Free speech limits~I

It has frequently been propagated that Nehru was a champion of the highest democratic values. But history tells us something entirely different. He was always intolerant of press‘s scrutiny of his government. He was also deeply annoyed with the court‘s resistance to restrain critical observations made in the press

- NANDALAL CHAKRABARTI

The recent debate over the government’s decision to restrict freedom of expression brings back the memory of 1950s when decisions of three State Governments to curb freedom of expression triggered fierce controversies.

The apex court’s decisions in this case impacted the Nehru government’s move of the first amendment to the Constitution. The first Amendment made the fundamental right to freedom of speech more restricted. A brief look into the past is necessary.

In 1950, the Bihar Govt. clamped restrictions on Bharati Press, which published a Bengali pamphlet, Sangram.

These restrictions were imposed by using the Indian Press (Emergency) Act. Bharati Press was ordered to deposit a security amount of Rs. 2,000 which would be forfeited, if any of its publications was believed to be inciting violence.

Smt. Shailabala Devi, the proprietor of the press, challenged the decision in Patna High Court arguing that Section 4(1) of the Press Act which empowered the government to demand security deposit and seize it, militated against the right to free speech.

Patna High Court declared the concerned part of the Press Act unconstitutional. It should be mentioned that the Supreme Court had already curtailed the powers conferred by the Press Act by enumerating certain principles in the cases of the journal, ‘Crossroads’, and the weekly, ‘Organiser’.

The Supreme Court declared that the provision authorising imposition of restrictions for public safety or maintenance of public order are outside the scope of the limitations which Article 19 (2) authorised and as such, it was unconstitutional. Thus, Patna High Court, declaring the impugned part of the Press Act unconstitutional, followed only the apex court’s decision.