Last week, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment that received little public attention but raised important questions about the consequences of legal error. A Bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol set aside the dismissal of a railway travelling ticket examiner — an order passed 37 years ago — after finding that the disciplinary inquiry against him was perverse and unsupported by evidence. The employee had passed away during the prolonged litigation; the Court directed that his legal heirs receive the consequential benefits due to him.AdvertisementAlthough the case did not concern criminal prosecution, it reflected a broader issue that continues to confront the justice system — the absence of a legal framework to redress the harm caused when individuals are wrongfully subjected to the machinery of law, whether through incarceration, prosecution, or disciplinary action later found to be unfounded.At present, India has no statutory scheme for compensating persons who are wrongfully prosecuted, convicted, or otherwise made to face adverse consequences due to official error. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, but it does not specify how the state must restore that right when it is violated. Constitutional courts have occasionally awarded compensation under Articles 32 and 226, treating it as part of the public law remedies to address fundamental rights violations. Yet, this remains a matter of judicial discretion, contingent upon the Bench and, more importantly, the individual’s ability to access higher courts.Private law remedies offer little comfort. An action for malicious prosecution or false imprisonment is technically available, but such suits are time-consuming, expensive, and uncertain. Provisions such as Section 399 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 358 of the CrPC) permit token compensation — up to Rs 1000 — to a person who is groundlessly arrested, and even that sum is payable by the complainant, not the state. These provisions deal only with isolated cases of wrongful arrest or prosecution and do not recognise the broader harm — loss of liberty, reputation, livelihood, and dignity — suffered when the state acts without basis.The present framework treats compensation as a matter of judicial remedy, not as a legal right. The difference is significant. A remedy depends on the court’s discretion; a right entitles the individual to seek redress as of claim. Without a statutory right, the ability to obtain compensation for wrongful action depends on chance — on whether the matter reaches a constitutional court and whether that court chooses to exercise its discretion. Recognising a right to compensation would transform this from an act of relief into an enforceable duty.AdvertisementThe consequences of the present vacuum are best illustrated by the case of Dr Nambi Narayanan, the Indian Space Research Organisation scientist arrested in 1994 on fabricated charges of espionage (later depicted in the film Rocketry: The Nambi Effect). The Central Bureau of Investigation later concluded that the allegations were false, yet the Kerala government ordered a reinvestigation, prolonging the ordeal. The Supreme Court ultimately found the conduct of the investigation to have violated Dr Narayanan’s dignity and right to life under Article 21, awarding him ₹50 lakh in compensation and directing the constitution of a committee to examine the role of the officers concerned.His case demonstrates how official error can inflict not only material loss but also reputational and psychological harm that persists long after exoneration. It required multiple rounds of litigation and the Supreme Court’s direct intervention to secure limited redress. For most individuals similarly situated, such recourse is beyond reach.Wrongful prosecution or incarceration is not always the product of systemic failure; in some cases, it arises from individual misconduct or motivated investigation. A comprehensive legal framework must therefore address both restitution and accountability — providing compensation to those wronged and ensuring consequences for those whose actions led to it. The absence of clear statutory standards leaves both the victim uncompensated and the officer unaccountable.The need for such a framework has been acknowledged for years. The Law Commission of India, in its 277th Report (2018), recommended a statutory scheme to adjudicate claims of wrongful prosecution. It proposed that the state bear primary responsibility for compensation, with the option to recover amounts from erring officers, and that the assessment include both monetary and non-monetary reliefs — counselling, healthcare, vocational training, and support for reintegration. The recommendations, however, remain unimplemented.most readInternationally, the obligation is explicit under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which mandates compensation for individuals who have suffered punishment due to wrongful conviction. Yet, despite being a signatory, India has not enacted any legislation to give effect to this obligation.Recognising a right to compensation is not merely about awarding damages; it is about affirming the state’s duty when its institutions err. Such a law would give concrete effect to Article 21’s guarantee of dignity, ensure equal access to remedies, and deter investigative or prosecutorial excesses by embedding accountability. A related issue is presently before the Supreme Court, which is examining petitions by persons acquitted after being on death row for several years — bringing renewed focus to the need for a clear legislative framework.The writer is a lawyer currently pursuing a DPhil in law at the University of Oxford