Tamil Nadu’s link to a key amendment to the Constitution on freedom of press, expression

Tamil Nadu’s connection with the first amendment to the Constitution is better known in this part of the country; because the amendment helped create a system of reservations in education and public employment for the Backward Classes, among others. But what has not found much space in public discourse is another connection of the State with the amendment, which deals with the concept of freedom of expression in general and freedom of the press in particular. The Constitution had to be amended in light of the landmark decision of the Constitutional Court. Romesh Thappar [sic] vs Madras Statealso known as Cross Roads case. Moreover, Hindu“This was the first case in which Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which recognizes the right to freedom of speech and expression, was alleged to have been violated,” he said on the day he carried the verdict (27 May 1950).

Although the case is directly related to the state government’s ban on entry and movement Cross RoadsAn English-language magazine published from Mumbai, the magazine’s trouble began in July 1949 with a decision by the government of Maharashtra (then called Bombay) banning its editor Romesh Thapar from publishing the magazine for three months under the Public Safety Measures Act. According to this newspaper’s report dated August 19, 1949, Article 9 of the Law under which the prohibition order was issued “gives the Government the power to prohibit the publication of a newspaper or periodical if it is of the opinion that its activities will harm public security, the maintenance of public order or the peace of the province.”

Challenged in Bombay High Court

The decision was challenged in the Bombay High Court. However, High Court Judge NHC Coyajee dismissed the petition in mid-August and as per this newspaper’s report, “The only test in the circumstances of the case” was the view of the government and nothing else other than “satisfaction of the Government”, which is the subjective process referred to in the relevant section of the Act. A few months later, when the Madras Legislative Assembly and Council were debating the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Bill, 1949, some members expressed concern about possible misuse of the law, as the government cited “violent acts” of Communists as justification for the bill. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, who is in the opposition, advised the government to come up with publicly supported legislative proposals.

The Madras government’s ban came on 1 March 1950. Cross RoadsIt is widely considered a Left-leaning magazine. On April 21, the matter came before a full bench of the Supreme Court. Defending the petitioner, CR Pattabhi Raman argued that the ban on the magazine was illegal as it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. “The Advocate General of Madras, K. Raja Aiyar, admitted that there was a restriction on the petitioner’s right of expression. However, the State of Madras had only prohibited the petitioner’s statement from reaching Madras. To prove the validity of the Madras ban in the weekly, Mr. K. Raja Aiyar argued that the three expressions – State security, public safety and public order – were equivalent in meaning, which the court refused to accept.” Hindu April 22, 1950. When the court reserved the judgment on April 24, Chief Minister PS Kumaraswami Raja was present in the courtroom, a rare occurrence.

A month later, the Supreme Court bench struck down the state government’s ban by a five-to-one vote. The controversial provision, Section 9 of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, was announced ultra powers Constitution. The order allowing the petition was delivered by Justice M. Patanjali Sastri, with whom Chief Justice of India Hiralal J. Kania, Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das, Justice BK Mukherjea and Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan concurred; The dissenting judge was Justice Saiyid Fazal Ali.

Erasure of ‘Rebellion’

Referring to the removal of the word ‘sedition’ from the final version of Article 13(2) of the draft Constitution, Justice Sastri observed that this shows: “Criticism of the government which causes discontent or ill-feeling against it cannot be regarded as a justification for restricting the freedom of expression and the press, unless they tend to undermine the security of the state or subvert it.” “Unless a law restricting freedom of speech and expression is intended solely to undermine or destroy the security of the state, such law cannot fall within the scope of the reservation provided for in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, even if the restrictions it seeks to impose are generally designed for the benefit of public order.” It concluded that Article 9 of the state law fell outside the scope of Article 19(2). However, Justice Fazal Ali held that the restrictions permitted by this Section fall within the scope of the relevant Article.

A year later, on May 16, 1951, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who introduced a motion in Parliament to refer the Constitution Amendment Bill to the Select Committee, spoke for 75 minutes. “Everything about Fundamental Rights [referring to Article 19 (2)] “It is of even greater importance that it is included in the Constitution.” His government had introduced the bill “in a spirit of lightheartedness, without haste, but after the most careful thought and consideration of this question.”

Regarding criticism of his government for restricting the freedom of citizens or the press, Nehru said: “This bill perhaps only clarifies what the authority of Parliament is. We do not impose any limitations or restrictions. We remove some doubts to enable Parliament to function as and when it pleases (https://nehruarchive.in /documents/the-constitution-first-amendment-bill-16-may-1951-v9q861).

He touched on the role of the press in a democratic society and felt: “One has to confront the modern world, for better or worse, and I think it is generally better that we allow rather than suppress the normal flow of ideas.” At the same time, he added: “There is a limit to the license that can be permitted at any time, especially in times of great peril and danger to the state.” Ten days later the Select Committee’s report on the proposed change was ready. Added “reasonable” before the term “restrictions”.

Rajaji’s approach

Before the bill was passed, veteran journalist and MP Deshbandhu Gupta appealed to Nehru not to proceed with the amendment. According to this newspaper’s report dated June 1, 1951, Home Minister C. Rajagopalachari (CR or Rajaji) argued that freedom of expression and speech was “a natural right that should be subject to natural restrictions.” Parliament passed the bill “by an unprecedented majority”; 246 members voted in favor and 14 against. Among those who voted against the bill were JB Kriplani, Sucheta Kriplani, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and KT Shah.

While contemporary historians continue to criticize Nehru for amending the Constitution on the issue of freedom of expression, the Supreme Court’s judgment is drawing praise from different quarters around the world, who feel that the verdict is “still valid” insofar as it makes a distinction on the basis of whether such restrictions can be deemed “reasonable” or not.

It was published – 02 January 2026 05:30 IST