A man in Kerala was convicted in a double murder case and sentenced to death by a trial court in 2011. The high court upheld the ruling, but the Supreme Court later found the case was built on shaky evidence and acquitted him. While the top court erased all charges, the man lost years in jail - along with his livelihood and much of what makes up a normal life.
Unlike countries such as the US, Germany or New Zealand, India has no statutory scheme to compensate victims of wrongful incarceration. In this context, the recent call by justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta urging Parliament to create a legal framework for compensating such aggrieved persons is both timely and reasonable.
Since the issue stems from a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to life, and circumstances of each case will differ, compensation should be determined through tort claims and civil rights suits. After all, there can be no standard formula for awarding damages in cases like the one before the top court, which involved a death sentence.
A tort-based approach also carries moral censure, which is crucial to ensure egregious violations remain rare. It also establishes a record of accountability. Such claims should be adjudicated in a time-bound manner.
By contrast, statutory compensation schemes risk becoming formulaic and bureaucratic, lacking any element of accountability - much like the compensation process for railway or other public accidents.
A proper legal mechanism is more than a symbolic apology from the state. The ability to hold the state liable and compel it to compensate for its failures should act as a catalyst for improving investigative procedures and strengthening safeguards against miscarriage of justice.
Unlike countries such as the US, Germany or New Zealand, India has no statutory scheme to compensate victims of wrongful incarceration. In this context, the recent call by justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta urging Parliament to create a legal framework for compensating such aggrieved persons is both timely and reasonable.
Since the issue stems from a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to life, and circumstances of each case will differ, compensation should be determined through tort claims and civil rights suits. After all, there can be no standard formula for awarding damages in cases like the one before the top court, which involved a death sentence.
A tort-based approach also carries moral censure, which is crucial to ensure egregious violations remain rare. It also establishes a record of accountability. Such claims should be adjudicated in a time-bound manner.
By contrast, statutory compensation schemes risk becoming formulaic and bureaucratic, lacking any element of accountability - much like the compensation process for railway or other public accidents.
A proper legal mechanism is more than a symbolic apology from the state. The ability to hold the state liable and compel it to compensate for its failures should act as a catalyst for improving investigative procedures and strengthening safeguards against miscarriage of justice.
