ARTICLE 20

Article 20 protects rights of the convict contained in Part III of the Indian Constitution. It provides protection to individuals against unfair and excessive state power. There are three safeguards under the Article, which are: no ex-post facto laws should be applied (acts which are made punishable after commission of offence), protection from double jeopardy (no one can be punished for the same crime twice) and right against self incrimination (no person can be compelled to give evidence against himself).

The principles laid down in Article 20, play a very importent role as they help uphold the democratic values by ensuring that the laws are not used in a harmful way against an individual. Articles 20 and 21 are articles which remain in effect even during the National Emergency (Article 352) of the Indian Constitution.

There are three aspects to the protection provided by Article 20: Firstly, it provides protection against Ex Post Facto Laws, which means that an individual cannot be punished for acts which at the time were not punishable, but were made punishable after the commission of the Act. by doing this it also prohibits the imposition of a penalty greater than what was applicable at the time of the offence; Secondly, it provides protection to individuals from self-incriminating statements, which means that the individual cannot be made to make self-harming statements in the form of confessions, the Right to remain silent also stems from this provision; and lastly, it provides a protection to individuals in the form of protection from rule against double jeopardy, meaning that an individual cannot be punished for the same act done by him twice.

The three aspects to the safeguards provided by Article 20, which are contained in Clause (1), (2) and (3), which are described as follows:

1. Protection from Ex Post Facto Laws: Individual is given protection from retrospective application of laws in India. It literally means “an act done after the occurrence of the other”. The aim is to ensure that individuals are not punished for an act which they did in the past and later the same act was declared a crime.
   • Criminal Law: This protection only applies to Criminal Laws.
   • Example: In case of laws like the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the Black Magic Prohibition Act (Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013) which came in effect as a result of the malpractices in society. According to the protection given in this Article, individuals cannot be punished for an act done by them before the enactment of these laws.
2. Protection from Double Jeopardy: Protects individuals from multiple punishments for the same act done by them. The phrase Double Jeopardy means that “no one should be tried twice in respect of the same matter”. The conditions for seeking protection under the Article are as follows:
   • The person must be accused of an offence
   • Proceedings against such a person must have been initiated at a court.
   • The subsequent proceedings must be from the same offence for which he was prosecuted and punished in the previous proceeding.
3. Protection against Self-incrimination: Under this provision, individuals cannot be compelled to say things or give evidence that could be used against them to establish their guilt. The “right to silence” also finds its origin in Article 20 (3). There are three conditions to claim protection under this article:
   • The person seeking protection under Article 20 (3) must be accused of an offence.
   • The person must be compelled to be a witness against himself
   However, the protection against self-incrimination does not extend to: a) Compulsory production of things which are material to a case. and b) Giving samples like thumb impressions, handwriting impressions, blood samples etc.

Article 20 is seen as the defender of fair trials. The Supreme Court of the Country has played a very important role in ensuring its implementation, ensuring that people are not burdened with lengthy and repetitive trials and people are not punished more severely for their actions which they committed before a stricter punishment was imposed. However, the Court has also not given it such a wide interpretation that investigating authorities have no power left. In the Selvi Case (2010) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that narco-analysis, polygraph tests and brain-mapping if administered against the will of the individual would amount to violation of Article 20(3). This gave validity to consensual brain mapping techniques. These rights under Article 20 of the Constitution are crucial as the court interprets them to balance the need for a proper and fair investigation while safeguarding individual liberties as something too important to be interfered with.