The concept of human rights has a respectable pedigree. It can be traced to the Natural Law of the seventeenth century where the philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau philosophized over such inherent human rights and sought to preserve these rights by propounding the theory of ‘social compact’. The concept of human rights represents an attempt to protect the individual from oppression and injustice. The idea of guaranteeing certain freedoms is to ensure that a person will have a minimum guaranteed freedom. Thus, under the International Declaration of Human Rights which was introduced in 1948. The Freedom of Speech and Expression is also recognized in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of International Human Rights.
The framers of the US constitution in 1787 were the first to give concrete shape to the concept of human rights by putting these rights into the constitution and making them justiciable and enforceable through the instrumentality of the courts. During the British regime in India, human rights were widely violated by the rulers. Therefore, the framers of the Constitution, had a very positive attitude towards these rights. Accordingly, human rights were incorporated in the Constitution under the title of ‘Fundamental Rights’ in Part III under Articles 12 to 35. In his closing address to the Constituent Assembly, Dr B.R. Ambedkar emphasized that the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity were not to be treated as separate entities but as a ‘trinity’.
The preamble declares that the Constitution of India has been adopted by the people to promote justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity thus the constitutional provisions amongst the fundamental rights also protect these values. The entrenched fundamental rights have a dual aspect. Entrenchment means that the guaranteed rights cannot be taken away or infringed by an ordinary law and curtailing or infringing such law would be declared to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court acts as the protector, interpreter and guardian of these rights and also seeks to integrate the directive principles with fundamental rights.
Hence we deduce from these facts that Fundamental rights are invincible. Articles 19, 20, 21A and 22 consist of provisions concerning the right to freedom. Six freedoms are granted to any citizen in the country, as provided in Article 19. They are:
- Freedom of speech and expression
- Freedom to assemble peacefully without arms
- Freedom to form associations or unions
- Freedom to move freely throughout India
- Freedom to reside and settle in any part of India
- Freedom to practice any profession or to carry on business, occupation or trade
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
The Indian Constitution provides for a series of fundamental rights for the citizen of India. The freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is one such privilege.
Freedom of speech & expression refers to the ability of an individual or group of individuals to express their beliefs, thoughts, ideas, and emotions about different issues free from government censorship. It is essential to individual liberty. The intent of the drafters of the Constitution was that they believed in a free society. The people must be permitted to criticize government and lobby for change. The limitations on free speech preclude speech that is harmful to others, threatening, or generally repulsive and reviled. But the concept of ‘free expression’ was restrained as it cannot be equated or confused with a license to make accusations against the judiciary that are unfounded and are irresponsible. The right to speech and expression is not an absolute right, and the State can enforce reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Also Read: Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
THE LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS
1. Freedom of Press
Freedom of the press is essential to freedom of expression, which forms the backbone of political freedom and genuine functioning of democracy. In the case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, the court affirmed that the enforcement of pre-censorship on a journal constituted an infringement on the freedom of the press, which is an essential part of Article 19(1)(a). The judgment added that free political dialogue is necessary if a democratic government is to work properly
In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, The Court confirmed that freedom of the press plays a very important role for the proper functioning of democracy, deriving its roots from Article 19(1)(a) and that it is the duty of the courts to uphold freedom of the press.
In Benet Coleman and Co. vs. Union of India, according to the Supreme Court of India, the constraint of the permissible number of pages in the newspaper was found to be in violation of Article 19(1)(a) and is not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
In the case of Prabhu Dutt vs. Union of India, it was claimed that the right to know about the news and details related to government’s administration is included in the freedom of press.
2. Right to Broadcast
By the introduction of technology, Courts have acknowledged the modern aspects of freedom of speech and expression. That is, the right to broadcast and advertise. In Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the privilege of a person to display films on the Doordarshan- State Channel is part of the fundamental right provided by Article 19(1)(a). In this case, the petitioners challenged the displaying of a serial named ‘Honi Anhonion’ in Doordarshan on the basis that it prompted the audience to believe in superstition and blind faith. The claim was rejected as the plaintiff became unsuccessful in showing evidence of detriment caused to the public.
3. Right to Information
After the enactment of the Right to Information Act 2005, in the case of Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the court reiterated that, according to Article 19(1)(a), the right to information is not a legislation but a constitutional guarantee.
