First Amendment of the Constitution of India - Revision history

UpdateBot: robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)

2022-06-22T06:36:05Z

robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:06, 22 June 2022
Line 7:		Line 7:
	This Amendment set the precedent of amending the Constitution to overcome judicial judgements impeding fulfilment of the government's perceived responsibilities to particular policies and programmes.		This Amendment set the precedent of amending the Constitution to overcome judicial judgements impeding fulfilment of the government's perceived responsibilities to particular policies and programmes.

			== Background ==
			The [[Constitution of India]] became effective on 26 January 1950. Highlighting the features of the new Constitution, [[The Times of India\|Times of India]] wrote "Laws inconsistent with the provisions of the part on fundamental rights shall to the extent of such inconsistency, be void".<ref>{{Cite book\|last=Singh\|first=Tripurdaman\|title=Sixteen Stormy Days: The Story of the First Amendment of the Constitution of India\|publisher=Vintage Books\|year=2020\|isbn=978-0670092871\|pages=19}}</ref> On 8 February 1950, just two weeks after the constitution was adopted, [[Bombay High Court]] delivered its judgement releasing communists who were indefinitely detained under ''Bombay Public Safety Measures Act''.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web\|last=Singh\|first=Tripurdaman\|date=2020-01-24\|title=The uneasy birth of India's Constitution\|url=https://www.livemint.com/mint-lounge/features/the-uneasy-birth-of-india-s-constitution-11579842930766.html\|access-date=2022-02-23\|website=mint\|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web\|title=Maledath Bharathan Malyali vs The Commissioner Of Police on 8 February, 1950\|url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/483135/\|url-status=live\|access-date=24 February 2022\|website=Indian Kanoon}}</ref> [[Patna High Court]], on 14 February 1950, declared ''Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act'' as "ultra vires".<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite web\|title=Brahmeshwar Prasad vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 14 February, 1950\|url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/405631/\|url-status=live\|access-date=24 February 2022\|website=Indian Kanoon}}</ref>

			In February 1950, ''Cross Roads'' magazine, published series of articles criticizing Madras government for a firing on communist prisoners in Salem Central Jail which left 22 prisoners dead.<ref name=":4">{{Citation\|last=Burra\|first=Arudra\|title=Civil Liberties in the Early Constitution: the CrossRoads and Organiser cases\|date=2019-03-17\|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331817658_Civil_Liberties_in_the_Early_Constitution_the_CrossRoads_and_Organiser_cases\|access-date=2022-02-23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news\|date=2006-02-13\|title=Survivor of Salem prison massacre recalls the black day\|language=en-IN\|work=The Hindu\|url=https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/survivor-of-salem-prison-massacre-recalls-the-black-day/article18408295.ece\|access-date=2022-02-23\|issn=0971-751X}}</ref> The Madras government responded on 1 March 1950, by banning circulation and distribution of the magazine in the province under the relevant sections of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act.<ref>{{Cite book\|last=Singh\|first=Tripurdaman\|title=Sixteen Stormy Days: The Story of the First Amendment of the Constitution of India.\|publisher=Vintage Books\|year=2020\|isbn=978-0670092871\|pages=26}}</ref> In April 1950, ''Cross'' ''Road'' editor [[Romesh Thapar]] filed petition against this ban in [[Supreme Court of India\|Supreme Court]].<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":1">{{cite web\|title=Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950\|url=http://indiankanoon.org/doc/456839/\|access-date=2014-01-14\|publisher=indiankanoon.org}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite web\|last=Saxena\|first=Namit\|title=70 years of the Crossroads and the Organiser Cases: A Revisit\|url=https://www.barandbench.com/columns/70-years-of-the-crossroads-the-organiser-cases-a-revisit\|access-date=2022-02-23\|website=Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news\|language=en}}</ref>

