Supreme Court Affirms: Article 20(1) Doesn’t Restrict Retrospective Application of Procedural Changes in Criminal Trials
In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified that procedural changes in criminal trials, introduced after an offence is committed, are not barred from retrospective application by Article 20(1) of the Constitution. This article prohibits the imposition of ex post facto laws.
The apex court’s observation came while examining its 2014 judgment that declared Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 unconstitutional. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari, stated,
“It is crystal clear that once a law is declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Part III of the Constitution, then it would be held to be void ab initio, stillborn, unenforceable and non est in view of Article 13(2) of the Constitution and its interpretation by authoritative pronouncements.”
The court further elaborated on the nature of Section 6A, emphasizing,
“Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act does not lay down or introduce any conviction for any offence. It is a procedural safeguard only which is enumerated in Section 6A of the DSPE Act with regard to making an investigation or enquiry of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”
The bench rejected the argument presented by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, who contended that the marginal note along with Article 20 of the Constitution implies protection not just from conviction but also from inquiry, investigation, and trial. The court responded,
“This submission is too far-fetched and gives a very wide and open-ended expanse to Article 20(1) of the Constitution stretching it even to procedural aspects merely on account of the marginal note.”
Concluding its observations, the court asserted,
“Article 20(1) of the Constitution only and only confines to conviction and sentence. It does not at all refer to any procedural part which may result into conviction or acquittal and/or sentence. Accordingly, the argument of Mr Datar cannot be accepted. Change in procedure post the offence not attracting Article 20(1) of Constitution has been the settled law since 1953 enunciated in the Constitution Bench judgment of Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh.”
This judgment underscores the distinction between procedural changes and substantive rights, emphasizing that the former is not restricted by the constitutional bar on retrospective application of laws.
