Integrity Score 405
No Records Found
No Records Found
My Years in the Supreme Court continues...
One of our earliest decisions created quite a furore. In Romesh Thapar vs. The State of Madras, the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression could be abridged only when its exercise undermined the security of the State or tended to overthrow the State. The Patna High Court in re the Bharati Press held— allegedly following this decision of the Supreme Court—that incitement to murder was not actionable under the Constitution.
The Punjab High Court came to the same conclusion in Amar Nath vs. State of Punjab. Naturally both the governments lodged appeals against these decision to the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court could dispose of these appeals, the Union Government decided to amend the Constitution. The statement of the objects and reasons of the First Bill to amend the Constitution declared that as ‘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 advocated murder and other crimes of violence’, it was necessary to amend the Constitution. In the discussion that followed in Parliament on the Bill, a good deal of adverse criticism was directed against the courts particularly the Supreme Court. The critics of the Court based their attack on the interpretation which the two High Courts had placed on our decision in Romesh Thapar vs. The State of Madras.
As it turned out, when the matter came up before the Supreme Court again in the State of Bihar vs. Shailabala Devi, the Court clarified its position and declared that incitement to violence under certain circumstances did undermine the security of the State and was as such punishable under the law.
To be continued...