			At the same time, another publication [[Organiser (magazine)\|Organiser]], was also publishing against the policy adopted by government about Pakistan. On 2 March 1950, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued a 'pre-censorship order' under the ''East Punjab Public Safety Act'', requiring the editor and publisher to submit to the government for approval all communal matters and news about Pakistan.<ref>{{Cite book\|last=Singh\|first=Tripurdaman\|title=Sixteen Stormy Days: The Story of the First Amendment of the Constitution of India\|publisher=Vintage Books\|year=2020\|isbn=978-0670092871\|pages=29}}</ref><ref name=":4" /> On 10 April 1950, Organiser filed petition in [[Supreme Court of India\|Supreme Court]]. The Supreme Court announced its verdict on both cases against Nehru government on 26 May 1950.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":2" />
	==Freedom of speech==		==Freedom of speech==
	In ~~1950~~, a ~~leftist weekly journal in English, ''Cross Roads'', published by~~ [[~~Romesh Thapar]] was banned by the [[Madras State]] for publishing critical views on [[Nehruvian]] policy, who petitioned the [[Supreme Court~~ of India~~\|Supreme Court~~]]~~, which led to the landmark judgment in~~ "~~Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras~~" ~~on 26 May 1950~~.<ref>{{cite web \| title = ~~Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950~~ \| url = http://~~indiankanoon~~.~~org~~/~~doc~~/~~456839~~/ \|~~publisher~~=~~indiankanoon.org~~\| access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>		In 1951, the Nehru administration made a provision limiting Article 19(1)(a) of [[Constitution of India]] against "abuse of freedom of speech and expression".<ref name="exp">{{cite web \| title = Half a century of ideas\|publisher=Indian Express \| url = http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/half-a-century-of-ideas/532789/0\|date=Oct 25, 2009 \| access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>

	The ~~tussle~~ to ~~censor media also continued~~ when~~, in response to~~ severe criticism in the press about its response to the refugee influx in West Bengal and extra-judicial killings of communist activists in Madras, the government ~~felt the need~~ to ~~restrict media~~.		The need to control Freedom of Speech arrived in 1950 when the government came under severe criticism in the press about its response to the refugee influx in West Bengal and extra-judicial killings of communist activists in Madras. The administration censored the press, but the same was held unconstitutional by the Courts, forcing the government to look for new ways. <ref name=":2">{{cite web \| title = When Nehru put the 'Constitution in danger' \| url = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/when-nehru-put-the-constitution-in-danger/}}</ref>
	<ref name="~~timesofindia.indiatimes.com~~">{{cite web \| title = When Nehru put the ~~‘Constitution~~ in ~~danger’~~ \| url = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/when-nehru-put-the-constitution-in-danger/}}</ref>

	~~Eventually, in 1951 Nehru administration made a provision limiting Article 19(1)(a)~~ of ~~[[Constitution of India]] against "abuse of freedom of speech and expression"~~.<ref name=exp>{{cite web \| title = Half a century of ideas\|publisher=Indian Express \| url = http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/half-a-century-of-ideas/532789/0\|date=Oct 25, 2009 \| access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>		The government then used judicial judgements to justify the need to dilute Freedom of Speech. Some courts had held the citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the [[Constitution of India]] to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence.<ref name=":0">{{cite web \| title = Shaila Bala Devi vs The Chief Secretary To The State Of Bihar on 13 October, 1950 \| url = https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1187435/ \|publisher=indiankanoon.org}}</ref> The Congress government noted that in other countries with written constitutions, freedom of speech and of the press is not regarded as debarring the State from punishing or preventing abuse of this freedom. <ref name="fulltext"/> The opposition disagreed, reminding parliament of [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] where State was barred from curbing fundamental freedom that formed the essence of democracy. Furthermore, it warned that restricting Freedom of Speech would lead to abuse by The State and drastically impact the democratic freedom of citizens. The majority government of Congress ignored the opposition's concerns. <ref name=":2">{{cite web \| title = When Nehru put the 'Constitution in danger' \| url = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/when-nehru-put-the-constitution-in-danger/}}</ref>

