Article 20: Protection in respect of conviction for offences

Leading cases

• State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)Taking specimen handwriting, signatures or finger, palm or foot impressions from an accused does not violate Article 20(3), and Section 27 of the Evidence Act is valid unless the information was obtained by compulsion.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and of the Part III freedoms; M P Sharma and Kharak Singh are overruled on that point.
• M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)Search and seizure of documents under a warrant issued under Sections 94 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is not compelled testimony under Article 20(3) and does not violate Article 19(1)(f); the petitions were dismissed.
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)Reading down Sections 30(2) and 56 of the Prisons Act, 1894, the Court held that a prisoner under sentence of death cannot be kept in solitary confinement and that bar fetters may be imposed only on recorded, individual safety grounds.
• Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953)Article 20(2) bars a second prosecution only after a prosecution and punishment before a court or judicial tribunal; customs confiscation is not one, so the later prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could proceed.
• Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022)The Court upheld the challenged PMLA provisions, including Sections 5, 19, 24, 45 and 50, read down the proviso to Section 44(1)(a), gave Section 3 a wide reading, and held that ED officers are not police officers.
• Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020)By majority, officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers for Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and a statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confession at trial.
• Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)Until Parliament makes an express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Judicial Magistrate may order a person to give a voice sample for the investigation of a crime; this does not violate Article 20(3).
• Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)Compulsory narcoanalysis, polygraph and BEAP tests violate Article 20(3) and Article 21; no one may be forcibly subjected to them, and even voluntary test results are inadmissible, though facts later discovered may be proved under Section 27.
• Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)The Court held that Article 20(3) and Section 161(2) CrPC protect an accused during police interrogation, cover exposure to other pending or imminent charges, and bar psychologically compelled answers; the Section 179 IPC prosecution was quashed.
• Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India (2008)An officer acting under Section 67 read with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not a police officer, so a voluntary statement made to him can be used as a confession against its maker and alone sustain a conviction.

Questions on this article

39 questions in 72 of our papers cite Article 20. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. On arrival at an airport, B was found carrying gold in breach of a customs prohibition, and the customs authorities confiscated the gold in proceedings under the customs law. B was later prosecuted before a Magistrate for an offence under a foreign exchange law arising out of the same import. B pleads Article 20(2). Which is correct?

   A.The plea succeeds, because the confiscation of the gold amounted to punishment for the same offenceB.The plea succeeds, because the customs offence and the foreign exchange offence are the same offence in lawC.The plea fails, because Article 20(2) does not extend to offences under customs or foreign exchange lawsD.The plea fails, because the customs proceedings were not a prosecution before a court or judicial tribunal
   Show answer

2. 2. In Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019), a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered whether a Magistrate may order an accused to give a sample of his voice for investigation. It held that:

   A.until Parliament legislates, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a voice sampleB.only the trial Court, and not a Magistrate during investigation, may direct an accused to give a voice sampleC.a voice sample can be taken only with the written consent of the accused, given before a MagistrateD.ordering a voice sample violates Article 20(3), as it compels the accused to be a witness against himself
   Show answer

3. 3. With reference to Kusumavati Gowda v. Government of Karnataka (21 September 2026), concerning a 2012 rape and murder case, consider the following statements: 1. The Supreme Court directed a de novo investigation by a Special Investigation Team, excluding officers who took part in the earlier investigations. 2. The Court permitted the new team to reinvestigate and prosecute the person who had already been tried and acquitted. 3. The Court held that the acquitted person is protected by Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

   A.3 onlyB.1 and 3 onlyC.1 and 2 onlyD.1, 2 and 3
   Show answer