

Global Practices of Compensation

• Germany: The German Strafrechtsentschädigungsgesetz (Law on Compensation for Criminal Prosecution) ensures standardized compensation, including per-day monetary awards and social reintegration measures.
• United States: Many states have statutes granting monetary compensation to exonerees, with amounts varying by duration of imprisonment. Some also offer support services like education and housing.
• United Kingdom: Under the Criminal Justice Act, individuals acquitted after wrongful convictions may receive compensation, subject to strict conditions, often reviewed by the Secretary of State.
• France: French law provides a well-defined judicial route for compensation under the Court of Cassation, ensuring redress for unjust detention or errors in judicial decisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict highlights the urgent need for a statutory compensation framework in India. Drawing from international best practices, such a law would reinforce public trust in the justice system and fulfill constitutional guarantees under Article 21.

DOWNLOAD PDF