RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT ARTICLE 20(1)

No one can be found guilty of an offense unless he has violated a law that was in force at the time the offense was committed, and he cannot be punished more severely than that permitted by the law in force at the time of the offence.

Definition

A retrospective law governs the past acts of the guilty. This gives a prior transaction different legal consequence than those that were in force or occurred at the time. As per the first aspect, no one can be found guilty of an offense unless they have committed an illegal or prohibited act when the relevant law was passed. Any law that is in effect while in operation must be enforced, and violators must be punished and brought to justice for their actions. This justifies the use of the phrase “law in force” in Article 20(1).

• A law passed after an act has been made indicates that an act which was valid before the enactment of the law may now be considered illegal. However, Article 20(1) will protect the interests of the Act and prevent the offender from being held accountable for contravention of the law.

• Under the second clause of Article 20(1) no person is protected from punishment in excess of the punishment imposed on him for the act done by him.

• Because of an ex post facto law, no one would already face a more severe penalty for a previous act at that specific time.

• Article 20(1) bars only punishment or sentence and not trial.

Post Facto Law

It is one that magnifies the consequences of such activities or imposes punishment retrospectively, meaning on crimes already committed. The first clause of Article 20 prevents the adoption of such a law.

Scope of Retrospective Laws

Both prospective and retrospective laws can be made by the legislature, however, retrospective laws cannot be made in criminal matters. Consequently, this restriction applies only to criminal laws, not civil or tax laws. In other words, a tax or civil liability may have been imposed in the past.

Prohibition: Only punishment or punishment is prohibited by this section under pre-facto criminal law; Not just testing.

Preventive Detention: Immunity under this provision cannot be claimed in case of preventive detention or security sought from a person.

Relevant Supreme Court judgment: In Ratanlal v. State of Punjab, 1964, the Supreme Court held that, if retrospective law benefits the accused, it is applicable.

Kedar Nath Vs. State of West Bengal

The Supreme Court said in this judgment that whenever an action is made a criminal offense or punishment or punishment is enhanced for an offence, it is always better to conduct things with the likely outcome. As per Article 20, such a law cannot be implemented with retrospective effect. However, this paragraph does not prevent the trial itself; It only restricts the processes of sentencing and conviction.

State of Rajasthan Vs Mohan Lal

The Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was relevant in this case. It was argued that Article 20 only prohibited punishment or conviction under a post facto law and not trial or prosecution. Additionally, a test conducted using a different procedure than that conducted at the time of the Act is not subject to the same restrictions and cannot be declared unconstitutional.

New Case Laws

Nirbhaya Case: After the heinous incident of gang rape in Delhi, public opinion supported severe punishment for all the six convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape case. But since one of them was a minor, any modification of juvenile age would not help the case, as such modification would not be applicable with retrospective effect.