Constitution of Bharat: Article 20: Part 7

 Here are some landmark judgments on Article 20 of the Indian Constitution before the Emergency period:

1. Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab (1955): This case dealt with the principle of ex-post facto laws under Article 20(1). The Supreme Court held that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, did not impose retrospective liability as it only required the accused to prove the legitimacy of assets acquired before the Act came into force.

2. Ratanlal v. State of Punjab (1959): This case involved a juvenile offender and the application of the Prohibition of Offenders Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act could not be applied retrospectively to the accused, as it would violate Article 20(1).

3. Kedar Nath v. State of Bengal (1951): This case focused on the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2). The Supreme Court held that the accused could not be tried again for the same offense after being acquitted by a competent court.

4. Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1958): This case involved the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The Supreme Court ruled that the accused could not be compelled to give self-incriminating statements.

5. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010): This case reaffirmed the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The Supreme Court held that the accused could not be subjected to narco-analysis, polygraph tests, or brain mapping without their consent.

These cases highlight the judiciary's commitment to protecting the fundamental rights of individuals under Article 20 of the Indian Constitution.