Rough note (there may be errors):
Kunal Kamra ft. Srijan Sandip Mandal | 004
1/4th become independent. some went to pak, others princely states.
cabinet mission plan
divide india to 3 parts of loose confederation states.
hindu majority states, muslim majority states and princely states.
central govt will have less power.
constituent assembly 80% was congress members. no one got this kind of majority.
muhammad iqbal’s idea 2 nation theory.
from 1940s muslim league asked for separate state. but nobody listens to that. to force british govt to do that jinnah asked for direct action. in 1945 election muslim league did not came into majority, but an allies of muslim league became in bengal and punjab. so they had power. they caused communal violence. this spread all over the nation.
even in the unstable condition of nation, right to freedom of speech.
50 people Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities, and Tribal and Excluded Areas. chair was patel.
10 people fundamental rights committee – J. B. Kripalani (Chairperson), B. R. Ambedkar, K. M. Munshi
no law should pass against freedom of speech except public order, morality. -ambedkar
km munshi – from ireland. Restrictions. defamation, sedition, blasphemy etc. irish constitution of 1937 literary copy. only blasphemy was removed.
munshi version is selected.
us constitution there is rights, no Restrictions. sc adding restrictions one by one there. irland both are there.
then it reached constituent assembly. ordinary members,not big leaders, of congress asked why adding restrictions? somnath lahrinath. cpm. these restrictions are added from the perspective of police constable. he referring police constable as patel. we are getting freedom. we are becoming citizens from subject with one hand giving freedom with another hand take it out.
[He attempted to introduce progressive safeguards—like including the right to privacy of correspondence as a fundamental right.]
afternoon congress members forms another meeting. some members mentioned this in constituent assembly that actual decisions are taken in the afternoon congress members meeting.
there was no mom in that meeting.
in constituent assembly they dont speak much, but in the afternoon meeting there was big fight. they asked why added restrictions, they dont accept.
then later patel said we are removing all restrictions. 30 april 1947
1948 dec, after one year all restrictions came back again.
violence grown much high and became genocide.
refugees.
people are dying, refugees, your family members getting affected.
the added restrictions came to constitution advisor. what ever discussion happening in the assembly write in legal terms and prepare it for drafting committee.
prepare legal form to what advisor gives. that will go back to assembly to ratify. chair ambedkar.
members again asked why? this time congress members supported. these people saw post partition violence, refugee crisis, gandhi’s assassination.
constitution was wrote under an emergency. never had such emergency. to save the nation added the restrictions.
still some members was against that.
Hukam Singh, akalidal. he had only his cloths. he was before high court judge of one princely state. Mukundar Singh Man, akalidal, jp, 2 muslim league members. they said we dont have restrictions. then it was one party rule. if they they these much power, we are getting illusory freedom.
hukkum sing asked for remove contempt of court.
defamation – there is lot of yellow journalism. so blackmailing leader may happen. to avoid that. – km munshi.
reason was to save the nation, but now saving leaders. save the judges.
so colonial laws continued.
may 26, 1950 sc 2 decisions. cross road (left wing mag, romesh thaper) and organizer. cross road censorship. shooting in a jail, lot of prisoners died. cross road want to publish an article on that. case against him based on public safety act of madras. organizer also charged with public safety act in punjab.
both went to sc said we are citizens we have right to speech. separate. 5:1 decision. saying these 2 laws are unconstitutional. 47–49 effort wasted.
patna high court judge said based on these 2 decisions, we cannot punish for murder.
patel asked nehru to amended constitution.
in punjab, tara singh akalidal leader he want khalistan. sedition case against him. but court said sedition law is unconstitutional.
153a also made unconstitutional. promoting enmity among classes.
after this nehru said we have to bring amendment.
sedition is the law by which tilak and gandhi went to jail. sedition is the prince among the political section of indian penal code. 1922 speech.
cong leader dont like sedition law.
so more than sedition law, promoting enmity is fear for nehru.
abdkar wrote a draft for restriction added word reasonable 19.2
1. friendly relation with foreign state (for rss), 2. public order. 3. Incitement on an offense (for patna judge) 4. in the interest of (increase scope)
1963.
nagaland, punjab, tamilnadu
tamilnadu. dmk emerged for dradidian country. kamjaj was powerful. said no issue. after 1960 dmk became 2nd largest party. 27% seat. annadurai failed. 1962. but got rajya sabha seat. he declared they want dravida nadu country in rajya sabha as dmk member.
there is no legal
62 emergency.
national integration committee, chair cp ramaswami ayyar. he was before national integration. committee report, to amended the constitution. sovereign, integrity words should be added to 19.2. also added to preamble. so total 8 restrictions.
1967 law, unlawful activity prevention act. now we call it uapa.
only 1 person voted against this law in loksabha and rajya sabha. only annadurai.
any law which crushes freedom of speech which is being challenged in court never succeeded. except one case. dramatic performance act of 1870s.
if court accept that any law which crushes freedom of speech, still it says that the law is saved by 19.2. reasonable restriction
we can understand britishers crushing freedom of speech. they are outsiders. but after independence, is it right that those who are elected by citizens are crushing the freedom of speech of the citizens? if anything goes wrong there is supreme court.
see small small people like Hukam Singh in the constituent assembly. what ever they feared came true. we have illusory freedom.
this is the time what people like Hukam Singh asked for in the constitution.