ARTICLE 20

In the case of Maqbool Hussain vs. State of Bombay (1953), the Supreme Court
of India discussed the concept of double jeopardy, which is a procedural defense
that prohibits a defendant from being tried twice for the same crime for the same
set of facts 1. The roots of the double jeopardy doctrine can be found in the well-
established maxim of English common law, “Nemo debet bis vexari,” which
means that a man should not be endangered twice for the same crime 1. The Court
held that the Sea Customs Authority did not constitute a judgment of judicial
character, so it does not amount to double jeopardy
S.A. Venkataraman vs The Union Of India. This case was heard by the Supreme
Court of India in 1954. The case dealt with the question of whether an inquiry
made and concluded under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 amounts to
prosecution and punishment for an offence as contemplated by Article 20(2) of the
Constitution of India. The court held that such an inquiry does not amount to
prosecution and punishment for an offence as contemplated by Article 20(2) of the
Constitution of India
Kedar Nath Bajoria vs The State of West Bengal is a landmark case in Indian
legal history. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of India in 1954 and dealt
with the issue of ex post facto laws. The court held that the Indian Constitution did
not prohibit the enactment of ex post facto laws, which are laws that retroactively
change the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the
enactment of the law. However, the court also held that such laws could not be
used to punish an act that was not a crime at the time it was committed. The case is
significant because it established the principle that the Indian Constitution does not
prohibit the enactment of ex post facto laws, but also placed limits on their use
M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra from 1954. This case is significant in the
context of the right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court of India held
that the right against self-incrimination is not a fundamental right under the Indian
Constitution. The court also held that the right against self-incrimination under
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India is a right pertaining to a person “accused
of an offence”, a protection against “compulsion to be a witness”, and a protection
against such compulsion resulting in his giving evidence “against himself”
Rattan Lal vs State of Punjab (1964) is a landmark case that dealt with the issue
of ex post facto laws. The Supreme Court held that an ex post facto law which is
beneficial to the accused is not prohibited by Article 20(1) of the Constitution 12.
Nandini Satpathy vs Dani (P.L.) (1978) is a landmark case in Indian
constitutional law that deals with the right against self-incrimination. The Supreme
Court of India in this case gave an interpretation regarding the right of an accused
person to be silent while police interrogation in relation to Article 20 (3) of the
Indian Constitution and Section 161 (1) of the CrPC 1.
The case involved the former Chief Minister of Orissa, Nandini Satpathy, who was
booked under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) and (e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 along with Section 161, 165, 120B and 109 of the IPC by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack 1. The appellant along with
other persons who were involved in the disproportionate asset case was
interrogated on the basis of a written series of questions 1.
The Supreme Court held that the right against self-incrimination is available not
only to a person who is accused of an offence but also to a person likely to be
accused of an offence. The Hon’ble Court further held that the right becomes
effective even at the stage of police interrogation 2.

Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010) case that dealt with the involuntary
administration of certain scientific techniques, namely narcoanalysis, polygraph
examination, and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test for the
purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases 1. The Supreme Court
of India declared that these techniques violated an accused person’s right against
self-incrimination under Article 20 (3) and their right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution 23.

ARTICLE 21
The case of A.K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras was a landmark decision by
the Supreme Court of India. The case was decided on May 19, 195012. Here are the
key points:
  The petitioner, A.K. Gopalan, was a communist leader who was active in
Madras Presidency (now called Kerala). He was detained in jail multiple
times, and each time he was released, a new detention order was issued
against him2.
 In 1950, he was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He filed
a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution challenging his
detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 19502.
 Gopalan argued that this act was unconstitutional as it violated his
fundamental rights under Article 19 (1) (d), that is, the right to freedom of
movement and Article 21, that is, the right to life and personal liberty 2.
 The Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 of the Constitution did not require
Indian courts to apply a due process of law standard 3. It held that the
protection under Article 21 is available only against arbitrary executive
action and not from arbitrary legislative action4.
 The court also held that punitive and preventive detention were outside the
ambit of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and hence the Preventive
Detention Act, 1950 had not violated it5.
 However, the deficiencies of procedure established by law and due process
of law were recognized and reversed in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union
of India2.

The case of Kharak Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh was a landmark
decision by the Supreme Court of India. The case was decided on December 18,
196212. Here are the key points:
 The petitioner, Kharak Singh, had been charged with violent robbery as part
of an armed gang in 1941. He was released due to lack of evidence, but a
‘history sheet’ was opened in regard to him under the Uttar Pradesh Police
Regulations1.
 These regulations provided for surveillance powers, including powers of
domiciliary visits, for habitual offenders or people likely to become
criminals1.
 The police would often visit Singh’s house at odd hours, waking him up
when he was sleeping1.
  The petitioner argued that these regulations were in violation of his right to
life with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which includes
the right to privacy1.
 The Supreme Court of India declared the relevant provisions that allowed
police to make domiciliary visits to ‘habitual criminals’ or individuals likely
to become habitual criminals as unconstitutional1.
 The Court reasoned that the visits infringed the petitioner’s right to life,
which can only be restricted by law and not executive orders such as the
Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations1.
 However, the Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the shadowing of
habitual criminals infringed his right to privacy because this right was not
recognized as a fundamental right under India’s Constitution1.
 The latter part of the judgment has now been overruled in the August 2017
landmark decision Puttaswamy v. India in which a nine-judge bench of the
Supreme Court held unanimously that the right to privacy was a
fundamental right under the Indian Constitution1.

