Supreme Court: Article 20(1) Doesn’t Impede Retroactive Application of Procedural Changes in Criminal Trials

Keywords – Supreme Court, Constitution bench, Article 20(1), Retrospective application, Procedural changes, Criminal trial

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India’s constitution bench reaffirmed that changes in criminal trial procedures, even after the commission of an offense, do not violate the constitutional prohibition on the retrospective application of laws, as outlined in Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution. This crucial clarification came during the examination of the legality of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946.

The bench, comprised of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari, emphasized that Article 20(1) solely concerns convictions and sentences, not procedural aspects that may lead to convictions or acquittals.

The case revolved around whether the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment, which declared Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, 1946 unconstitutional, would apply retroactively to pending cases. Section 6A mandated central government approval for investigations involving certain government officials. The constitution bench now clarified that its previous decision would indeed have a retrospective impact.

Justice Nath, writing on behalf of the bench, explained that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act focused on procedural safeguards for senior government servants and did not introduce new offenses or modify punishments or sentences. This procedural aspect, the court asserted, does not fall under the purview of Article 20(1).

The court rejected arguments that Section 6A provided immunity not only from conviction but also from inquiries, investigations, and trials, noting that such procedural safeguards were not covered by Article 20(1).

In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified that Article 20(1) of the Constitution pertains solely to convictions and sentences, exempting it from covering procedural changes that occur after an offense. This reaffirmation of the law underscores the importance of differentiating between substantive and procedural aspects in criminal trials.

Written by- Shuniti Sinha, College name –  Brainware University , Semester- 7^th, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Admin