	Some courts had held the citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the [[Constitution of India]] to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence.<ref>{{cite web \| title = Shaila Bala Devi vs The Chief Secretary To The State Of Bihar on 13 October, 1950 \| url = https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1187435/ \|publisher=indiankanoon.org}}</ref> The Congress government noted that in other countries with written constitutions, freedom of speech and of the press is not regarded as debarring the State from punishing or preventing abuse of this freedom.<ref name="fulltext"/> The opposition disagreed, reminding parliament of [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] where State was barred from curbing fundamental freedom that formed the essence of democracy. Furthermore, it warned that restricting Freedom of Speech would lead to abuse by The State and drastically impact the democratic freedom of citizens. The majority government of Congress ignored the opposition's concerns.<ref name="timesofindia.indiatimes.com"/>

	==Freedom of trade==		==Freedom of trade==
Line 27:		Line 30:
	of being discriminatory, article 15(3) was suitably amplified.<ref name="fulltext"/>		of being discriminatory, article 15(3) was suitably amplified.<ref name="fulltext"/>

	===Background===		=== Background ===
			[[Jawaharlal Nehru]] encouraged the [[Parliament of India]] to pass the amendment in response to ''[[State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan]]'', which went before the [[Madras High Court]] and then the [[Supreme Court of India]]. In that case, a [[Brahmin]] woman in [[Madras]] challenged the state's Communal General Order, which established caste quotas in government-supported medical and engineering schools, on the grounds that it denied her equality under the law; both courts had upheld her petition.<ref>{{citation\|last=Hasan\|first=Zoya\|title=India's living constitution: ideas, practices, controversies\|page=321\|year=2005\|series=Anthem South Asian studies\|publisher=Anthem Press\|isbn=978-1-84331-137-9\|last2=Sridharan\|first2=Eswaran\|last3=Sudarshan\|first3=R.}}</ref>
	[[Jawaharlal Nehru]] encouraged the [[Parliament of India]] to pass the amendment in response to ''[[State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan]]'', which went before the [[Madras High Court]] and then the [[Supreme Court of India]]. In that case, a [[Brahmin]] woman in [[Madras]] challenged the state's Communal General Order, which established caste quotas in government-supported medical and engineering schools, on the grounds that it denied her equality under the law; both courts had upheld her petition.<ref>{{citation\|title=India's living constitution: ideas, practices, controversies\|series=Anthem South Asian studies~~\|first=Zoya\|last=Hasan\|first2=Eswaran\|last2=Sridharan\|first3=R.\|last3=Sudarshan~~\|publisher=Anthem Press~~\|year=2005~~\|isbn=978-1-84331-137-9\|~~page~~=~~321~~}}</ref>

	~~Debate~~

	[[Syama Prasad Mookerjee]] opposed the amendment for curtailing freedom of speech expressly conceded that Parliament has the power to make the aforesaid amendment.<ref>{{citation\|title=Making of India's Constitution\|first=Hans Raj\|last=Khanna\|edition=2nd\|publisher=Eastern Book Company\|year=2008\|isbn=978-81-7012-108-4\|page=224}}</ref>		=== Debate ===
			[[Syama Prasad Mookerjee]] opposed the amendment for curtailing freedom of speech expressly conceded that Parliament has the power to make the aforesaid amendment.<ref>{{citation\|title=Making of India's Constitution\|first=Hans Raj\|last=Khanna\|edition=2nd\|publisher=Eastern Book Company\|year=2008\|isbn=978-81-7012-108-4\|page=224}}</ref>

	==Other amendments==		==Other amendments==

CleanupBot: /* Freedom of speech */clean up

2022-01-04T04:57:41Z

Freedom of speech: clean up

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:27, 4 January 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:

	==Freedom of speech==		==Freedom of speech==
	In 1950, a weekly journal in English, ''Cross Roads'', published by [[Romesh Thapar]], was banned by [[Madras State]] for publishing views ~~critical of~~ [[Nehruvian]] policy~~. Romesh Thapar then sued Madras State in~~ the [[Supreme Court of India]], ~~leading~~ to the landmark judgment in ''Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras'' on 26 May 1950. <ref>{{cite web \| title = Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950 \| url = http://indiankanoon.org/doc/456839/ \|publisher=indiankanoon.org\| access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>		In 1950, a leftist weekly journal in English, ''Cross Roads'', published by [[Romesh Thapar]] was banned by the [[Madras State]] for publishing critical views on [[Nehruvian]] policy, who petitioned the [[Supreme Court of India\|Supreme Court]], which led to the landmark judgment in "Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras" on 26 May 1950.<ref>{{cite web \| title = Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950 \| url = http://indiankanoon.org/doc/456839/ \|publisher=indiankanoon.org\| access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>

