.svg)
First Amendment of the Constitution of India: Difference between revisions
First Amendment of the Constitution of India (edit)
Revision as of 23:33, 26 December 2021
, 26 December 2021→Freedom of speech
>Jumpytoo (Reverting edit(s) by DineshSuthar74 (talk) to rev. 1024824902 by Samitus mallicus: Addition of unnecessary/inappropriate external links (RW 16.1)) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Freedom of speech== | ==Freedom of speech== | ||
In 1950, a | 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> | |||
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> | |||
==Other amendments== | ==Other amendments== | ||
| Line 47: | Line 46: | ||
== 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]] | ||
[[Category:Amendments of the Constitution of India|1]] | [[Category:Amendments of the Constitution of India|1]] | ||