INTRODUCTION
The term miscarriage of justice has been generally understood as a failure to achieve justice. It is defined as “errors in the interpretation, procedure, or execution of the law, typically, errors that violate due process, often resulting in the conviction of innocent people.”1 Internationally, the term is used more in resonance with wrongful conviction, while it also includes wrongful prosecution and wrongful incarceration in a broader sense. Though there is a wide range of discourses on its meaning, for the purpose of this paper, miscarriage of justice has been understood according to the context considered by the Law Commission’s 277th Report. In the report, “miscarriage of justice refers to wrongful or malicious prosecution, whether or not it leads to a conviction by any court of law, and whether or not it leads to any incarceration. These are the cases where the accused was not guilty of the offence, and the police and/or the prosecution engaged in some form of misconduct in investigating and/or prosecuting the person.”2
The jurisprudence on compensation for miscarriage of justice has been largely evolving globally. From the right to compensation provided in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) to statutory provisions in many countries, such as the US, UK, and Canada, various approaches to assess and appropriately compensate the wrongs committed by States have been developed. This paper examines the gap in compensatory mechanisms in India for wrongful conviction, prosecution, and incarceration, which remains an ex-gratia obligation rather than a statutory right for victims, despite various scholarly efforts and a detailed law commission report on the matter.
According to the latest NCRB data, the share of undertrial prisoners in Indian jails amounts to 75.8% of the prison population.3 This validates the 2018 Law Commission’s approach of focusing primarily on compensation for victims of wrongful pre-trial detention rather than wrongful convictions. India, as well as many other developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America, imprisons a majority of prisoners while awaiting trial.4 Such prisoners face both long waits for trials and horrendous conditions of detention. An exclusive focus on wrongful convictions and the right to claim innocence after a wrongful conviction, as promoted by some Western law reformers, would provide no remedies for those who have been wrongly prosecuted and wrongly detained, only to be acquitted after years of pre-trial detention.5 At the same time, India’s conviction rate was 23.3% in the latest 2022 report. This suggests that many people may be eligible for compensation for pretrial detention that results in an acquittal.
A constitutional and democratic state should not, under any means, wrongly deprive individuals of their liberty and then pay damages. In addition to adequate and timely compensation, what is required are better means to prevent and end unjustified pretrial detention and wrongful prosecution, which demand comprehensive reforms in the criminal justice system.
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
Over the years, the expression ‘miscarriage of justice’ has been examined in various judicial pronouncements, encompassing a wide range of violations and transgressions. In the case of Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary & Ors.,6 the Court held that “miscarriage of justice is what arises from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution leading to apparent harshness of treatment or some undeserved hardship to individuals.” In Ayodhya Dube & Ors. v. Ram Sumar Singh,7 the Supreme Court ruled that a lack of judicial approach, non-application of mind, non-consideration, or inappropriate consideration of material evidence, and inconsistencies with defective reasoning amount to unreasonableness and constitute a grave miscarriage of justice.
Numerous reasons are accounted for miscarriage of justice in India. Torture, forced confessions, and a ‘faulty and erroneous appreciation of evidence’8 are some of the leading causes. In Ramesh Harijan v. State of Uttar Pradesh,9 the Court, while overturning an acquittal order, noted that the trial court had accorded undue weight to “insignificant discrepancies and inconsistencies,” observing that such a course amounts to a miscarriage of justice and that preventing it is of paramount importance. Also, miscarriages of justice, as a phenomenon, pose fundamental challenges to criminal justice systems grounded in human rights and due process. These cases by their very nature, reveal a grave systemic error, and it is the disadvantaged sections of society that mostly become the victims.
