It was just 6 months after India became republic..
Nehru wrote a note to his chief ministers: "The law and the Constitution sometimes come in the way... It is certain that if the law comes in the way, ultimately the law will have to be changed."
Nehru wrote a note to his chief ministers: "The law and the Constitution sometimes come in the way... It is certain that if the law comes in the way, ultimately the law will have to be changed."
Thus, in just six months since the new republic had been inaugurated, the country’s first prime minister began making a case for amending the Constitution because it was coming in his way, "the very constitution that he had once described as the foundation of the country’s
republican freedom. Between the Constitution and his own political agenda, his faith in the latter clearly trumped his allegiance to the former,"
So, on May 12 1951, Nehru introduced, in Parliament, the 1st Amendment.
Among the changes included were new grounds on which
So, on May 12 1951, Nehru introduced, in Parliament, the 1st Amendment.
Among the changes included were new grounds on which
FREEDOM OF SPEECH COULD BE CURBED(Read Twice Please)
enabling caste-based reservations and validating abolition of zamindari. Very importantly, and something that would have far-reaching repercussions,
it also introduced a special schedule in the Constitution under which laws
enabling caste-based reservations and validating abolition of zamindari. Very importantly, and something that would have far-reaching repercussions,
it also introduced a special schedule in the Constitution under which laws
could be placed to make them immune to judicial challenge even if they violated fundamental rights.
The president, the speaker, opposition leaders, newspapers, the legal fraternity – all thought the amendment to be ill-timed and ill-advised. It generated a storm of criticism
The president, the speaker, opposition leaders, newspapers, the legal fraternity – all thought the amendment to be ill-timed and ill-advised. It generated a storm of criticism
within parliament and outside. No one beyond the government thought it necessary. Many considered it an executive power grab – which it indeed was.
Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar, was insistent on the word ‘reasonable’ being added to the ‘restrictions’ being placed on freedom of speech –
Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar, was insistent on the word ‘reasonable’ being added to the ‘restrictions’ being placed on freedom of speech –
to allow the judiciary to adjudicate on whether these restrictions were reasonable or not. Nehru was against the inclusion of the word ‘reasonable’.
This book #SixteenStormyDays lays bare the schisms within the Congress party, the pressure applied on the president’s office
This book #SixteenStormyDays lays bare the schisms within the Congress party, the pressure applied on the president’s office
to bend to the will of the government & the ways in which the judiciary was subordinated by the executive. Most importantly, the story also blurs the dichotomies that political analysts slip into: the liberal Nehruvian vision of India versus the RSS’s authoritarian one, between
progressive and reactionary politics.
It leaves us wondering why this story was never told before; is it a mere coincidence or a part of a deliberate political project? The book maintains a dignified restraint in answering this question.
Finally, after knowing all this...
It leaves us wondering why this story was never told before; is it a mere coincidence or a part of a deliberate political project? The book maintains a dignified restraint in answering this question.
Finally, after knowing all this...
it's time, we should ask the Law Minister, WHAT IS STOPPING YOU?
Why not bring the changes for Nations Good?
Why not bring the changes for Nations Good?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
