Article 20 of Indian Constitution have 3 clause Article 20(1): Ex-post-facto law or Retrospective Laws Article 20(2): Double Jeopardy. Article 20(3): Right against self-incrimination. Bare Act Definition of Article 20 is as under:
Article 20 as per Constitution of India:
Protection in respect of conviction for offences
(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Article 20(1): Ex-post-facto law or Retrospective Laws
Ex Post Facto Laws?
An ex post facto law is a legal term that refers to a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences or status of actions that were committed before the enactment of the law. In other words, it is a law that applies to events that occurred before the law was passed, and it alters the legal consequences of those past actions.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes a prohibition on retrospectively holding anyone guilty of a penal offence that was not an offence at the time it was committed.
Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that no person be held guilty of any criminal law that did not exist at the time of offence nor suffer any penalty heavier than what existed at the time of offence.
Where Ex Post Facto Laws cannot be applied?
This constitutional provision ensures that individuals cannot be retrospectively penalized for actions that were not considered offenses under the law at the time they were committed. It protects individuals from arbitrary and retrospective legal actions, providing a safeguard for the principle of fair notice.
.
Understand this Article by watching the vedio on our youtube channel by clicking on below link:
Exceptions?
1. Where punishment is reduced
Rattan Lal v. Punjabi State Case:
It was held that where the punishment of an offence is reduced. The person may avail the benefit of it and legislation or that particular rule may be applied retrospectively in that scenario. For example: A has committed an offence ‘A’ in 2000 and at that time the punishment of that offence is three years but later in 2001 the punishment for the same offence is reduced to one year. In that scenario he can claim that he should be tried according to new provission of this law. But vice versa is not ture.
2. Where trial conducted using a different procedure
State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal: If trial is conducted using the new procedure than that which was in place at the time the act was done, cannot be declared unconsitutional.
Kedar Nath v. West Bengal State: In this case also, the Court reiterated the same thing.
3. Retrospective law on Taxation?
On taxation, Govt. in India can pass a law retrospectively but it is not considered as a good practice.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague (Netherlands) ruled that India’s retrospective imposition of a tax liability, as well as interest and penalties on Vodafone Group for a 2007 deal was violation of the Bilateral Investment Treaty with Netherlands and the arbitration rules of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
2.Article 20(2): Double Jeopardy
Double jeopardy is a legal principle that protects individuals from being tried or punished more than once for the same offense. The concept is based on the idea that subjecting a person to multiple trials or punishments for the same crime would be unjust and oppressive. The principle is commonly expressed in the legal maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa,” which is Latin for “no one ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause.”
Objective:
It’s main objective is to avoid harassment which may be caused due to successive Criminal Proceedings. No men shall be put twice in period for same offence, it was held in State of Jharkhand vs Lalu Prasad AIR 2017 SC 3389.
Protection Against Multiple Prosecutions: Double jeopardy prevents a person from being prosecuted more than once for the same criminal offense.
Finality of Legal Proceedings: The principle emphasizes the finality of legal proceedings. Once a person has been acquitted or convicted, they should not face another trial for the same conduct.
Acquittal as a Bar: If a person is acquitted (found not guilty) of a criminal charge, they cannot be retried for the same offense, even if new evidence emerges later.
Conviction as a Bar: If a person is convicted of a crime, they cannot be subjected to further criminal proceedings for the same conduct.
Protection in International Law: Many legal systems, as well as international human rights instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), recognize and protect against double jeopardy.
Exceptions: Some legal systems may have exceptions to the double jeopardy rule in certain circumstances, such as mistrials or appeals on points of law.
Civil and Criminal Protections: The principle generally applies to both criminal and civil cases, preventing individuals from facing multiple punishments or liabilities for the same actions.
Preservation of Individual Rights: Double jeopardy is rooted in the protection of individual rights, including the right to a fair trial and the avoidance of harassment through repeated legal actions.
Jurisdictional Considerations: Double jeopardy may have different applications in different jurisdictions, and the specific rules can vary based on legal systems and statutes.
Balancing Justice and Finality: While double jeopardy protects individuals, there is a constant balance between the need for finality in legal proceedings and the pursuit of justice. The principle seeks to prevent abuse of legal processes while ensuring fairness and due process.
Article 20(3): Right against self-incrimination
The right against self-incrimination is a legal principle that protects individuals from being compelled to provide evidence or testimonies that could be used against them in a criminal proceeding. This right is fundamental to the protection of an individual’s right to a fair trial and is recognized in various legal systems around the worl
Right to Silence: Individuals accused of an offense have the right to remain silent during police interrogation and trial proceedings.
Protection During Investigation: The right against self-incrimination applies not only during the trial but also during the investigative stage, preventing authorities from compelling the accused to incriminate themselves.
Fair Trial Guarantee: The right against self-incrimination is a crucial component of the broader guarantee of a fair trial under the Indian legal system
Exceptions:
1. Voice Sample?
Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh:
Accused person can be directed to give voice sample during the cause of investigation an offence, it was held in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh
2. Fingerprint and handwriting Specimen
AP v M. Krishna Mohan: Taking handwriting or fingerprint specimen from accussed is not violation of Article 20(3).
The immunity under Article 20(3) does not extend to compulsory production of material object or compulsion to give writing, specimen, signature, finger impression or giving blood speciment.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply