State’s Obligation to Compensate Wrongfully Convicted: Recognition of Compensation for Miscarriage of Justice under Article 21

Introduction

This commentary examines the landmark judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court in Baburajan v. State of Kerala (WP(C) Nos. 23348 & 23349 of 2013, decided on 19 March 2025). The writ petitions were filed by persons acquitted of serious offences—murder, rioting and grievous hurt—who had been convicted by the trial court and later freed on appeal. They sought (a) further investigation to identify real perpetrators, (b) an inquiry into who masterminded their false implication, and (c) compensation of ₹50 lakhs for wrongful prosecution and conviction. The Government submitted that a fresh Crime Branch probe had conclusively shown the petitioners were innocent and pointed to a fundamentalist group as the real culprits.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court:

Recorded that the petitioners’ acquittal in Criminal Appeal No. 195/1997 is final.
Held that further investigation (Crime No. 296/CB/TSR/17) established the petitioners’ innocence and named nine new suspects.
Recognized that false prosecution and prolonged trial amount to a violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Directed the Chief Secretary (1st respondent) to decide within three months on:

Grant of adequate compensation to the petitioners for wrongful implication.
Initiation of departmental or criminal action against officers responsible for the false prosecution.

Permitted the petitioners to seek further recourse if dissatisfied with the Government’s decision or compensation quantum.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

International Instruments: Universal Declaration of Human Rights; ICCPR Articles 9(5) and 14(6) (presumption of innocence and right to compensation on miscarriage of justice).
Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008 16 SCC 417): Presumption of innocence is a human right under ICCPR Article 14(2).
Lalita Kumari v. U.P. (AIR 2014 SC 187): False implication inflicts loss of reputation, mental anguish and violation of personal liberty.
Khatri v. State Of Bihar (AIR 1981 SC 928): Supreme Court can “forge new tools” to vindicate Article 21; ordered rehabilitation measures for police‐blinded prisoners.
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 1086): Ordered ₹30,000 for 14 years of post‐acquittal detention.
Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1985 4 SCC 677): Awarded ₹50,000 for illegal detention of an MLA; “illegal imprisonment cannot be washed away by mere release.”
Neelabati Behera v. State of Orissa (AIR 1993 SC 1960): State liable in public law to pay “monetary amends” for violation of fundamental rights; sovereign immunity no bar.
D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997 1 SCC 416): Reinforced strict liability of the State and necessity to award compensation for breach of detainee rights under Article 21.
S. Nambi Narayanan v. Sibi Mathews (2018 10 SCC 804): ₹50 lakhs awarded for wrongful arrest and torture of an ISRO scientist; public law remedy coexists with private law suit.
Mahabir v. State of Haryana (2025 SC 184): Constitutional courts can award compensation where facts are undisputed on wrongful prosecution and deprivation of liberty.
Babloo Chauhan v. NCT of Delhi (2018 DLT 31): Urged legislation to compensate and rehabilitate victims of wrongful prosecution; Law Commission Report 277 (2018) drafted a Bill.

Legal Reasoning

The court traversed well‐settled principles:

The presumption of innocence—rooted in Articles 21 and 22 and international covenants—ensures no one is punished without proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Wrongful prosecution and conviction breach the fundamental right to life and liberty (Article 21) and attract strict liability of the State under public law.
Absence of a statutory mechanism in India for compensation of miscarriage of justice does not bar constitutional courts from fashioning relief under Article 32 or Article 226.
Precedents authorise courts to award monetary compensation and direct administrative or disciplinary action against officials who violate personal liberty.

Impact

This judgment:

Reaffirms the High Court’s power to direct the executive to grant compensation for wrongful convictions under Article 21.
Strengthens the push for implementing Law Commission Report 277 (2018) and enacting a statutory scheme for redress of miscarriages of justice.
Signals to law‐enforcement agencies that false implication entails personal and departmental accountability.
Will influence future writ petitions seeking compensation in absence of specific legislation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Miscarriage of Justice: Conviction of an innocent person later proven not guilty by new evidence.
Presumption of Innocence: Legal principle that one is innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Strict Liability of the State: Public law doctrine holding the State responsible for fundamental‐rights violations by its servants.
Sovereign Immunity: Medieval doctrine shielding the State from civil liability; inapplicable when fundamental rights are infringed.
Public Law Remedy: Relief fashioned by constitutional courts (e.g., compensation), distinct from private law tort claims.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s decision in Baburajan v. State of Kerala cements the principle that the State must make amends—financial and administrative—for wrongful prosecution and conviction. By directing the executive to consider compensation and action against errant officers, the court has reinforced constitutional protections of life and liberty under Article 21. This judgment bridges the gap pending statutory reform and strengthens citizens’ faith in the justice system’s capacity to correct its own errors.