Tamil Nadu’s link to a key constitutional amendment on freedom of press and expression

Tamil Nadu’s attachment to the First Amendment of the Constitution is better known in this part of the country as the amendment, among other things, helped create a system of reservations in education and public employment for the backward classes. But what does not figure much in the public discourse is the state’s further link to the amendment, which deals with the concept of freedom of speech in general and freedom of the press in particular. The Constitution had to be amended in the light of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Romesh Thappar (sic) Vs. State of Madras, also known as the Cross Roads case. Moreover, The Hindu, on the day (May 27, 1950) when it brought the judgment as news, said: “This was the first case where a violation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India granting the right to freedom of speech and expression was alleged.

Although the case directly involved the state government imposing a ban on the entry and circulation of the English magazine Cross Roads, published from Bombay, the magazine’s troubles began with a decision by the Maharashtra (then Bombay) government in July 1949 to ban publisher Romesh Thapar from publishing the magazine for three months under the Public Safety Measures Act. Section 9 of the Act under which the Prohibition Ordinance was passed “empowers the Government to prohibit the publication of newspapers or periodicals if it is satisfied that their operations are prejudicial to public safety, the maintenance of public order or the tranquility of the Province,” said the newspaper on August 19, 1949.

Challenged in Bombay High Court

The order was challenged in the Bombay High Court. But Supreme Court Justice NHC Coyajee dismissed the petition in mid-August, saying, “The only test in the circumstances of the case” was the government’s position and nothing else in terms of the subjective process referred to in the relevant section of the law: “the satisfaction of the government,” this paper reported. A few months later, when the Madras Legislative Assembly and Council debated the Madras Public Order Maintenance Bill, 1949, some members raised concerns about the possible misuse of the legislation, as the government referred to “violent acts” by communists as justification for the bill. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar, who was in the opposition, advised the government to bring forward legislative proposals supported by public opinion.

On March 1, 1950, the Madras government banned Cross Roads, widely considered a left-wing magazine. On April 21, the matter came before a full bench of the Supreme Court. CR Pattabhi Raman, arguing for the petitioner, 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. “K. Raja Aiyar, Advocate-General of Madras, conceded that there was no doubt a restriction on the petitioner’s right to speech. But the State of Madras merely prohibited the petitioner’s speech from reaching Madras. To prove the validity of the Madras ban on the weekly, Mr. K. Raja Aiyar argued that the three expressions, safety and public order, were equivalent — the court refused to accept it in the sense of public order and safety,” reported The Hindu on April 22, 1950. When the court reserved its verdict on April 24, Chief Minister PS Kumaraswami Raja was present in the courtroom, a rare occurrence.

A month later, a full panel of the Supreme Court overturned the state government’s ban by a five-to-one margin. The impugned provision – Section 9 of the Madras Public Order Act – was declared ultra vires the Constitution. The judgment allowing the petition was delivered by Justice M. Patanjali Sastri, with Chief Justice of India Hiralal J. Kania, Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das, Justice BK Mukherjea and Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, while the dissenting judge was Justice Saiyid Fazal Ali.

Removal of “sedition”

Referring to the deletion of the word “sedition” in Article 13(2) of the draft Constitution, from the final version, Justice Sastri observed that this showed that “criticism of the Government exciting discontent or ill-feeling against it cannot be considered as a justification for curtailing the freedom of speech and press unless it is such as to undermine the safety or security of the State”. He said: “Unless a law restricting freedom of speech and expression is directed only against undermining the security of the State or overthrowing it, such a law cannot fall within the proviso under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, even though the restrictions it seeks to impose may have been framed generally in the interest of public order. He concluded that Section 9 of the State Act does not fall within the ambit of Article 19(2). Justice Fazal Ali, however, held that the restrictions permitted by this section fall under the relevant article.

“There is a limit to the license that one can allow at any time, especially in times of great peril and danger to the State,” Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said in Parliament on May 16, 1951, when moving a motion to refer the Constitution Amendment Bill to a Select Committee. | Photo Credit: Hindu Archives

A year later, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke for 75 minutes, moving a motion in Parliament on 16 May 1951 to refer the Constitution Amendment Bill to a Select Committee. He said: “Anything relating to fundamental rights (referring to Article 19 (2)) enshrined in the Constitution is of even greater importance. His Government brought forward the Bill “in a spirit of levity, without haste, but after the most careful thought and examination of the matter”.

To criticism of his government for curtailing the freedom of citizens or the press, Nehru clarified: “This Act may only clarify what the authority of Parliament is. We are not placing any restrictions or limitations. We are removing certain doubts to enable Parliament to function if and when it chooses (Bill-16-May-1961-v9).”

Touching on the role of the press in a democratic society, he felt: “One has to face the modern world with its good and bad, and I think it is better on the whole to give even license than to stifle the normal flow of opinion. He also added: “There is a limit to which license one can allow at any time, especially in times of great danger and peril to the State. Ten days later the Select Committee’s report on the proposed amendment was ready. The term ‘restriction’ was preceded by ‘reasonable’.

Rajaji’s

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

While scholars of contemporary history continue to criticize Nehru for amending the Constitution on the issue of freedom of speech, the Supreme Court’s judgment still draws acclaim from various quarters around the world who think the verdict is “still authoritative” as long as it makes a distinction based on whether such restrictions would be considered “reasonable”.

Published – 02 Jan 2026 05:30 IST