Ex Post Facto Law in India Essay

The moral obligation of the Indian courts to retroactive justice is not based on constitutional review, but on the most fundamental requirement of the rule of law that a person is subject and accountable only to an established and already enacted law. The Supreme Court has interpreted ex post facto provisions as restricting only laws that are criminal or criminal in nature.5 Calder, 3 U.S. at 389; Watson v. Mercer, 33 U.S. 88, 110 (1834); see also ArtI.S9.C3.3.4 Ex post facto prohibition limited to criminal laws. although the Court also clarified that the retroactive effect of a statute cannot be circumvented by giving civil form to what is essentially punishable6FootnoteBurgess v. Salmon, 97 U.S. 381, 385 (1878). In addition, the Court has consistently applied the prohibition of retroactivity to legislation that applies retroactively.7 B. Calder, 3 U.S. at 389; see also Article I.S9. C3.3.3 Retroactive effect of ex post facto legislation.

In Calder v. 1798 Bull, the Court listed four ways in which a legislature may breach the prohibition of ex post facto criminal liability under ex post facto clauses: (1) criminal liability for an act committed before the enactment of the law that was lawful at the time of its implementation; (2) increase the seriousness of an offence after it has been committed; (3) increase the penalty for a crime after it has been committed; and (4) change the rules of evidence after committing a crime to make it easier to convict an offender.8FootnoteCalder, 3 U.S. at 390. Ex post facto clauses refer to other constitutional provisions that restrict retroactive government action, including the Federal and State Bill of Attainder clauses, the treaty clause, and due process clauses.9FootnoteSee for example Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 138–39 (1810); see Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 267 (1994) (constitutional restrictions on retroactive legislation are limited in scope, and if a new law makes it clear that it is retroactive, the arguable injustice of retroactive civil legislation is not a sufficient reason for a court not to give [that law] the intended scope). If a law constitutes a criminal offence and also prescribes the penalty for it, is created by a previous law and the last law provides for a different penalty for that offence, the previous law is repealed. However, this falls within the scope of Article 20(1), which contravenes a retroactive law providing for a heavier penalty.

The most recent law does not apply if the offence described in it is not the same as that which existed in the previous law, that is, if the essential characteristics of the two offences are different. If the latter Act establishes new offences or amends the penalty for the same offence, no one may be convicted under the latter Act, and the revised penalty provided for in the most recent Act shall not apply to a person who committed the offence when it was not prohibited by law and before the enactment of the most recent Act. This decision was made in T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe. The term ex post facto law was coined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1990s in Calder v. Bull (2) was held to mean that retroactive law is any law which criminalizes any act committed before the promulgation of this Law or which aggravates such an offence or imposes a heavier penalty than that provided for by the law applicable to that act.

In this way, we find that, under section 20, it is sufficient to consider whether the retroactive law imposed a heavier penalty than could be imposed under the law in force at the time the offence was committed. The application of laws a posteriori has been interpreted as a violation of constitutional guarantees. In Beazell v. Ohio, it has been made clear that any law that punishes a previous act that was innocent as a crime violates constitutional guarantees. In Rattan Lal v. In the State of Punjab (4), the court established the rule of advantageous interpretation, which requires that a retroactive law may be applied only to reduce the sentence. For example, A commits an offence of fraud in the examination of councils and the law regulating it imposes a sentence of 6 months` imprisonment, but an amendment reduces the penalty to a fine of Rs 2,000. A is sentenced to a fine of Rs 2,000 instead of 6 months` imprisonment as provided for in Article 20 (1). A person who has been charged with the act to which the new law applies retroactively is entitled to all remedies available to him. It is generally claimed that Article 20(1) rendered the right de facto invalid ex post. In the landmark case Keshavanan Madhavan Menon v. State of Bombay, it is stated that the fundamental rights granted do not have retroactive effect and that the nullity of laws by the doctrine of darkness set forth in article 13, paragraph 1, which also deals with the future application of the law.

A person charged with a criminal offence has no fundamental right to a trial under a particular procedure, unless there are constitutional objections for violation of other fundamental rights. “Governing Law” does not include retroactive laws and is commonly referred to as ex post facto laws, as discussed in West Ramnad Electronic Distribution Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras. Article 20(1) is divided into two parts. According to Part I, no one may be convicted of an offence except for an act which, at the time of the omission of that particular act, is illegal or prohibited by the law already promulgated. A person shall be punished and prosecuted if he violates a law in force at the time the offence was committed, thus justifying the expression “applicable law” used in Article 20, paragraph 1. A law enacted after the promulgation of the law means that an act committed before the promulgation of this law and which was not previously an offence may be criminalized by a subsequent law, but section 20, paragraph 1, protects the interests of the individual and does not hold the person responsible for a conviction under this law. The second part of art. 20 para. 1 protects every person from a penalty higher than that prescribed for his act at the time of the commission of the offence.

Each person should not be punished more than they would have suffered for the act previously committed at a certain time under a retroactive law. Equality, justice and good conscience on the part of the judiciary are essential to ensure peace and sovereignty in society. In my opinion, it is important to take into account the rights of citizens against retroactive legislation, because it will result in penalties for innocent people, since any act of a person that is legal at the time of commission can be changed to be prohibited by law, but with the help of the laws provided. The individual cannot be punished for this act under the new law. Article 20, paragraph 1, protects the fundamental rights of every citizen and thus keeps alive the spirit of the Constitution, provided that the various judicial decisions bring justice to victims and potential victims as a result of the retroactive application of the law. The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in determining, researching and interpreting the ex post facto application of the law and the advantages and disadvantages of this aspect. In addition to the above-mentioned cases, there are several cases in which Indian courts have dealt with issues of enforcement of these laws. The mechanism before a law is passed is that it takes effect ex nune, which affects any “situation subsequent to the execution of this law”.