16,952
edits
First Amendment of the Constitution of India (edit)
Revision as of 10:27, 4 January 2022
, 4 January 2022→Freedom of speech: clean up
CleanupBot (talk | contribs) m (→Freedom of speech: clean up) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Freedom of speech== | ==Freedom of speech== | ||
In 1950, a weekly journal in English, ''Cross Roads'', published by [[Romesh Thapar]] | 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> | |||
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 | 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 | |||
[[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 == | ||
*[ | *[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]] | ||