Fair Trial, an international criminal justice watchdog, notes that individuals from marginalized groups are more likely to be suspected of criminal activity, detained as undertrials, and subjected to harsher sentences upon conviction.10 In the Indian scenario, along with religious minorities, those from marginalized caste and tribal communities are strikingly overrepresented in India’s prisons. Notably, the proportion of undertrial prisoners from ‘Other Backward Class’ communities has risen sharply, from 29.5 percent in 2011 to 38.3 percent by the end of 2021.11 Professor Kent Roach, rightfully notes that in most countries, the disadvantaged groups and those vulnerable to discrimination will be overrepresented in the prison population and among the wrongfully convicted. It says that the study of miscarriages of justice in any country needs to be attentive to the disadvantaged in that country.12
Torture and False Confessions
In India, a major cause of wrongful prosecution, incarceration, and conviction points to torture in police custody, despite various safeguards and judicial directions. The systematic use of third-degree methods, physical violence, and psychological and other forms of torture continues to plague law enforcement practices, reflecting institutional failures in accountability mechanisms and a culture of impunity that enables such abuses. Research indicates that 80% of death row convicts in India have suffered custodial violence, with 72 out of 92 prisoners who confessed in police custody admitting to making confessions due to torture.13 Though sections 23, clause 1 and 2 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023 bar confessions made to police or in police custody, a further proviso of the same section (which corresponds to section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) creates a significant exception that has been criticized for potentially enabling torture and coerced confessions. The Status of Policing in India Report 2025 reveals that 83 percent of police officers believe that recovery items under section 23 of BSA, 2023, are “very important” in cracking a case. The report notes that “across judicial findings as well as independent documentation, recovery evidence has been known to be unreliable and obtained through torture.” The study also finds that “at least nine in every ten police personnel (91%) hold the opinion that confessional statements made by the accused play a significant role in the investigation of cases”, reiterating the tendencies for torture among police personnel.
Faulty Investigations
In the case of Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri v. State of Gujarat14, while reversing the conviction, the Supreme Court remarked on police misconduct, stating that the investigation had been conducted “casually” and “with impunity”. The accused was acquitted after a critical examination of the evidence noting that “the story of the prosecution crumbles down at every juncture.” In arriving at this conclusion, the Court stressed its unique appellate powers under Article 136 of the Constitution, which allows the reversals of even findings of fact in the lower courts where upholding them would result in ‘a grave miscarriage of justice’.15 This case is a landmark judgment in remedying wrongful prosecution and conviction by the Supreme Court. The Court also recognized that when police file a charge sheet and prosecute an innocent person, resulting in wrongful convictions, it will be impossible to bring the actual perpetrators to justice.
In the case of Durga @ Raja v. State Of Madhya Pradesh16, a wrongful conviction was caused by a tainted eyewitness identification, where the victim of the abduction was shown the suspect in the police station before the formal identification procedure. The Court held that ‘The purpose of test identification is not to identify the already identified person.’17 Similar wrongful convictions in the United States have inspired law reforms in some states, requiring a witness or victim to observe photos presented sequentially by a police officer with no prior involvement in the case and no knowledge of the suspect’s identity.
Another case that illustrates faulty investigation is Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra,18 in which the Supreme Court overturned four convictions after 16 years of wrongful incarceration. The accused were identified from photos by witnesses and convicted on that basis, even though there was little light during the commission of the crimes, making it difficult to observe the offenders. Three of the accused had been sentenced to death and their convictions were upheld in the High Court. It was noted by the Supreme Court that “though the charge is of rape and murder, there is no forensic evidence corroborating the prosecution case.” The Court expressed concerns about the conduct of the identification parade observing there was ‘no statement that the dummies resembled the accused persons’.19 The Court also found unfairness due to the lack of disclosure that a witness had identified ‘perpetrators’ who were not the accused. It is best to legislate proper identification procedures with guidelines for the police, rather than relying on courts to regulate them on a case-by-case basis.20