	The tussle to censor media also continued when, in response to severe criticism in the press about its response to the refugee influx in West Bengal and extra-judicial killings of communist activists in Madras, the government felt the need to restrict media.<ref>{{cite web \| title = When Nehru put the ‘Constitution in danger’ \| url = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/when-nehru-put-the-constitution-in-danger/}}</ref>		The tussle to censor media also continued when, in response to severe criticism in the press about its response to the refugee influx in West Bengal and extra-judicial killings of communist activists in Madras, the government felt the need to restrict media.
			<ref name="timesofindia.indiatimes.com">{{cite web \| title = When Nehru put the ‘Constitution in danger’ \| url = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/when-nehru-put-the-constitution-in-danger/}}</ref>

	In 1951~~, as a result of all this, the~~ Nehru administration made a provision limiting Article 19(1)(a) of [[Constitution of India]] against "abuse of freedom of speech and expression".<ref name=exp>{{cite web \| title = Half a century of ideas\|publisher=Indian Express \| url = http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/half-a-century-of-ideas/532789/0\|date=Oct 25, 2009 \| access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>		Eventually, in 1951 Nehru administration made a provision limiting Article 19(1)(a) of [[Constitution of India]] against "abuse of freedom of speech and expression".<ref name=exp>{{cite web \| title = Half a century of ideas\|publisher=Indian Express \| url = http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/half-a-century-of-ideas/532789/0\|date=Oct 25, 2009 \| access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>

	Some courts had held the citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the [[Constitution of India]] to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence.<ref>{{cite web \| title = Shaila Bala Devi vs The Chief Secretary To The State Of Bihar on 13 October, 1950 \| url = https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1187435/ \|publisher=indiankanoon.org}}</ref> The Congress government noted that in other countries with written constitutions, freedom of speech and of the press is not regarded as debarring the State from punishing or preventing abuse of this freedom. <ref name="fulltext"/> The opposition disagreed, reminding parliament of [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] where State was barred from curbing fundamental freedom that formed the essence of democracy. Furthermore, it warned that restricting Freedom of Speech would lead to abuse by The State and drastically impact the democratic freedom of citizens. The majority government of Congress ignored the opposition's concerns. <ref~~>{{cite web \| title~~ = ~~When Nehru put the ‘Constitution in danger’ \| url = https://~~timesofindia.indiatimes.com/~~blogs/voices/when-nehru-put-the-constitution-in-danger/}}</ref~~>		Some courts had held the citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the [[Constitution of India]] to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence.<ref>{{cite web \| title = Shaila Bala Devi vs The Chief Secretary To The State Of Bihar on 13 October, 1950 \| url = https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1187435/ \|publisher=indiankanoon.org}}</ref> The Congress government noted that in other countries with written constitutions, freedom of speech and of the press is not regarded as debarring the State from punishing or preventing abuse of this freedom.<ref name="fulltext"/> The opposition disagreed, reminding parliament of [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] where State was barred from curbing fundamental freedom that formed the essence of democracy. Furthermore, it warned that restricting Freedom of Speech would lead to abuse by The State and drastically impact the democratic freedom of citizens. The majority government of Congress ignored the opposition's concerns.<ref name="timesofindia.indiatimes.com"/>

