Article 20

Article 20 of the Constitution of India is a key provision under the Fundamental Rights (Part III), safeguarding individuals from arbitrary or unjust actions by the State in criminal proceedings. It embodies the principles of natural justice and due process, ensuring fairness, legality, and protection of personal liberty within the Indian criminal justice system. This article cannot be suspended even during a National Emergency, underscoring its fundamental importance.
Article 20 provides three distinct guarantees to individuals accused of offences: protection against ex post facto laws, protection against double jeopardy, and the right against self-incrimination.

Clause (1): Protection against Ex Post Facto Laws

Text of Article 20(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.”
This clause prohibits retrospective criminal legislation. It ensures that a person cannot be punished for an act that was not an offence when committed, nor can a punishment be increased after the offence was committed.
Key Features:

• Protects individuals from retrospective penal laws (ex post facto laws).
• Ensures fairness by allowing individuals to know in advance what conduct is criminal.
• Applies only to criminal offences and not to civil liabilities or procedural changes.

Illustration:If an act was legal in 2020 but declared illegal by a new law in 2022, a person cannot be punished for having performed that act in 2020.
Judicial Interpretation:

• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): The Supreme Court reaffirmed that no one can be convicted under a law that did not exist at the time the alleged offence was committed.
• Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab (1965): The Court held that beneficial or lenient retrospective criminal laws may apply to accused persons, as they do not violate Article 20(1).
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Although primarily concerning Article 21, this case reiterated that criminal laws must conform to principles of legality and fairness.

Limitations:

• Applies only to convictions and penalties, not to procedural laws.
• Does not prohibit retrospective application of civil, tax, or regulatory laws.

Clause (2): Protection against Double Jeopardy

Text of Article 20(2):“No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”
This clause incorporates the principle of double jeopardy, expressed in the Latin maxim “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” — meaning no person should be punished twice for the same offence.
Essence of the Principle:Once a person has been tried and punished (or acquitted) for an offence, they cannot be tried again for the same offence under the same facts and law.
Distinction:Article 20(2) applies only when:

1. The person has been prosecuted and punished once under the same law.
2. The second prosecution relates to the same offence.

Judicial Interpretation:

• Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953): The Supreme Court held that departmental or administrative proceedings do not constitute “prosecution” under Article 20(2); hence, double jeopardy does not apply in such cases.
• State of Bombay v. S. L. Apte (1961): The Court clarified that prosecution for two distinct offences arising from the same act does not amount to double jeopardy if the ingredients of the offences differ.
• State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan (1976): Reiterated that Article 20(2) applies only where the accused has faced a previous judicial trial and punishment.

Comparison with Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):While Article 20(2) provides constitutional protection, Section 300 of the CrPC (1973) gives statutory reinforcement by prohibiting re-trial for the same offence after conviction or acquittal.

Clause (3): Right against Self-Incrimination

Text of Article 20(3):“No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
This clause guarantees that an accused person cannot be forced to give testimony or evidence that could lead to their own conviction. It upholds the principle that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and no one is required to provide self-incriminating evidence.
Key Elements:

1. The protection is available only to a person accused of an offence.
2. It applies to compulsion by authorities, not to voluntary statements.
3. It covers both oral testimony and documents or physical evidence that reveal guilt.

Judicial Interpretation:

• M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954): The Supreme Court held that the right against self-incrimination includes protection from being compelled to produce documents or statements that are incriminating.
• Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani (1978): The Court expanded the scope of Article 20(3), ruling that the accused cannot be forced to answer questions likely to incriminate them, even during police interrogation.
• Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010): The Court declared that the use of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping without consent violates Article 20(3), as it amounts to compelled testimony.

Limitations:

• The protection does not apply to witnesses who are not accused in a case.
• It does not cover the collection of physical evidence such as fingerprints, blood samples, or handwriting specimens.

Constitutional Significance

Article 20 provides a constitutional shield against misuse of power by the State in criminal prosecution. It ensures that:

• The rule of law prevails over arbitrary authority.
• Criminal liability is imposed only under valid, pre-existing law.
• Individuals are not subjected to multiple punishments or compelled confessions.

Together with Articles 21 and 22, it forms the bedrock of the constitutional guarantees protecting personal liberty and the right to a fair trial.

Related Constitutional Provisions

• Article 21: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, ensuring that no person is deprived of liberty except by due process of law.
• Article 22: Provides safeguards regarding arrest and preventive detention.
• Article 14: Ensures equality before law, which complements the fairness guaranteed by Article 20.

Judicial Approach and Broader Interpretation

Over the decades, the Supreme Court has adopted a liberal and humanistic interpretation of Article 20, ensuring that it remains effective against modern forms of coercion and misuse of power. Courts have consistently linked Article 20 with human dignity and fair trial rights, recognising it as an essential component of India’s democratic justice system.
Notable Observations:

• The judiciary emphasises that criminal laws must not be arbitrary or retrospective.
• The protection of personal liberty and due process is inseparable from Article 20.
• Coerced confessions or extra-legal punishments are inconsistent with constitutional morality.

Limitations and Exceptions

• Article 20 applies only to criminal offences, not to civil or administrative penalties.
• It is not applicable to military tribunals or disciplinary proceedings under service law.
• The protection against double jeopardy does not prevent separate proceedings under distinct laws for the same act, provided the offences differ in nature or purpose.

Importance in the Indian Legal System

Article 20 stands as a guardian of personal liberty and the integrity of criminal jurisprudence in India. It ensures that the State’s power to prosecute and punish is exercised within constitutional bounds, preventing arbitrary or vindictive action.