Article 20 of the Indian Constitution
Article 20 – Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences
(1) 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 that law.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Now, let’s explain each clause in simple terms!
1. No Ex Post Facto Law (Article 20(1))
📜 What it means:
- A person cannot be punished for an act that was not illegal when they did it.
- If a law is passed later, it cannot be used to punish past actions.
🔍 Clause has 2 parts:
(i) No person shall be convicted for an act unless it was a crime when it was done.
👉 You cannot be punished for doing something that was not a crime at the time you did it.
(ii) No person shall be given a greater punishment than what was prescribed when the act was committed.
👉 If the law changes later and increases the punishment, it can’t be applied to past actions.
🔑 Example:
If someone did something in 2005 which was not a crime then, but a law in 2010 makes it a crime,
➡️ They cannot be punished for it under the 2010 law.
If a crime had 1-year jail term in 2005, and the law was changed in 2010 to 5 years,
➡️ The person can only be punished with 1-year jail, not 5 years.
❌ Limitations:
- This applies only to criminal laws (not civil laws like taxes or contracts).
- But if a new law reduces punishment, the lighter punishment can be applied.
2. No Double Jeopardy (Article 20(2))
📜 What it means:
- A person cannot be punished twice for the same crime.
- Once a person is convicted (found guilty) or acquitted (found innocent), they cannot be tried again for the same offense.
❌ Limitations:
- Protection available only in Proceedings before court or Judicial tribunal.
- This applies only if the person has already been convicted or acquitted by a court.
- If an employee commits fraud in a government office, the government can take action against him separately even if he was punished in court.
📌 Difference from US & UK:
In the USA/UK, double jeopardy applies even if the person was acquitted or convicted.
In India, protection only applies if already punished.
3. No Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3))
📜 What it means:
- A person cannot be forced to confess or give evidence against themselves.
- The police or court cannot make an accused person speak or write a statement proving they are guilty.
✅ Example:
If a person is arrested for murder, the police cannot force him to admit it. He has the right to remain silent.
❌ Limitations:
- This only applies to verbal and written confessions.
- The police can collect physical evidence like fingerprints, blood samples, or DNA.
- A person can be asked to participate in an identification parade (where witnesses identify the accused).
The protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution applies only to personal testimony or statements. However, it does not extend to certain types of evidence collection.
What is NOT protected under Article 20(3)?
The following do not violate the right against self-incrimination:
Compulsory production of material objects – If the police or court orders you to produce a physical object (like a weapon, stolen items, or documents), you must do so. This is not considered self-incrimination.
Compulsion to give a thumb impression – The authorities can take your thumb impression, fingerprints, or handwriting samples because they are physical evidence, not a statement made by you.
Compulsory exhibition of the body – The police can ask you to participate in an identification parade, take your blood sample, or check scars, birthmarks, or injuries on your body to match evidence. This does not count as self-incrimination.
In short:
You are protected from being forced to speak or write a confession against yourself, but you cannot refuse to provide physical evidence like fingerprints, blood samples, or objects.
🧠 Narcoanalysis, Polygraph, Brain Mapping – What about these?
These are scientific methods used during criminal investigations.
🔬 1. Polygraph Test (Lie Detector)
Measures body reactions (heartbeat, BP, skin etc.) to check if a person is lying.
💉 2. Narcoanalysis
Uses a “truth serum” drug to make a person drowsy and talk openly.
🧠 3. Brain Mapping (P300 Test)
Measures brain activity to see if a person is hiding something.
🏛️ SC in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010):
All these violate Article 20(3) if done without consent.
They are testimonial compulsion.
Also violate Article 21 (Right to life & dignity).
🧾 Controversies Related to Article 20
🔹 1. Vodafone Case – Retrospective Taxation
🧠 Background:
In 2007, Vodafone (a UK-based company) acquired Hutchison’s stake in an Indian telecom company.
The transaction happened between two foreign companies, but the business assets were in India.
The Indian government demanded capital gains tax, saying this deal involved indirect transfer of Indian assets.
⚖️ Supreme Court Verdict:
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vodafone, saying no tax was applicable under the law at that time.
🔄 Government’s Response:
The government amended the Income Tax Act retrospectively from 1962 through the Finance Act, 2012.
This allowed the government to legally demand tax from Vodafone, even though the law didn’t exist at the time of the deal.
📌 Why was this allowed?
Because Article 20(1) only prohibits retrospective criminal laws, not tax or civil laws.
So, the government can make tax laws with retrospective effect.
💡 Expert Committee Suggestion:
Parthasarathi Shome Committee advised that:
Retrospective tax amendments should be avoided.
If not withdrawn, penalty and interest should at least be waived off.
🔹 2. Nirbhaya Case – Juvenile Justice Amendment
🧠 Background:
In December 2012, a brutal gang rape in Delhi (Nirbhaya case) shocked the country.
One of the six accused was a juvenile (below 18 years) and got a lighter punishment under Juvenile Justice Act.
⚖️ Public Reaction:
There was huge public demand to reduce the juvenile age limit in serious crimes like rape and murder.
📜 Government Action:
The law was later amended to allow juveniles (16–18 years) to be tried as adults in heinous crimes.
❌ But here’s the key point:
This new law could not be applied to the Nirbhaya case, because:
Under Article 20(1), harsher punishments cannot be applied retrospectively.
So, the juvenile convict got only 3 years as per the law existing at that time.
Final Summary in a Table
| Clause | Protection Given | What is NOT Protected? |
|---|---|---|
| 20(1) | No ex post facto law (no punishment for past acts if the law was made later) | If a new law reduces punishment, it can be applied. |
| 20(2) | No double jeopardy (no punishment twice for the same offense) | If the person is not convicted or acquitted, they can be tried again. |
| 20(3) | No self-incrimination (no forced confession) | Physical evidence like thumbprints, DNA, and blood samples can be taken. |
Why is Article 20 Important?
- It protects individual rights in criminal cases.
- It ensures fair trials and prevents misuse of power.
- It stops the government from punishing people unfairly.
This is the detailed yet simple explanation of Article 20. Let me know if you need more clarity! 😊