	==Freedom of trade==		==Freedom of trade==
Line 30:		Line 31:
	[[Jawaharlal Nehru]] encouraged the [[Parliament of India]] to pass the amendment in response to ''[[State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan]]'', which went before the [[Madras High Court]] and then the [[Supreme Court of India]]. In that case, a [[Brahmin]] woman in [[Madras]] challenged the state's Communal General Order, which established caste quotas in government-supported medical and engineering schools, on the grounds that it denied her equality under the law; both courts had upheld her petition.<ref>{{citation\|title=India's living constitution: ideas, practices, controversies\|series=Anthem South Asian studies\|first=Zoya\|last=Hasan\|first2=Eswaran\|last2=Sridharan\|first3=R.\|last3=Sudarshan\|publisher=Anthem Press\|year=2005\|isbn=978-1-84331-137-9\|page=321}}</ref>		[[Jawaharlal Nehru]] encouraged the [[Parliament of India]] to pass the amendment in response to ''[[State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan]]'', which went before the [[Madras High Court]] and then the [[Supreme Court of India]]. In that case, a [[Brahmin]] woman in [[Madras]] challenged the state's Communal General Order, which established caste quotas in government-supported medical and engineering schools, on the grounds that it denied her equality under the law; both courts had upheld her petition.<ref>{{citation\|title=India's living constitution: ideas, practices, controversies\|series=Anthem South Asian studies\|first=Zoya\|last=Hasan\|first2=Eswaran\|last2=Sridharan\|first3=R.\|last3=Sudarshan\|publisher=Anthem Press\|year=2005\|isbn=978-1-84331-137-9\|page=321}}</ref>

	~~===~~ Debate ~~===~~		Debate

	[[Syama Prasad Mookerjee]] opposed the amendment for curtailing freedom of speech expressly conceded that Parliament has the power to make the aforesaid amendment.<ref>{{citation\|title=Making of India's Constitution\|first=Hans Raj\|last=Khanna\|edition=2nd\|publisher=Eastern Book Company\|year=2008\|isbn=978-81-7012-108-4\|page=224}}</ref>		[[Syama Prasad Mookerjee]] opposed the amendment for curtailing freedom of speech expressly conceded that Parliament has the power to make the aforesaid amendment.<ref>{{citation\|title=Making of India's Constitution\|first=Hans Raj\|last=Khanna\|edition=2nd\|publisher=Eastern Book Company\|year=2008\|isbn=978-81-7012-108-4\|page=224}}</ref>

	==Other amendments==		==Other amendments==
Line 46:		Line 47:
	== External links ==		== External links ==

	*[~~https~~://~~www~~.~~inbais~~.~~com~~/~~amendments~~/~~1st-amendment-of-indian-constitution~~/ Full text] from India's [[Ministry of Law and Justice (India)\|Ministry of Law and Justice]]		*[http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend1.htm Full text] from India's [[Ministry of Law and Justice (India)\|Ministry of Law and Justice]]

	[[Category:Amendments of the Constitution of India\|1]]		[[Category:Amendments of the Constitution of India\|1]]

120.63.0.118: /* Freedom of speech */

2021-12-26T18:03:36Z

Freedom of speech

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:33, 26 December 2021
Line 8:		Line 8:

	==Freedom of speech==		==Freedom of speech==
	In 1950, a ~~leftist~~ weekly journal in English, ''Cross Roads'', published by [[Romesh Thapar]] was banned by ~~the~~ [[Madras State]] for publishing critical ~~views on~~ [[Nehruvian]] policy~~, who petitioned~~ the [[Supreme Court of India~~\|Supreme Court~~]], ~~which led~~ to the landmark judgment in "Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras" on 26 May 1950. <ref>{{cite web \| title = Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950 \| url = http://indiankanoon.org/doc/456839/ \|publisher=indiankanoon.org\| access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>		In 1950, a weekly journal in English, ''Cross Roads'', published by [[Romesh Thapar]], was banned by [[Madras State]] for publishing views critical of [[Nehruvian]] policy. Romesh Thapar then sued Madras State in the [[Supreme Court of India]], leading to the landmark judgment in ''Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras'' on 26 May 1950. <ref>{{cite web \| title = Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950 \| url = http://indiankanoon.org/doc/456839/ \|publisher=indiankanoon.org\| access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>

	The tussle to censor media also continued when, in response to severe criticism in the press about its response to the refugee influx in West Bengal and extra-judicial killings of communist activists in Madras, the government felt the need to restrict media.		The tussle to censor media also continued when, in response to severe criticism in the press about its response to the refugee influx in West Bengal and extra-judicial killings of communist activists in Madras, the government felt the need to restrict media.<ref>{{cite web \| title = When Nehru put the ‘Constitution in danger’ \| url = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/when-nehru-put-the-constitution-in-danger/}}</ref>
	<ref>{{cite web \| title = When Nehru put the ‘Constitution in danger’ \| url = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/when-nehru-put-the-constitution-in-danger/}}</ref>

	~~Eventually~~, ~~in 1951~~ Nehru administration made a provision limiting Article 19(1)(a) of [[Constitution of India]] against "abuse of freedom of speech and expression".<ref name=exp>{{cite web \| title = Half a century of ideas\|publisher=Indian Express \| url = http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/half-a-century-of-ideas/532789/0\|date=Oct 25, 2009 \| access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>		In 1951, as a result of all this, the Nehru administration made a provision limiting Article 19(1)(a) of [[Constitution of India]] against "abuse of freedom of speech and expression".<ref name=exp>{{cite web \| title = Half a century of ideas\|publisher=Indian Express \| url = http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/half-a-century-of-ideas/532789/0\|date=Oct 25, 2009 \| access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>

	Some courts had held the citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the [[Constitution of India]] to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence.<ref>{{cite web \| title = Shaila Bala Devi vs The Chief Secretary To The State Of Bihar on 13 October, 1950 \| url = https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1187435/ \|publisher=indiankanoon.org}}</ref> The Congress government noted that in other countries with written constitutions, freedom of speech and of the press is not regarded as debarring the State from punishing or preventing abuse of this freedom. <ref name="fulltext"/> The opposition disagreed, reminding parliament of [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] where State was barred from curbing fundamental freedom that formed the essence of democracy. Furthermore, it warned that restricting Freedom of Speech would lead to abuse by The State and drastically impact the democratic freedom of citizens. The majority government of Congress ignored the opposition's concerns. <ref>{{cite web \| title = When Nehru put the ‘Constitution in danger’ \| url = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/when-nehru-put-the-constitution-in-danger/}}</ref>		Some courts had held the citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the [[Constitution of India]] to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence.<ref>{{cite web \| title = Shaila Bala Devi vs The Chief Secretary To The State Of Bihar on 13 October, 1950 \| url = https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1187435/ \|publisher=indiankanoon.org}}</ref> The Congress government noted that in other countries with written constitutions, freedom of speech and of the press is not regarded as debarring the State from punishing or preventing abuse of this freedom. <ref name="fulltext"/> The opposition disagreed, reminding parliament of [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] where State was barred from curbing fundamental freedom that formed the essence of democracy. Furthermore, it warned that restricting Freedom of Speech would lead to abuse by The State and drastically impact the democratic freedom of citizens. The majority government of Congress ignored the opposition's concerns. <ref>{{cite web \| title = When Nehru put the ‘Constitution in danger’ \| url = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/when-nehru-put-the-constitution-in-danger/}}</ref>
Line 31:		Line 30:
	[[Jawaharlal Nehru]] encouraged the [[Parliament of India]] to pass the amendment in response to ''[[State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan]]'', which went before the [[Madras High Court]] and then the [[Supreme Court of India]]. In that case, a [[Brahmin]] woman in [[Madras]] challenged the state's Communal General Order, which established caste quotas in government-supported medical and engineering schools, on the grounds that it denied her equality under the law; both courts had upheld her petition.<ref>{{citation\|title=India's living constitution: ideas, practices, controversies\|series=Anthem South Asian studies\|first=Zoya\|last=Hasan\|first2=Eswaran\|last2=Sridharan\|first3=R.\|last3=Sudarshan\|publisher=Anthem Press\|year=2005\|isbn=978-1-84331-137-9\|page=321}}</ref>		[[Jawaharlal Nehru]] encouraged the [[Parliament of India]] to pass the amendment in response to ''[[State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan]]'', which went before the [[Madras High Court]] and then the [[Supreme Court of India]]. In that case, a [[Brahmin]] woman in [[Madras]] challenged the state's Communal General Order, which established caste quotas in government-supported medical and engineering schools, on the grounds that it denied her equality under the law; both courts had upheld her petition.<ref>{{citation\|title=India's living constitution: ideas, practices, controversies\|series=Anthem South Asian studies\|first=Zoya\|last=Hasan\|first2=Eswaran\|last2=Sridharan\|first3=R.\|last3=Sudarshan\|publisher=Anthem Press\|year=2005\|isbn=978-1-84331-137-9\|page=321}}</ref>

	Debate		=== Debate ===

	[[Syama Prasad Mookerjee]] opposed the amendment for curtailing freedom of speech expressly conceded that Parliament has the power to make the aforesaid amendment.<ref>{{citation\|title=Making of India's Constitution\|first=Hans Raj\|last=Khanna\|edition=2nd\|publisher=Eastern Book Company\|year=2008\|isbn=978-81-7012-108-4\|page=224}}</ref>		[[Syama Prasad Mookerjee]] opposed the amendment for curtailing freedom of speech expressly conceded that Parliament has the power to make the aforesaid amendment.<ref>{{citation\|title=Making of India's Constitution\|first=Hans Raj\|last=Khanna\|edition=2nd\|publisher=Eastern Book Company\|year=2008\|isbn=978-81-7012-108-4\|page=224}}</ref>

	==Other amendments==		==Other amendments==
Line 47:		Line 46:
	== External links ==		== External links ==

	*[~~http~~://~~indiacode~~.~~nic~~.in/~~coiweb~~/~~amend~~/~~amend1.htm~~ Full text] from India's [[Ministry of Law and Justice (India)\|Ministry of Law and Justice]]		*[https://www.inbais.com/amendments/1st-amendment-of-indian-constitution/ Full text] from India's [[Ministry of Law and Justice (India)\|Ministry of Law and Justice]]

	[[Category:Amendments of the Constitution of India\|1]]		[[Category:Amendments of the Constitution of India\|1]]

>Jumpytoo: Reverting edit(s) by DineshSuthar74 (talk) to rev. 1024824902 by Samitus mallicus: Addition of unnecessary/inappropriate external links (RW 16.1)

2021-06-19T10:47:38Z

Reverting edit(s) by DineshSuthar74 (talk) to rev. 1024824902 by Samitus mallicus: Addition of unnecessary/inappropriate external links (RW 16.1)

New page

{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2014}}
{{Use Indian English|date=February 2014}}{{Indian Constitution TOC}}
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, enacted in 1951, made several changes to the [[Fundamental Rights in India|Fundamental Rights]] provisions of the [[Constitution of India|Indian constitution]]. It provided means to restrict [[freedom of speech|freedom of speech and expression]], validation of ''[[zamindari]]'' abolition laws, and clarified that the [[Equality before the law|right to equality]] does not bar the enactment of laws which provide "special consideration" for weaker sections of society.

The formal title of the amendment is the '''Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951'''. It was moved by the then [[Prime Minister of India]], [[Jawaharlal Nehru]], on 10 May 1951 and enacted by [[Parliament of India|Parliament]] on 18 June 1951.<ref name="fulltext">[http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend1.htm Full text of First Amendment]</ref>

This Amendment set the precedent of amending the Constitution to overcome judicial judgements impeding fulfilment of the government's perceived responsibilities to particular policies and programmes.

==Freedom of speech==
In 1950, a leftist weekly journal in English, ''Cross Roads'', published by [[Romesh Thapar]] was banned by the [[Madras State]] for publishing critical views on [[Nehruvian]] policy, who petitioned the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]], which led to the landmark judgment in "Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras" on 26 May 1950. <ref>{{cite web | title = Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950 | url = http://indiankanoon.org/doc/456839/ |publisher=indiankanoon.org| access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>

The tussle to censor media also continued when, in response to severe criticism in the press about its response to the refugee influx in West Bengal and extra-judicial killings of communist activists in Madras, the government felt the need to restrict media.
<ref>{{cite web | title = When Nehru put the ‘Constitution in danger’ | url = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/when-nehru-put-the-constitution-in-danger/}}</ref>

