SC orders Haryana to pay ₹500,000 each to 3 men wrongly convicted of murder
The Supreme Court came down hard on the growing trend of appointing public prosecutors based on political loyalty rather than competence
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Haryana government to pay ₹5 lakh each in compensation to three men who were wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, holding the public prosecutor responsible for the miscarriage of justice and highlighting systemic flaws in the appointment of prosecutors based “solely on political considerations” rather than merit.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan overturned the Punjab and Haryana high court’s August 2024 decision, observing that the public prosecutor in the case failed in his duty to assist the court appropriately.
Instead of pointing out the clear legal bar on reversing an acquittal through a revision petition, the prosecutor sought the death penalty for the accused despite the state not having appealed against their acquittal. While the high court ultimately rejected the plea for the death penalty, the Supreme Court expressed its anguish over failures of legal assistance that contributed to severe judicial errors.
The case revolved around a revision petition filed by the father of the deceased in a 1998 murder case, which led to the high court overturning the trial court’s acquittal of the accused. However, the Supreme Court was “shocked” that the high court reversed the acquittal into a conviction, which is legally impermissible under the court’s revisional jurisdiction. Accepting a contention by advocate Indira Unninayar, who represented the appellants in the matter, the bench emphasised that, at best, the high court could have ordered a retrial, but it had no authority to convict the accused outright.
The judgment came down hard on the growing trend of appointing additional government pleaders (AGPs) and assistant public prosecutors (APPs) based on political loyalty rather than competence, warning that such appointments undermine the criminal justice system and compromise the fairness of trials.
“This is bound to happen when the state governments across the country appoint AGPs and APPs in their respective high courts solely on political considerations. Favouritism and nepotism are additional factors compromising merit,” said the judgment, in a stern message to state authorities to ensure that public prosecutors are selected based on their legal acumen, integrity, and ability to uphold justice.
The court underscored that a public prosecutor is not merely an extension of the state but an “independent statutory authority” with a duty to present cases fairly, ensuring that both the prosecution and defence receive a fair hearing. It said that a prosecutor should never act as a mere mouthpiece of the state but should uphold justice impartially.
“A public prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case to a conviction somehow or the other, irrespective of the true facts. The prosecutor must strike a fair balance between convicting the guilty and protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals,” the court held.
Recognising that judicial errors can occur due to workload pressures, the Supreme Court stressed that it was the duty of both the defence counsel and the public prosecutor to assist the court in reaching legally sound conclusions.
“Judges are human beings, and at times they do commit mistakes. The sheer pressure of work may lead to such errors. At the same time, the defence counsel as well as the public prosecutor owe a duty to correct the court if it is falling into an error,” it noted.
Holding the Haryana government accountable for appointing an incompetent prosecutor, the court directed it to compensate the three men who were unjustly imprisoned for over three months before being granted bail by the Supreme Court in December 2024. The bench noted that the appellants, who are now in their 60s and 70s, suffered not just wrongful incarceration but also irreparable damage to their reputation and dignity.
“Reputation of an individual is an inseparable facet of his right to life with dignity,” declared the judgment, reinforcing the fundamental principle that the justice system must not only punish the guilty but also safeguard the rights of the innocent.
The court has given the Haryana government four weeks to pay the compensation, warning that failure to comply will result in appropriate action against the responsible officials.
