Punjab & Haryana High Court orders State to pay ₹3 lakh to man kept in jail beyond sentence

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently lamented the systemic disparity in how the rich and the poor experience liberty, remarking that had a man in the case before it possessed financial resources, he would have secured his timely release from jail. [Satnam Singh v. The State of Punjab]."The law must be blind to wealth or status and, in line with the constitutional spirit, treat all individuals equally. However, in practice, disparities often emerge, especially between the rich and the poor. If the appellant had been in a better financial position, he or his family could have easily afforded legal representation to keep a tab on his detention and secure a timely release,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed.The judge awarded ₹3 lakh in compensation to a convict who had remained in custody nearly nine months beyond his sentence..The Court pointed out that in many cases, the lack of money, not merit, decides who stays incarcerated. “If the appellant had been in a better financial position, he or his family could have easily afforded legal representation to keep a tab on his detention and secure a timely release,” the Court said, noting that the man had no legal assistance and was left to the mercy of jail officials..The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Satnam Singh, who was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) for possession of 25 kg of poppy husk. Though he was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment, custody records showed he had already spent over two years in jail, well beyond the maximum sentence that could have been imposed. While upholding the conviction, the Court emphasised that unjustified detention beyond the sentence imposed was not a mere administrative lapse but a “constitutional disregard” that required both compensation and accountability on behalf of the State. “The State, as the custodian of constitutional values, bears the highest responsibility to uphold the rights of its citizens which includes even those who are convicted of crimes. When the State itself becomes the violator of liberty through negligence or apathy, it sets a dangerous precedent that erodes faith in the justice system. Such violations are not mere administrative lapses; they are acts of constitutional disregard that demand accountability, redressal, and systemic correction. Turning a blind eye to these injustices would not only embolden further violations but also diminish the very essence of a democratic society governed by the rule of law,” the Court said.It also came down heavily on the District Legal Services Authority for failing to intervene, observing that such ineptitude defeats the purpose of free legal aid and exposes the poor to unwarranted suffering in already overcrowded prisons.“This Court would be remiss to ignore the ineptitude displayed by the District Legal Services Authority in this regard. The concerned agency is required to demonstrate promptness so as to meaningfully ensure that convicts like the present appellant do not suffer unnecessary incarceration in already overcrowded prisons, for the time lost cannot be truly compensated."The State was given liberty to recover the compensation from erring officials. The High Court Legal Services Authority was also directed to pay remuneration to Advocate Vasudha Sharma, who appeared as Amicus Curiae..The State was represented by Additional Advocate General Rishabh Singla. .[Read Order]