Eventually, in 1951 Nehru administration made a provision limiting Article 19(1)(a) of [[Constitution of India]] against "abuse of freedom of speech and expression".<ref name=exp>{{cite web | title = Half a century of ideas|publisher=Indian Express | url = http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/half-a-century-of-ideas/532789/0|date=Oct 25, 2009 | access-date = 2014-01-14 }}</ref>

Some courts had held the citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the [[Constitution of India]] to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence.<ref>{{cite web | title = Shaila Bala Devi vs The Chief Secretary To The State Of Bihar on 13 October, 1950 | url = https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1187435/ |publisher=indiankanoon.org}}</ref> The Congress government noted that in other countries with written constitutions, freedom of speech and of the press is not regarded as debarring the State from punishing or preventing abuse of this freedom. <ref name="fulltext"/> The opposition disagreed, reminding parliament of [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] where State was barred from curbing fundamental freedom that formed the essence of democracy. Furthermore, it warned that restricting Freedom of Speech would lead to abuse by The State and drastically impact the democratic freedom of citizens. The majority government of Congress ignored the opposition's concerns. <ref>{{cite web | title = When Nehru put the ‘Constitution in danger’ | url = https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/when-nehru-put-the-constitution-in-danger/}}</ref>

==Freedom of trade==
The right of citizens of [[India]] to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business conferred by article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions which the laws of the State may impose "in the interests of general public". While the words cited are comprehensive enough to cover any scheme of nationalisation, it was thought desirable to place the matter beyond doubt by a clarificatory addition to article 19(6).<ref name="fulltext"/>

==Upholding land reforms==
The [[Parliament of India]] noted that validity of agrarian reform measures passed by the State Legislatures had, in spite of the provisions of clauses (4) and (6) of article 31, formed the subject-matter of dilatory litigation, as a result of which the implementation of these important measures, affecting large numbers of people, had been held up. Accordingly, a new article 31A was introduced to uphold such measures in the future. Further, another new article 31B, with retrospective effect, was introduced to validate 13 enactments relating to zamindari abolition.<ref name="fulltext"/>

==Equality==
It is laid down in Article 46 as a [[Directive Principles|Directive Principle of State Policy]] that the State should promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and protect them from social injustice. In order that any special provision that the State may make for the educational, economic or social advancement of any backward class of citizens may not be challenged on the ground
of being discriminatory, article 15(3) was suitably amplified.<ref name="fulltext"/>

===Background===

[[Jawaharlal Nehru]] encouraged the [[Parliament of India]] to pass the amendment in response to ''[[State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan]]'', which went before the [[Madras High Court]] and then the [[Supreme Court of India]]. In that case, a [[Brahmin]] woman in [[Madras]] challenged the state's Communal General Order, which established caste quotas in government-supported medical and engineering schools, on the grounds that it denied her equality under the law; both courts had upheld her petition.<ref>{{citation|title=India's living constitution: ideas, practices, controversies|series=Anthem South Asian studies|first=Zoya|last=Hasan|first2=Eswaran|last2=Sridharan|first3=R.|last3=Sudarshan|publisher=Anthem Press|year=2005|isbn=978-1-84331-137-9|page=321}}</ref>

Debate

[[Syama Prasad Mookerjee]] opposed the amendment for curtailing freedom of speech expressly conceded that Parliament has the power to make the aforesaid amendment.<ref>{{citation|title=Making of India's Constitution|first=Hans Raj|last=Khanna|edition=2nd|publisher=Eastern Book Company|year=2008|isbn=978-81-7012-108-4|page=224}}</ref>

==Other amendments==
Certain amendments in respect of articles dealing with the convening and proroguing of the sessions of Parliament were also incorporated in the Act. So also a few minor amendments in respect of articles 341, 342, 372, and 376.<ref name="fulltext"/>

== See also ==

* [[Sixteen Stormy Days]], Book written by historian Tripurdaman Singh on first amendment of constitution of India

==References==
{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend1.htm Full text] from India's [[Ministry of Law and Justice (India)|Ministry of Law and Justice]]

[[Category:Amendments of the Constitution of India|1]]
[[Category:1951 in India]]
[[Category:1951 in law]]
[[Category:Nehru administration]]
[[Category:Freedom of expression in India]]