Integrity Score 405
No Records Found
No Records Found
My Years in the Supreme Court continues...
But the mischief had been done. Parliament was persuaded so to amend the Constitution as to widen the scope of permissible invasion of the right of freedom of speech and expression by including reasonable restrictions thereon in the interests of public order and incitement to an offence. This was rather unfortunate as the interests of public order could be very widely interpreted. But this was offset now by demanding that all restrictions—including restrictions in the interest of the security of the State—be reasonable, presumably to the Court.
In the State of Bihar vs. Shailbala Devi, the Court held that incitement to violence was punishable only when a writer incited his readers to violence against particular individuals. A publication when attacked must be viewed as a whole and considered in a liberal spirit, not dwelling too much on isolated passages.
The First Amendment to the Constitution Act seemed to some to raise the question of the relations of the judiciary with the Government.
It was asserted that the Government had insulted the Supreme Court by abridging a fundamental right soon after its scope had been determined by the Supreme Court. Leaving aside the question of the wisdom of the amendment, the Supreme Court hid no reason to complain in the matter. There was nothing new or surprising in the legislature’s changing a law in this way when it found a decision of the highest court unpalatable. That it was the Constitution that was amended did not make it any the more exceptional. British Parliament had similarly changed the law following a decision of the House of Lords. Some of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States had their origin in a clash between the President and the Court.
To be continued...