Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Nothing in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) 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, libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any matter which offends against decency or morality or which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State.
By the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which was made on 18-6-1951 with retrospective effect, Clause (2) of Article 19 was altered to read as follows:
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 interest of the security of State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
The point of difference is that Clause (2) of Article 19 as it originally stood mentioned the security of the State or overthrow of the State; the amendment considerably widened its scope and referred to, 'inter alia', "public order" - an expression which did not occur in the clause as it originally stood. The decision of the East Punjab High Court cited above proceeded on two main grounds: (1) the interpretation of Section 124A as given by the Privy Council in - 'Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan' AIR 1947 PC 82 (B) - an interpretation to which I shall presently refer; and (2) the interpretation of Clause (2) of Article 19 (as it originally stood) given by the Supreme Court of India in two decisions, - 'Bornesh Thapper v. State of Madras' and - 'Brij Bhushan V. State of Delhi' . Of the two reasons given above, the second, in my opinion, is no longer tenable by reason of the alteration made by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.

18. Mrs. Bodra no doubt used stronger and vituperative language; she talked of spitting on the Government and called the Government cowardly. In using such expressions she was abusing the privilege of a woman, and perhaps exceeding the bounds of decency. But the general effect of the speeches is the same as that of the speeches of Debi Soren. The avowed claim is the formation of Jharkhand, and in giving reasons in support of that claim, strong criticisms of Governmental measures and administrative action have been made. In a democratic country such criticisms are to some extent unavoidable, they are made for the purpose of enlisting popular support, and in considering the effect of such criticisms no serious notice ought to be taken of crude, blundering attempts or of rhetorical exaggeration by Which nobody is likely to be impressed. The reference to Dikus (non-Santhals) is not for the purpose of promoting hatred or ill-feeling amongst different classes of citizens, but rather in support of the claim for Jharkhand. As Lord Sumner pointed put with the change of times, the effect of criticisms also changes; what was damaging contempt or hatred of a bureaucratic Government is not so of a popular Government - a Government which can neither afford to be hyper-sensitive, nor impervious, to criticism.