Article 20 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision within the realm of Fundamental Rights, specifically under Part III, which safeguards individuals against arbitrary and unjust prosecution and punishment. This article is designed to protect the fundamental rights of individuals in criminal cases, ensuring fair treatment and preventing abuses of state power.

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution provides protection in respect of conviction for offenses. It is a crucial safeguard for individuals against arbitrary and excessive punishment by the State. Article 20 is divided into three clauses, each addressing different aspects of criminal justice:

1. Article 20(1): Protection against Ex Post Facto Laws
2. Article 20(2): Protection against Double Jeopardy
3. Article 20(3): Protection against Self-incrimination

1. Article 20(1): Protection against Ex Post Facto Laws

Article 20(1) states:
“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 ensures that a person cannot be:

• Convicted for an act that was not a crime at the time it was committed.
• Subjected to a penalty greater than what was prescribed at the time of the offense.

Case Law: Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay (1951)
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that Article 20(1) applies only to convictions and sentences under criminal law and does not cover civil liabilities or administrative penalties.

2. Article 20(2): Protection against Double Jeopardy

Article 20(2) states:
“No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”

This clause embodies the principle of “double jeopardy,” ensuring that a person cannot be tried and punished more than once for the same offense.

Case Law: Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953)
The Supreme Court clarified that the protection against double jeopardy applies only when there has been a prosecution and punishment for the same offense under criminal law. Administrative proceedings do not attract this protection.

3. Article 20(3): Protection against Self-incrimination

Article 20(3) states:
“No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”

This clause provides immunity to an accused person from being forced to testify against themselves, thereby safeguarding the right against self-incrimination.

Case Law: M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the protection under Article 20(3) extends not only to oral testimony but also to the production of documents and other evidence that might incriminate the accused.

Case Law: State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)
The Supreme Court ruled that the protection against self-incrimination does not extend to providing thumb impressions, handwriting samples, or exposing parts of the body for identification purposes.

Additional Case Laws

1. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
The Supreme Court elaborated on the right against self-incrimination, holding that the accused has the right to remain silent during interrogation and cannot be compelled to answer questions that may incriminate them.

2. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
In this case, the Supreme Court held that involuntary administration of narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping violates Article 20(3). Such techniques can only be used if the individual consents, and even then, the results cannot be used as evidence without corroborative evidence.

Conclusion

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution plays a vital role in protecting the rights of individuals in the criminal justice system. By prohibiting ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination, it ensures that the State exercises its power to punish individuals within the bounds of fairness and justice. The judicial interpretations of these provisions have further strengthened these protections, maintaining the balance between the power of the State and the rights of individuals.

Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution

Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution offers protection against ex post facto laws, ensuring that individuals are not convicted or subjected to penalties greater than those prescribed by law at the time the offense was committed. This provision is divided into two parts:

1. Protection from Conviction for Acts Not Constituting an Offense at the Time of Commission
2. Protection from Excessive Penalties

Part I: Protection from Conviction for Acts Not Constituting an Offense at the Time of Commission

Article 20(1) states:
“No person shall be convicted of any offense except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offense.”

This clause ensures that individuals cannot be:

• Convicted for an act that was not considered an offense by any law in force when it was committed.
• Punished for an act that was lawful at the time of commission even if a subsequent law makes that act an offense.

Case Law: Pralhad Krishna Kurane v. State of Bombay (1951)

In this case, it was held that the immunity under Article 20(1) cannot be claimed against preventive detention for acts done before the relevant law was passed. The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 20(1) applies only to criminal offenses and convictions, not to preventive detention.

Exceptions to Article 20(1)

1. Civil Liability: Article 20(1) does not restrict the imposition of civil liabilities retrospectively. For instance:

• Hatisingh Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1960): The Supreme Court upheld the retrospective application of a law imposing civil liabilities on employers to compensate their employees. The liability was deemed civil, and thus Article 20(1) did not apply.
• M.P.V. Sundararamier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1958): The Court held that taxes could be imposed retrospectively. The retrospective application of tax laws, even with penalties for violations, was considered a civil matter outside the scope of Article 20(1).

2. Procedural Changes: Changes in the procedural law do not violate Article 20(1). For example:

• Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh (1953): The Supreme Court ruled that changes in court procedures do not violate Article 20(1). An individual does not have a fundamental right to be tried by a specific procedure unless other constitutional rights are violated.
• Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2015): The Court held that while conviction and punishment under ex post facto laws are prohibited, trials or prosecutions themselves are not affected. A trial under a different procedure does not come under the ambit of Article 20(1).

Part II: Protection from Excessive Penalties

Article 20(1) further states:
“…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 offense.”

