Judicial Remedies And Constitutional Safeguards For Victims Of Wrongful Conviction In India: An Analysis
- IJLLR Journal
- 1 hour ago
- 2 min read
Bhawana Pegu, School of Law (Christ Deemed to be University)
ABSTRACT
Wrongful convictions represent one of the gravest miscarriages of justice, violating fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution. This paper critically examines the existing judicial remedies and constitutional safeguards available to victims of wrongful conviction in India. It analyses landmark judgments from Rudal Sah (1983) to the latest 2024–2025 decisions of the Supreme Court on monetary and non-monetary compensation, the viability of civil suits against the State, and the role of the “public law remedy” evolved by Indian courts. The study also evaluates the impact of the Law Commission of India’s 277th Report (2018) and recent statutory developments, including the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Despite progressive judicial pronouncements, the absence of dedicated legislation and inconsistent compensation frameworks continue to undermine effective redress. The paper concludes that India needs a comprehensive Wrongful Conviction (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act on the lines of the UK’s Criminal Justice Act, 1988 and certain U.S. state laws.
It evaluates the extent and limits of existing remedies, which include monetary compensation using writ jurisdiction, the efficacy of civil suits for damages, and non-monetary reliefs comprising expungement of records, social reintegration, and psychological support. Special attention is given to the evolution of the so-called "public law remedy," a singular Indian judicial invention by which constitutional courts may award compensation for violation of fundamental rights.
It also reflects upon the recent recommendations of the Law Commission of India's 277th Report, 2018, which explicitly advocated providing a statutory scheme for compensation to the wrongfully convicted and considers relevant statutory changes such as the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to discern whether recent reforms meaningfully address systemic deficiencies.
Despite progressive judicial pronouncements and growing recognition of the harms suffered by exonerees, India still lacks a dedicated legislation that defines wrongful conviction, prescribes uniform standards for compensation, or mandates rehabilitation measures. The current system remains inconsistent, discretionary, and inaccessible to most victims. The paper concludes that India urgently requires a comprehensive Wrongful Conviction (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, modelled on successful frameworks such as the UK’s Criminal Justice Act, 1988 and various U.S. state compensation statutes, to ensure predictable, rights-based, and humane redress for individuals who have suffered miscarriages of justice.
Keywords: Wrongful conviction, miscarriage of justice, Article 21, public law remedy, monetary compensation, rehabilitation, human rights.
