In a landmark judgment that significantly strengthens the rights of the wrongfully prosecuted, the Kerala High Court has delivered a powerful affirmation of the State’s obligation to compensate victims of miscarriage of justice. The judgment in W.P.(C). Nos.23348 & 23349 of 2013, delivered on March 19, 2025, by Hon’ble Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, represents a significant advancement in the jurisprudence surrounding wrongful prosecution and the remedies available to its victims.
The Case at Hand
The petitioners in this case had been implicated, prosecuted, and convicted in Crime No.205/1994 of Guruvayoor Police Station. They were charged with serious offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including murder, and sentenced to imprisonment. However, a subsequent investigation revealed a startling truth: the petitioners were not the real culprits. The crime had actually been committed by members of a group called Jm-Iyathul Ihsaniya, and the petitioners had been falsely implicated.
Though the petitioners were eventually acquitted by the High Court, the damage had been done. They had endured the trauma of trial for an extended period, suffered the stigma of being labeled as criminals, and experienced violations of their liberty, dignity, and reputation. The question before the court was clear: Is mere acquittal sufficient redress for those wrongfully prosecuted, or does the State bear an obligation to provide compensation?
A Fundamental Principle Affirmed
Justice Edappagath’s judgment answers this question with resounding clarity. Drawing on the wisdom of historical thinkers like Maimonides and William Blackstone, the court emphasized a principle fundamental to any just legal system: “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death once.”
The judgment powerfully articulates that “punishing an innocent is a serious miscarriage of justice” that “undermines the rule of law.” In what may be the most significant pronouncement of the judgment, the court declares: “Acquitting victims of wrongful conviction does not redeem the State from its liability to pay compensation.” This principle establishes that monetary redress for violated fundamental rights isn’t optional but essential to constitutional justice.
The Evolution of Compensation Jurisprudence
The judgment comprehensively traces the evolution of India’s jurisprudence on compensation for wrongful prosecution and detention. From the landmark cases of Khatri & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1981) through Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J&K & Ors. (1985), Neelabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), and most recently S. Nambi Narayanan v. Sibi Mathews (2018), the court demonstrates how the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the right of wrongfully accused or convicted persons to be compensated.
These precedents establish that the award of compensation in writ proceedings is a remedy under public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights. Moreover, the principle of sovereign immunity is inapplicable in cases involving violation of fundamental rights, though available as a defense under private law in actions based on tort.
A Gap in the Legal Framework
The judgment highlights a critical gap in India’s legal framework: despite ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which requires State parties to enact laws compensating victims of miscarriages of justice, India has no specific statute governing compensation for wrongful prosecution or conviction.
The current provisions under Sections 273 and 399 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) offer only limited relief, and the term ‘victim’ as defined in Section 2(Y) does not include those who are victims of wrongful convictions. The private law remedy of filing a tort suit against the State remains cumbersome and inadequate.
Justice Edappagath references the Law Commission of India’s Report No. 277 on ‘Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies,’ which recommended a comprehensive legislative framework for providing relief and rehabilitation to victims of wrongful prosecution. Despite these recommendations being made in 2018, they have yet to be implemented, a fact the court laments with the observation that “it is high time to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission.”
The Path Forward
The judgment concludes with specific directions for the case at hand, ordering the government to decide on compensation for the petitioners based on the investigating officer’s recommendations within three months. It also directs a decision on what action should be taken against the officers responsible for falsely implicating the petitioners.
More broadly, this judgment establishes that constitutional courts, as protectors of civil liberties, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to direct the State to award monetary compensation for infringements of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 due to wrongful prosecution, detention, or conviction.
Implications for India’s Justice System
The importance of this judgment extends far beyond the specific case it addresses. It represents a significant step toward addressing one of the most egregious forms of injustice: the prosecution and punishment of the innocent. By affirming the State’s liability to compensate victims of wrongful prosecution, the court has strengthened a vital safeguard against the misuse of state power.
This judgment also serves as a reminder that acquittal alone does not heal the wounds inflicted by wrongful prosecution. For justice to be truly served, those who have suffered at the hands of a flawed system must receive tangible redress. As Justice Edappagath eloquently puts it, the mischief, malice, or invasion of an illegal arrest and imprisonment cannot just be “washed away or wished away” by setting free the person so arrested or imprisoned.
In an era where criminal justice systems worldwide face scrutiny for their fallibility, this judgment stands as a beacon, affirming that a truly just society must not only protect the innocent from punishment but also make amends when such protection fails. It is a powerful reminder that the presumption of innocence is not merely a procedural nicety but a fundamental human right deserving of robust protection.
As India continues to evolve its legal framework, one hopes that the principles articulated in this judgment will find expression in comprehensive legislation addressing the plight of the wrongfully prosecuted, bringing the country in line with its international obligations and, more importantly, with the demands of justice itself.
This blog post is based on the Kerala High Court judgment in W.P.(C). Nos.23348 & 23349 of 2013, delivered by Hon’ble Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath on March 19, 2025.
