Profile
Settings
Refer your friends
Sign out
Protection against any alleged conviction for an individual has been provided by “Article 20”. The same has been an individual portion in the respective constitution of the nation, India. It has been said that except if any significant “violation” has been done by an individual in the law that is in force, the same individual cannot be charged with any offence.
Furthermore, the article has also been depicting that any penalty that an individual is subjected to, cannot be extended. Thus, the associated penalty has been required while keeping the level of the same aligned with the law that has been in practice during the time of the same offence.
Article 20
As explained that the same article has been providing relevant protection towards individuals against being convicted, thus the same can be seen as safeguarding individuals that are accused of numerous crimes. The article has categorised crimes such as “Ex post facto law”, “Self-incrimination” and so on.
Ex post facto law
This “Article 20” has been prohibiting the “Ex Post Facto Laws”. This individual term can be elaborated in order to comprehend. In this scenario, the same law has the potential while imposing increasing penalties and/or convictions against an individual offence in a retrospective manner. The same can be simplified with an individual example.
The “Anti- Discrimination Act of 2011” has been commissioned in 2011 and per “Article 20” any individual that is convicted as conducting notable discrimination prior to 2011 cannot be penalised. The same article has also been composed of numerous clauses that have been tagged as numerically.
Clause 1
This clause has been portraying that any individual is barred from facing penalties and/or a fine if any associated amendment has been modified. Simply, this clause usually protects an individual in line with the enforced law at the time of the respective crime and its associated penalties.
Another instance in this scenario can be highlighted that upon committing a crime in 2019, and per the related enforced law, if only imprisonment has been the related punishment, the same person cannot be fined monetarily, if by 2021, “monetary fine” has been added as the part regarding relevant punishment.
Clause 2 or Double Jeopardy
This clause has been implied while protecting an accused while being punished for any given offence twice and/or more. Although the same has been containing distinct restrictions and also cannot be applied in the case of an offence that is being continued by an individual offender. The “Venkataraman v. Union of India” can be highlighted as an example in this regard. According to the “Public Service Enquiry Act, 1960” the same has been found as dismissed from allocated service.
The same individual known as Venkataraman has been again seen as charged as the same has been seen as an offender from the related perspective of the “Indian Penal code” and also the act for preventing any arising corruption. The latter has not been categorised under “clause 2” as the report has been suggesting that the same has been an enquiry and the same hearing has not concluded with any penalty.
Clause 3
This individual clause has been implied while preventing any given person from incriminating himself and/or herself. This clause has been relying on a specific law that is known as “maxim nemo tenetur prodere accussare seipsum”. The involved meaning of the same can be elaborated as no individual has the required power and/or authority that can accuse him and/or her as a convict.
Furthermore, according to the same clause, upon fulfilment of conditions such as if an individual has been accused related to an individual offence then required enquiry and eventually involved punishment can be imposed. This clause also has been protecting personnel that are seen as forced while being presented as a witness. Additionally, the “clause 3” also has been prohibiting an individual; while presenting any given evidence against herself and/or himself.
Conclusion
It can be concluded as the “Article 20” has been beneficial for both innocents and somehow to the numerous offenders according to the respective constitution. The same has been added by 1949 and has been containing three distinct categories. Each involved category has also been identified as clauses and has been marked numerically.
The article portrays that excluding breaching any given law that influences crime an individual has been marked as innocent and hence cannot be counted as an individual offender. In addition, it has been seen that relying on condition any person is immune from being penalised twice and is unable while convicting by self.