There are other various examples of such faulty and malicious investigations that caused years of wrongful pre-trial detention or wrongful convictions in India. Apart from false confessions and faulty investigation, evidence from incentivized witnesses also contributes to miscarriages of justice in many cases. Also, wrongful convictions in countries like USA and UK include causes which Professor Roach terms as ‘DNA exonerations’, ‘guilty plea wrongful convictions,’ ‘imagined crime wrongful convictions’, and ‘wrongful convictions after appeals have been exhausted.’ on comparative experience of wrongful convictions, he stresses on the point that similar causes of wrongful convictions throughout the world allow researchers to examine what types of wrongful convictions are not being remedied in a particular country, but nevertheless may be present and urge researchers in India to examine “whether these ‘missing’ remedied wrongful convictions found in other countries also happen in India”. It is argued in his research that increased use of DNA evidence in India may reveal more wrongful convictions as well as confirm guilt in other cases. Increased use of other less reliable methods of forensic science may, however, result in more wrongful convictions. There is also a need to be mindful of the fact that people who plead guilty may not always be guilty, but may be responding to pre-trial detention. He also notes that “although false confessions and flawed expert evidence are universal causes of wrongful convictions found in all jurisdictions, the ability of an apex Court to grant special leave from the orders and sentences of any court is a feature particular to India”. It is further suggested by him that cases of wrongful conviction in India be compiled by academics or activists, as there is no registry of these cases as there is in the US, UK, and Canada. A national registry in India would help better understand the causes of wrongful convictions and identify groups that are disproportionately subjected to them, according to Professor Roach.21
CHANGES IN THE NEW CRIMINAL LAWS WITH REGARD TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
Increased Police Custody
The new laws have failed to respond to the recognized causes of miscarriage of justice in India. Firstly, by increasing time for detainees to be held in police custody, the new law increases the likelihood of false confessions being obtained. Under S.187(3) of BNSS 2023, depending on the seriousness of the offence charged, police custody can now be extended by a magistrate on “adequate grounds” for up to a new maximum of 60 or 90 days. As Project 39A has argued, “Extended police custody magnifies the likelihood of custodial violence, practically nullifying the constitutional and other safeguards against police excesses which recognize the pervasiveness of custodial violence.”22 Extended police custody will risk an increase in false confessions and wrongful convictions. The new law also facilitates transfers from judicial to police custody, enabling investigating officers to force confessions, fabricate evidence, and frame charges against the accused. According to Project 39A, “the potential to lengthen police custody itself may make it seem pointless for detainees to resist police pressure to make confessions”.23
Restricted Bail Provisions
Another concerning change in the BNSS is with regard to bail provisions. The bail reforms are minimal and more than offset by new restrictions on existing attempts to limit pre-trial detention. While the CrPC excluded only persons accused of offences punishable with death from this provision, Section 479 of the BNSS excludes prisoners accused of offences punishable with life imprisonment as well. Further, Section 479 (1) provides for the insertion of a provision stating that a first-time offender shall be released on bail if the person has undergone one-third of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence. This benefit is not made subject to any other consideration, such as the seriousness of the offence or judicial discretion, and remains a matter of right for an undertrial who has not been convicted previously. However, sub-clause (2) of Section 479 states that “where an investigation, inquiry, or trial in more than one offence, or multiple cases are pending against a person”, he shall not be released on bail by the court. The language of this provision is extremely wide, and it excludes a substantial number of persons from the benefit of this provision.24 It also privileges police and prosecutorial decisions over the presumption of innocence.
