Article 20 of Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution, a comprehensive document enshrining the fundamental principles of democracy, provides robust protections to individuals, particularly in criminal law. Among these, Article 20 stands as a critical safeguard for those accused of crimes, ensuring fairness, justice, and protection against arbitrary state actions. 

Understanding Article 20 of the Indian Constitution

Article 20, part of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, embodies protections to ensure fair treatment of individuals accused of crimes. The article contains three clauses:

1. Prohibition of Retrospective Criminal Laws (Ex-Post-Facto Laws): No person shall be convicted of any offence except for a violation of the law in force at the time of the act. Moreover, no one can be subjected to a penalty greater than what was prescribed by the law in force at the time of the offence.
2. Protection Against Double Jeopardy: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
3. Protection Against Self-Incrimination: No accused individual shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves.

Article 20(1): Prohibition of Retrospective Criminal Laws

The first clause of Article 20 ensures that no person can be convicted or penalised for an act that was not considered an offence when it was committed. This provision prohibits ex-post-facto laws in criminal cases—laws that impose penalties retrospectively.

Scope and Implications

• Conviction and Punishment: The prohibition applies to conviction and punishment, ensuring no individual faces penalties under laws enacted after the alleged offence. For example, if an act was legal when performed, subsequent criminalisation cannot retroactively penalise the person.
• Civil and Tax Laws Excluded: The prohibition does not extend to civil or tax laws, allowing the state to impose retrospective taxation or civil liabilities.

Judicial Interpretations

• Rao Shiva Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh (1955): The Supreme Court affirmed the prohibition against retrospective criminal laws as a fundamental safeguard.
• Hatisingh Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1960): Retrospective imposition of civil liabilities was upheld, distinguishing between criminal and non-criminal laws.

Exceptions

While Article 20(1) protects against retroactive criminal laws, it permits procedural changes in trials. For instance:

• Changes in court jurisdiction or procedural methods do not violate Article 20(1).
• Preventive detention and demands for security remain outside its purview.

Article 20(2): Protection Against Double Jeopardy

The second clause of Article 20 enshrines the principle of double jeopardy, ensuring that no individual is prosecuted and punished twice for the same offence. This provision derives from the Latin maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no one shall be punished twice for the same cause).

Scope of Protection

• Judicial Proceedings Only: Double jeopardy protection applies exclusively to proceedings before judicial tribunals or courts, not administrative or departmental actions.
• Same Offence: The clause safeguards against repeated prosecution for the same offence based on identical facts.

Judicial Interpretations

• Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953): The Supreme Court ruled that departmental actions, such as confiscation by customs authorities, do not amount to prosecution. Hence, subsequent criminal proceedings are permissible.
• Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954): This case emphasised that the clause applies only to judicial punishments, not administrative penalties.

Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Section 300 of the CrPC complements Article 20(2) by barring trials for the same offence or any other offence based on the same facts. However, it has a broader scope as it covers both convictions and acquittals.

Exceptions

• Distinct Offences: If distinct offences arise from the same set of facts but fall under different laws, double jeopardy does not apply. For example, offences under criminal and tax statutes may coexist.
• Retrials in Exceptional Cases: Courts may order retrials to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Article 20(3): Protection Against Self-Incrimination

The third clause of Article 20 guarantees the right against self-incrimination, preventing individuals from being compelled to provide evidence against themselves. This principle aligns with due process and is integral to ensuring fairness in criminal trials.

Scope of Protection

• Oral and Documentary Evidence: Protection extends to both oral testimony and documentary evidence that may incriminate the accused.
• Applicability to Criminal Proceedings: The clause applies exclusively to criminal cases and not civil disputes.
• Voluntary Statements: Evidence voluntarily provided by the accused is admissible and does not violate Article 20(3).

Judicial Interpretations

• State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961): The Supreme Court ruled that non-testimonial evidence, such as fingerprints or blood samples, does not fall under self-incrimination protections.
• Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010): The court held that involuntary administration of tests like narcoanalysis and polygraph violates Article 20(3).
• Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020): Confessions made to officers under the NDPS Act were deemed inadmissible as they violated the right against self-incrimination.

