EX POST FACTO LAWS, DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND PROHIBITION FROM SELF INCRIMINATION (ARTICLE 20)

Article 20 deals with ex post facto laws, double jeopardy and prohibition from self-incrimination.

EX POST FACTO LAWS

Article 20 (1) deals with ex post facto laws.

Ex post facto laws are such laws which changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed before enactment of law. Certain actions may be legal at the time of its occurrence but become illegal after enactment of subsequent law.

In case criminal offences no ex post facto laws can be passed. The Constitution of USA also prohibits enactment of ex post facto laws. For civil wrongs ex post facto laws can be passed. It means that if an was not an offence at the time of its occurrence, it can not be made offence subsequently.

A person cannot inflict penalty for any offence greater than what has been prescribed by law at the time of occurrence of such actions. For example, if maximum punishment for any offence is seven years, then a person cannot be inflicted with punishment of more than seven years.

Article 20 (2) deals with double jeopardy. No person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

This right is based on common law maxim nemo debet bis vexari which means that a man can not be brought to danger for the same offence more than once. Under common law a person can plead autrefois acquit ie plea of acquittal or autrefois convict i.e. plea of conviction in prior trial. In USA also such defences are available to an accused person.

In Indian context right available to a person under Article 2 (20) is narrower in comparison to rights available under common law or USA.  In India, to take such a defense, a person should have been convicted for the same offence. If a person has been acquitted for same offence, defense under Article 20 (2) is not available. 

PROTECTION AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION

Article 20 (3) deals with protection against self-incrimination. No person accused of any offence can be forced to be witness against himself.

In ciriminal trial it is for the prosecution to prove that the accused has committed a crime. An Accused person can not to forced to give evidence against himself. If it is allowed then accused persons may be forced to confess a crime. Article 20 (3) is applicable to oral as well as documentary evidence. It is applicable to proceedings in the court as well as during investigation. 

In Nadini Satpathy Vs. P L Dani  (1978) 2 SCC 424 the Supreme Court held that 20 (3) not only in court room but also during investigation. The Supreme Court also held that Article 20 (3) protects the right of the accused to be silent.

In Selvi Vs State of Karnatka  (2010) 7 SCC 263 the Supreme Court held that application of Scientific techniques like  Brain Electrical Activation Profile, Narco analysis and Polygraphy Examination on the accused are in violation of Article 20 (3).

___________________________________________