Mandatory Forensic Investigation
Section 176(3) of the new law will provide for mandatory forensic investigations in cases punishable by 7 years or more. Although a laudable effort to make the criminal justice system more technologically sophisticated, such mandatory requirements will likely strain limited forensic resources and may require such resources to be wasted in cases where forensic evidence is unavailable. Increased use of forensic evidence could improve the accuracy of police investigations, but it is not a complete solution to either crimes or wrongful convictions. Much will depend on whether adequate resources are available, the forensic experts’ capability and integrity, and the accused’s ability to challenge and detect faulty forensic work. In short, the new law requiring forensic experts to attend crime scenes in serious cases may introduce a new source of error that has frequently led to wrongful convictions in other countries.25
COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
The Indian approach to damages as a constitutional remedy is clear in various judicial pronouncements. However, when it comes to cases of wrongful conviction or wrongful pre-trial detention, it can be observed that the judicial approach varies even in cases of a similar nature. It was in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa,26 the Supreme Court recognized damages under Article 32 of the Constitution as “a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply.” The Babloo Chauhan case is a landmark case in the evolution of compensatory jurisprudence in this regard, as Justice Muralidhar highlighted the necessity of a legal framework for compensation, and as a result of which the Law Commission studied the matter. It was held in that case:
“As far as India is concerned, there is no exclusive legislation on the topic. The decisions in Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627; Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 339; Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086; Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985) 4 SCC 677 and Sant Bir v. State of Bihar AIR 1982 SC 1470, are instances where the Supreme Court has held that compensation can be awarded by constitutional courts for violation of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These have included instances of compensation being awarded to those wrongly incarcerated as well. But these are episodic and are not easily available to all similarly situated persons.”27
The Court, in the case of Durga @ Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh28, awarded the two accused Rs. 1,00,000 each as damages for violations of Article 21, while acquitting them. It reasoned that ‘Our criminal Jurisprudence gives more stress over avoiding of false implication of an innocent to the extent where hundred guilty may go scot-free’ and the dangers of ‘poor investigation with tainted prosecution’.29 The Court recognized that although no such provision exists in the law for compensating the accused, the State certainly cannot evade its constitutional and tortious liability in such circumstances. A person’s fundamental rights cannot be deprived due to administrative failure, at the whims of officials, or by defective investigation. The State Government, however, may seek to recover the awarded amount from the responsible or investigating officers, should the competent authority deem it appropriate after giving them an opportunity of hearing, and if their casualness and negligence are proved in an enquiry.30
In the Ankush Maruti Shinde case,31 the Supreme Court noted that the accused were members of a nomadic tribe and had been imprisoned for 16 years while facing “the hanging sword of the death penalty”. In addition, it was held that “no fair investigation and fair trial and the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed under Articles 20 & 21 of the Constitution of India.”32 The Court awarded Rs. 5,00,000 to each accused under Article 142 of the Constitution. The ability of the Supreme Court to award damages while acquitting the accused demonstrates a particular feature of the Indian system that has the potential to provide quick compensation for both wrongful convictions and wrongful pre-trial imprisonment. This is especially important when the accused is disadvantaged and cannot afford to engage in subsequent litigation.33
In the case of S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews & Others Etc.,34 Nambi Narayanan, a former ISRO scientist, was granted ₹50 lakh compensation for his 50 days of unlawful detention. Beyond the Supreme Court’s award, Narayanan received additional compensation of 1.3 crore from the State government as part of a settlement and a 10-lakh ordered by the National Human Rights Commission. The total compensation received by Narayanan thus amounted to approximately 1.9 crore. However, disregarding the principle of equal treatment, similar proactive approaches were not taken in the case of many ordinary citizens who had undergone decades of wrongful imprisonment.
The Supreme Court has consistently sought to narrow the range of cases in which compensation may be awarded for violations of Article 21. Abdul Wahid Sheikh, a victim of 9 years of wrongful incarceration who had recently filed for compensation, writes in an article,35 “When a person is wrongfully incarcerated, every passing year is not just a loss of freedom but a theft of dignity, livelihood, and time that can never be restored. Nine years behind bars without guilt proven is not merely a personal tragedy- it is a failure of the justice system itself. Across international legal frameworks, compensation for wrongful incarceration is recognized as a fundamental right, yet in India, this idea remains inadequately addressed.”
In the case of Sube Singh v. the State of Haryana,36 the petitioner claimed that he had been illegally detained, subjected to custodial torture, and that his family members were harassed. However, the Supreme Court declined to award compensation, noting that there was no clear or unimpeachable evidence to substantiate these allegations. The Court further emphasized that compensation is not an automatic remedy in every instance where Article 21 is alleged to have been violated.
