Article 20 provides three key protections to individuals:
- Protection against Ex Post Facto Law
- Protection against Double Jeopardy
- Protection against Self-Incrimination
Article 20(1): Protection against Ex Post Facto Law
“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… nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at that time.”
- This article prevents retrospective application of criminal laws.
- It is not applicable to civil liabilities.
- Article 11(2) of UDHR, 1948 also relates to the Article 20 of the Indian Constitution.
- This article deals with substantive law.
Case: Shiv Dutt Raichand vs Union of India – In this case it was held that retrospective tax imposition is not a violation of Article 20.
Case: Kedar Nath vs State of West Bengal – In this case the accused committed an offence in 1947 which under the act that time was punishable with imprisonment and fine. The act was amended in 1949 and the punishment was increased. The Supreme Court held that the enhanced punishment will not be applicable on this case and he will be punished as per the act of 1947.
Article 20(2): Protection against Double Jeopardy
“No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”
- This article is based on the principle: Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (“No one shall be twice vexed for the same cause”).
- This principle states that no person shall be punished for the same offence more than once.
- This article deals with procedural law.
Case: Maqbool Hussain vs State of Bombay – In this case the appellant brought some gold into India. He did not declare that he had brought gold with him to the custom authorities. The custom authority confiscated the gold under the Sea Customs Act. He was later charged under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant contended that the second prosecution was in violation of Article 20(2). But it was held that the custom authorities were not a court or judicial tribunal and it does not constitute judgment of judicial character. Hence the prosecution under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not barred.
Article 20(3): Protection against Self-Incrimination
“No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
- This principle is based on the maxim: Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare.
- This principle states that no one is bound to accuse himself.
- This clause provides protection against self-incrimination.
- Voluntary statements are not included in this.
Case: MP Sharma vs Satish Chandra – The Supreme Court in this case interpreted the expression ‘to be a witness’ very widely so as to include oral, documentary, and testimonial evidence. The protection under Article 20(3) not merely covers testimonial compulsion in a courtroom but also compelled testimony previously obtained.
Case: State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu – It was decided that when a person gives his finger impression or signature, though it may amount to furnishing evidence, it is not included within the expression “to be a witness”.
Case: Selvi vs State of Karnataka – In this case it was held that Narcoanalysis, polygraph, and brain mapping tests are prohibited under Article 20(3).
📄 Case Law References:
- Shiv Dutt Raichand vs Union of India – AIR 1984 SC 1195
- Kedar Nath vs State of West Bengal – AIR 1953 SC 404
- Maqbool Hussain vs State of Bombay – AIR 1953 SC 375
- MP Sharma vs Satish Chandra – AIR 1954 SC 300
- State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu – AIR 1961 SC 1808
- Selvi vs State of Karnataka – AIR 2010 SC 1974
