Procedural safeguard under corruption-investigation law held outside Article 20(1), with unconstitutionality operating retrospectively.

Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was treated as a procedural pre-investigation safeguard for specified public servants, because it neither created an offence nor altered punishment; Article 20(1) therefore did not apply. The provision's unconstitutionality under Part III was held to render it void ab initio, since a post-Constitution law struck down for constitutional invalidity does not survive from its insertion unless prospective overruling is expressly applied. The declaration was accordingly given retrospective effect, and Section 6A was treated as not in force from inception.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is merely procedural and whether Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India has any bearing on its validity; (ii) Whether the declaration that Section 6A(1) is unconstitutional operates retrospectively or only prospectively.

Issue (i): Whether Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is merely procedural and whether Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India has any bearing on its validity.

Analysis: Section 6A did not create any offence, did not alter punishment, and functioned only as a pre-investigation safeguard for specified categories of public servants. Article 20(1) protects against conviction and sentence under ex post facto law, but does not extend to procedural requirements governing enquiry or investigation. A change in procedure, without creation of an offence or enhancement of punishment, does not attract Article 20(1).

Conclusion: Article 20(1) has no application to Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, and the provision is procedural in character.

Issue (ii): Whether the declaration that Section 6A(1) is unconstitutional operates retrospectively or only prospectively.

Analysis: A post-Constitution law held unconstitutional for violation of Part III is void ab initio, non est, and unenforceable from inception. The distinction drawn in the authorities between pre-Constitution and post-Constitution laws shows that a post-Constitution law struck down for unconstitutionality does not survive for the period before the declaration, absent an express prospective overruling.

Conclusion: The declaration of unconstitutionality operates retrospectively, and Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is treated as not in force from the date of its insertion.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional reference was answered in favour of retrospective operation, and the validity-based protection under Section 6A could not be sustained after the declaration of unconstitutionality.

Ratio Decidendi: A post-Constitution statutory provision held unconstitutional for violation of Part III is void ab initio and unenforceable from its inception, and a procedural safeguard of investigation does not attract Article 20(1) unless it creates an offence or enhances punishment.

---