LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 20 August 2026

Under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, can a person be punished under a law that creates no offence, applying the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege?

SHIV PRATAP SINGH ALIAS CHINU v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
2026 INSC 894 · Criminal Appeal No.3979 of 2026 (with Criminal Appeal No.3980 of 2026)
Coram: J. B. Pardiwala; K. Vinod Chandran
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Section 2(b) of the Uttar Prades…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. Article 20(1) prohibits conviction except for violation of a law in force at the time of the act, embodying nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege — no crime or punishment can exist without a penal law; a statute that creates no offence cannot sustain a conviction or sentence.

Headnote

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — Section 2(b) — Definition clause — No offence created — Constitution of India — Article 20(1) — Nulla poena sine lege — Section 23 — Delegated legislation — Gang Chart — U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986 — Section 2(b) — Definition of 'gang' — No offence created — Held: Section 2(b) of the U.P. Gangsters Act is merely a definition clause; the activities in clauses (i) to (xxv) are already offences under other penal laws, and the Act itself creates no distinct offence, rendering it stillborn. (¶38, 39, 58) Constitution of India — Article 20(1) — Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege — Held further: Article 20(1) embodies nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege: no person may be punished save for violation of a law in force at the time of the act, and a law that creates no offence cannot support punishment. (¶44, 52) U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986 — Section 23 — Rules — Impermissible delegation — Held further: The Rules framed under Section 23 cannot determine the status of a 'gangster' or create punishable liability where the parent Act creates none; creation of an offence is a legislative function that cannot be left to subordinate legislation. (¶53, 54) U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986 — Proceedings quashed — Other penal charges unaffected — Held further: The Act is stillborn on its existing provisions; the proceedings thereunder are quashed and the appellants released if in custody, without affecting the separate prosecution of the underlying offences under the ordinary penal laws. Appeals allowed. (¶58, 59, 60)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 44Article 20 is ingrained in judicial minds but none trained in law has enough of its resonance of double jeopardy, hence we extract the same; though not in direct application but still has a bearing considering the point arising of an offence not in existence being tried to award punishment provided in a penal law : 20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences. - (1) 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.
Paragraph 52Article 20(1) encapsulates the principle of “nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege”, (No crime or punishment can exist without a penal law); there can be no punishment without an offence in law. As we found, the Act of 1986 does not create a crime/offence and it merely defines the status of a person indulging in a crime, specified in the definition clause, as a ‘gangster’ going by the definition of ‘gang’ and ‘gangster’ provided respectively under sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section
Acts & Sections
Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986Section 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021Article 20(1) of the Constitution of IndiaSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of SHIV PRATAP SINGH ALIAS CHINU v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Whether the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 creates a distinct offence, where Section 2(b) only defines 'gang' and 'gangster' and the activities listed are already punishable under other penal laws?Can Rules framed under Section 23 of the U.P. Gangsters Act determine the status of a 'gangster' and impose punishment where the parent Act itself creates no offence?What four principles govern whether a later criminal statute can validly apply to an already-committed offence?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections