In India, populist narratives often reduce personal liberty to an abstract idea, and its true value is realised only when the State restricts or denies it. This becomes especially evident in the functioning of India’s criminal justice system, where the true importance of liberty is realised only when an individual experiences its denial or restriction by the State. It is only after seventy-nine years of independence that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has deemed it appropriate to address a long-neglected question: whether the State is liable to compensate for wrongful conviction following a prolonged period of incarceration.

Wrongful prosecution shatters lives and leaves families in destitution, compelling victims to seek compensation from the State for the irretrievable loss of liberty and dignity. The Apex Court of India has recently issued notice for State intervention in the case of Ramkirat Munilal Goud v State of Maharashtra (2025), wherein three petitioners who were acquitted after being on death row have sought compensation for their wrongful conviction, along with twelve years of incarceration. The petitioners claim that the conviction was a result of a flawed and tainted investigation, including a perfunctory investigation, unreliable witness testimony, weak forensic links and doubtful extra-judicial confession. Having lost twelve precious years suffering the anguish of death row,  the petitioners claim that they endured irreparable harm resulting in gross violation of their dignity and reputation, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The matter is tentatively listed on 05 January 2026. This petition arises from the earlier case, Ramkirat Munilal Goud v State of Maharashtra (2022), wherein the Apex Court of the Country observed that his conviction and imprisonment resulted from a flawed and tainted investigation, and accordingly acquitted him [76] – [79].

In early jurisprudence such as Kasturi Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh (1965), investigating officers escaped liability by claiming immunity from liability on the ground that they were performing sovereign functions. However, this position has been significantly diluted in contemporary jurisprudence, as courts have narrowed the scope of sovereign immunity and recognised accountability of the State even in functions once deemed sovereign.

However, though sporadic instances of judicial redress have emerged under public law remedies through writ jurisdiction, these remain isolated and unsystematic. India’s legal landscape thus still lacks a coherent and consistent framework for compensating victims of wrongful prosecution and incarceration. This is despite the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979) categorically holding that the State is under a constitutional mandate to ensure speedy trials as a guardian of the fundamental rights of the people. Moreover, in the case of Sebastian M. Hongray v Union of India (1984), the Court held that a prolonged period of detention without commencement of trial violates the right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been implicitly mentioned in the Law Commission of India Report No. 227 on “Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies”, that the loss of productive years, the anguish of confinement, social ostracisation and the erosion of identity, dignity and reputation often result in deep psychological trauma and lasting mental health disorders. To this are added the tangible harms such as deterioration of physical health, loss of income and property, crippling litigation expenses, disruption of family life, and the forfeiture of educational and career opportunities.

In Rudul Shah vs State of Bihar (1983) [13], the Supreme Court observed that relief does not merely lie in release from imprisonment, it must also encompass compensation, redressing the harm and suffering endured during prolonged wrongful incarceration. This was affirmed in Bhim Singh vs State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors (1986) [4], where the Court asserted that compensation is the ‘appropriate remedy’ in violation of Article 21. This represented a significant shift in jurisprudence by recognising that the Court’s powers now extend not only to ordering the release of a person subjected to prolonged or unlawful incarceration but also to awarding compensation for the wrongful acts of the State. This marked an important evolution in recognising the right to compensation for wrongful detention. Countless undertrial prisoners remain in custody for periods longer than the maximum sentence prescribed for their alleged offences, not because the law demands it, but because the system has failed them. Many are unable to afford bail or find sureties, leaving them trapped in a cycle of indefinite detention. Even those charged with bailable offences continue to languish in jail, not due to guilt but because they cannot furnish bail or access timely trials that might have resulted in acquittal or suspended sentences.

Therefore, the Indian criminal justice system distinguishes between victims of crime and victims of the administration of criminal justice – two opposing yet intertwined realities. There has been a growing judicial sensitivity toward the former, but the plight of the latter, innocent individuals wrongfully prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated, remains largely ignored.