Question Details

Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution prohibits Ex Post Facto laws. The expression Ex Post Facto Law means a law, which imposes penalties or convictions on the acts already done and increases the penalty for such acts. In other words, Ex Post Facto Law, imposes penalties retrospectively. For example, The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 came into force from 20.5.1961. A person guilty of accepting dowry is punishable under the Act after 20.5.1961 and not before 20.5.1961.

Ex post facto laws are of three kinds as follows:(a) A law which declared some act or omission as an offence for the first time after the completion of that act or omission. (b) A law which enhances the punishment or penalty for an offence subsequent to the commission of that offence. (c) A law which prescribes a new and different procedure for the prosecution of an offence subsequent to the commission of that offence.

Clause (1) of Art. 20 provides protection only in respect of the above first two categories of expost facto laws i.e. laws which declare acts as offences subsequent to the commission to those acts and laws which enhance the penalty subsequently.

Article 20(1) provides: No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. The first part of clause (1) provides that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence. The second part of clause (1) protects a person form a penalty greater than that which he might have been subjected to at the time of the commission of the offence.

Mr. A is a student of Law, aged 19 years. He is socially active and expresses his opinion on every social and political event of the nation through social media platforms. In one of his blog, he severely criticised the policy of a state government of changing names of cities and towns. He also stated that the government is biased towards a particular religion. The said blog was posted on 19th April, 2020 and subsequently, an amendment was made to Indian Penal Code whereby ‗Hate Speech‘ was made a distinct offence and punishment was prescribed. An action was brought against him under the said provision for the blog. Now, choose the most appropriate option amongst the following

Options

A

Mr. A may be liable for the offence of Hate speech as the blog was not removed even after the amendment.

B

Mr. A may be liable for the offence of Hate speech as Article 20 (1) does not cover such areas.

C

Mr. A may not be liable for the offence because the act was done before the amendment.

D

Mr. A may not be liable for the offence as his blog was innocent and a fair criticism.

Show Answer

Correct Answer :

Option A

Mr. A may be liable for the offence of Hate speech as the blog was not removed even after the amendment.

Solution :

Correct Answer: Mr. A may be liable for the offence of Hate speech as the blog was not removed even after the amendment.

Step-by-Step Explanation:

1. Understanding Article 20(1) and Ex Post Facto Laws:
Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution provides protection against ex post facto penal laws. It establishes that no person shall be convicted of an offence except for the violation of a law that was in force at the exact time when the act charged as an offence was committed.

2. Analysis of the Facts:
• Mr. A posted a blog criticising the state government on 19th April, 2020.
• Subsequently, the Indian Penal Code was amended to make 'Hate Speech' a distinct penal offence.
• An action was brought against Mr. A under the newly amended criminal law provision.

3. Principle of Continuing Offence / Ongoing Act:
While the initial act of posting the blog occurred before the amendment came into force, online content published on websites and social media platforms remains continuously available and accessible to the public.
By failing to remove or take down the blog after the statutory amendment came into force, the publication of the material continues into the period governed by the new law. Because the act of making the content available persists under the operation of the new law, it is treated as a continuing act rather than a purely past event.

Conclusion:
Therefore, Mr. A may be held liable for the offence of Hate speech because the blog was not removed and remained published online even after the law was amended.

Unlock Our Free Library

Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.

Discover more resources

You may also like

Mock Tests

View All
  • CLAT
  • intermediate
  • 2 hours
  • current affairs, general knowledge, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, quant

  • CLAT
  • intermediate
  • 2 hours
  • current affairs, english, general knowledge, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, quant

Ask AI Tutor
5 left
Q1 View Question & Options
AI Tutor is solving this question...
Reading question context & options...