Ex post facto law: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary
Line 83:
Further, what article 20(1) prohibits is conviction and sentence under an ''ex post facto'' law for acts done prior thereto, but not the enactment or validity of such a law. There is, thus, a difference between the Indian and the American positions on this point; whereas in the United States, an ''ex post facto'' law is in itself invalid, it is not so in India. The courts may also interpret a law in such a manner that any objection against it of retrospective operation may be removed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l60-Protection-against-ex-post-facto-laws.html|title=Protection against ex-post-facto laws|website=legalserviceindia.com}}</ref>
 
An example for retrospective law in India is the [[Karnataka ScheduleScheduled CasteCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.karunadu.gov.in/karigr/actsrules/otheracts/scst.htm|title=Department of Stamps and Registration, Government of Karnataka|access-date=2014-03-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326062205/http://www.karunadu.gov.in/karigr/actsrules/otheracts/scst.htm|archive-date=2014-03-26|url-status=dead}}</ref> in the state of [[Karnataka]].
 
===Indonesia===