In the case of Adambhai Suelemanbhai Ajmeri v. State of Gujarat,37 the accused were acquitted by the Supreme Court after serving nearly 10 years in prison. The Court noted that there was “perversity in conducting this case at various stages, right from the investigation level” to “the conviction and awarding of sentence to the accused persons by the Special Court and confirmation of the same by the High Court.” The Court added that “Instead of booking the real culprits responsible for taking so many precious lives, the police caught innocent people and got imposed the grievous charges against them which resulted in their conviction and subsequent sentencing.” However, no compensation was provided in this case by the Court. Furthermore, when the victims filed a separate Supreme Court appeal seeking compensation from the state for their unjust incarceration, the Court rejected the appeal, stating that an acquittal did not automatically entitle the acquitted to compensation, and if compensation were to be awarded for acquittal, it would set a “dangerous precedent.”
Professor G.S. Bajpai argues that the refusal to award compensation in this case for the wrongful convictions “left many of us confused about the role of the courts.” He raises the relevant question of whether the court “abdicated its responsibility of being the custodian of the rights of the most vulnerable, especially those who have been victims of wrongful convictions, irrespective of precedents or provisions.38
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966) expressly identifies the right to compensation in cases of wrongful conviction. Additionally, Article 9(5) of the Covenant provides that any person who has been unlawfully arrested or detained is entitled to an enforceable claim for compensation. Apart from ICCPR, the remedies available in the UK, US, and Canada stand out in addressing the problem of miscarriage of justice.
United Kingdom
The principal legislation governing such matters in the UK is the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which incorporates a number of provisions on victim compensation in alignment with the ICCPR (1966). Responsibility for compensating individuals who were wrongfully convicted rests with the Secretary of State. A wrongful conviction is one that is later overturned or pardoned due to the discovery of new evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offense, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice. It falls under the close scrutiny of the Secretary of State. Additionally, the Act outlines several factors for determining compensation, including reputational harm, the severity of the sentence, and the quality of the investigation. By placing this responsibility on the Secretary, the Act incentivizes authorities to exercise greater caution before securing a conviction against an innocent individual.39
The UK also operates under the Police Act 1996, which addresses the liability arising from wrongful acts committed by constables. Under this law, the Chief Officer of Police is held responsible for the misconduct of officers serving under their command, and any compensation awarded is drawn from the Police Fund. Accordingly, alongside the Criminal Justice Act 1988, this statute provides an additional framework regulating accountability at the operational level of policing.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) in the UK, a statutory body, is a major step towards remedying wrongful convictions. Its primary role is to evaluate if an individual accused of a crime has experienced a miscarriage of justice. Individuals who have suffered an unjust conviction or sentence may refer their case to the CCRC, which has the authority to undertake its own investigation. It may also authorize an appeal court to conduct further scrutiny following the probe. Studies indicate that this model of an independent statutory body has proven to be an effective mechanism in addressing miscarriage of justice.40
United States of America
In the United States, miscarriages of justice are addressed by either federal or state statutes, depending on the circumstances. Individuals who have been wrongfully convicted are eligible to receive compensation under the same provisions. Individuals who have been falsely convicted of an offense against the United States and are currently imprisoned can seek redress under this legislation. A claimant may pursue compensation on various bases, such as receiving a pardon that affirms innocence, having their conviction overturned, or being acquitted in a new trial or rehearing.41
Each U.S. state has its own laws that determine the financial and non-financial compensation available to individuals who were wrongfully prosecuted or imprisoned. In some states, a fixed amount is determined based on the length of the prison sentence. A few other states have specified the appropriate authorities the authority to determine the amount of compensation on a case-by-case basis. However, certain objective standards exist, such as statutes and regulations in some states that set a predetermined maximum amount of compensation that may be awarded.42
Furthermore, most states in the United States have provisions for non-monetary compensation, as it is often observed that monetary compensation is inadequate for innocent victims. A wrongful conviction can have a profoundly negative impact on an individual’s reputation, reintegration, and ability to maintain a means of livelihood. Based on this, states in the United States offer compensation for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Such compensation provides assistance in the job search, housing, physical and mental health services, counseling, and other associated supports.43 In the report by Dr. G.S. Bajpai, it is stated that the United States has served as a benchmark for the law on compensating victims of wrongful incarceration.44
