PRIME minister Narendra Modi opened the discussion in the Lok Sabha on 75 years of the Constitution on December 14, 2024, by criticising India’s first PM Jawaharlal Nehru for bringing the first constitutional amendment even before the first Lok Sabha was elected.
Modi said: “This country didn’t have an elected government from 1947 to 1952. A temporary system, a selected government was in place. Elections were not held. An interim government was in place until the elections. Before 1952, the Rajya Sabha was also not formed. There were no elections in states as well.”
The Prime Minister is partially right. The first amendment of the Constitution was passed by the provisional parliament before the first General Election was held.
Was it Nehru’s precipitous move to bring this amendment in May-June 1951, or was it a rational decision taken by the Cabinet? Law Minister BR Ambedkar was still in the Cabinet and his ministry must have drafted it in consultation with him.
The government in place from 1947-52 faced constitutional roadblocks as the judiciary intervened in some crucial cases. The cases included those relating to making special provisions for protective discrimination [Article 15(3)], freedom of speech [Article 19(1a)] in Romesh Thappar vs the State of Madras case on May 26, 1950, and carrying forward several of its initiatives relating to the abolition of the zamindari system (Article 31) in order to fulfil its promises to the people of India.
Thus, the “right to hold, acquire or dispose of the property” was a crucial one that the government thought would have to be balanced with prominence to the community rights of social and economic equality.
The substance of the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution dealt with the fundamental right to property enshrined in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. The Bill was introduced on May 12, 1951, and enacted on June 18, 1951, even before the elections for the first Lok Sabha were held (on April 17, 1952) and the Rajya Sabha was constituted.
On September 10, 1949, amendments to draft Article 24 (Article 31) were discussed. Nehru moved the amendment stating that the possession of private property was given the protection of ‘authority of law’. Any ‘compulsory’ acquisition of property for public purposes must have ‘compensation’ — a specified amount — or the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined have to be built into the law authorising acquisition. He was absolutely clear that “there is no question of any expropriation without compensation so far as this Constitution is concerned”.
These conditions would be applied both to the Union and state governments. He did not see any conflict between “individual right to property and the community’s interest in that property or the community’s right”.
He explained that the amendment he moved reassures acquisition and maintenance of private property, but he appeared to foresee the need for acquisition of small or big chunks of private property for community purposes.
In his view, the rights, the interests and welfare of the community override the individual rights.
He asserted the authority of Parliament, not of the judiciary, to fix the principles to be laid down for a fair payment of compensation: “Parliament fixes either the compensation itself or the principles governing that compensation and they should not be challenged except for one reason, where it is thought that there has been a gross abuse of the law, where in fact there has been a fraud on the Constitution. Naturally the judiciary comes in to see that any Parliament representing the entire community of the nation will certainly not commit a fraud on its own Constitution and will be very much concerned with doing justice to the individual as well as the community.” (CAD, Book No. 4, Vol. IX, p. 1195).
Thus, a large part of the letter and substance of Nehru’s draft for Article 24 was incorporated in the Constitution as Article 31, guaranteeing private property to the citizens of India.
Speaking strongly for abolishing the zamindari system, Nehru stated: “It has been … the old policy of the … Congress … that the zamindari institution in India … must be abolished. So far as we are concerned … shall give effect to that pledge naturally completely … and no change is going to come in our way…. Within limits no judge and no Supreme Court can make itself a third chamber. No Supreme Court and no judiciary can stand in Judgement over the sovereign will of the Parliament representing the will of the entire community.” (p. 1197).
Thus, during the course of the presentation of the amendment that led to the finalisation of Article 31, the stage was set for the First Amendment. Both the content and substance of the arguments presented by Nehru made it clear that community interest within the boundaries of ‘fair compensation’ will prevail.
Another important reason for the First Amendment was to ‘qualify’ the freedom of speech and expression as the executive orders for banning the Cross Roads, that Romesh Thappar edited, were shot down. As the Nehru government had taken exception to the Organiser, a publication of the RSS, that had been publishing articles against Pakistan that were communal in nature and were affecting the community relations in the country, it came under pressure regarding the Cross Roads, too.
The First Amendment added ‘public order’, ‘incitement to an offence’ and ‘friendly relations with foreign states’ to the already existing grounds of restriction in Article 19(2).
Since the Organiser came under its ambit, the Prime Minister’s ire is understandable. Indeed, we need a better understanding of the First Amendment.
The Tribune, now published from Chandigarh, started publication on February 2, 1881, in Lahore (now in Pakistan). It was started by Sardar Dyal Singh Majithia, a public-spirited philanthropist, and is run by a trust comprising five eminent persons as trustees.
The Tribune, the largest selling English daily in North India, publishes news and views without any bias or prejudice of any kind. Restraint and moderation, rather than agitational language and partisanship, are the hallmarks of the newspaper. It is an independent newspaper in the real sense of the term.
The Tribune has two sister publications, Punjabi Tribune (in Punjabi) and Dainik Tribune (in Hindi).
Remembering Sardar Dyal Singh Majithia
