The makers of the Indian Construction have built-in Article 20 for the security of the rights of accused ones or these launched sooner than the Court docket docket for trial. Article 20 includes three clauses which deal with the issue of pointless actions undertaken by the Legislature, Authorities & implementing authorities. Article 20 cannot be suspended all through a state of emergency.

Article 20 (1): Ex publish facto regulation

Article 20(1) makes provision in opposition to Ex publish facto regulation. It states that no person shall be prosecuted and convicted for any kind of offense in accordance with these authorized tips which did not exist on the time of the payment of the act by the accused. Moreover, punishments imposed cannot be higher than these current on the time of payment. This provision states that authorized tips referring to jail offenses cannot be made having retrospective outcomes.

For Occasion, A went to eat noodles in restaurant X. Subsequent day a regulation was made that anyone found consuming inside the restaurant X could be punished with a optimistic of Rs. 1000. A cannot be punished with a optimistic as he ate inside the restaurant when there was no such regulation current.

Ex publish facto authorized tips are of three varieties which are:

  • A regulation which declares some kind of act or omission as an offense for the first time after completion of that act or payment of that omission.
  • A regulation which reinforces the punishment tenure or optimistic after commissioning of such offense.
  • A regulation which prescribes a model new course of or changes the prevailing course of for the prosecution of an offense subsequent to the payment of that offense.

Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal

On this case, it was held by the Apex Court docket docket that every time any movement is asserted to be a jail offense or the penalty or punishment for any act is been elevated, it must always be executed to have potential affect. Any such regulation can’t have retrospective affect in step with Article 20. Nonetheless, it is solely the method of sentencing and convicting which is prohibited on this clause and by no means the trial itself.

Mohan Lal v. the State of Rajasthan

On this case Narcotics, Medicine and Psychotropic Substances Act was involved. It was put forward that solely conviction or punishment beneath an ex publish facto regulation is prohibited beneath Article 20 and by no means the trial or prosecution itself. Moreover, a trial beneath a particular course of than what existed in the midst of the payment of the act wouldn’t come beneath the ambition of the similar and can’t be struck down as unconstitutional.

Maru Ram And so forth. vs Union Of India & Anr.

It was held that on the time of commencement of the offense irrespective of penalty exists for that offense solely shall be imposed on the accused. There must be no retrospective affect which makes penalties heavier.

Rattan Lal v. the State of Punjab

There exists an exception to this provision of Ex publish facto authorized tips. Apex Court docket docket talked about that retrospective implementation of jail authorized tips shall be there if there is a low cost in punishment.

Article 20(2): Double jeopardy

The origin of the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy comes from American Jurisprudence of punishment. It states that no accused shall be prosecuted and shall be punished twice for the same offense in subsequent proceedings. It means for the same offense involving the similar set of particulars one should not be punished twice.

Venkataraman v. Union of India

Supreme Court docket docket on this case talked about that this provision provides solely with judicial punishments and establishes the availability that no particular person must be tried twice for the same offense executed by him.

Maqbool Hussain v. the State of Bombay

On this case, Apex Court docket docket gave a landmark judgment. The accused possessed some amount of gold which was lex loci in the intervening time. Customs authority confiscated his gold. Shortly, when he was prosecuted for the offense in Court docket docket it was confronted whether or not or not this portions to Double Jeopardy or not. It was talked about by the Court docket docket that proceedings by the Customs Authority do not amount to proceedings by any judicial courtroom or tribunal. It was held that the departmental proceedings are unbiased and completely totally different from the proceedings by the judicial courtroom.

Article 20(3): Prohibition in opposition to Self-Incrimination

This provision implies that no explicit particular person shall be pressured to supply any information each oral or in writing which could be utilized in opposition to him or her in extra trial proceedings. Prohibition in opposition to self-incrimination can solely be environment friendly if the case features a jail offense. There’s an exception to this rule too. Authorities can topic orders for the accused to hold and present paperwork which are beneath his possession as stated beneath Half 91 of the Code of Authorized Course of. In step with Half 161 of CrPC, the accused is for certain to answer the entire questions actually and leaving appropriately these which can very effectively be utilized in opposition to him later in the midst of the stage of the trial.

MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra

On this case, it was held that the phrase ‘Witness’ on this Article incorporates proof in oral and doc type. There is not a restriction on authorities to go searching or dimension any doc. Any information which is produced voluntarily by the accused himself is permissible.

Narayanlal vs Manneck

On this case, it was held that to claim prohibition in opposition to self-incrimination there must exist a correct accusation in opposition to the particular person. Solely regular investigations and inquiries don’t type grounds for the equipment of this provision.

Nandini Sathpathy vs PL Dani

On this case, the earlier Chief Minister of Orissa was ordered to take a look at Police Station for examination after which a further investigation was to be started. The case was registered in opposition to her beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. She was interrogated by quite a few questions given to her in writing. She utilized for canopy in opposition to self-incrimination and refused to answer questions. The Apex Court docket docket held that the availability of self-incrimination has the goal to protect the accused from pointless police harassment and investigations apart from the proceedings of the trial.


The merchandise of Article 20 is to protect residents from pointless actions by the Authorities. It protects from actions of Legislature, Authorities and Judiciary as Parliament cannot make any regulation whose enforcement date is in earlier, Authorities cannot unnecessarily harass any explicit particular person or accused. Any explicit particular person cannot be prosecuted by the judiciary for the same offense. This security is obtainable to the accused whether or not or not Indian or foreigner.

Kanvi Gupta