Ladies and gentlemen, today we embark on a comprehensive journey into the realm of legal protections guaranteed by Article 20 of the Indian Constitution. This cornerstone of our legal framework provides crucial safeguards against arbitrary and excessive punishment for accused individuals, regardless of their citizenship or legal status. Let us delve into the intricacies of these protections and their implications for the administration of justice in our country. 1. No Ex-Post-Facto Law: Article 20(a) unequivocally prohibits the application of ex-post-facto laws in criminal proceedings. An ex-post-facto law is one that imposes penalties retrospectively, i.e., upon acts already committed or increases penalties for such acts. This provision ensures that individuals cannot be punished for actions that were not illegal at the time of commission. However, it's essential to note that this restriction applies exclusively to criminal laws and does not extend to civil or tax laws. Thus, while a civil liability or tax can be imposed retrospectively, criminal penalties cannot. Furthermore, Article 20(a) safeguards against both conviction and sentencing under ex-post-facto criminal laws but does not prohibit the trial itself. This principle was affirmed in the landmark case of Keshav Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1965 SC 745), where the Supreme Court held that the protection against ex-post-facto laws extends to both substantive and procedural aspects of criminal law. 2. No Double Jeopardy: Article 20(b) enshrines the principle of double jeopardy, preventing individuals from being prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once. This safeguard ensures that once an individual has been tried and acquitted or convicted of an offense, they cannot be subjected to repeated legal proceedings for the same alleged misconduct. However, it's crucial to recognize that this protection is only available in proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal and does not extend to departmental or administrative authorities, as they are not of a judicial nature. The Supreme Court reinforced this principle in the case of K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 266), where it held that the protection against double jeopardy is a fundamental right under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and is applicable to all criminal proceedings. 3. No Self-Incrimination: Article 20(c) grants individuals the right against self-incrimination, ensuring that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. This protection extends to both oral and documentary evidence presented in criminal proceedings. However, certain exceptions exist, including the compulsory production of material objects, compulsion to provide thumb impressions, specimen signatures, blood specimens, or compulsory exhibition of the body. The Supreme Court, in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978 SCR (3) 608), emphasized the importance of this protection, holding that compelling a person to give self-incriminating evidence violates the right to personal liberty and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In summary, Article 20 of the Indian Constitution serves as a bulwark against arbitrary and excessive punishment, guaranteeing essential rights to accused individuals. #UPSC #IASprep #civilserviceexam #IASexamination #IASaspirants #UPSCjourney #IASexam #civilservice #IASgoals #UPSC2024 #IAS2024 #civilservant #IAScoaching #aUPSCmotivation #IASmotivation #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theiascompanion/