The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms stated that the freedom to transmit and acquire information pursuant to Article 19(1)(a) is necessary. (It is to guarantee that people are aware and that one sided information or misinformation will not render democracy a farce.)
In the case of Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Ors. v. Union of India, The Supreme Court affirmed that, in a modern democratic society governed by the Constitution, it is obvious that citizens are entitled to know about the affairs of the government which they elect.
4. Right to Criticize
In the case of S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, it was affirmed that it is appropriate to form and convey an opinion in a manner which does not cause defamation to the other individual to whom such critique is addressed and is secured under the freedom of speech and expression. The decision added that democracy calls for open discussion and policy criticism.
5. Right to Expression beyond National Boundaries
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court confirmed that freedom of speech and expression was not limited by geographical limitations or boundaries and claimed that Article 19(1)(a) encompasses both the right to speak and the freedom to express in India and also in abroad.
6. Right to Refuse to Speak or Right to Silence
In the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, the school dismissed three students for their denial to sing the national anthem. Yet when the national anthem was playing, the children took a stand in respect. The legality of the students ‘expulsion was questioned at the Kerala High Court, and they confirmed the student’s dismissal on the basis that singing the national anthem was their fundamental duty. Yet, on an appeal brought before the Supreme Court against the order of the Kerala High Court, the Supreme Court held that the students had committed no offence under the Prevention of Insults to the National Honour Act of 1971 and further stated that the dismissal of school children for not singing the national anthem created a violation of their right to freedom of expression.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION AND CONTEMPT OF COURT
Contempt of court, often referred to simply as ‘contempt’, is the offence of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behaviour that opposes or defies the authority, justice and dignity of the court. Our Constitutional scheme is premised on the concept of Rule of law. In India, the basic rule of governance is that no one is above the law. For this the Constitution has assigned a special task to the judiciary in the country as it is only through the courts that the Rule of law unfolds its contents and establishes its concept.
Thus, for the judiciary to perform its duties and function effectively and true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. After more than half a century of Independence, the judiciary in the country is under a constant threat and being endangered from within and without. Hence, the need of the hour is to restore confidence amongst the peope for the independence of the judiciary. The only weapon of protecting itself from the onslaught to the institution is through the process of contempt of court left in the armoury of the judicial repository which can penalize anyone.
Also Read: Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
THE LAWS ON CONTEMPT OF COURT:
There is a very thin line between Freedom of Expression and the Contempt of Court. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was promulgated in this country specifically to uplift the magnanimity of the court which is often put in conflict with the freedom of expression enshrined in our constitution and often revered to be most important provision to ensure democratic values. 
Under the Act, the action for contempt is taken by only two courts, that is, the Supreme Court under Article 129 or the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution. The procedure is prescribed under Section 15 of the Act. The Supreme Court has with the approval of the President, framed, in the exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act read with Article 145 of the Constitution rules to regulate proceedings for contempt of the Court. Besides, the court may take action which could be suo motu or on a petition made by Attorney General, or Solicitor General or (c) on a petition made by any person, and in the case of criminal contempt with the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.
THE CONFLICT AND THE CONTROVERSY
The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr observed that ‘the contempt of court jurisdiction is not exercised to protect the dignity of an individual judge, but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned’.
One of the earliest occasions when Supreme Court had to deal with criminal contempt of court was the case of Brahma Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs State of U.P. Their Lordships pointed out that there are primarily two considerations in such matters. Thus, the Constitution Bench laid down the ratio which says:
‘If, however, the publication of the disparaging statement is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law by such court, it can be punished summarily as contempt. One is a wrong done to the judge personally while the other is a wrong done to the public. It will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability, or fairness of the judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court’s administration of justice, or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the judge himself in the discharge of his duties. It is well established that it is not necessary to prove affirmatively that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such a defamatory statement; it is enough if it is likely, or tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of law.’
TYPES OF CONTEMPT
Civil Contempt
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines civil contempt as a wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other processes of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
Criminal Contempt
Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 defines criminal contempt as the publication whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:
(i) Scandalises or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or
(ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or
(iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
PUNISHMENT AND SENTENCING
Both civil and criminal contempt share the same punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The Act allows for a maximum term of imprisonment for six months, and this can be supplemented with a fine up to ₹2000. The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 also specifically allows courts to forgo the punishment if an apology is made to the court, and may use their discretion to determine whether the apology has been sufficient.
