Question

The Parliament of India legislated the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, in the year 2013 and simultaneously some new offences were also added to the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Mr. A is an employee of an institution, against whom departmental enquiry has been initiated for committing sexual harassment of a female colleague in the year 2012. Now, choose the correct option.

• A. Such inquiry is valid as per Article 20 (1) of the Constitution as the complaint was made after the act came into force.
• B. Article 20 (1) will not be applicable as the matter does not relate to an offence.
• C. As the Act was passed in the year 2013, any inquiry under such Act is invalid.
• D. Only inquiry may be conducted but no penal action can be taken against him after such inquiry.
• A. Act of the legislature enhancing the term of imprisonment.
• B. Act of the legislature enhancing the amount of fine.
• C. Act of the legislature changing the punishment of death to life imprisonment.
• D. Act of legislature changing the nature of imprisonment from simple to rigorous.
• 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.
• A. Mr. A would not be considered as juvenile as it is prohibited under the scheme of Article 20 (1).
• B. Mr. A would not be considered as juvenile because the amendment came after he committed the offence
• C. Mr. A would be considered a Juvenile and tried under the new procedure.
• D. None of the above.
• A. Mr. A will get the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
• B. Mr. A will not get the benefit of Probation of Offenders act as it is prohibited by Article 20 (1) of the Constitution.
• C. It is discretion of Mr. A to decide whether he wants such benefit or not.
• D. None of the above.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The correct option is (D): Only inquiry may be conducted but no penal action can be taken against him after such inquiry.

Answer 2

The passage explains that Article 20(1) bars two things: declaring an act an offence for the first time after it was done, and increasing the penalty for an act after it was committed. Mr. A's department started an inquiry in 2012 against him for sexual harassment, a matter that was later criminalised under fresh Indian Penal Code, 1860 provisions added in 2013. Let's test each option against this rule.

1. Such inquiry is valid as per Article 20 (1) of the Constitution as the complaint was made after the act came into force: This gets the test backwards. Article 20(1) looks at when the act (the misconduct) took place, not when the complaint was filed or when a law came into force. Since the complaint date is irrelevant to the constitutional test, this option is wrong.
2. Article 20 (1) will not be applicable as the matter does not relate to an offence: A departmental inquiry into misconduct is not itself a criminal trial for an offence, so this observation is partly true, but stating it this bluntly ignores that Mr. A could still face a fresh criminal charge under the new Indian Penal Code, 1860 provision, and that part would squarely raise an Article 20(1) issue. So this option is too sweeping to be correct.
3. As the Act was passed in the year 2013, any inquiry under such Act is invalid: This assumes the entire inquiry draws its authority from the 2013 law. In fact, sexual harassment at the workplace was already actionable misconduct under service rules and earlier guidelines well before 2013, so a departmental inquiry into the 2012 conduct does not depend on the later Act at all. This option is wrong.
4. Only inquiry may be conducted but no penal action can be taken against him after such inquiry: This captures the correct split. The employer can hold a fact finding departmental inquiry into the 2012 conduct because that is a service matter, not a retrospective criminal conviction. But punishing Mr. A under the newly created Indian Penal Code, 1860 offence for an act done a year before that offence existed would be exactly the retrospective criminal penalty Article 20(1) forbids. So the inquiry can go ahead, but no penal or criminal punishment can follow from it under the new provision.

Reading the four options together, only the last one respects both halves of Article 20(1): it lets the administrative inquiry proceed while blocking any retrospective criminal penalty.

So the correct answer is only inquiry may be conducted but no penal action can be taken against him after such inquiry.

Answer 3

The correct option is (C): Act of the legislature changing the punishment of death to life imprisonment.

Answer 4

Article 20(1) stops the legislature from making an offender worse off after the act is done, either by creating a new offence retrospectively or by increasing the penalty retrospectively. The question asks which of the four legislative changes would not be blocked by this rule. Let's look at each option.

1. Act of the legislature enhancing the term of imprisonment: Lengthening a prison term applied to an act already committed makes the punishment heavier than what existed at the time of the act. This is exactly the kind of retrospective enhancement Article 20(1) forbids, so this change would be affected, that is blocked, by Article 20(1).
2. Act of the legislature enhancing the amount of fine: Raising the fine amount for an act already done is also a retrospective increase in penalty. The form of punishment changes, fine instead of imprisonment, but the effect is the same: the offender is made to suffer more than the law promised at the time of the act, so this too is barred by Article 20(1).
3. Act of the legislature changing the punishment of death to life imprisonment: This moves an offender from the harshest possible punishment to a lesser one. Article 20(1) exists to protect a person from being treated more harshly than the law in force at the time of the act allowed, not to freeze a punishment at its original severity. A change that makes the punishment milder does not fall foul of Article 20(1), since nobody is being penalised beyond what the earlier law permitted, if anything they get less. So Article 20(1) has nothing to say against this change.
4. Act of legislature changing the nature of imprisonment from simple to rigorous: Rigorous imprisonment, which usually involves hard labour, is a stricter form of custody than simple imprisonment, even for the same duration. Applying this retrospectively still makes the offender's punishment more severe than the law in force at the time of the act, so Article 20(1) would apply and block it.

Three of the four options make punishment heavier and get caught by Article 20(1); only converting a death sentence into life imprisonment softens the punishment instead of hardening it.

