In a recent judgment, V. Senthil Balaji vs. The Deputy Director (2024 INSC 739), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of prolonged incarceration in a money laundering case against the former Tamil Nadu minister. Balaji, arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), spent significant time in judicial custody. The Court granted him bail, stating that prolonged detention without trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India acknowledged an uncomfortable truth: the justice system itself is complicit in violating the rights of individuals subjected to indefinite judicial custody. The Court’s recognition that claims for compensation may arise in cases of clean acquittal—where the acquittal is uncontaminated by hostile witnesses or defective investigations—signals an important step toward accountability for prolonged incarceration.
The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed: “Someday, the courts, especially the Constitutional Courts, will have to take a call on a peculiar situation that arises in our justice delivery system. There are cases where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the accused after very long incarceration as an undertrial. When we say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona fide defective investigation. In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution, which may give rise to a claim for compensation.”
The remark about how crucial years of the accused’s life are lost, and how this may violate Article 21, thereby giving rise to a claim for compensation, highlights an important point. However, this observation, while accurate, lacks the sense of urgency necessary to address a problem that has festered unchecked for decades.
Prolonged Incarceration and Judicial Custody: A Deep-Rooted Systemic Failure
The failure to deliver timely justice has become a chronic feature of India’s overburdened criminal justice system. The statistics are staggering, according to National Human Rights Commission nearly 74.06 % of India’s prison population consists of under trial prisoners, many of whom languish in jail for years before ever seeing the inside of a courtroom. The right to a speedy trial becomes a mockery when systemic inefficiency and deliberate delays keep individuals in judicial custody without even a remote possibility of a trial being initiated in the foreseeable future.
What aggravates this injustice further is that judicial custody, in principle, is meant to ensure that an accused is available for investigation and trial. But what of a system where the trial itself becomes a distant, unreachable horizon? The very liberty that Article 21 guarantees is systematically undermined when judicial custody becomes a tool of oppression rather than a safeguard for justice.
The Failure of Bail Provisions and Constitutional Remedies
The statutory framework further tightens the noose around the under trial’s neck. The legislative intent behind stringent bail provisions surely have merit in combating serious crimes, but its unchecked application results in the wholesale breach of constitutional rights The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) features stringent bail provisions. Under this act, an accused may be denied bail if the court believes there are reasonable grounds for guilt. While these measures aim to combat serious drug offenses, their unchecked application often results in prolonged incarceration, infringing on the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. A key case illustrating the judiciary’s role in balancing stringent bail provisions with constitutional rights is Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 5592). The Supreme Court ruled that procedural lapses should not justify prolonged detention, and bail must be granted when investigations cannot conclude within a reasonable timeframe, thereby upholding the right to a speedy trial.
The Court observed: “Even under stringent laws like the NDPS Act, the right to a speedy trial and the right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 must be respected. When procedural delays are evident, judicial discretion must be exercised to prevent prolonged incarceration.”
This judgment underscores a broader principle that bail provisions, no matter how stringent, should not be the sole determinant in deciding an individual’s continued detention. The judiciary must weigh the constitutional rights of the accused, especially when there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time.
Compensation for Wrongful Incarceration: A Fragmented Jurisprudence
Despite the growing recognition of prolonged incarceration as a constitutional violation, the issue of compensation remains glaringly unaddressed. The Indian judiciary has produced landmark judgments that have awarded compensation in cases of unlawful detention or wrongful imprisonment, but these rulings are exceptions, not the rule.
Consider the case of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983 AIR 1086), where the Supreme Court awarded compensation after Rudul Sah was wrongfully detained for years despite being acquitted. This landmark judgment established the critical link between Article 21 violations and compensation. Similarly, in S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews (AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 5112), the Court awarded compensation to a former ISRO scientist who was falsely implicated and detained, reinforcing that the state must be held accountable for unlawful detentions.
Similarly, in The State of Maharashtra v. Christian Medical College (AIRONLINE 2020 SC 505), in which tribals wrongfully imprisoned for 16 years were awarded compensation, the judiciary’s role in protecting liberty was emphasized, but it also exposed the lack of a cohesive statutory framework. Compensation should not be subject to judicial discretion alone—it must be enshrined in law, making it a right rather than an exceptional remedy.
Prolonged Incarceration: A Global Comparison with U.S. Safeguards
In contrast, the United States’ Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial, and the Speedy Trial Act (1974) mandates strict deadlines (70 days) for bringing defendants to trial. The U.S. Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo (407 U.S. 514 1972) laid down a clear test for determining whether delays in trial constitute a violation of the defendant’s rights. The criteria are stringent—length of delay, reason for delay, the defendant’s assertion of rights, and prejudice caused to the defendant. When the government fails to meet its burden, the charges are dismissed.
Moreover, compensation for wrongful incarceration in the U.S. is codified in law. Under the Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act, wrongfully convicted individuals can claim $50,000 per year of incarceration, offering a tangible form of justice to those who have been wronged by the system. This statutory clarity is sorely lacking in India, where compensation remains haphazard and inconsistent.
Conclusion: Toward a Comprehensive Framework for Compensation
The issue of compensating individuals for prolonged incarceration without trial or after clean acquittal exposes significant gaps in India’s legal landscape. Despite judicial intervention in landmark cases such as Rudul Sah and Nambi Narayanan, the absence of a structured statutory framework leaves room for inconsistent and discretionary remedies. The Supreme Court’s recent observations, especially in cases like V. Senthil Balaji, underscore the growing urgency to address this issue within a coherent legal paradigm.
The Constitutional Courts have shown that prolonged deprivation of liberty, when unaccompanied by a legitimate conviction, amounts to a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This fundamental right to life and personal liberty is at the heart of any democratic society’s justice system. However, without a clear legislative mechanism to address claims of wrongful detention or clean acquittal, there remains a risk of systemic failure to adequately compensate victims of judicial delays.
In contrast, the United States, through its Sixth Amendment and Speedy Trial Act, has put in place more defined protections against indefinite pre-trial detention. Moreover, federal and state laws provide for compensation for wrongful imprisonment, offering a model that India could potentially emulate or adapt to its own legal context.
To ensure that individuals who endure long years of unjust incarceration are not left without remedy, India must consider the creation of a statutory compensation framework. Such a framework would institutionalize the process for seeking redress, offer clear standards for assessing claims, and provide adequate compensation for the time lost. This would not only strengthen the rule of law but also reaffirm the state’s commitment to protecting individual liberty.
Ultimately, a robust legal response to this “peculiar situation” would demonstrate that the judiciary and legislature are aligned in preventing further violations of constitutional rights. Establishing statutory guidelines for compensating clean acquittals after prolonged incarceration is not just a matter of justice; it is an imperative step toward ensuring accountability and fairness in the criminal justice system.
This article is written by Mr. Vaibhav Soti. He is a recent senior secondary graduate and an aspiring law student, currently preparing for the CLAT exam. He also works as a freelance legal research intern in the chamber of Advocate Divya Kumar Soti. To know more about him, click here.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. CiteCase.in does not assume any responsibility or liability for the contents of the article.