The case of Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport

Officer was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India. The case was
decided on April 10, 196712. Here are the key points:
 The petitioner, Satwant Singh Sawhney, was a businessman who needed to
travel abroad for his work1.
 He was holding two valid passports when the Assistant Passport Officer at
New Delhi and the Regional Passport Officer at Bombay wrote to him,
asking him to surrender his passports as the Central Government had
decided to withdraw the passport facilities extended to him1.
 Sawhney filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, alleging
that the respondent’s action infringed his fundamental rights under Article
21 and 14 of the Constitution1.
 He contended that the right to leave India and travel outside India and return
to India is part of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution1.
 The Supreme Court observed that the compendious expression in personal
liberty used in Article 21 included in its ambit the right to go abroad and a
 person could not be deprived of that right except according to procedure
established by law as laid down in Article 213.
 The court held that refusal to give a passport or withdrawal of one given
amounts to deprivation of personal liberty1.
 This case set a precedent for the right to travel abroad being recognized as a
fundamental right under the Indian Constitution2.

The case of Govind vs State of Madhya Pradesh was a landmark decision by the
Supreme Court of India. The case was decided on March 18, 197512. Here are the
key points:
 The petitioner, Govind, was deemed a “habitual criminal” by the police, and
his name was entered in the surveillance register. He was put under regular
surveillance, which included domiciliary visits both by day and night at
frequent intervals1.
 Govind filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, alleging
that the police’s actions violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19 (1)
(d) and 21 of the Constitution1.
 He contended that the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations 855 and 856,
which related to surveillance and domiciliary visits, were violative of his
right to privacy1.
 The Supreme Court held that the regulations were framed under Section 46
(2) © of the Police Act, and have the force of law1.
 The court observed that the right to privacy was included in the
compendious expression “personal liberty” used in Article 211.
 However, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the provisions
regarding domiciliary visits were intended to prevent the commission of
offences1.
 This case set a precedent for the right to privacy being recognized as a
fundamental right under the Indian Constitution2.

 Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978)

The case of Menka Gandhi vs Union of India was a landmark decision by the
Supreme Court of India. The case was decided on January 25, 197812. Here are
the key points:
  The petitioner, Menka Gandhi, had her passport impounded by the
authorities under the provisions of the Passport Act1.
 Gandhi filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, alleging
that the respondent’s action infringed her fundamental rights under Article
21 and 14 of the Constitution1.
 She contended that the right to go abroad is part of personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution1.
 The Supreme Court held that the right to go abroad is part of personal
liberty1.
 The court also held that refusal to give a passport or withdrawal of one given
amounts to deprivation of personal liberty1.
 This case set a precedent for the right to travel abroad being recognized as a
fundamental right under the Indian Constitution2.

The case of Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory of

Delhi was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India. The case was
decided on January 13, 198112. Here are the key points:
 The petitioner, Francis Coralie Mullin, who is a British national, was
arrested and detained in the Central Jail, Tihar under an Order dated 23rd
November 1979 issued under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act2.
 Mullin filed a petition in the Court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging
her detention, but her petition was rejected with the result that she continued
to remain under detention in the Tihar Central Jail2.
 It was necessary for her to consult her lawyer, but even her lawyer found it
difficult to obtain an interview with her because in order to arrange an
interview, he was required to obtain a prior appointment from the District
Magistrate, Delhi and the interview could take place only in the presence of
a Customs Officer nominated by the Collector of Customs2.
 Mullin argued that allowing only once in a month for meeting the family
members is discriminatory and unreasonable as this was not the procedure
for under-trial prisoners who were permitted the access of an interview twice
per week as per Rule 559A and convicted prisoners who were granted the
same facility once a week under Rule 550 of the Rules in the Manual for the
jails in Punjab2.
  The Supreme Court held that the right to have an interview with a lawyer
and family is guaranteed to a detenu under the COFEPOSA Act3.
 The court also held that the restrictions laid down in sub-clauses (i) and (ii)
of clause 3 (b) of the Conditions of Detention Order are unconstitutional and
void as they violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution3.
 This case set a precedent for the right to have an interview with a lawyer and
family being recognized as a fundamental right under the Indian
Constitution2

