6
edits
First Amendment of the Constitution of India (edit)
Revision as of 12:06, 22 June 2022
, 22 June 2022robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)
>Jumpytoo (Reverting edit(s) by DineshSuthar74 (talk) to rev. 1024824902 by Samitus mallicus: Addition of unnecessary/inappropriate external links (RW 16.1)) |
m (robot: Update article (please report if you notice any mistake or error in this edit)) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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 | 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 | 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>{{cite web | title = When Nehru put the | |||
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>{{cite web | title = When Nehru put the | |||
==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 | |||
=== 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== | ||