SATYA PRAKASH ADJUNCT FACULTY Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA SC Verdicts on Article 19 in 1950s
Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras
It involved a challenge against an order issued by the Government of Madras under section 9(I-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act 1949 imposing a ban on the entry and circulation of ‘Cross Roads’, a journal published by the petitioner. The Supreme Court struck down the provision holding that the right to freedom of speech and expression was paramount and nothing short of a danger to the foundations of the State or a threat to overthrow it, could justify curtailment of the right to freedom of speech and expression. The court said the restriction in question fell outside the scope of reasonable restrictions permissible under Article 19(2) of the Constitution and hence unconstitutional. SC Verdicts on Article 19 in 1950s
Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi
In this case the authorities had passed an order against the publishers of the ‘Organiser’ under section 7(i)(c) of the East Punjab Safety Act 1949. It authorised pre-censorship on the ground that it was “necessary for the purpose of preventing or combating any activity pre-judicial to the public safety or the maintenance of public order.” The Supreme Court ruled that section 7(i)(c) that authorised such pre- censorship was unconstitutional as it did not fall within the ambit of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Impact of the two verdicts It forced the Nehru government to introduce the First Amendment to the Constitution barely a year after it came into force. The government felt handicapped in dealing with challenges to a nascent State in terms of exercise of free speech which could potentially incite violence. THE CONSTITUTION (FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT, 1951 Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill, 1951 which was enacted as the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS During the last fifteen months of the working of the Constitution, certain difficulties have been brought to light by judicial decisions and pronouncements specially in regard to the chapter on fundamental rights. The citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by article 19(1)(a) has been held by some courts to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence. 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. The citizen's right to practise 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 which the State may undertake, it is desirable to place the matter beyond doubt by a clarificatory addition to article 19(6). Another article in regard to which unanticipated difficulties have arisen is article 31. The validity of agrarian reform measures passed by the State Legislatures in the last three years has, 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, has been held up. The main objects of this Bill are, accordingly to amend article 19 for the purposes indicated above and to insert provisions fully securing the constitutional validity of zamindari abolition laws in general and certain specified State Acts in particular. the opportunity has been taken to propose a few minor amendments to other articles in order to remove difficulties that may arise. It is laid down in article 46 as a 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, it is proposed that article 15(3) should be suitably amplified. Certain amendments in respect of articles dealing with the convening and proroguing of the sessions of Parliament have been found necessary and are also incorporated in this Bill. So also a few minor amendments in respect of articles 341, 342, 372 and 376. New Delhi; JAWAHARLAL NEHRU. The 10th May, 1951. What changed in Article 19 Amendment of article 19 and validation of certain laws.- (1) In article 19 of the Constitution,- (a) for clause (2), the following clause shall be substituted, and the said clause shall be deemed always to have been enacted in the following form, namely:--- "(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."; (b) in clause (6), for the words beginning with the words "nothing in the said sub-clause" and ending with the words "occupation, trade or business", the following shall be substituted, namely:- "nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to- (i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise". (2) No law in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution which is consistent with the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution as amended by sub-section (1) of this section shall be deemed to be void, or over to have become void, on the ground only that, being a law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of the said article, its operation was not saved by clause (2) of that article as originally enacted. Explanation.-In this sub-section, the expression "law in force" has the same meaning as in clause (1) of article 13 of the Constitution. THE CONSTITUTION (SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1963 Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Bill, 1963 which was enacted as the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The Committee on National Integration and Regionalism appointed by the National Integration Council recommended that article 19 of the Constitution be so amended that adequate powers become available for the preservation and maintenance of the integrity, and sovereignty of the Union. The Committee were further of the view that every candidate for the membership of a State Legislature or Parliament, and every aspirant to, and incumbent of, public office should pledge himself to uphold the Constitution and to preserve the integrity and sovereignty of the Union and that forms of oath in the Third Schedule to the Constitution should be suitably amended for the purpose. It is proposed to give effect to these recommendations by amending clauses (2), (3) and (4) of article 19 for enabling the State to make any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred by sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (1) of that article in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India. It is also proposed to amend articles 84 and 173 and forms of oath in the Third Schedule to the Constitution so as to provide that every candidate for the membership of Parliament or State Legislature, Union and State Ministers, Members of Parliament and State Legislatures, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India should take an oath to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. What changed in Article 19 after 16th Amendment Amendment of article 19- In article 19 of the Constitution,- (a) in clause (2), after the words "in the interests of", the words "the sovereignty and integrity of India," shall be inserted; (b) in clauses (3) and (4), after the words "in the interests of", the words "the sovereignty and integrity of India or" shall be inserted. The political background of 16th Amendment- The amendment came in the backdrop of India’s debacle in the 1962 Sino- Indian war. No wonder the amendment added “sovereignty and integrity of India” as one of the grounds for imposing reasonable restrictions on right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution. Implications of 1st & 16th Amendments The 1st Amendment which added several expressions, including public order, to the restriction clause i.e. Article 19(2) impacted the Supreme Court’s verdict in many important cases. In Kedarnath Singh vs. State of Bihar 1962, the SC upheld the validity of Sedition law. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which makes sedition an offence is constitutionally valid. Though the section imposes restrictions on the fundamental freedom of speech and expression, the restrictions are in the interest of public order and are within the ambit of permissible legislative interference with the fundamental right. There is a conflict on the question of the ambit of s. 124A between decision of the federal Court and of the Privy Council. The Federal Court has held that words, deeds or writings constituted an offence under s. 124A only when they had the intention or tendency to disturb public tranquility. to create public disturbance or to promote disorder, whilst the Privy Council has taken the view that it was not an essential ingredient of the offence of sedition under s. 124A that the words etc, should be intended to or be likely to incite public disorder. Either view can be taken and supported on good reasons. If the view taken by the Federal Court was accepted s. 124A would be constitutional but if the view of the Privy Council was accepted it would be unconstitutional. It is well settled that if certain provisions of law construed in one way would make them consistent with the constitution, and another interpretation would render them unconstitutional, the Court would lean in favour of the former construction. Keeping in mind the reasons for the introduction of s. 124A and the history of sedition the section must be so construed as to limit its application to acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order; or incitement to violence. It also upheld the validity of Section 505(b) of IPC. Important Cases
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. vs Union of India 1962 (Right to Circulate)
Bennett Coleman & Co. vs Union of India 1972 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. vs Union of India Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal ... vs Union Of India And Others https://indiankanoon.org/doc/591481/ Tata Press Limited vs Mahanagar Telephone-Nigam Limited https://indiankanoon.org/doc/752455/ Shreya Singhal vs Union of India https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/
Major Constitutional Amendments in The History of Independent India and Is Useful For The Polity in Civil Services. Here Is The Detailed Explanation of Amendments To The Constitution of India.
French Government proposed to carry out certain works for the utilization of the waters of the lake and the Spanish Government feared that these works would adversely affect Spanish rights and interests
Urdaneta City University College of Teacher EducationTITLE Intensifying UCU Smart Skills Spirit of VolunteerismTITLE Pedro Orata's Legacy Transforming Generations