Canada
Although Canada does not have legislation that provides a remedy for wrongfully convicted individuals, the concepts outlined in the “Provincial Guidelines on Compensation for Wrongfully Convicted and Imprisoned Persons,” issued in 1988, are consistent with the ICCPR. The rules describe the eligibility criteria and the process for determining the amount of compensation. The compensation covers both monetary and non-monetary losses. Individuals who pass the eligibility test under these rules may also claim expenditures incurred during the unjust conviction, verdict, or demand for pardon. Thus, there are reasonable remedies available to victims of wrongful conviction in Canada.45
LAW COMMISSION REPORT 2018
From the international examples, it can be inferred that it is high time India adopts a law for compensating victims of State error. Though the Western scenario is more of remedying wrongful convictions, the case in India needs attention to the ever-increasing number of prolonged undertrial detainees. As rightly noted by the Law Commission in its 2018 Report, wrongful prosecution and pretrial detention must be understood within the broader context of miscarriages of justice, which are not limited to wrongful convictions or to cases of proven innocence. The Law Commission has recognized that limiting the issue to wrongful convictions, although aligned with the compensation mandate under Article 14(6) of the ICCPR, does not adequately reflect India’s realities, where more than three-quarters of the prison population consists of undertrial detainees.
Additionally, as the Law Commission has recognized, restricting miscarriages of justice to cases where the accused can prove themselves innocent would often not be realistic and could have regressive effects in the Indian context.46 The Law Commission required the wrongfully prosecuted to establish malicious prosecution in proceedings that would occur after their acquittal. This ignores that courts have awarded damages to the accused at the same time as acquitting them, as done in the case of Nambi Narayanan. Such a ‘one-stop’ approach would facilitate access to justice. To facilitate access to justice and to enable judicial identification of flaws in wrongful prosecutions that require remediation, criminal trial and appeal courts should be granted statutory powers to award damages to compensate those who have been wrongfully detained, as well as to issue other directions regarding wrongful prosecutions.
CONCLUSION
The Indian Supreme Court has corrected a number of wrongful convictions. Appellate courts in India have been more willing to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence than other appellate courts in common law systems. This is a strength of the Indian justice system that should be retained and strengthened.47 However, within the existing framework, they are unlikely to remedy all such cases. Consideration should be given to broadening access to remedies even after appeals have been exhausted, and to giving the Supreme Court more resources to administer its special leave procedure under Article 136 of the Constitution. This could involve the creation of an adequately funded criminal cases review commission, similar to the UK, with powers to obtain the production of relevant evidence.
The new laws fail to implement the Law Commission’s proposals to provide public compensation for wrongful detention and wrongful convictions. The BNSS retains the old law’s provisions regarding complainants providing inadequate compensation to the wrongly prosecuted accused, but does not require the state to provide adequate compensation. It is high time that a separate victim compensation scheme is brought in for the victims of miscarriage of justice that includes both monetary and non-monetary compensation. Reintegration of exonerees into society is the duty of any democratic State, and it must provide them with adequate means to carry on their lives after years of imprisonment. To comply with international standards, India must take the necessary measures to recognize, develop, and implement mechanisms to protect and compensate victims of miscarriage of justice.
Indian courts should more frequently award damages on a strict liability or no-fault basis when correcting wrongful convictions on appeal.48 Courts should increase the level of damages awarded for human rights violations when the state has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the recurrence of the particular violation. The more flagrant the violation of human rights in wrongful conviction cases, the higher the damages should be. Public law remedies could address individual misconduct that contributed to wrongful convictions and the systemic causes of wrongful convictions. Such an approach would follow a two-track approach to remedies for violations of human rights, where courts are attentive to the need to provide harmed individuals with remedies such as acquittals and compensation, as well as the need to trigger actions from the state that will help prevent the repetition of similar human rights violations in the future. Furthermore, optimal protection against wrongful conviction and prosecution will require both judicial and legislative regulation of practices that lead to miscarriages of justice, as well as a willingness on the part of the police and other authorities to embrace reforms and take due diligence to uphold human rights.
