Protection in respect of

Conviction for Offences:

 Introduction

Article 20 of the Constitution of India is a fundamental right which safeguards the rights
of an accused/convict. It lays down three concepts:
 Article 20(1): Ex-post-facto law
 Article 20(2): Double Jeopardy
 Article 20(3): Right against self-incrimination 
 The basic crux of these provisions are:

 First, it establishes that no one should be convicted for any offence other than those
violating the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence and also, one
couldn’t be penalised with a greater punishment than what existed at the time of the
commission of the act.
 Second, no one could be convicted and punished more than once for the same offence
involving the same set of facts.
 Third, no one should be compelled to produce such evidence and information which
could be used against him during trial incompetent judicial tribunals.
 Note-

 Article 20 is among those Articles of the Indian Constitution, which can’t be put aside
even during an emergency. Thus, forms a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution.
 Article 20(1): Ex-post-facto law 

Every law has two natures

 Prospective and
 Retrospective

A law is prospective in nature if legislation is made in the purview of future acts. A

retrospective law governs the past acts of the convicts. It grants a prior transaction different
legal consequences than those that applied to it at the time it occurred or transpired. 
 Ex Post Facto laws are passed after a crime has been committed, making what was
previously legal now criminal. Speaking, it's a law that makes such previously legal
behaviour illegal.
 For instance, suppose "A" stole on November 17th, which was not illegal on that specific
day. The legislature passed a measure making theft an offense on November 20th. Ex Post
Facto laws held A accountable for whatever punishment the legislature had established;
therefore, A was required to take the same punishment under the new laws even though he
was unaware of the consequences of his actions at the time he committed them.
 There are two aspects in Article 20 (1). 

 According to the first aspect, no one may be found guilty of a crime unless they
committed an illegal or forbidden act when the relevant law was passed. Any law that is in
effect when the act is performed must be implemented, and violators must be punished
and brought to justice for their actions. This justifies using the phrase "law in force" in
Article 20 (1). 
 A law passed after an act has been committed indicates that an act that was lawful before
the legislation's enactment may now be considered unlawful. However, Article 20 (1) will
protect the act's interests and prevent the perpetrator from being held accountable for the
law's violations. 
 Effects-

 Any individual is shielded from a punishment more than that which was imposed for their
act at the time they committed it under the second clause of Article 20 (1). 
 Due to an ex post facto law, no one shall be exposed to a harsher penalty than what he
would have already faced for the previous act at that specific time. 
 Article 20 (1) only prohibits the convictions or sentences and not the trial.
 Kedar Nath v. West Bengal State

 The Apex Court, in this decision, stated that it is always preferable to conduct things with a
prospective consequence whenever any action is made a criminal offence or the penalty or
punishment for any crime is raised. According to Article 20, any such law cannot be
applied retrospectively. However, this paragraph does not prevent the trial itself; it merely
forbids the sentencing and convicting processes.
 Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 2015
SC 2098)

 involved Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the court opined that, only
conviction and/or punishments under an ex post facto law is prohibited under Article 20
 and not the trial or prosecution itself. Also, trial under a different procedure than what
existed during the commission of the act doesn’t come under the ambit of the same and
can’t be struck down as unconstitutional.
 Double jeopardy: Clause (2) of Article 20

 “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa”

 The Doctrine of Double Jeopardy, which traces back its origin to American jurisprudence
of punishment, means that ‘no person can be prosecuted and punished twice for the same
offence in subsequent proceedings’.
  Article 20 (2), which reads that no one could be convicted and punished more than once
for the same offence involving the same set of facts guarantees against the multiple
convictions and Double jeopardy.
It should be underlined that only when the accused has already been "prosecuted" and
"punished" once does Article 20 offer protection from double punishment. Even if the two
offences share a trait, this rule does not bar further trials and convictions for a different crime.
 Ingredients of Double Jeopardy 
 The person should be already accused of an offense 
 The prosecution for that offense must be going on 
 The result of that prosecution must be punishment 
 Venkataraman v. Union of India

 Supreme Court of India established that this provision deals exclusively with Judicial
punishments and provides that no person is prosecuted twice by the judicial authorities.
 State of Bombay v. Maqbool Hussain

 The accused was in possession of some lex loci gold at the time. The customs officials
seized his gold. When he was later charged with the crime and appeared in court, the issue
of whether this amounted to double jeopardy was raised. The Court ruled that the Customs
Authority's proceedings are not comparable to those of any court or tribunal. It was decided
that the departmental proceedings are distinct from those of the judicial court and
autonomous.
  Double jeopardy protects against:

 a prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal

 a prosecution for the same offense after a conviction, and
 more than one punishment for the same offense.
 Circumstances under which double jeopardy
protections do not apply:

 A defendant can be charged with two identical but separate crimes. If, for example, a
defendant is acquitted of selling drugs to Tim on October 22, the defendant can still be tried
for selling drugs to Paul on October 22. These incidents are viewed as separate crimes, so
double jeopardy does not apply.
 As noted above, double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases. However, if a defendant is
tried for a criminal case, double jeopardy does not protect them from also being tried for a
related offense in civil court. For instance, if the state brings murder charges against a
defendant, the family of the victim may also sue the defendant for punitive damages.
 Double jeopardy does not prevent multiple charges for the same crime from 
different jurisdictions. If a crime violated the laws of multiple states, then each state may
press charges. Likewise, if a crime violated both state and federal law, then it would be
allowable to have two criminal suits for the same crime.
 Article 20(3): Right against self-
incrimination 

 Another question that strikes our mind is, what is article 20(3) of the constitution? Under
Article 20(3), the accused cannot be made to testify against himself. At all times,
including during the trial stage, the protection is accessible against physical and mental
compulsion. It is important to remember that protection only applies to personal
knowledge. Things that can be physically manifested, such as my watch, my thumbprint,
or a blood sample, are not included.
 It describes that no one could be forced to utter and provide such information or evidence orally
or by documentary means which could be used against himself during the further trial procedure.
 Prohibition against self-incrimination could only be put into effect if the person is accused of a
criminal offence. This doctrine could not be invoked for cases other than criminal cases. 
 Article 20 (3) also lays out that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness in his/her own
prosecution or case. This is also embodied in the American Constitution by virtue of 
5th Amendment into it. Also, the authorities can not compel the accused to produce evidence,
which can be used against his trial. Those evidence can be Oral or Documentary. 
 Satish Chandra vs. M.P. Sharma

 In this instance, it was decided that the term "Witness" covers both oral and written
testimony, as used in this Article. Authorities are free to search any location and
confiscate any document. Any information that the accused provides voluntarily is
acceptable.
 The authorities can not compel the accused to produce evidence, which can be used
against his trial. Those evidence can be Oral or Documentary. However, an exception to
this lies under Section 91 of CrPC which gives authority to a court or an officer to issue
an order demanding documents that were under the possession of the accused. 
 Another provision which guarantees prohibition against self-incrimination is 
Section 161 (2) of CrPC, which says that while being examined by the authorities, a
person is bound to answer all the questions truly excepting those which have a propensity
to be used against the person himself later during trial.
 These protections are available to all the people i.e. Indians as well as foreigners and thus
forms the bedrock of the Indian Constitution and guarantees basic human rights to the
convicted and accused people.
 Its availability even during when an emergency is being imposed under 
Article 352 of the Indian Constitution is what makes it unique and so much important for
the discharge of democratic values.
Thank You