Few Cases connected with Contempt of Court in India
- In Duda P.N. v. Shivshankar, P., the Supreme Court observed that the contempt jurisdiction should not be used by Judges to uphold their own dignity. In the free market places of ideas, criticism about the judicial system or the Judges should be welcomed, so long as criticisms do not impair or hamper the ‘administration of justice’.
- In Auto Shankar’s Case, Jeevan Reddy J, invoked the famous ‘Sullivan doctrine’ that public persons must be open to stringent comments and accusations as long as made with bonafide diligence, even if untrue.
- In Arundhati Roy case, the Supreme Court observed that a fair criticism of the conduct of a Judge, the institution of the judiciary and its functioning may not amount to contempt if made in good faith and in public interest.
- In Indirect Tax practitioners’ Association v. R.K. Jain, S.C. observed that the Court may now permit truth as a defence if two things are satisfied, viz., (i) it is in public interest and (ii) the request for invoking the said defence is bona fide. (S.13, Contempt of Courts Act,1971).
- In 2012, the Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Joymala Bagchi decided the contempt case against the Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamta Banerjee on her controversial speech wherein she alleged that corruption had made inroads into the Judiciary. Banerjee was ultimately absolved of proceedings by the High Court. The Bench asserted that power of contempt be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. Recurrent or haphazard use of this power in anger, haste or annoyance would not help to sustain the dignity of the courts instead may affect it adversely.
THE PRASHANT BHUSHAN CASE:
The most recent contempt of court case in India is the Prashant Bhushan contempt case wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against Advocate on Record (AOR), Shri Prashant Bhushan for his tweets against current Chief Justice of India, Shri S.A. Bobde; his 2009 interview with Tehelka magazine wherein he questioned the integrity of a few past Chief Justices of India and some of his other recent tweets where he has questioned the long absence or limited functioning of the courts during the initial days of the lockdown period.
However, when the contempt proceedings were initiated Mr Bhushan was quick to withdraw his remarks with regard to his tweet. He even offered an apology for this tweet and clarified that he meant no disrespect to the office of the Chief Justice of India. However, Mr. Bhushan vehemently refused to apologise for either for his Tehelka magazine interview which dates back to 2009 or for any of his other tweets. Mr Bhushan has in his reply to the contempt proceedings stated that he meant no disrespect to the offices of the Hon’ble Judges in the interview and the tweets.
He was merely offering constructive criticism and hence tendering an apology whether conditional or unconditional would not be sincere. The suo moto contempt proceedings against Prashant Bhushan were initiated on 21st July 2020 and on 14th August 2020, the constitutional bench found Mr. Bhushan guilty of the offence of contempt of court. The Supreme Court in its order fined him Re 1 for contempt of court and gave other options to him such as three months in jail or a three-year ban on practising in the Supreme Court.
A similar case was observed in the post-emergency era of the year 1977-78 when two editors – Shamlal of The Times of India and S. Mulgaokar of The Indian Express were charged with contempt of court for their articles in their respective newspapers where they questioned the bench which decided the case of A.D.M. Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla. The articles penned by Shamlal and Mulgaokar were published when Justice M H Beg was appointed as the Chief Justice of India and both articles criticized the above-mentioned judgement and questioned the integrity of the judges.
One of the articles even went on to state that Justice Chandrachud and Justice P N Bhagawati should not be considered for the position of Chief Justice of India despite both of them being next in line respectively in order of seniority. Two separate cases of contempt were instituted suo-moto against both the editors. Both editors, however, chose to contest their matters and the constitutional bench eventually held that neither of them acted in contempt of court. This shows the importance that was given to the freedom of speech and expression of the editors’ and the freedom of the press as well.
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT ACROSS DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
In the United Kingdom, the offence of scandalizing the courts was abolished in 2013 after a Law Commission report. This is interesting to note because the Indian law of Contempt of Court is derived from the Common Law of Britain. In the famous Spycatcher case, an English newspaper published a caricature of three judges and captioned it, ‘You Old Fools’. Lord Templeman denied initiation of contempt proceedings and wittingly replied that he was indeed an old man but whether he was a fool was a matter of public perception, although he did not think so.
The United States of America currently has watered down the contempt law by numerous judgements which affirm that the dignity of the courts cannot be established by silencing public opinion or by restricting the free discussions about the Court.
