"Amendments brought to protect those in power": Nirmala Sitharaman targets Nehru, Indira during debate on Constitution

New Delhi: Imitating the debate on the constitution in the upper house, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman launched a scathing attack on former Congress leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi and said that the Constitutional amendments that they brought were not about strengthening democracy but protecting those in power.

Sitharaman asserted that post Second World War, over 50 countries had become independent and had their constitution written but many have changed their entire feature but India’s Constitution stood the test of times. 

“India’s experience has shown that a constitution remains robust yielding to several amendments which were the need of the hour. I would like to talk about the first Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951. There was an interim government between August 15, 1947, and it lasted till April 1952, post which an elected government took over the charge. But during 1951, when the first constitutional amendment was passed it was an interim government and not an elected government. The amendment added three more heads to Article 19 (2) saying public order could be a cause to restrict freedom of speech, friendly relations with foreign could be a cause to freedom of speech or an incitement to an offence could also be a cause. These were the amendments brought at that time,” she said.

She highlighted the Supreme Court's two “landmark” judgements in 1950, one year back from this amendment that paved the way for freedom of press under Article 19 (1) (A). 

“Many High Courts also upheld the freedom of expression of our citizens but the interim government in response thought that there was a need for the first Amendment that was brought by the Indian National Congress (INC) and it was essentially to curb the freedom,” Sitharaman said.

The Finance Minister also added that India, a democratic country which prides itself even today on freedom of expression saw the first interim government coming up with a constitutional amendment which was to curb the freedom of speech of Indians and that was within one year of adoption of the Constitution. 

“In the Parliament, it also did not move smoothly with various eminent members presenting scathing remarks but Prime Minister Nehru went ahead. The interim government continued to curb the freedom of speech before the amendment and prior to it. Majnu Sultanpuri and Balraj Sahani were both jailed in 1949 for reciting a poem against Jawaharlal Nehru. Congress’ record of curtailing freedom of speech didn’t confine with these two people,” Sitharaman added.

Further, Nirmala Sitharaman pointed out the Constitutional amendments brought in to nullify a judgement that arose between Indira Gandhi vs Rajnarayan wherein the order of the Allahabad High Court setting aside the election of Indira Gandhi was challenged. 

“During the pendency of this case in the Supreme Court, the Congress enacted the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act in 1975 which added Article 392 (A) to the Constitution which says that elections to the President, Vice President, Prime Minister and Lok Sabha Speaker cannot be challenged in any court in the country and it can be done only before a parliamentary committee. Imagine that for a person to save her chair, an amendment was made even before the court judgement,” she said.

“The judgement that came from the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano case, the Congress passed the Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce act 1986 which denied Muslim women their right to alimony. Our party passed the Nari Shakti Adhiniyam whereas the right of Muslim women was denied by this act,” she added.

Sitharaman also slammed the Congress on enforcing Emergency in the country.

“On December 18, 1976, the then-president gave an accent to the 42nd Constitutional amendment act. During the Emergency when the term of Lok Sabha was extended without proper justification. In the extended term, when the entire opposition was put to jail then came the Constitutional amendment. That was a total invalidated process. Only five members opposed the bill in the Lok Sabha. There was no one in Rajya Sabha to oppose it. The amendments were not about strengthening democracy but protecting those in power,” the Finance Minister said.