What four principles govern whether a later criminal statute can validly apply to an already-committed offence?

A later statute cannot make a previously innocent act criminal; it cannot increase the punishment for an already committed offence; a later procedural change may apply to pending matters if it creates no new offence or punitive exposure; and where the legislature seeks retrospectivity in criminal matters, Article 20(1) blocks it.

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)

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.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India