*****
Footnotes
1. Kent Roach, Wrongful Convictions, Wrongful Prosecutions and Wrongful Detentions in India, 35 National Law School of India Review (2024), https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol35/iss1/12.
2. Law Commission of India, Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies, Report No. 277 (2018), https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2022/08/2022080590.pdf.
3. National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics India 2022 (NCRB 2023), https://www.ncrb.gov.in/uploads/nationalcrimerecordsbureau/custom/psiyearwise2022/1701613297PSI2022ason01122023.pdf.
4. Roy Walmsley, World Pre-trial/Remand Imprisonment List (4th edn, World Prison Brief 2020), https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_pre-trial_list_4th_edn_final.pdf.
5. Roach, supra note 1.
6. AIR 1993 SC 892.
7. AIR 1981 SC 1415.
8. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1511.
9. AIR 2012 SC 979.
10. Discrimination, FAIR TRIALS, https://www.fairtrials.org/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/discrimination
11. Akshi Chawla, The Burgeoning Share of Under-Trial Prisoners in India’s Jails » CEDA, (Sept. 27, 2022), https://ceda.ashoka.edu.in/the-burgeoning-share-of-under-trial-prisoners-in-indias-jails/.
12. Roach, supra note 1.
13. Harish V Nair, Forcing Confession by Torture Rampant in Country, First of Its Kind Report Reveals, India Today (Dec. 10, 2017), https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/torture-confession-accused-police-judiciary-1104081-2017-12-09.
14. (2014) 7 SCC 716 (132).
15. Id.
16. (2018) Cr.A. Nos. 812 & 866 of 2008 (MP HC).
17. Id.
18. (2019) 3 SCC 1.
19. Id at 9.6.
20. Roach, supra note 1.
21. Id.
22. Project 39A, BNSS BSB Research Brief (Oct.2023), https://p39ablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/P39A-Blog_-BNSS_BSB_Research-Brief.pdf.
23. Id.
24. Asma Shuaib, Common Cause, Common Cause India | Bail Provisions in BNSS, https://www.commoncause.in/publication_details.php?id=801.
25. Roach, supra note 1.
26. 1993 AIR 1960.
27. Babloo Chauhan @ Dabloo v State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2017) CRL.A. 157/2013 (Delhi HC) 12.
28. 2018 Supreme (MP) 701.
29. Id 23.
30. Id.
31. 2019 INSC 305.
32. Id 14.
33. Roach, supra note 1.
34. (2018) 2 SCC 1.
35. Abdul Wahid Shaikh, Abdul Wahid Shaikh, “State Must Compensate”: Why I’m Asking for Rs 9 Cr For 9 Years of Incarceration, TheQuint (Sept. 22, 2025), https://www.thequint.com/opinion/state-must-compensate-why-im-asking-for-9-crores-for-9-years-of-incarceration.
36. Sube Singh v. the State of Haryana (2006) 3 SCC 178.
37. Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri, supra note 14.
38. Prof. (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai, On Wrongful Incarceration: Default in Payment of Fine & Suspension of Sentence (Amicus Curiae Report before the High Court of Delhi, National Law University Delhi 2017), https://nludelhi.ac.in/download/publication/2017/On%20Wrongful%20Incarceration%20Default%20in%20Payment%20of%20Fine%20Suspension%20of%20Sentence.pdf.
39. Udai Yashvir Singh and Smita Singh, Right to Compensation for Wrongful Prosecution, Incarceration and Conviction: A Necessity of the Contemporary Indian Socio-Legal Framework, 4(2) Int’l J. L. Mgmt. & Humanities 435 (2021), https://ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Right-to-Compensation-for-Wrongful-Prosecution-Incarceration-and-Conviction-A-Necessity-of-the-Contemporary-Indian-Socio-Legal-Framework.pdf.
40. Id.
41. Id.
42. Id.
43. Id.
44. Bajpai, supra note 35.
45. Singh and Singh, supra note 38.
46. Commission, supra note 2.
47. Roach, supra note 1.
48. Id.