Enactment
The Constitution (First Amendment) Bill, 1951 was introduced in the Provisional Parliament of India on 12 May 1951 by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. The Bill sought to amend articles 15, 19, 85, 87, 174, 176, 341, 342, 372 and 376 of the Constitution, and insert new articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule in the Constitution. On a motion moved in the House on 16 May and adopted on 18 May 1951, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. The Report of the Select Committee was presented to the House on 25 May 1951. The Committee suggested amendments in some of the clauses of the Bill, as introduced in the House. The Bill, as reported by the Select Committee, was considered by the House on 29, 30 and 31 May and 1 and 2 June and, with some modifications, passed on 2 June 1951. The Bill received assent from then President Rajendra Prasad on 18 June 1951. It was notified in The Gazette of India, and also came into force on the same date.[7]
The clauses of the Bill, as introduced, relating to the amendment of articles 85, 174, 341, 342 and 372 were adopted by the House, in the original form, on 2 June 1951. The remaining clauses, which underwent certain changes, are detailed below in the context of the relevant articles which were sought to be amended.[7]
- Amendment of Article 15
Clauses (1) and (2) of article 15 prohibit discrimination against citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Clause (3) of the article, however, provides: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provisions for women and children.” Clause 2 of the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill, as introduced, sought to amplify the scope of clause (3) of article 15 by adding at its end the words “or for the educational, economic or social advancement of any backward classes of citizens” so that any special provision that the State may make for the advancement of these classes may not be challenged on the ground of being discriminatory. The Select Committee while agreeing with the principle underlying the proposed amendment considered that the scope of the amendment should be extended to cover article 29(2)[a] as well. The Committee, accordingly, modified clause (2) of the Bill so as to add a new clause (4) to article 15. The amendment was adopted by the House on 1 June 1951, and thus clause (4) was added to article 15.[7]
- Amendment of Article 19
The Bill sought to amend, inter alia, article 19 (2) which specifies the grounds on which restrictions might be placed on the freedom of speech guaranteed under clause (1)(a) of that article. Clause 3 (1)(a) of the Bill, as introduced, proposed that in article 19 for clause (2), the following clause shall be substituted and the clause shall be deemed to have been originally enacted in the following form:
- "(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents, the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevents, the State from making any law relating to, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."
The amending clause introduced 3 grounds for restricting freedom of speech - friendly relations with foreign States, public order, and incitement to an offence. However, the amending clause removed the restriction on speech that "tends to over-throw the State". The clause also substituted the words "any matter which offends against or undermines the security of the State" by the words "in the interests of the security of the State", and replaced the words "libel, slander" by the generic term “defamation”. The clause also gave a retrospective effect to all these changes. The only substantial change made by the Select Committee in the proposed clause was the insertion of the word “reasonable” before the word “restrictions”, so as to bring that clause in line with clauses (3) to (6) of the article, all of which refer to laws imposing “reasonable restrictions”. The Committee also made certain consequential drafting changes in the clause. Later, when clause (2) of article 19, as amended by the Select Committee, was considered by the House, an amendment of a drafting nature (which made the clause more concise and its meaning clear), moved by Thakur Das Bhargava, was adopted. Clause 3(2) of the Bill as introduced in the House read:
- "(2) No law in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution which is consistent with the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution as amended by sub-section (1) of this section shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become void, on the ground only that being a law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of the said article, its operation was not saved by sub-clause (2) of that article as originally enacted and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary, every such law shall continue in force until altered or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority."
The Select Committee felt that the lines and words in the above clause from the words “and notwithstanding” to the words “competent authority” at the end, were superfluous and suggested their omission. This change was also accepted by the House. Clause 3 of the Bill, as reported by the Select Committee and as slightly further modified by Shri Bhargava’s amendment, was adopted by the House on 1 June 1951.[7]
- Insertion of New Articles 31A and 31B
As stated in the “Objects and Reasons” of the Bill, the implementation of important measures of agrarian reform passed by the State Legislatures had been held up due to dilatory litigation. To meet the difficulty, clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill proposed, respectively, insertion of two new articles 31A and 31B in the Constitution. Clause (1) of the proposed new article 31A laid down that laws providing for the acquisition of any “estate” or of any rights therein would not be deemed to be void on the ground that they were inconsistent with or abridged any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Select Committee suggested the addition of a proviso to the clause on the lines of clause (3) of article 31. According to the proviso, the protection of the proposed new article 31A would be available to a State Law and only if such law having been reserved for the consideration of the President had received his assent.[7]
The Select Committee also amended the definition of the expression “estate” in clause (2)(a) of the proposed new article 31A so as to cover the local equivalent of “estate” in the existing laws relating to land tenures which were in a regional language. Clause (2)(a), as amended by the Committee, read, “the expression ‘estate’ shall, in relation to any local area, have the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has, in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area”. When clause 4 of the Bill, seeking insertion of new article 31A, was considered by the House on 1 June 1951, then Minister of Law B.R. Ambedkar, moved an amendment that at the end of clause (2)(a) of the proposed new article (as modified by the Select Committee), after the word “area” the words “and shall also include any jagir, inam, or muafi or other similar grant” be added. The amendment was accepted. With this further amplification of the definition of the expression “estate”, new article 31A, as reported by the Select Committee, was adopted by the Provisional Parliament.[7]
Clause 5 of the Bill proposed insertion of a new article 31B providing for the validation of certain land reform measures which had already been enacted by some of the States. These Acts were specified in a new Schedule to the Constitution—Ninth Schedule—which was proposed to be added by clause 14 of the Bill. The Select Committee suggested a verbal change in the last two lines of the proposed article—namely, the substitution of the words “each of the said Acts shall continue in force until altered or repealed by competent Legislatures" by the words “each of the said Acts shall, subject to the power of any competent Legislatures to repeal or amend it, continue in force. Clause 5 of the Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, was adopted by the House at the Second Reading stage. However, at the Third Reading stage, Dr. Ambedkar moved four amendments for inserting the words “and Regulations” at different places in new article 31B. The amendments became necessary due to acceptance, by the House earlier, of addition of certain “Regulations” in the new Ninth Schedule.[7]
- Amendment of Articles 87 and 176
Clause 7(1) of the Bill, as introduced in the House, sought to amend clause (1) of article 87 of the Constitution so as to provide that the President shall address Parliament at the commencement of “the first session of each year” instead of at the commencement of “every session” as under the original article. Clause 7(2) of the Bill proposed that in clause (2) of article 87,[b] the words “and for the precedence of such discussion over the other business of the House” be deleted.
