Published On: 26th May 2025
Authored By: Sanjeeka Gupta
Amity University, Lucknow
DETAILS OF THE CASE
Case name: Romesh Thappar vs. The State of Madras
Case number: Petition No. XVI of 1950
Equivalent Citations: 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594, and AIR 1950 SUPREME COURT 124
Relevant Provisions: Article 13(1), Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2), Article 32 of the Constitution of India, and Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice Harilal Kania, Justices Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, and Sudhi Ranjan Das
Petitioner: Romesh Thappar
Respondent: State of Madras
Judgement Date: 26 May 1950
Type of Appeal: Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
ARTICLES
Constitutional Provisions Discussed:
Article 13(1)
Any law in effect in the Indian territory before the commencement of the Constitution that is inconsistent with the fundamental rights provisions shall be rendered void to the extent of the inconsistency.
Article 19(1)(a)
Grants every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Article 19(2)
Allows the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, state security, foreign relations, public order, decency, morality, and in matters of contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
Article 32
Regarded by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the heart of the Constitution, it permits individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. The Court is empowered to issue various writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. However, this right can be suspended during a national emergency declared under Article 352.
Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949
This section enabled the government to restrict the entry, circulation, or sale of documents in Madras if it was considered necessary for maintaining public safety and order.
DOCTRINES
Void for Vagueness:
The Supreme Court ruled that a law which is vague and gives excessive discretionary powers to the authorities is unconstitutional. In this case, Section 9(1-A) was deemed too ambiguous, allowing arbitrary decisions.
Reasonable Restrictions:
The case scrutinized the permissible scope of restrictions under Article 19(2). The Court emphasized that such limitations must be justified, proportionate, and necessary for public welfare.
Direct and Immediate Nexus:
A legal limitation on speech must be directly and immediately connected to the threat to public order. Mere speculation or remote connections do not justify such restrictions.
Doctrine of Severability:
While this doctrine allows for unconstitutional parts of a law to be removed, leaving the valid portions intact, the Court found Section 9(1-A) wholly unconstitutional and hence inseverable.
ISSUES RAISED
-
Was the petitioner correct in directly approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32, or was it necessary to first approach the High Court under Article 226?
-
Did the Madras Government’s order infringe upon the petitioner’s right to freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed by Article 19?
-
Was Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act constitutionally valid under Article 13(1)?
FACTS OF THE CASE
Romesh Thappar was the editor, printer, and publisher of an English weekly journal named “Cross Roads” based in Bombay. The publication was known for its critical views on the policies of the then Congress government. On 1 March 1950, the Government of Madras, acting under Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, prohibited the entry and distribution of the journal within the state. The government issued a formal notification stating that the publication posed a threat to public order and safety.
In response, Thappar approached the Supreme Court via a writ petition under Article 32, asserting that the ban violated his fundamental right to free speech and expression.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Petitioner’s Arguments:
Thappar argued that the state’s action directly infringed upon his right under Article 19(1)(a). He maintained that Section 9(1-A) was inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore void under Article 13(1). He emphasized that the original scope of Article 19(2) did not include “public order” as a valid ground for restricting free expression.
He asserted that the law in question granted excessive power to the authorities and lacked clear guidelines, thereby violating constitutional principles. The restrictions imposed were neither necessary nor reasonable.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The Advocate General of Madras raised a procedural objection, arguing that the petitioner should have approached the High Court first. He cited Indian and American judicial precedents to support this view.
Substantively, the state contended that the journal’s contents could provoke unrest, thereby justifying the ban as a preventive step. It argued that the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act authorized such actions to maintain social peace and security.
JUDGEMENT
In Favour of Romesh Thappar:
The Supreme Court held that the Madras Government’s order violated the petitioner’s constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the restriction lacked sufficient justification and was not covered under the permissible limitations of Article 19(2) as it then existed.
It emphasized that any law or order that curtails fundamental rights must demonstrate a clear and immediate danger to public order. The law in question failed to meet this standard.
Regarding the State of Madras:
The Court rejected the state’s justification, observing that there was no substantive evidence linking the journal to any immediate threat to public order. It held that vague concerns about unrest were insufficient to override a fundamental right.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court struck down the restriction as unconstitutional. This landmark judgement established a critical precedent for the protection of free speech in India. It underscored that any limitations on fundamental rights must be precise, necessary, and proportionate, and reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as a guardian of civil liberties.