So the correct answer is Act of the legislature changing the punishment of death to life imprisonment.

Answer 5

The correct option is (A): Mr. A may be liable for the offence of Hate speech as the blog was not removed even after the amendment.

Answer 6

Mr. A posted a blog on 19 April 2020. After that date, the Indian Penal Code was amended to create a fresh offence called Hate Speech, and Mr. A was proceeded against for the blog. The question is whether Article 20(1) shields him from this action. Let's check each option.

1. Mr. A may be liable for the offence of Hate speech as the blog was not removed even after the amendment: A blog is not a one-time act like a single spoken sentence; once posted, it stays visible and keeps being read by the public until it is taken down. Because Mr. A left the blog up even after the Hate Speech provision came into force, its continued publication after that date is conduct occurring while the new law was already in effect. Article 20(1) only protects a person from punishment for an act completed before the law existed; it does not protect ongoing conduct that continues after the law is in force. So Mr. A can be held liable for keeping the post live after the amendment.
2. Mr. A may be liable for the offence of Hate speech as Article 20 (1) does not cover such areas: This is simply incorrect as a statement of law. Article 20(1) is a general constitutional protection that applies to all criminal offences, hate speech included. Liability here does not arise because Article 20(1) is somehow excluded, so this reasoning is wrong even though it points at the same outcome.
3. Mr. A may not be liable for the offence because the act was done before the amendment: This treats the blog as a single completed act frozen on 19 April 2020 and ignores that the post kept circulating after the Hate Speech offence was created. Because the blog remained accessible after the amendment, the act is not simply "done before the amendment" in the way this option assumes, so it is incorrect.
4. Mr. A may not be liable for the offence as his blog was innocent and a fair criticism: Whether the content itself is fair comment is a separate factual and free speech question. It has nothing to do with the timing issue that Article 20(1) is testing, so it does not answer the question being asked.

The key fact the other options miss is that a blog post is a continuing publication, not a single closed act, so its presence after the amendment can attract the new provision without breaching Article 20(1).

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

Answer 7

The correct option is (C): Mr. A would be considered a Juvenile and tried under the new procedure.

Answer 8

Parliament raises the juvenility age to below 20 in September 2020. Mr. A, aged 19 in April 2020, would now fall inside the new definition. The question asks how Article 20(1) treats this kind of change. Let's assess the options.

1. Mr. A would not be considered as juvenile as it is prohibited under the scheme of Article 20 (1): The passage tells us Article 20(1) only protects against two things: an act being declared an offence after the fact, and a penalty being increased after the fact. Being tried as a juvenile is not a harsher outcome than being tried as an adult; juvenile procedure is meant to be more lenient and reformative. So there is nothing here for Article 20(1) to prohibit, and this option is wrong.
2. Mr. A would not be considered as juvenile because the amendment came after he committed the offence: This assumes any law passed after the act automatically cannot apply, but that is only true for the two categories Article 20(1) actually protects, new offences and enhanced penalties. A change to age eligibility and trial procedure does not create a new offence or raise a penalty, so the timing objection raised here does not hold.
3. Mr. A would be considered a Juvenile and tried under the new procedure: The source material explicitly says a law prescribing a new and different procedure for prosecuting an offence, made after the act, is not protected by Article 20(1). Raising the juvenile age and directing that such persons be tried under juvenile procedure is exactly this kind of procedural change, and it also works in Mr. A's favour rather than against him. So this retrospective procedural benefit can validly apply to him.
4. None of the above: Since the third option is correct, this cannot be the answer.

The reasoning turns on the distinction between substantive protections, new offences and higher penalties, which Article 20(1) blocks retrospectively, and procedural changes, which it does not.

So the correct answer is Mr. A would be considered a Juvenile and tried under the new procedure.

Answer 9

The correct option is (A): Mr. A will get the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

Answer 10

Parliament now allows offenders below 21 to serve their sentence in a probation house instead of prison. We are asked whether Mr. A, tried for his 2020 blog related offence, gets this benefit. Let's go through the options.

1. Mr. A will get the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act: This law softens the mode in which a sentence is served; a probation house is a milder setting than a prison for the same underlying sentence. Since Article 20(1) only bars retrospective laws that make punishment harsher, a law that makes it milder can freely apply to Mr. A even though it was passed after his act. This fits the constitutional scheme described in the passage.
2. Mr. A will not get the benefit of Probation of Offenders act as it is prohibited by Article 20 (1) of the Constitution: This gets the direction of Article 20(1) backwards. The provision protects an accused from being treated more harshly after the fact, not from being treated more leniently. A softer mode of serving a sentence does not need Article 20(1)'s protection at all, so there is nothing for it to prohibit here.
3. It is discretion of Mr. A to decide whether he wants such benefit or not: The passage gives no indication that beneficial retrospective legislation of this kind is optional for the offender to accept or refuse; whether probation applies is a matter for the sentencing court applying the law, not a choice left to the convicted person. This option invents a condition that is not supported by the facts.
4. None of the above: Since the first option correctly reflects the constitutional position, this cannot be the answer.

Because Article 20(1) is a one-way protection against harsher retrospective treatment, a retrospective law that is milder for the offender raises no constitutional problem at all.

So the correct answer is Mr. A will get the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.