VoxJuris
Home › Acts › Constitution › Part III › Article 20

Constitution of India · Part III: Fundamental Rights · Right to Freedom

Article 20: Protection in respect of conviction for offences

In plain words

No one can be convicted except for breaking a law in force when the act was done, or given a heavier penalty than the law then allowed. No one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. No accused person can be forced to be a witness against themselves.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

Official text

(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the official text of the Constitution of India. As amended up to the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023. Text as on 10 September 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.

Understanding this article

Article 20 gives three protections to persons accused of offences: no ex post facto criminal laws, no double jeopardy, and no compulsion to be a witness against oneself. Together with Article 21, it cannot be suspended even during an Emergency.

Clause (1): no retrospective criminal law

No one can be convicted for an act that was not an offence when committed, or given a heavier penalty than the law then allowed. The bar is on retrospective punishment; a law that reduces punishment can benefit an accused retrospectively. Procedural changes, such as a change of trial forum, are not covered.

Clause (2): double jeopardy

No one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The protection applies only where there was a prior prosecution and punishment before a court or judicial tribunal. Departmental or administrative proceedings do not count, and a different offence arising from the same facts may be tried.

Clause (3): self incrimination

No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. To be a witness means imparting personal knowledge through oral or written statements. Giving fingerprints, specimen signatures or blood samples is not being a witness, so it does not violate clause (3).

Narco analysis and similar tests

Involuntary narco analysis, polygraph and brain mapping tests violate Article 20(3), because they extract testimonial responses. If the person consents, the results are still not evidence by themselves, though material discovered through them may be used under section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808

    A Constitution Bench held that "To be a witness" means imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts by oral or written statements by a person with personal knowledge; giving specimen handwriting or fingerprints is not testimonial compulsion.

  • Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263

    Involuntary administration of narco analysis, polygraph and BEAP tests violates Article 20(3); material later discovered with the help of voluntarily administered tests can be admitted under section 27 of the Evidence Act.

  • Nagarajan v. The State of Tamil Nadu 2025 INSC 703

    Only retroactive criminal legislation creating offences or enhancing punishment is prohibited by Article 20(1); an amendment reducing punishment can benefit the accused.

  • P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 INSC 1007

    Recalled that Article 20(2) requires a prior prosecution and punishment for the same offence before a court or judicial tribunal; departmental or administrative inquiries do not attract it.

Common mistakes

  • Applying Article 20(1) to procedural changes.
  • Invoking double jeopardy after a departmental inquiry.
  • Treating fingerprints or specimen signatures as testimonial compulsion.

Read with: Article 21 Constitution, Article 22 Constitution, Article 359 Constitution

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the article 20