The birth of a subjugated and corrupted press in free India most probably has taken place with the first amendment of the constitution done under the governance by Nehru.
On 18th June 1951, the constitution was amended with it's first. And one of the objectives of these amendments was "to place reasonable restriction on freedom of speech". Here is the excerpt taken from http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend1.htm
(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.";
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.";
Look at what prompted Nehru to do this law against fundamental rights of a citizen to understand the psyche of the then government.
It started with two Supreme Court decisions i.e, Romesh Thapar vs. State of Madras and Brijbhushan vs. State of Bihar.
In the Thapar case, the Government of Madras, which had already banned the Communist Party, prohibited in March 1951 Crossroads, a progressive weekly edited by Romesh Thapar, very critical of the Nehru government, from circulating in the state. On appeal by Thapar, the Supreme Court held that the ban was ultra vires of Art. 19 (1) (a) because provisions in the Madras law sanctioning the ban were not covered by exceptions as mentioned in Art. 19 (2). The Madras government ban was imposed on grounds of public safety/public order, words which did not find mention at that time as grounds for curbing freedom of expression. So, the apex court held that the ban had offended Art. 19 (1) (a).
In the second case which was a case of prior restraint, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi passed an order against the Organizer, mouthpiece of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, under the East Punjab Public Safety Act, directing the newspaper to submit for scrutiny before publication all articles, news, cartoons, analyses and pictures relating to communal issues or Pakistan for printing inflammatory materials with respect to the partition. On appeal, the Supreme Court declared that section 7 (1) (c) of the Punjab Act under which the order was passed was unconstitutional because the restrictions imposed were outside the purview of Article 19 (2) as it then stood, which did not include public order as a permissible reason for restriction.
In the Thapar case, the Government of Madras, which had already banned the Communist Party, prohibited in March 1951 Crossroads, a progressive weekly edited by Romesh Thapar, very critical of the Nehru government, from circulating in the state. On appeal by Thapar, the Supreme Court held that the ban was ultra vires of Art. 19 (1) (a) because provisions in the Madras law sanctioning the ban were not covered by exceptions as mentioned in Art. 19 (2). The Madras government ban was imposed on grounds of public safety/public order, words which did not find mention at that time as grounds for curbing freedom of expression. So, the apex court held that the ban had offended Art. 19 (1) (a).
In the second case which was a case of prior restraint, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi passed an order against the Organizer, mouthpiece of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, under the East Punjab Public Safety Act, directing the newspaper to submit for scrutiny before publication all articles, news, cartoons, analyses and pictures relating to communal issues or Pakistan for printing inflammatory materials with respect to the partition. On appeal, the Supreme Court declared that section 7 (1) (c) of the Punjab Act under which the order was passed was unconstitutional because the restrictions imposed were outside the purview of Article 19 (2) as it then stood, which did not include public order as a permissible reason for restriction.
It is to be noted that common observation to both the decisions was the reference to the absence of public order in Art.19(2).
Nehru wrote to the law ministry for the amendment and a cabinet committee was setup which ultimately included 'public order' and 'incitement to crime' among the exceptions to right of freedom of speech.
The points to be understood well are 1. Reasonable and 2. public order in the amendment, because these were the very reasons based on which the subsequent governments abused the amendment in several cases and resulted in an opposite to the intended but improbable effect.
These laws in reality encroached upon freedom of speech besides other rights and naturally created a media in subsequent years that is, by and large, ready to do a broker job in the game of politics.
In contrast, it is worth to note the first amendment of the constitution of America, just to understand the abyss between the two nations w.r.t the commitment to freedom of the citizens.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
Next Page > The Motive
No comments:
Post a Comment