Article 20 of the Indian Constitution provides protection to individuals against
arbitrary and retrospective criminal legislation, ensuring 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 of the Indian Constitution lays down three essential protections: protection
against ex post facto laws, protection against double jeopardy, and the prohibition of
self-incrimination.
Article 20(1)
Provision
No person 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.
Interpretation
Prohibits ex post facto laws, meaning 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)
Provision
No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
Interpretation
Prevents double jeopardy, ensuring 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 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
In the Constitution of India, Double Jeopardy is incorporated under Article 20(2) and
it is one of the 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) is available to citizens, non-citizen and artificial entities.
The fundamental conditions for the applicability of Article 20(2) are as follows:
o The person must be accused of an offence
o The person must have been prosecuted before a Court or a Judicial Tribunal
o The person must have been prosecuted and punished in the previous
proceeding
o The offence must be the same for which he was prosecuted and punished in
the previous proceedings
Article 20(3)
Provision
No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Interpretation
Protects against self-incrimination, ensuring 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) which states that “No person accused of an offence shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself.” It is based on the legal maxim “nemo
teneteur prodre accussare seipsum”, which means no man is obliged to be a witness
against himself.
Article 20 (3) introspects and prohibits an accused from giving any evidence or
information against oneself. The Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 20(3)
is a protective umbrella against testimonial compulsion for people who are accused
of an offence and are compelled to be a witness against themselves.
Judicial Pronouncements on Article 20 of the Constitution of
India
Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404
The Supreme Court held that enhanced punishment could not be applied to an act
committed before the new law was enacted.
Maru Ram v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 1980 SC 2147
The Supreme Court observed that Article 20(1) of the 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.
Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2015 SC 2098
The Supreme Court held that Article 20(1) of the Constitution only covers convictions
and punishments and is not applicable to trials or matters of prosecution.
Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, 1965
The Supreme Court laid down the rule of beneficial construction that required that an
ex-post facto law could be applied only to reduce the punishment.
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325
The Supreme Court in this case 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 was rejected by the Court.
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 the Constitution.
S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 375
The Supreme Court 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
Art 20(2) cannot be availed by the accused.
Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab, 1959
The Supreme Court decided that in order to request protection under Article 20 (2)
the following requirements must be fulfilled-
o There was a previous prosecution
o As a result of this the accused was punished
o That the punishment was for the same offence
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra 1954
The Supreme Court held that a person whose name is mentioned in the First
Information Report as an accused can claim protection under Article 20(3). The
privilege against self-incrimination is available at both trial and pre-trial stage i.e.
when the police investigation is going on and the person is regarded as an accused,
or even if his name is not mentioned in the FIR as an accused.
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani 1978
The Supreme Court extended the right against self-incrimination to all stages where
information might be compelled from the accused.
Balasaheb v. State of Maharashtra 1994
The Court held that a witness in a police case, who is also an accused in the
complaint case for the same incident, cannot claim absolute immunity from
testifying in the case.
State (Delhi Administration) v. Jagjit Singh 1988
The Court held that if an accused has been granted pardon under section 306 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, he ceases to be an accused and becomes a witness for the
prosecution and his evidence cannot be used against him in other cases.
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad 1961
It was held that it must be necessarily shown that the witness was compelled to
make a statement likely to incriminate him. Compulsion is an essential ingredient
but if a person makes a confession without any inducement, threat or promise Article
20(3) does not apply.
Conclusion
Article 20 of the Indian Constitution provides vital protections to individuals accused
of crimes, ensuring fairness, justice, and the rule of law in India's criminal justice
system. Its significance as a fundamental right underscores the importance of
safeguarding individual liberties against arbitrary state actions.
