On 11 July 2006, Mumbai was subjected to one of the deadliest terrorist attacks when seven coordinated bombs tore through suburban trains during the evening rush hour, killing 187 people and injuring more than 800 commuters.
The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) launched a detailed investigation, charging the suspects under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). After a prolonged nine-year trial in 2015, 12 accused persons were sentenced to death and seven were given life imprisonment.
In a bold verdict on 21 July this year, the Bombay High Court reversed the trial court’s order and acquitted all 12 accused.
The bench, comprising Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Shyam C Chandak, held that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court recorded serious flaws in the investigation, including involuntary confessions, unreliable eyewitnesses, fabricated evidence, and a lack of forensic corroboration.
It further observed that most of the accused had been subjected to illegal imprisonment for extended periods and treated inhumanely in police custody, without timely production before a judicial magistrate.
The Supreme Court, however, stayed the verdict to the limited extent that it will not be treated as a precedent in other cases. After the Maharashtra government appealed the High Court verdict, the top court will now conduct hearings to determine the final outcome.
This ruling exposed both the weaknesses in the investigative process and the grave personal cost borne by the accused and their families as a result of such wrongful prosecution.
The Legal Gap
A major constitutional and legal question arises from this landmark acquittal: should the state be compelled to compensate these individuals for the 19 years they lost in prison, as well as for the loss of dignity they suffered?
At present, neither the Constitution nor the country’s criminal laws contain a direct provision mandating the state to compensate those wrongfully imprisoned and later acquitted.
While the Supreme Court has, on occasion, awarded compensation to victims of wrongful incarceration, the absence of a dedicated statutory framework leaves such decisions to judicial discretion.
Judicial Precedents in India
One of the first such judicial pronouncements came in Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), where the Supreme Court granted Rs 30,000 to a man who had spent more than 14 years behind bars before being acquitted. The court recognised that merely declaring the imprisonment illegal was insufficient; monetary compensation was necessary to make amends.
Similarly, in Bhim Singh v State of J&K and Others (1985), the court awarded Rs 50,000 to a legislator wrongfully detained by police and prevented from attending an Assembly session.
A more recent and high-profile example is that of S Nambi Narayanan, a leading ISRO scientist wrongfully accused in an espionage case. In 2018, the Supreme Court not only dropped the charges but also awarded him Rs 50 lakh in compensation and ordered an inquiry against the responsible officials.
There is also the tragic case of Machal Lalung, who spent 54 years in prison without trial. Upon his release, the National Human Rights Commission urged the Assam government to provide compensation and lifelong support, while the Supreme Court granted Rs 3 lakh and lifelong medical assistance.
Why This Case is Different
The acquittal of the 12 men in this case is particularly grave. They spent 19 years in prison, branded as terrorists, cut off from their families, and subjected to psychological and physical trauma.
The Bombay High Court’s judgment went beyond a technical acquittal; it exposed a failed system marked by custodial torture, procedural abuse, and prosecutorial negligence. The findings clearly indicate constitutional violations, strengthening the case for compensation.
Under current law, victims of false prosecution have no statutory right to compensation and must rely on judicial discretion.
Recognising this gap, the Law Commission of India, in its 277th Report (2018), proposed enacting a law exclusively to compensate victims of wrongful prosecution. It recommended objective criteria such as duration of imprisonment, loss of livelihood, damage to reputation, and mental distress, and the creation of a specialised judicial or quasi-judicial body to assess claims.
To date, however, no such law has been passed.
Recent Supreme Court Developments
In V Senthil Balaji v The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2024), the Supreme Court held that extended imprisonment after an acquittal can be a grave violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, and that statutory compensation may be warranted.
In Kattavellai @ Devakar v State of Tamil Nadu (2025), the court freed a death row convict after finding serious investigative lapses and weak evidence. While it did not award compensation, the Bench urged Parliament to enact a law providing for such relief.
International Standards
International human rights law also supports the principle of compensating individuals wrongfully convicted and later acquitted, especially after lengthy imprisonment.
Section 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) explicitly states that when a person is found innocent after conviction, they should be compensated according to law.
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in cases such as Sekanina v Austria and Hussain v United Kingdom that refusal to compensate after acquittal violates the presumption of innocence.
Countries including France, Germany, Norway, and the United Kingdom already have laws allowing such claims. These global standards make it clear that compensation is not a discretionary gesture but a legal and moral duty of the state.
The Need for Legislative Action
The 2006 Mumbai train blasts acquittal is a textbook example of how flawed investigations, political expediency, and institutional negligence can destroy lives. The Bombay High Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt, a fact that makes legislative action on compensation all the more urgent.
The government must adopt a human-rights-based approach, establishing clear standards, defined procedures, and a reasonable timeframe for awarding compensation. This should be a constitutional right, not a matter of judicial benevolence.
Compensation must be available not just in high-profile cases, but in all instances of wrongful imprisonment. Such a framework would restore public faith in a justice system founded on fairness, accountability, and the protection of fundamental rights.
The principle rests not on sentiment, but on Article 21 of the Constitution, the guarantee of life and personal liberty. Where the state unlawfully deprives a citizen of liberty through misuse of law, investigative negligence, or systemic delay, it must be held accountable.
Without a statutory compensation law, justice in such cases remains incomplete. As the Supreme Court itself has stressed, justice delayed is not only justice denied; it is liberty denied.
(The author is a criminal lawyer practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, and the Allahabad High Court. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)