Article 20 of Indian Constitution: Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences

One of the hallmarks of a fair and just society is the protection of individual liberties against executive or legislative overreach, especially in criminal law. Article 20 of the Indian Constitution stands as a crucial safeguard, ensuring that individuals are protected in respect of conviction for offences. Embedded in Part III—the “Fundamental Rights” chapter—Article 20 addresses concerns that go to the heart of criminal justice: protection against retrospective laws, double jeopardy, and compelled self-incrimination. As India’s legal landscape has evolved, Article 20’s relevance remains central in upholding civil liberties, maintaining procedural fairness, and building trust in law enforcement and judicial processes.

Dissecting Article 20: Core Protections Explained

Article 20 is segmented into three primary clauses, each providing specific legal shields. Together, they embody critical principles that have shaped not only Indian jurisprudence but have resonances in democratic societies globally.

Protection Against Ex Post Facto Laws (Article 20(1))

Article 20(1) stipulates that 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 what was applicable at that time. In simple terms, the law cannot retrospectively criminalize an act or impose a harsher penalty than the law permitted when the act was committed.

Real-World Scenario

Consider a legislative change that increases the penalty for a certain act from two years to five years of imprisonment. If a person committed the act when the penalty was two years, they can not be sentenced to the new, stricter five-year term. This protection fosters legal certainty and prevents arbitrary exercise of state power.

“Retrospective criminal legislation undermines public confidence in rule of law. Article 20(1) ensures that individuals are judged only by the law as it stood when the alleged act was committed.”
—Justice R.F. Nariman, Supreme Court of India

Double Jeopardy Protection (Article 20(2))

Article 20(2) lays down that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This is the constitutional embodiment of the principle of double jeopardy, common in legal systems worldwide.

Interpreting Double Jeopardy in Practice

This protection is activated when:
– The person has been prosecuted and punished for an offence.
– There is a subsequent attempt to prosecute or punish the person again for the same offence.

It is important to note that a person can face departmental or civil proceedings separately—even after an acquittal or conviction in criminal court—if the subject matter differs. For example, if a government officer is tried for bribery and acquitted, they may still face an internal disciplinary inquiry based on administrative grounds.

Protection Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3))

Article 20(3) states that “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This right is fundamental in preventing forced confessions, torture, or coercion during investigations and trials.

Deepening the Understanding

• It applies only to an “accused” in criminal proceedings.
• Protection is against both physical and psychological compulsion.
• Witnesses, if not accused, may not invoke this protection.

In practice, this means that law enforcement agencies cannot force confessions or extracts that would amount to the individual testifying against themselves. However, physical evidence like fingerprints, DNA samples, or signatures is not covered.

Article 20 in Indian Legal Practice: Key Judgments and Application

Indian courts have adjudicated numerous cases interpreting Article 20’s nuances, ensuring it remains robust despite changing times.

Signature Cases and Judicial Reasoning

• Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal (1953): Clarified the retrospective criminalization principle by holding that penal provisions cannot have retrospective effect unless explicitly intended by the legislature.
• Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953): Distinguished between customs proceedings and criminal prosecutions, holding that double jeopardy protection does not blanket-cover all proceedings—only subsequent ‘criminal’ prosecutions after an earlier criminal judgment.
• State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961): Interpreted Article 20(3) to clarify that the right against self-incrimination does not preclude compelling an accused to provide physical evidence.

Beyond this, courts have repeatedly asserted that these protections are non-derogable, meaning even during emergencies, Article 20’s guarantees cannot be suspended.

Article 20 Compared: Global Context and Indian Adaptation

While Article 20 is distinctly Indian in wording, it takes inspiration from international legal standards, echoing the protections of instruments like the Fifth Amendment in the United States Constitution and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Key Similarities and Differences

• Ex Post Facto Laws: Both Indian and US Constitutions proscribe retroactive criminal laws. The European Convention on Human Rights grants similar protections.
• Double Jeopardy: The “ne bis in idem” principle features in several jurisdictions, ensuring individuals are not tried or punished again once acquitted or convicted.
• Self-Incrimination: While the Indian Constitution confines this right to “accused” persons, the US Fifth Amendment is broader, covering all witnesses.

International best practices reinforce the universal consensus on these protections as pillars of fair trial rights—a testament to their enduring value.

Contemporary Relevance and Challenges

Indian society faces ongoing debates around the scope, application, and potential limitations of Article 20 in a digital age. Increasing use of technology in policing and investigation—like data extraction from smartphones or compelled disclosure of passwords—raises complex questions.

Emerging Issues

• Digital Evidence and Self-Incrimination: Courts must determine whether compelling biometric unlocks or decryption violates Article 20(3).
• Overlap of Proceedings and Double Jeopardy: The rise of parallel processes (e.g., regulatory fines and criminal prosecution) tests the limits of double jeopardy protections.
• Amendment and Reform: While Article 20 has been untouched since inception, ongoing legal scholarship suggests periodic review to adapt to technological and global developments.

Conclusion: Article 20’s Enduring Value

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution is unwavering in its commitment to justice and individual liberties during criminal prosecution. By prohibiting retrospective punishment, double jeopardy, and compelled self-incrimination, it establishes the bedrock for fair trials and protects citizens against misuse of state power. As India’s justice system adapts to new challenges brought by technology and evolving global standards, Article 20 remains a vital safeguard—a testament to the framers’ foresight and the living spirit of constitutional democracy.

---

FAQs

What are the three main protections under Article 20 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 20 ensures protection against retrospective criminal laws, double jeopardy, and compelled self-incrimination.

Does Article 20 protect witnesses during investigations?
No, the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) applies only to persons accused of an offence, not to all witnesses.

Can Article 20 be suspended during emergencies?
Article 20 is non-derogable; its rights continue to operate even during national emergencies declared under the Constitution.

Are departmental or civil proceedings restricted by Article 20’s double jeopardy clause?
No, the double jeopardy protection applies only to criminal prosecutions, not to parallel civil or departmental inquiries.

Does compelling biometric data (like fingerprints) from an accused violate Article 20(3)?
Indian courts have generally held that providing physical evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, does not violate Article 20(3), which protects only against testimonial compulsion.

How does Article 20 differ from the US Fifth Amendment?
While both protect against self-incrimination, the US Fifth Amendment extends the privilege to all witnesses in criminal cases, whereas Article 20(3) is limited to the accused person.