The case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs Union of India was a
landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India. The case was decided on
September 18, 198212. Here are the key points:
 The petitioner, People’s Union for Democratic Rights, is an organization
formed for the protection of democratic rights1.
 The organization commissioned three social scientists to investigate the
conditions under which the workmen employed in various Asiad projects
were working1.
 The report made by these social scientists revealed that the workmen were
not given equal wages and were not even entitled to their minimum wages2.
 They were forced to work at a feverish pace and often beyond the working
hours2.
 Children below the age of 14 years were employed as workmen and some
were dying of malnutrition and due to working in hazardous conditions were
frequently becoming victims of serious accidents2.
 The organization addressed a letter to Justice Bhagwati about the same who
later treated it as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)2.
 The Supreme Court held that the equal pay for equal work provision of the
constitution is valid, and that the employer, whether public or private, is
responsible for enforcing it and taking prompt disciplinary action when
violations occur3.
 This case set a precedent for the right against exploitation being recognized
as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution2.
The case of Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation was a landmark
decision by the Supreme Court of India. The case was decided on July 10, 19851.
Here are the key points:
  The petitioner, Olga Tellis, along with other pavement and slum dwellers in
Bombay, were to be evicted forcibly and deported to their respective places
of origin or removed to places outside the city of Bombay by the State of
Maharashtra and Bombay Municipal Corporation2.
 The eviction was to proceed under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal
Corporation Act 18882.
 Tellis filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay for an order of
injunction restraining the officers of the State Government and the Bombay
Municipal Corporations from implementing the directive of the Chief
Minister2.
 The respondent’s action was challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that
it is violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution2.
 They also asked for a declaration that Section 312, 313 and 314 of the
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 is violative of Articles 14, 19 and
21 of the Constitution2.
 The Supreme Court ruled that eviction of pavement dwellers using
unreasonable force, without giving them a chance to explain is
unconstitutional34.
 It is a violation of their right to livelihood34.
 The court had emphatically objected to authorities treating pavement
dwellers as mere trespassers3.
 This case set a precedent for the right to livelihood being recognized as a
fundamental right under the Indian Constitution

The case of Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India was a landmark

decision by the Supreme Court of India. The case was decided on September 26,
201812. Here are the key points:
 The petitioner, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), a retired judge of the
Karnataka High Court, challenged the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar
scheme2.
 He argued that the scheme violated the right to privacy3.
 A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court was set up to determine whether
the right to privacy was guaranteed as an independent fundamental right4.
  The court found that the right to privacy applies across the gamut of
“fundamental” rights including equality, dignity (Article 14), speech,
expression (Article 19), life, and liberty (Article 21)5.
 The court rejected the government’s arguments and ruled unanimously that
privacy is a constitutionally protected right in India1.
 This case set a precedent for the right to privacy being recognized as a
fundamental right under the Indian Constitution2.

Article 21 A
In Re Kerala Education Bill (1958) was a landmark case heard by the Supreme
Court of India on May 22, 1958 1. The case dealt with the constitutional validity of
the Kerala Education Bill, 1957, which aimed to regulate and control private
educational institutions in the state 123. The bill was passed by the Legislative
Assembly of Kerala on September 2, 1957, and was reserved by the Governor of
Kerala for the consideration of the President
The Supreme Court held that the regulations were framed under Section 46 (2) ©
of the Police Act and had the force of law 1. The provision regarding domiciliary
visits was intended to prevent the commission of offences, because their object was
to see if the individual is at home or gone out of it for the commission of offences
1. The court also held that too broad a definition of privacy would raise serious
questions about the propriety of judicial reliance on a right that is not explicit in the
Constitution
Miss Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka (1991) was a landmark case heard by
the Supreme Court of India on July 30, 1992 12. The case dealt with the
constitutional validity of capitation fees charged by private educational institutions
for admission to professional courses 3. Miss Mohini Jain, a medical aspirant
student, filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the notification issued by
the Government of Karnataka that permitted private medical colleges in the state to
charge exorbitant tuition fees from students admitted other than the “Government
seat quota” 12. The apex court raised an important question: “whether right to
education is guaranteed to the Indian citizen under the Constitution of India?” 1.
The Supreme Court observed that the mention of “life and personal liberty” in
Article 21 of the Constitution automatically implies some other rights that are
necessary for the full development of the personality, though they are not
enumerated in Part III of the Constitution. Education is one such factor responsible
for overall development of an individual and therefore, right to education is
integrated in Article 21 of the Constitution 1. The court held that the practice of
charging capitation fees in educational institutions is unconstitutional 12

The case of Unni Krishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh was a landmark decision
by the Supreme Court of India. The case was decided on February 4, 199312. Here
are the key points:
 The petitioner, Unni Krishnan, challenged the constitutional validity of
certain provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act2.
 The case was a series of written petitions and civil appeals filed with the
country’s Supreme Court2.
 The petitioner’s argument was presented with the claim that vocational
training must also be part of the constitutionally guaranteed “right to
education”2.
 The Supreme Court ruled that there is no fundamental right to education for
a professional degree that flows from Article 213.
 However, it held that the passage of 44 years since the enactment of the
Constitution had effectively converted the non-justiciable right to education
of children under 14 into one enforceable under the law3.
 This case set a precedent for the right to education being recognized as a
fundamental right under the Indian Constitution2.