Check our website previousnotes.com/ for more updates
previousnotes.com/index.php/2...
Ex Post Facto Laws?
An ex post facto law is a legal term that refers to a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences or status of actions that were committed before the enactment of the law. In other words, it is a law that applies to events that occurred before the law was passed, and it alters the legal consequences of those past actions.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes a prohibition on retrospectively holding anyone guilty of a penal offence that was not an offence at the time it was committed.
Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that no person be held guilty of any criminal law that did not exist at the time of offence nor suffer any penalty heavier than what existed at the time of offence.
Exceptions?
1. Where punishment is reduced
Rattan Lal v. Punjabi State Case:
It was held that where the punishment of an offence is reduced. The person may avail the benefit of it and legislation or that particular rule may be applied retrospectively in that scenario. For example: A has committed an offence ‘A’ in 2000 and at that time the punishment of that offence is three years but later in 2001 the punishment for the same offence is reduced to one year. In that scenario he can claim that he should be tried according to new provission of this law. But vice versa is not ture.
2. Where trial conducted using a different procedure
State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal: If trial is conducted using the new procedure than that which was in place at the time the act was done, cannot be declared unconsitutional.
Kedar Nath v. West Bengal State: In this case also, the Court reiterated the same thing.
3. Retrospective law on Taxation?
On taxation, Govt. in India can pass a law retrospectively but it is not considered as a good practice.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague (Netherlands) ruled that India’s retrospective imposition of a tax liability, as well as interest and penalties on Vodafone Group for a 2007 deal was violation of the Bilateral Investment Treaty with Netherlands and the arbitration rules of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
2.Article 20(2): Double Jeopardy
Double jeopardy is a legal principle that protects individuals from being tried or punished more than once for the same offense. The concept is based on the idea that subjecting a person to multiple trials or punishments for the same crime would be unjust and oppressive. The principle is commonly expressed in the legal maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa,” which is Latin for “no one ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause.”
Objective:
It’s main objective is to avoid harassment which may be caused due to successive Criminal Proceedings. No men shall be put twice in period for same offence, it was held in State of Jharkhand vs Lalu Prasad AIR 2017 SC 3389.
Article 20(3): Right against self-incrimination
The right against self-incrimination is a legal principle that protects individuals from being compelled to provide evidence or testimonies that could be used against them in a criminal proceeding. This right is fundamental to the protection of an individual’s right to a fair trial and is recognized in various legal systems around the worl
Right to Silence: Individuals accused of an offense have the right to remain silent during police interrogation and trial proceedings.
Protection During Investigation: The right against self-incrimination applies not only during the trial but also during the investigative stage, preventing authorities from compelling the accused to incriminate themselves.
Fair Trial Guarantee: The right against self-incrimination is a crucial component of the broader guarantee of a fair trial under the Indian legal system
Exceptions:
1. Voice Sample?
Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh:
Accused person can be directed to give voice sample during the cause of investigation an offence, it was held in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh
2. Fingerprint and handwriting Specimen
AP v M. Krishna Mohan: Taking handwriting or fingerprint specimen from accussed is not violation of Article 20(3).
The immunity under Article 20(3) does not extend to compulsory production of material object or compulsion to give writing, specimen, signature, finger impression or giving blood speciment.