Supreme Court: Whether Subsequent Judgment Overruling Earlier Judgment if applied Retrospectively will affect rights of accused under article 20(1) of constitution?

 Furthermore, the retrospective application of the dictum in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would not give rise to any implications as regards the rights of the Accused persons Under Article 20(1) of the Constitution. This is because while overruling the decision in Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra), the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) has only clarified the law as it stood from its inception and given true effect to the meaning assigned to the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and the Rules thereunder, by the lawmakers. The same cannot be construed as creating a new offence. Additionally, the overruling of a decision cannot be equated to the enactment of an ex-post facto law, especially when the interpretation given to the statute/provision in the overruling decision is not a novel and unreasonably expansive interpretation of the provision in question such that it was completely unforeseeable. It cannot be reasonably argued that the indiscriminate dealing in of substances which are only mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act and absent under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, was indubitably legal and allowed by the legislation, prior to the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra). Therefore, there remains no doubt in our minds that giving retrospective effect to the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would be necessary considering the facts and circumstances in the background of which we are called upon to adjudicate these matters. {Para 159}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1319 of 2013 and 272 of 2014

Decided On: 17.04.2025

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0500/2025,2025 INSC 498.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Ankita Kailash Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors: A Case Study on Academic Pursuits and Fundamental Rights

 This article provides a case study analysis of Ankita Kailash Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., focusing on the critical legal positions established regarding the rights of accused individuals to pursue academic activities under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The case also examines the extent of statutory powers of educational institutions to issue suspension orders.

Background

Print Page

What are rights of accused under Criminal procedure Code and Indian constitution after he is arrested by police?

In India, the rights of an accused person under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) after arrest are designed to ensure fair treatment and protect individual liberties. Here’s a detailed overview of these rights:

 Key Rights of the Accused

1. Right to be Informed of Grounds for Arrest

   - Under Section 50 of the CrPC, an accused must be informed of the reasons for their arrest at the time it occurs. This includes a clear explanation of the specific charges against them.

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 69)

 Q 1:- What are rights of accused under Indian law?

Ans:- In India, the rights of the accused are enshrined in various legal documents, primarily the Constitution of India and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Here are some key rights of the accused:

Fundamental Rights:

1) Right to Equality (Article 14): The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

2) Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): No person can be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

3) Right against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3): The accused cannot be compelled to answer questions or provide evidence that could be used against them in court.

Print Page