This clause ensures that:

• Individuals are not subjected to penalties greater than those prescribed by law at the time the offense was committed.
• If a law prescribing a reduced penalty comes into force during the trial, the accused can benefit from the lesser penalty.

Case Law: K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1960)

In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with an ordinance requiring a minimum mandatory fine for offenses under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the ordinance did not infringe Article 20(1) because the prescribed minimum penalty was not greater than the potential unlimited fine under Section 420 at the time of the offense.

Beneficial Construction in Favor of Accused

An ex post facto law beneficial to the accused is not prohibited by Article 20(1). The accused can take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the ex post facto law, such as reduced penalties or decriminalization of certain acts. This principle promotes fairness and ensures that individuals benefit from more lenient laws.

Summary

Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution is a critical safeguard against arbitrary and excessive punishment, ensuring individuals are only convicted and penalized according to the laws in force at the time of the offense. This protection extends to:

• Preventing retrospective criminalization of acts.
• Ensuring penalties are not greater than those prescribed at the time of the offense.
• Allowing individuals to benefit from more lenient laws enacted subsequently.

The Supreme Court has elaborated on these protections through various rulings, emphasizing the constitutional balance between state authority and individual rights.

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

Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution provides protection against double jeopardy, ensuring that no person is prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offense. This provision is rooted in the principle of “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa,” meaning “No one ought to be vexed twice for the same offense.”

Doctrine of Double Jeopardy

The doctrine of double jeopardy, which originates from American jurisprudence, means that no person can be prosecuted and punished twice for the same offense. Article 20(2) states:
“No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”

This clause guarantees that:

• A person cannot be convicted and punished more than once for the same offense involving the same set of facts.
• Once a person is convicted for an offense by a competent court, the conviction bars any further criminal proceedings against them for the same offense.

Formal Defense: Autrefois Acquit and Autrefois Convict

If an individual is tried again in a court, they can plead their formal acquittal or conviction as a complete defense to avoid being punished twice. Formally, they can take the plea of:

• Autrefois Acquit: A plea that the person has already been acquitted of the same offense.
• Autrefois Convict: A plea that the person has already been convicted and punished for the same offense.

Comparison with the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides broader protection against double jeopardy:
“No person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

This protection extends beyond punishment to prevent an individual from facing another trial for the same crime. Unlike the Indian Constitution, which only bars multiple convictions and punishments, the U.S. Constitution prohibits retrials following an acquittal.

Scope and Limitations of Article 20(2)

1. Judicial Punishments:

The protection under Article 20(2) applies exclusively to judicial punishments. It does not extend to:

• Administrative or departmental proceedings.
• Situations where the facts of subsequent offenses are distinct.

Case Law: Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953)
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that proceedings before a customs authority do not amount to a trial by a judicial tribunal. Hence, the subsequent prosecution of the individual in a criminal court did not constitute double jeopardy.

Case Law: O.P. Dahiya v. Union of India (2003)
The Supreme Court held that if a person is neither convicted nor acquitted of the charges in the first trial, a retrial would not amount to double jeopardy. A retrial can be directed even if the accused is acquitted in certain exceptional circumstances to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Case Law: Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab (2021)
The Supreme Court devised guidelines for retrials, stating that retrials should be directed only in exceptional circumstances to avert a miscarriage of justice.

2. Different Offenses under Different Laws:

If the same set of facts constitutes offenses under two different laws, double jeopardy is not barred. The Supreme Court has clarified that:

• If there are two distinct and separate offenses with different ingredients under different enactments, double punishment is not barred.

Case Law: State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (1988)
The Supreme Court observed that double jeopardy does not apply if the same facts constitute different offenses under different laws, as the offenses are distinct.

3. Continuing Offenses:

Article 20(2) does not apply to continuing offenses or offenses committed at different times and places.

Case Law: Municipal Board v. Kripa Ram (1965)
The Allahabad High Court held that Article 20(2) does not apply to continuing offenses.

Case Law: Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand through CBI (2019)
The Jharkhand High Court held that Article 20(2) does not apply to similar offenses committed at different times and places.

Landmark Cases on Article 20(2)

Case Law: Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954)
The Supreme Court established that Article 20(2) deals exclusively with judicial punishments, ensuring that no person is prosecuted twice by judicial authorities for the same offense.

Case Law: A.A. Mulla v. State of Maharashtra (1996)
The Supreme Court observed that Article 20(2) would not be attracted in cases where the facts are distinct in subsequent offenses or punishments.

