Nullum Crimen Sine Lege: Meaning and Definition

This Latin maxim directly translates to ‘no crimes without law.’ Englishmen, according to Dicey, are subject to the law and the law alone. An Englishman may face punishment for breaking the law, but he cannot face punishment for any other offence. This is supported by the fact that the accused person's life and freedom are at risk. It is crucial that he first determine where he is in reference to criminal law. Otherwise, it would be extreme cruelty to punish him for breaking that law.

This security is almost universal in all civilised legal systems worldwide, including India, not only in England. According to the principle of the prohibition against retroactive criminalization, which states that certain conduct cannot be considered criminal unless a law explicitly declares it to be so, any ex post facto crime-creation shall be regarded as invalid in criminal law.

What is Nullum Crimen Sine Lege?

"Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege" is a saying that conveys the following four principles −

• Penal laws are not retroactive.

• Strict drafting of the Penal laws.

• The certainty of legislation

• Law's accessibility

Nullum crimen sine lege has gained significance since the end of World War II. The judges of the Nuremberg Tribunal had to define many of the elements of crime because the international crimes had not been established. The prosecution was not given any protection from this retroactive criminal statute throughout the trials on the basis that their activities were against humanity. The Nuremberg Tribunal's proceedings have drawn criticism.

Illustration of Nullum Crimen Sine Lege

If a new legislation is established making it against the law to drive without a seatbelt, those who did so before the law's passage will not be held accountable for their actions. After the law is passed, however, people can be penalised if they continue to drive without a seatbelt because it is now clearly defined as a criminal.

Important Case Laws

Some of the significant cases of this category are −

Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors (1991)

The appellants' attempts to apply the recently introduced dowry killing provision under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code to an alleged incident that happened before the provision's insertion were rejected. The incident in question is believed to have occurred in August 1986, while Section 304-B was passed into law in November of the same year. According to the Court, applying Section 304-B retroactively would deny people the protection guaranteed by Article 21(1) of the Constitution.

Selvi & others vs. State of Karnataka & another (2010)

The High Court determined that the safeguards under Article 20 are the "fundamental protections that control the interaction between the individual and the criminal justice system" in the illustrious Selvi v. State of Karnataka decision. The Forty-fourth Amendment Act of 1978 gave both Articles 20 and 21 the non-derogable character, which the Court emphasised in describing how the guarantees of those two articles interact.

Rao Shiv Bahadur & Anr vs State of Vindhya Pradesh (1953)

The Constitution's Article 20(1) has been construed in the following way by the Hon. Supreme Court of India. According to the court, it is against the law to convict or punish a person in accordance with Article 20(1) of the Constitution. However, placing someone on trial using a technique other than the one used to commit the crime does not fall within the purview of the ban outlined in the aforementioned article.

As a result, it cannot be assumed that a particular trial is unconstitutional. It should be underlined that unless there is a constitutional objection based on discrimination or a violation of another fundamental right, a person accused of committing an act has no fundamental right to a trial by jury under a particular procedure.

Hirota vs. McArthur (1948)

The statement is included in fairness Douglas' concurring opinion in this case, where Douglas said that "the maxim nullum crimen sine lege is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is generally a principle of justice". The idea restricted defendants from unfairly being subject to the law, but it did not prevent Japanese government leaders from being held guilty of war crimes by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, it was explained. It is manifestly false to claim that individuals who have invaded states without notice in violation of treaties and promises should not face punishment.

Conclusion

The stated concept essentially states that a punishment cannot serve any utilitarian purpose by making the criminal offender suffer unless it is based on the applicable law. To say that the nullum crimen sine lege principle of non-retroactivity is a fundamental legal principle is not an overstatement. The idea speaks for the assurance of establishing the right to a fair trial from the perspective of individual rights.

In essence, the idea of giving a person a "fair warning" through previously established regulations recognises their liberty in making decisions based on existing laws. In India, the Constitution's Article 20(1) upholds the aforementioned legal principle.

Frequently Asked Questions

Nullum crimen nulla a sine lege: what does that mean?

The maxim "nullum crimen sine lege" means crime is not justifiable without law.

What is nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege in India?

The "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege" (nullum crimen, nulla poena sans lege) principle states that an act is not a crime and does not call for punishment unless the legislator first determines and publishes the crime's title and punishment.

What does nulla poena sine lege look like in practise?

Nulla poena sine lege would argue that taggers could not be penalised until after a law is enacted that makes the action an offence, for example, if a city recognised a pattern of graffiti tagging but had no laws against it.