SC Examines State Liability in Compensation Pleas of Acquitted Death Row Inmates

New Delhi – In a matter of profound constitutional importance, the Supreme Court of India is set to deliberate on the state's liability to compensate individuals who have been wrongfully convicted and incarcerated, particularly those who have spent years on death row before being exonerated. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta has issued notice on three separate writ petitions filed by men acquitted of capital offenses, seeking reparation for the irretrievable years lost to a flawed justice system.

The Court has underscored the gravity of the issue by requesting the assistance of either Attorney General for India R Venkataramani or Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, signaling a potential move towards establishing a definitive legal framework for compensating victims of such miscarriages of justice. The matter is slated for a hearing on November 24, 2025.

The petitions bring to the forefront the devastating human cost of wrongful prosecution and raise a critical question: Is mere acquittal and release a sufficient remedy for a life, reputation, and family shattered by a state-led failure of justice?

---

The Anatomy of a Flawed Investigation: The Case of Ramkirat Munilal Goud

The lead petition, filed by 41-year-old Ramkirat Munilal Goud, presents a harrowing account of his twelve-year ordeal, six of which were spent in the shadow of a death sentence. Goud seeks compensation from the State of Maharashtra for what his plea describes as a "grave and severe violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

Goud was arrested on October 3, 2013, in connection with the rape and murder of a minor girl in Thane. His conviction on March 8, 2019, under various sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act, was based on what the Supreme Court would later dismantle as a "flawed and tainted investigation." The Bombay High Court confirmed his death sentence on November 25, 2021.

However, on May 7, 2025, a three-judge Supreme Court bench acquitted Goud, delivering a scathing indictment of the investigative process. The Court found that the prosecution's case was built on fabricated witnesses and unreliable evidence. In a damning observation, the judgment noted that investigating officers “created witnesses by way of padding because a case of sensational nature was not being solved.” The apex court deemed Goud's initial arrest "illegal" as it was executed "without even a shred of evidence." Furthermore, it drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding crucial forensic reports.

Goud's plea argues that this was not a case of mere investigative oversight but of active fabrication of evidence by officers of the Maharashtra Police. The petition contends that the State bears strict liability for the actions of its agents, which led to the complete destruction of the petitioner's life.

As his plea poignantly states: “The Petitioner's life, his reputation and his family, [were] reduced to abject penury and destitution, with the sole earner languishing in jail on false charges.” During his 12 years of incarceration, without parole or furlough, his wife, Savitri Devi, was forced to mortgage their land and sell her jewellery to cover legal fees. His children dropped out of school, and the family was reduced to living in a hut with a plastic-sheet roof. Upon his release on May 19, 2025, Goud found himself in debt, borrowing money to build a modest home and re-enrol his children in school, surviving on precarious daily-wage labour.

A Systemic Issue: The Cases of Kattavellai and Sanjay

The other two petitioners echo this narrative of injustice. Kattavellai, acquitted of murder and rape in Tamil Nadu, and Sanjay, acquitted in the rape and murder case of a 3-year-old girl in Uttar Pradesh, were also death row inmates.

In Kattavellai's acquittal, the Supreme Court had explicitly observed the pressing need for a law to award compensation in cases of wrongful incarceration, a sentiment that resonates with the current proceedings. In Sanjay's case, the Court acquitted him on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, pointedly remarking that there cannot be a “moral conviction in law.”

These cases collectively illustrate a pattern of investigative lapses and prosecutorial overreach in high-profile, emotionally charged cases, where the pressure to secure a conviction can lead to a catastrophic miscarriage of justice.

---

The Legal Framework: Invoking Article 21 and the Call for a Statutory Scheme

At the heart of the petitions is Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Goud's writ petition squarely asks whether a person wrongfully imprisoned due to an illegal investigation and fabricated evidence is entitled to compensation under this article. The plea invokes the Supreme Court's own precedents that have established a public law remedy, holding the state liable for illegal detention.

The petitioners argue that mere release is insufficient reparation. They seek monetary compensation for both pecuniary losses (loss of income, legal expenses) and non-pecuniary losses (mental anguish, loss of reputation, social stigma, and destruction of family life). This compensation, they contend, is not just for rehabilitation but also to enforce accountability and promote greater diligence within the state's investigative and prosecutorial machinery.

The legal arguments are strongly supported by the Law Commission of India's 277th Report (2018), titled "Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies." The report acknowledged the glaring legislative vacuum in India and recommended the enactment of a specific statutory scheme to compensate victims of wrongful prosecution. It proposed a framework defining "wrongful prosecution," establishing special courts to hear claims, and outlining the principles for calculating compensation. The current petitions effectively urge the Supreme Court to judicially enforce the spirit of these recommendations in the absence of legislative action.

The legal team for the petitioners is led by a formidable roster of Senior Advocates, including Gopal Subramaniam, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, and Anitha Shenoy, with legal assistance provided by the Square Circle Clinic at NALSAR University of Law.

The Supreme Court's decision to issue notice and involve the top law officers of the country signals that the judiciary is prepared to confront this systemic issue head-on. The outcome of this case, Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , could become a landmark ruling, potentially paving the way for a more just, accountable, and humane criminal justice system in India.