Article 20: Protection in Criminal Cases

Notes

Art. 20 gives protection against arbitrary and excessive punishment to all persons (citizens, foreigners and legal persons). It cannot be suspended even during an Emergency (44th Amendment).

Three protections

20(1) Protection against ex post facto laws: 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, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that prescribed by the law in force at that time.

Applies to criminal laws only; civil and tax laws may be retrospective.
A retrospective law that reduces punishment or benefits the accused is allowed (Rattan Lal v State of Punjab, 1964).

20(2) Protection against double jeopardy: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

The proceeding must be before a court or judicial tribunal, and result in punishment.
Departmental or disciplinary proceedings do not bar a criminal trial (Maqbool Hussain v State of Bombay, 1953).
Acquittal or discharge cases are covered under the CrPC (Sec. 300; Sec. 337 BNSS), which is wider than Art. 20(2).

20(3) Protection against self-incrimination: No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Covers oral and documentary evidence; applies only to an accused, and only against compulsion.
M.P. Sharma (1954): search and seizure does not violate it.
Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961): giving fingerprints, handwriting and specimen signature is not "testimony".
Nandini Satpathy v P.L. Dani (1978): the right to silence extends to the investigation stage.
Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010): involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph and brain-mapping violate Art. 20(3) and Art. 21.

Key Points

Three protections: no retrospective penal law, no double jeopardy, no self-incrimination.
Available to all persons, and cannot be suspended in an Emergency.
Double jeopardy requires prosecution and punishment before a court.
Selvi (2010): narco tests without consent are unconstitutional.
Retrospective benefit to the accused is allowed.

MCQs

Q1. Which case held that involuntary narco-analysis and polygraph tests violate Art. 20(3)?
(a) M.P. Sharma
(b) Kathi Kalu Oghad
(c) Selvi v State of Karnataka
(d) Nandini Satpathy
Ans: (c). 2010.

Q2. Art. 20(1) protects against:
(a) Retrospective civil laws
(b) Retrospective criminal laws that increase penalty
(c) Retrospective tax laws
(d) Double taxation
Ans: (b).

Q3. The protection against double jeopardy under Art. 20(2) applies to:
(a) Departmental enquiries
(b) Prosecution and punishment before a court or judicial tribunal
(c) Civil suits
(d) Any proceeding
Ans: (b).