SC agree to hear plea against first amendment of constitution
- October 31, 2022
- Posted by: OptimizeIAS Team
- Category: DPN Topics
No Comments
SC agree to hear plea against first amendment of constitution
Subject : Polity
Context:
Recently, the Supreme Court has agreed to view the plea challenging the Constitutionality of the First amendment Act, 1951 which had put the reasonable restrictions under clause(2) of Article 19 (a) of Freedom of Speech and Expression.
What was the 1st Amendment Act, 1951:
- It empowered the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and economically backward classes.
- It also provided for the saving of laws providing for the acquisition of estates, etc.and added Ninth Schedule to protect the land reforms and other laws included in it from judicial review.
- It also added three more grounds for restrictions on freedom of speech and expression i.epublic order, friendly relations with foreign states, and incitement to an offense. Also, it made the restrictions ‘reasonable’ and thus, justiciable in nature.
- It provided that state trading and nationalization of any trade or business by the state is not to be invalid on the ground of violation of the right to trade or business.
What was the reasons behind Amendment:
- To remove certain practical difficulties created by the court’s decision in several cases such as the Kameshwar Singh Case, Romesh Thapar Case, etc.
- Also for the issues involved in the cases like freedom of speech, acquisition of the Zamindari land, State monopoly of trade, etc
What are the arguments against this Amendment:
- According to the petitioners, it contains two objectionable insertions allowing restrictions in the interest of public order and in relation to incitement to an offense.
- The new Clause (2) also omitted the expression “tends to overthrow the State” as appeared in the original Clause (2).
- These two insertions protect Sections 124A i.e sedition, 153A e promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, 295Ai.e deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs and 505 i.estatements conducing to public mischief of the Indian Penal Code and hence are unconstitutional.
- The amendment also neglects national security by dropping the expression ‘tends to overthrow the State’ which raises grave concern in the context of the dangers posed to the concept of the secular democratic republic by radicalism, terrorism, and religious fundamentalism.