Clause 9 of the Bill proposed similar amendments in article 176 which deals with the Governor’s address to the State Legislatures. The Select Committee suggested that where the first session of Parliament or, as the case may be, the State Legislature, after a general election, did not coincide with the first session in that year, there should be provision for an address by the President or the Governor, as the case may be. The Committee made necessary modifications in clause 7(1) and clause 9(1) of the Bill. Clauses 7 and 9 (as amended by the Select Committee) were adopted by the House on 2 June 1951.[7]
- Amendment of Article 376
Article 376(1), as it stood before the 1st Amendment, provided, inter alia, that "Judges of a High Court in any Province holding office immediately before the commencement of the Constitution shall, unless they have elected otherwise, become on such commencement the Judges of the High Court in the corresponding State ..." Clause 13 of the Constitution (First Amendment) Bill proposed that at the end of clause (1) of article 376, the following be added, "Any such Judge shall, notwithstanding that he is not a citizen of India, be eligible for appointment as Chief Justice of such High Court, or as Chief Justice or other Judge of any other High Court or of the Supreme Court." The Select Committee did not suggest any change in clause 13. However, when the clause came up for consideration before the House, Prof. K.T. Shah moved an amendment seeking deletion of the words “or of the Supreme Court” (at the end of the clause). The amendment was accepted and clause 13 as so amended was adopted by the House.[7]
- Addition of Ninth Schedule
Clause 14 of the Bill sought addition to the Constitution of a new Ninth Schedule listing certain State Acts which were intended to be protected by the new article 31B. When the clause came up before the House on 1 June 1951, K. Vaidya moved two amendments for inclusion of the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358F and the Hyderabad Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation, 1359F in the proposed Ninth Schedule. Vaidya's amendments, and the Ninth Schedule, as amended thereby, were adopted.[7]
Constitutional changes
Section 3 of the 1st Amendment made the following changes in clause (2) of article 19 which specifies the grounds for restricting freedom of speech:
- Three new grounds of restriction were introduced - Friendly relations with foreign States, Public Order, and Incitement to an offence.
- The ground “tends to overthrow the State” was deleted.
- The words “any matter which offends against or undermines the security of the State” were substituted by the words “in the interests of the security of the State”.
- The words, “libel, slander” were deleted, retaining only the generic term “defamation”.
- The expression “reasonable restrictions” was inserted and governs all the above grounds.
- All the above changes were given retrospective effect.[7]
Section 2 of the 1st Amendment provided for inclusion of a new clause (4) to article 15 enabling the State to make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes notwithstanding anything in this article or clause (2) of article 29. Section 4 of the Act inserted a new article 31A which saves laws providing for acquisition of any ‘estate’ or any rights therein from the operation of any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution containing the Fundamental Rights. The insertion of article 31A has been made retrospective. But, a law made by a State Legislature, in order to get the protection of the new article, must have had received the assent of the President.[7]
Section 5 inserted a new article 31B which saves certain Acts and Regulations specified in the new Schedule, i.e. Ninth Schedule so as to prevent them from being declared void on the ground that these are inconsistent with, or take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. Notwithstanding any judicial decision to the contrary, these shall continue in force subject to the power of any competent Legislature to repeal or amend the same. Section 6 re-enacted article 85, and required that the President shall summon each House of Parliament to meet within six months of the last sitting in one session. Under article 87, as amended by Section 7, the President must address both Houses of Parliament at the commencement of the first session after a general election as well as that of each year and not at the commencement of “every session” as under the original article. Sections 8 and 9 made similar changes in the corresponding provisions for the State Legislatures, viz., articles 174 and 176.[7]
