Constitution of Bharat: Article 20: Part 6

 

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with protections in respect of conviction for offenses, does not directly lead to the enactment of specific laws by the central or state governments since it enshrines fundamental rights. However, its principles influence various legislative measures, court procedures, and legal practices. Here are some examples of how central and state enactments interact with or are shaped by the principles of Article 20:

Central Enactments:

1. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860:
   • Although predating the Constitution, amendments and interpretations of the IPC are influenced by Article 20, particularly in ensuring that no one is punished under laws not in force at the time of the act (Section 6 of IPC reflects this).
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973:
   • Section 300: Deals with the principle of double jeopardy, ensuring that no one is tried twice for the same offense. This is in line with Article 20(2).
   • Sections 161-162: Limit the scope of police inquiries to avoid compelling an accused to incriminate themselves, aligning with Article 20(3).
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
   • Section 27: Provides for the admissibility of certain information given by an accused in custody, which must be balanced with the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
4. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
   • While this Act deals with corruption offenses, amendments and judicial interpretations ensure compliance with Article 20, especially in the context of procedural safeguards.

State Enactments:

• State Police Acts or Rules:
  • Various states have their own police acts or rules which might include regulations on how confessions or statements are recorded, ensuring they do not violate Article 20(3).
• State Criminal Law Amendments:
  • States might amend or enact laws on subjects like narcotics or local crimes, where these laws must respect the protections against retrospective punishment, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination.

Specific Practices and Judicial Directives:

• Guidelines for Police Custody:
  • Following cases like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, guidelines have been issued to ensure that police interrogations do not infringe on rights like those under Article 20(3).
• Judicial Interpretations in State High Courts:
  • High Courts often interpret or clarify how state laws should align with constitutional protections like those in Article 20. For instance, they might rule on local laws concerning confessions or the application of new penalties.

Recent Legislative Trends:

• Criminal Law Reforms: The introduction of new criminal codes or amendments, like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (replacing IPC), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (replacing CrPC), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (replacing the Indian Evidence Act), are all expected to respect the principles of Article 20, ensuring no retrospective criminalization, no double jeopardy, and protecting against compelled self-incrimination.

While these laws and practices are not "based" on Article 20 in the sense of being direct enactments due to the article, they are shaped, constrained, and interpreted in light of the protections offered by Article 20. This ensures that legislative actions at both central and state levels respect the constitutional rights against retrospective criminal legislation, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination.