Written by Bhumika Jeswani,
Intern-Lex Lumen Research Journal,
June 2025
Introduction: The Threat of Being Tried Twice
Imagine being acquitted of a crime, only to find yourself summoned to court again—charged with the same offense. Is that fair? The doctrine of double jeopardy states no. The doctrine of double jeopardy, a crucial element in upholding the rule of law, prevents a person from being retried for the same offense that has been acquitted or convicted by the competent court. It outlines several ramifications and exclusions related to the offender’s prosecution and punishment.[1]
The basic tenet of double jeopardy is that no one should face repeated charges for the same offense as long as the court has not rendered a just and reasonable decision. Even if new information is found after the verdict has been rendered, this principle guarantees that the case shall not be reopened and that the judgment cannot be amended. It aims to provide fair justice to all and preserve the rule of law. Where as it not same in the UK Constitution as it allows the re prosecution in exceptional cases for serious offences
‘From Roman law to modern democracies, the principle of double jeopardy has stood as a shield against oppressive legal action.’ The doctrine is rooted in Roman law in the principle of “Nemo bis in idem,” meaning “no one should be punished twice for the same crime.”[2] This principle was later adopted in English law, which focused on protecting citizens from legal abuse and harassment by preventing retrials for the same offense.
International Recognition and Standards
In legal parlance, double jeopardy has been recognized by various international laws as well. The US Constitution first identified it through its 5th Amendment[3] and other laws. Article 4 of Protocol 7 prohibits double jeopardy in member states under the European Convention on Human Rights[4], and Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[5] also prohibits it. In India, the doctrine is recognized under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution, which says that “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once.”[6] From a procedural standpoint, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, also incorporates the doctrine under Section 300[7], which states that a person who has been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction and acquitted or convicted shall not be tried again for the same offense. Section 300 is broader than Article 20(2) in some ways, as it allows protection even against retrial after acquittal, not just punishment.[8]
Importance in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence
Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution guarantees citizens the fundamental right not to face two prosecutions.[9] It is a key idea in the Indian judiciary that gives court rulings finality and ensures that the government doesn’t abuse its authority for selfish or politically driven ends, instead concentrating on the welfare and interests of the general public. It protects citizens from multiple prosecutions by the state, on the other hand, and also reduces the burden on the judiciary from retrials, as a sheer number of cases are still pending. It aims to ensure fairness and due process by the competent court and also maintain judicial economy by avoiding repetitive litigation.
A critical question that often arises is whether Article 20(2) covers both successive prosecutions and successive punishments. The constitutional text suggests that trial and punishment must both occur for the doctrine to be invoked. This was clarified in Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab (1959), where the Supreme Court held that mere prosecution without punishment would not constitute an infringement of Article 20(2) of the Constitution.[10] Conversely, if an individual is punished but not prosecuted (for example, by an administrative penalty), the Article would also not apply. Therefore, both elements — prosecution and punishment — are essential.[11]
Exceptions and Limitations to the Rule
The doctrine of double jeopardy is subject to certain well-recognized exceptions and limitations. Firstly, it does not apply to civil, departmental, or administrative proceedings, such as disciplinary inquiries, which are not considered criminal prosecutions; this was upheld in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954), where a departmental inquiry was allowed despite the accused’s acquittal in a criminal case.[12] Secondly, the protection does not bar prosecution for distinct offenses under different laws, even if they arise from the same act. In the State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte (1961), the Supreme Court permitted separate charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Insurance Act.[13] Thirdly, Article 20(2) applies only when there has been both prosecution and punishment by a criminal court; mere administrative penalties do not attract this protection, as clarified in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953), where a customs penalty was held not to constitute a criminal prosecution.[14] Finally, the doctrine permits a new trial for a more serious offense like culpable homicide or murder if new facts come to light, such as when a victim passes away following an initial assault charge.
In the conclusion the doctrine of double jeopardy is the cornerstone of the criminal law and plays vital role in protecting the offendor from being tried multiple times . Its application, though limited to specific conditions, plays a significant role in maintaining the balance between the power of the state to prosecute and the rights of individuals to be free from undue legal harassment.
[1] See Ratanlal & Dhirajlal , The Code of Criminal Procedure 962 (23rd ed.2020)
[2] M Cheriff Bassiouni , International Criminal Law 94-95 (3d ed. 2008)
[3] U.S. Consti. Amend V (“nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be put twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”)
[4] Protocol No.7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom , art. 4 , Nov 22, 1984 , E.T.S No. 117
[5] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 14(7) , Dec. 16, 1966 , 999 U.N.T.S. 171
[6] India Consti. art. 20 , cl. 2
[7] The Code of Criminal Procedure , No. 2 of 1974, § 300 , India Code (1974)
[8] See K.T.M.S Mohd. V. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 178.
[9] Id.
[10] Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab , AIR 1959 SC 375
[11] See Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bomaby , AIR 1953 SC 325
[12] S A Venkatraman v. Union of India , AIR 1954 SC 375
[13] State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte , AIR 1961 SC 578
[14] Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay , AIR 1953 SC 325
