Article 20 of Indian Constitution: Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences

Article 20 of Indian Constitution under Part III provides protection to individuals against arbitrary and retrospective criminal legislation. It ensures fair treatment for those accused of crimes. It is one of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and serves as a safeguard against the misuse of state power in criminal law. Article 20 lays down three essential protections: protection against ex post facto laws, protection against double jeopardy and prohibition of self-incrimination. For more, explore constitutional articles.

Article 20 of Indian Constitution

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.

Note: "The information provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders."

📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants

Subjects	PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts	Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants	Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF	Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors	Download Link

Simplified Interpretation of Article 20 of Indian Constitution

Article 20 of Indian Constitution guarantees essential protections against ex post facto laws, protection against double jeopardy and the prohibition of self-incrimination. Below is a detailed analysis of Article 20 of Constitution-

Article 20 (1) of Indian Constitution: Protection against ex post facto laws

According to Article 20 (1) nobody shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the 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.

Article 20 prohibits ex post facto laws which means a person cannot be punished under a law that did not exist at the time of the offence, nor can the punishment be more severe than what was prescribed when the offence was committed. Therefore, an old act cannot be made punishable by a new law. If a particular act was not an offence under the law of the land at the time when the person committed it, he cannot be convicted under a law that declares that act an offence retrospectively.

Article 20 (2) of Indian Constitution: Protection against Double Jeopardy

According to Article 20 (2) no one shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. It prevents double jeopardy and ensures that no person can be tried and punished more than once for the same offence. The principle of double jeopardy has been embodied in the existing law in India and finds place in Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and also in Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

In Indian Constitution, Double Jeopardy is incorporated under Article 20 (2) and it is one of the important fundamental rights of the Constitution of India. The concept of Double Jeopardy has been borrowed from the American Constitution. The doctrine of Double Jeopardy is based on “Nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una iti eadem causa” which means no one should be punished twice for the same offence. Article 20 (2) of Indian Constitution is available to citizens, non-citizen and artificial entities.

The fundamental conditions for the applicability of Article 20 (2) are as follows:

• The person must be accused of an offence
• He must have been tried before a Court or a Judicial Tribunal
• He must have been tried and punished in the earlier proceeding
• The offence must be the same for which he was tried and punished in the earlier proceedings

Article 20 (3) of Indian Constitution: Prohibition of Self-Incrimination

According to Article 20 (3) nobody accused of any offence shall be forced to be a witness against himself. The article protects against self-incrimination and ensures that no person accused of a crime can be compelled to testify against themselves.

The Constitution of India provides immunity to an accused against self-incrimination under Article 20 (3). It is based on the legal maxim “nemo teneteur prodre accussare seipsum” which means no man is obliged to be a witness against himself. It introspects and prohibits an accused from giving any evidence or information against oneself. The Fundamental Right provided under Article 20(3) serves as a protective shield and prevents individuals accused of an offence from being forced to testify against themselves.

Judicial Pronouncements on Article 20 of the Constitution of India

The judiciary has played an important role in interpreting and enforcing Article 20 of Indian Constitution. The following are some of important cases which reflect the significance of Article 20 of Indian Constitution - 

In Kedar Nath Bajoria vs State of West Bengal (1953) the Supreme Court regarding Article 20 held that enhanced punishment could not be applied to an act committed before the new law was enacted

The Supreme Court in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) held that the Sea Customs Authorities were not a Court or a Judicial Tribunal and confiscation of gold with them does not constitute a judgement. The plea of double jeopardy under Article 20 of Indian Constitution was rejected by the Court.

Similarly, in Kalawati v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1953) the Supreme Court held that an appeal against an acquittal order in a murder trial would not violate Article 20 (2) of Constitution.

The Supreme Court in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954) held that the proceeding taken before the Enquiry Commissioner did not amount to a prosecution for an offence and hence, the plea for protection of Article 20 (2) cannot be availed by the accused.

In a landmark case of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) the Supreme Court held that a person can claim safeguard under Article 20 (3) of Indian Constitution if his name is mentioned in the FIR as an accused.

The Supreme Court in Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab (1959) stated that in order to request protection under Article 20 (2) of Constitution, the following essentials must be fulfilled-

• There exists a previous prosecution
• The accused was punished
• The punishment was for the same offence

In a landmark case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) the Court held that it is necessary to show that the witness was forced to make a statement likely to incriminate him. Compulsion is an essential ingredient but it is important to note that if a person makes a confession without any inducement, threat or promise Article 20 (3) does not apply. 

In Rattan Lal vs State of Punjab (1965) the Supreme Court laid down the rule of beneficial construction that required that an ex-post facto law (Article 20) could be applied only to reduce the punishment. 

In Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980) the Supreme Court observed that Article 20 (1) of Constitution also includes the rule that there will be no retrospective infliction of penalties heavier than those existing ones at the time of commencement of the offence.

Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court. The Court in this case addressed the constitutionality of scientific techniques such as narcoanalysis, polygraph (lie detector) tests and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) in criminal investigations. The Court held that the involuntary administration of such tests violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 20 (3) and Article 21.

The Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2015) held that Article 20 (1) of Constitution only encompasses convictions and punishments and is not applicable to trials or matters of prosecution.

Conclusion

Article 20 of Indian Constitution provides vital protections to individuals accused of offences ensuring fairness, justice and the rule of law in criminal justice system of the country. Its significance as a fundamental right underscores the importance of safeguarding individual liberties against arbitrary state actions.