The Supreme Court has agreed to look at a PIL difficult the adjustments made to the proper to freedom of speech and expression by the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1951, during which the petitioner argues that the modification harms the fundamental construction precept. Is.
A bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, whereas contemplating the petition earlier this month, mentioned that there’s a “legal issue” which arises “for consideration”, and sought the views of the Centre.
“As the legal issue arises for consideration, it shall be open to the petitioner, who appears in person, and learned counsel for the respondents to file a written summary, relying on the judgments, as well as from five pages Not more,” the bench, which additionally included Justice JK Maheshwari, mentioned in its October 17 order.
In his plea, the petitioner, senior advocate Ok Radhakrishnan mentioned, Section 3(1) of the Amendment Act of 1951 substituted the unique clause (2) of Article 19 – on the liberty of speech and expression assured underneath Article 19(1). Dealing with sanctions))(a) – with a brand new clause (2), which incorporates “two objectionable entries”, which additionally permits sanctions “in the interest of public order” and “with respect to the abetment of an offence”. Huh. The new clause (2) additionally omitted the expression “tendency to overthrow the state” showing within the authentic clause (2).
The petitioner submitted that Section 3(2) of the Amendment Act affected the verification of sure legal guidelines regardless that they took away or curtailed the proper to freedom of speech and expression.
The petition states that these two entries underneath sections 124A (sedition), 153A (phrases, both spoken or written, selling enmity between completely different teams on grounds of faith, caste, homeland, residence, language, and so on., or by indicators, by visible illustration or in any other case and to behave prejudicial to the upkeep of concord, 295A (deliberate and malicious act supposed to outrage spiritual emotions of any class by insulting its faith or spiritual beliefs) and Indian Code 505 (Statements Inciting Public Mischief) of the Penalty “From the Vice President of Unconstitutionality”.
“The two ambiguous expressions unreasonably dilute the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a),” the petition mentioned. Radhakrishnan submitted, this improper abbreviation “does not advance or sub-serve any constitutional objectives” however “harms, inter alia, democracy and republicanism and the supremacy of the Constitution”.
He mentioned the modification additionally neglects nationwide safety by eradicating the expression ‘propensity to overthrow the state’. “The apparent omission of the expression ‘tendency to overthrow the state’ raises serious concern in the context of the threats posed to the concept of a secular democratic republic by bigotry, terrorism and religious fundamentalism,” he mentioned.
The petition urged the courtroom to declare Sections 3(1)(a) and three(2) of the First Amendment “beyond the amending power of Parliament” and termed it as “damaging the basic or essential features of the Constitution and making it destroy” was declared null. fundamental construction”.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
