Tamil Nadu’s link to a key amendment to the Constitution on freedom of press, expression

Tamil Nadu’s nexus to the archetypal amendment to the Constitution is amended known successful this portion of the country, arsenic the amendment, among others, helped to make a strategy of preservation successful acquisition and nationalist employment for the Backward Classes. But what does not fig overmuch successful nationalist sermon is different nexus of the State with the amendment that deals with the conception of state of look successful wide and state of the property successful particular. The Constitution had to beryllium amended successful the airy of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgement successful the Romesh Thappar [sic] vs State of Madras, besides known arsenic the Cross Roads case. Moreover, The Hindu, connected the time (May 27, 1950) it carried the judgement arsenic a quality item, said, “This was the archetypal lawsuit successful which usurpation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution conferring the close to state of code and look was alleged.”

Though the lawsuit straight dealt with the State authorities imposing a prohibition connected the introduction and circulation of Cross Roads, an English diary published from Mumbai, the occupation for the diary began with the determination of the authorities of Maharashtra (which was past called Bombay) successful July 1949, prohibiting the editor, Romesh Thapar, from publishing the mag for 3 months nether the Public Security Measures Act. Section 9 of the Act, nether which the prohibition bid was passed, “empowers the Government to prohibit the work of a paper oregon a periodical if they are satisfied that its activities are prejudicial to the nationalist safety, attraction of nationalist bid oregon tranquillity of the province,” reported this paper connected August 19, 1949.

Challenged successful High Court of Bombay

The bid was challenged successful the High Court of Bombay. But Justice N.H.C. Coyajee of the High Court dismissed the petition successful mid-August, saying, “The lone trial successful the circumstances of the case” was the sentiment of the authorities and thing other successful arsenic overmuch arsenic it was the subjective process that was referred to successful the applicable Section of the Act: “the restitution of the Government”, this paper reported. A fewer months later, erstwhile the Madras Legislative Assembly and Council debated connected the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Bill, 1949, immoderate of the members expressed apprehension implicit the imaginable misuse of the legislation, arsenic the authorities had referred to “violent acts” of Communists arsenic a justification for the Bill. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, who was successful the Opposition, advised the authorities to bring guardant pieces of authorities backed up by nationalist opinion.

On March 1, 1950 came the Madras government’s prohibition connected Cross Roads, regarded wide arsenic a Left-leaning journal. On April 21, the substance came up earlier a afloat Bench of the Supreme Court. C.R. Pattabhi Raman, arguing for the petitioner, submitted that the prohibition connected the diary was illegal, arsenic it had violated the close to state of code and look nether Article 19 of the Constitution. “K. Raja Aiyar, Advocate General of Madras, conceded that determination was nary uncertainty a regularisation connected the petitioner’s close of expression. But the State of Madras had lone prohibited the petitioner’s look from reaching Madras. To beryllium the validity of the Madras prohibition connected the weekly, Mr. K. Raja Aiyar  contended that the 3 expressions — information of State, nationalist safety, and nationalist bid — were equivalent successful their meaning, which the tribunal declined to accept,” according to The Hindu on April 22, 1950. When the tribunal reserved judgement connected April 24, Chief Minister P.S. Kumaraswami  Raja was contiguous successful the tribunal hall, a uncommon occurrence.

A period later, the Supreme Court’s afloat Bench, by 5 to one, quashed the State government’s ban. The contentious proviso — Section 9 of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act — was declared ultra vires the Constitution. The judgement allowing the petition was delivered by Justice M. Patanjali Sastri with whom Chief Justice of India Hiralal J. Kania, Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das, Justice B.K. Mukherjea, and Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan concurred, portion the dissenting justice was Justice Saiyid Fazal Ali.

Deletion of ‘sedition’

Referring to the deletion of the word, ‘sedition’, which occurred successful Article 13 (2) of the draught mentation of the Constitution, from the last version, Justice Sastri observed that this showed that the “criticism of Government breathtaking disaffection oregon atrocious feelings towards it is not to beryllium regarded arsenic a justifying crushed for restricting the state of look and of the press, unless it is specified arsenic to undermine the information of oregon thin to overthrow the state.” He said, “Unless a instrumentality restricting state of code and look is directed solely against the undermining of the information of the authorities oregon the overthrow of it, specified instrumentality cannot autumn wrong the preservation nether Article 19 (2) of the Constitution, though the restrictions which it seeks to enforce whitethorn person been conceived mostly successful the interests of nationalist order.” He concluded that Section 9 of the State’s instrumentality fell extracurricular the ambit of Article 19 (2). But Justice Fazal Ali held that the restrictions, authorised by this Section, were wrong the Article concerned.

A twelvemonth later, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who introduced a question successful Parliament connected May 16, 1951 to notation the Constitution Amendment Bill to a Select Committee, spoke for 75 minutes. He said, “Anything dealing with Fundamental Rights [referring to Article 19 (2)] incorporated successful the Constitution is of adjacent greater importance.” His authorities had brought guardant the Bill “in nary tone of light-heartedness, successful nary haste, but aft the astir cautious thought and scrutiny fixed to this problem”.

On the disapproval against his authorities for putting a curb connected the state of citizens oregon the press, Nehru clarified, “This Bill lone possibly clears up what the authorization of Parliament is. We are not putting down immoderate benignant of curb oregon restraint. We are removing definite doubts truthful arsenic to alteration Parliament to relation if it truthful chooses and erstwhile it chooses (https://nehruarchive.in /documents/the-constitution-first-amendment- bill-16-may-1951-v9q861).”

He touched upon the relation of the property successful a antiauthoritarian nine and felt, “One has to look the modern satellite with its bully and bad, and it is better, connected the whole, I think, that we springiness adjacent licence than suppress the mean travel of opinion.” At the aforesaid time, helium added, “There is simply a bounds to the licence that 1 tin let astatine immoderate time, much truthful astatine times of large peril and information to the state.” Ten days later, the Select Committee’s study connected the projected amendment was ready. It prefixed the word “restrictions” with “reasonable”.

Rajaji’s take

Before the Bill was adopted, Deshbandhu Gupta, seasoned writer and MP, urged Nehru not to spell up with the amendment. Home Minister C. Rajagopalachari (CR oregon Rajaji) argued that the state of look and code was “a earthy close which should beryllium taxable to earthy restrictions”, this paper reported connected June 1, 1951. With an “unprecedented majority”, Parliament adopted the Bill, with 246 members voting successful favour and 14 against. J.B. Kriplani, Sucheta Kriplani, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, and K.T. Shah were among those who voted against the Bill.

While scholars of modern past proceed to beryllium captious of Nehru for having amended the Constitution implicit the contented of state of expression, the Supreme Court’s judgement inactive receives commendation from antithetic quarters worldwide, which deliberation that the verdict is “still authoritative” successful truthful acold arsenic it draws a favoritism connected the ground of whether specified restrictions would beryllium viewed arsenic “reasonable”.