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

Overview

Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution embodies the principle that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. This right, rooted in the Latin maxim “nemo tenetur seipsum accusare,” has historical significance and is crucial in modern legal systems to ensure fairness and protect individuals from coercion by authorities.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

Indian Constitution

Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution states:
“No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”

U.S. Constitution

This right is similarly protected in the American Constitution by the 5th Amendment, which includes several protections for individuals in the criminal justice system, such as the right against self-incrimination, protection against double jeopardy, and the right to due process.

Scope and Interpretation of Article 20(3)

Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court of India has elaborated on the scope of Article 20(3) through various judgments. In M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954), the Court held that “to be a witness” includes both oral evidence and documentary evidence, and the protection under Article 20(3) extends to the production of documents.

Voluntary Statements

The Court has distinguished between compelled testimony and voluntary statements. Evidence or information voluntarily provided by an accused is admissible and not protected under Article 20(3). However, if obtained through compulsion, such evidence is inadmissible.

Illustrative Case

Consider Mr. Jones, who, while in police custody, admits, “I have killed my stepbrother.” Such a statement would not be admissible in court if coerced. However, if Mr. Jones voluntarily discloses the location of the murder weapon leading to its discovery, this information can be used as evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Relevant Sections of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 27

This section allows for the admissibility of information obtained from an accused in police custody if it leads to the discovery of facts relevant to the case. It balances the protection against self-incrimination with the necessity of evidence collection.

Section 25 and Section 161(2) of the CrPC

• Section 25: Confessions made to a police officer are inadmissible.
• Section 161(2) of the CrPC: While being examined by authorities, a person is obliged to answer all questions truthfully except those which could incriminate them.

Compulsion and Protection under Article 20(3)

Definition of Compulsion

Compulsion must be a physical, objective action, not merely a mental state. If external processes influence a person’s mind making the statement involuntary, it is considered compulsion.

Key Judgments

• State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961): Mere custody does not imply compulsion.
• Ghazi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1966): Statements obtained through third-degree methods are inadmissible.
• Yusufalli v. State of Maharashtra (1968): Statements made without knowing they are being recorded are admissible.
• R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973): Telephonic conversations recorded with one party’s consent are admissible if obtained without coercion.

Section 313 of the CrPC

Allows courts to question the accused, and the responses can be considered, but they do not replace evidence provided by the prosecution.

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

The Supreme Court held that certain scientific techniques like narco analysis and polygraph tests have a testimonial character and are protected under Article 20(3).

Applicability Beyond Criminal Proceedings

• Civil Cases: Article 20(3) does not apply to civil cases, as held in Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003).
• Administrative Investigations: Article 20(3) also does not extend to administrative investigations, even if they aim to determine if an individual has committed an offence.

Protection Against Conviction under Procedural Laws

Res Judicata

• Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Prevents re-litigation of the same issue between the same parties once it has been decided by a competent court.
• Principles:
• Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: No one should be vexed twice for the same cause.
• Interest republicae ut sit finis litium: It is in the interest of the state that there be an end to litigation.
• Res judicata pro veritate accipitur: A matter adjudged is accepted as true.

Double Jeopardy

• Section 300 of the CrPC: Extends the protection against double jeopardy to both previous acquittal and conviction, while Article 20(2) of the Constitution is limited to prosecution followed by a conviction.

Issue Estoppel

Prevents re-litigation of specific issues that have been conclusively determined in a prior case, focusing on finality in legal proceedings.

Relevancy of Previous Judgments

• Section 40 of the Evidence Act: Judgments preventing subsequent trials are relevant.
• Section 41 of the Evidence Act: Judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency jurisdiction are conclusive proof of legal character or title.
• Section 42 and 43 of the Evidence Act: Judgments on matters of public nature or those not covered under Sections 40-42 are relevant if their existence is a fact in issue.

Judgments in Rem vs. Judgments in Personam

• Judgment in Rem: Affects the rights of all individuals and is binding on the entire world.
• Judgment in Personam: Enforceable against specific individuals or parties involved in the suit.

Conclusion

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution stands as a vital safeguard against the abuse of power, ensuring that individuals accused of committing offences are protected from self-incrimination and guaranteed fair treatment under the law. Its importance has only increased in the modern digital age, where advanced techniques like the NARCO Analysis Test and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) pose new threats to personal rights. The proactive role of the Supreme Court of India in expanding and reinforcing these protections through landmark judgments underscores the country’s commitment to justice and human rights.

As India continues to grow as a global power, adhering to these fundamental principles not only reinforces its democratic values but also upholds its reputation on the international stage. Remembering Mahatma Gandhi’s words, “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members,” it is imperative to continually safeguard the rights enshrined in Article 20, ensuring a just and equitable society for all.