Exceptions

• Material Evidence Collection: Compelled production of fingerprints, blood samples, or physical exhibits is permissible and does not breach Article 20(3).
• Judicial Oversight: Evidence obtained with the accused’s consent and under judicial supervision is admissible.

Associated Concepts: Bail, Parole, and Furlough

While Article 20 of the Indian Constitution safeguards individuals during criminal proceedings, other legal provisions deal with temporary releases of accused or convicted individuals. These mechanisms ensure balance between individual rights and judicial oversight.

Bail

Bail is a conditional pre-trial release of an accused, ensuring their presence at trial. It is granted to prevent unnecessary detention while balancing public and judicial interests.

• Regular Bail: Granted under Sections 437 and 439 of the CrPC to individuals already under arrest and in custody.
• Anticipatory Bail: Provided under Section 438 of the CrPC as a pre-arrest safeguard against potential detention.
• Interim Bail: Temporary release until the final decision on regular or anticipatory bail is made.

Parole

Parole is the temporary release of a convicted prisoner under specific conditions, such as good behaviour and periodic reporting.

Key Features:

• Parole is discretionary and not a legal right.
• It involves conditions like reporting to authorities and refraining from illegal activities.
• Typically, parole periods are longer than furloughs.

Furlough

Furlough is a short-term release of a prisoner, usually granted for specific personal reasons such as attending a family function or visiting a sick relative.

Key Features:

• Furlough is a legal right, unlike parole.
• It aims to maintain a prisoner’s social and family ties, promoting rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Landmark Cases and Their Impact

Several landmark cases have shaped the interpretation and application of Article 20 of the Indian Constitution, ensuring robust protections for individuals within the criminal justice system. Below are some pivotal judgments and their impacts:

M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)

M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra was instrumental in defining the scope of protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The Supreme Court held that the right extends not only to oral testimony but also to documentary evidence and other incriminating materials. The court emphasised that individuals cannot be compelled to provide evidence against themselves, setting a broad precedent for interpreting self-incrimination. This judgment underscored the principle that the state cannot coerce individuals into implicating themselves, thereby strengthening procedural fairness in investigations and trials.

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani reaffirmed the right to remain silent under Article 20(3). The court ruled that individuals could not be forced to answer questions during an investigation if their responses had the potential to incriminate them. Mrs. Nandini Satpathy, a former Chief Minister, refused to answer certain questions during a vigilance inquiry, invoking her constitutional rights. The court held that any form of compulsion to extract incriminating information violated the fundamental right against self-incrimination. This case significantly broadened the scope of Article 20(3) and highlighted its application during the investigation phase.

Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal (1953)

Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal case addressed the retrospective application of criminal laws under Article 20(1). The court ruled that no person could be punished for an act that was not an offence at the time of its commission. This judgment reinforced the prohibition of ex-post-facto criminal laws and safeguarded individuals from arbitrary legislative actions. It emphasised that retrospective criminalisation undermines justice and fairness, critical principles in a democratic society.

Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953)

Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay case clarified the scope of protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2). The Supreme Court distinguished between judicial proceedings and departmental actions. It held that proceedings by customs authorities did not constitute prosecution by a judicial tribunal, and thus, further criminal prosecution was permissible. This judgment established the boundaries of double jeopardy protections, ensuring they apply only to judicial punishments.

Significance of Article 20

Article 20 serves as a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence in India, balancing state authority with individual rights. Its provisions uphold the principles of natural justice, ensure procedural fairness, and protect against abuse of power.

Key Contributions:

• Fairness in Law: Prohibits arbitrary and retroactive application of criminal laws.
• Protection of Dignity: Safeguards individuals from coercion and abuse in criminal investigations.
• Judicial Integrity: Ensures judicial proceedings remain impartial and just.

Conclusion

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution exemplifies the commitment to fairness, justice, and individual rights within the criminal justice system. By prohibiting retroactive criminal laws, protecting against double jeopardy, and upholding the right against self-incrimination, it ensures that the state’s power does not trample on the fundamental liberties of its citizens. The article’s alignment with international standards underscores India’s dedication to upholding human rights and the rule of law. As society evolves, the robust framework of Article 20 remains a vital safeguard for justice and equality.