Contempt powers can be only used if there is a clear imminent and present danger to the disposal of a case. In Canada also, the courts are open to criticism unless there is an imminent danger to the administration of justice.
The Amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in 2006
The law of contempt in India was rectified only in 2006 by an amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act. The 2006 amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 clarifies that the Court may impose punishment for contempt only when it is satisfied that substantially interferes, or tends to substantially interfere with the due course of justice.
THE NEW VISTAS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN INDIA
The Supreme Court of India has placed freedom of speech and expression on a higher pedestal compared to the other freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. The reason is because, according to the Supreme Court, freedom of speech and expression is the most precious of all the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. In recent times new dimensions have emerged which led to a number of Acts and measures that further expanded the scope of the freedom of expression in India.
- The Constitution of India
The freedom of speech includes within it’s purview the freedom ‘not to speak’. While the Constitution under Article 19(1) (a) guarantees right to freedom of speech, the right not to speak is mentioned under Article 20(3), which says that ‘no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself’. Hence the right not to speak vested in an accused criminal is a ‘jural opposite’ of the right to speak. But an accused has the liberty to speak and his speech can be used in evidence against him. The State has no right to compel him to speak. The Constitution of India has raised the rule against self-incrimination to the status of a Constitutional provision.
- The Right to Information Act
The Right to Information derives from the democratic framework established by the Constitution and rests on the basic premise that since the government is for the people it should be open and accountable and should have nothing to conceal from the people, it purports to represent. In State of UP v. Raj Naraian, Mathew J., had pointed out that ‘the people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by the public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing.’ In recent times, the RTI has brought about a radical transformation in the awareness about the rights of a citizen and manner of governance. By far we can say that this is the most citizen-friendly legislation post-independence.
- Election Commission on Social Media
Long back a report circulated in media that the Election Commission is going to enforce the Model Code of Conduct on social media. Thus leading to an assumption that the media will be stifled and the freedom of speech and expression is under threat. But it was an unfounded fear. The Election Commission is a protagonist of the people’s right to information and free expression. If it comes with any order on social media, it can only be with reference to political parties and candidates, and that too in the context of expenditure and objectionable content that violates the Model Code of Conduct.
The law requires that every rupee spent on the campaign must be accounted for. This includes the expenditure on different media where if a candidate spends money on it; he is by law duty bound to show it in the mandatory expenditure statements. Some of the content is often so explosive that it can set the country afire. Therefore, the steps taken prevent these events and certainly do not amount to interference with the freedom of expression.
- Ban on Opinion Polls or the Exit Polls
In a democracy, the right to cast a vote is as important as to get information because it enables the citizens to make an informed choice. It is because of the right to information that the candidates are bound to declare their assets. The professed justification for imposing a ban on opinion poll and exit polls is that they would adversely affect electoral prospects of some political parties or candidates or that they may have the effect of unduly influencing the minds of the electors. In 1999, Election Commission issued guidelines to ban publication and telecast of result of opinion polls which was withdrawn by the Election Commission as a result of the opposition by the supporters of freedom of speech and expression.
- Media Trial
The tension between the courts and the media revolves around two aspects. The first is that there should be no ‘trial by media’ while the second is that it is not for the press or anyone else to ‘prejudge’ a case. Media is the only means for public to access the information about justice delivery. The Supreme Court has affirmed that freedom of expression is not restricted to expression of thoughts and ideas and includes the right to receive information and ideas of all kinds from different sources.
In Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar & other V. State of Maharashtra & another, the Supreme Court held that the open justice is not an absolute rule and the court may, in exercise of its inherent powers, prohibit the publication of reports. That High Courts have the inherent power to restrain the press from reporting where administration of justice so demanded.
- None of the Above (NOTA)
Recently, the Supreme Court has recognized the right to a negative vote though it will not affect the result) as a part of freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has asserted that just as people have the right to express their preference for a candidate, they also have a right to register a negative opinion. This can be exercised through an extra button on the EVM which says ‘None of the above’ (NOTA). The apex court has directed the Election Commission to introduce the NOTA option on EVMs and ballot papers.
The Supreme Court says, not allowing a person to cast vote negatively defeats the essence of freedom of expression and the right ensured in Article 21 of the Constitution, that is, the right to liberty. This decision came as a the result of a writ petition filed by PUCL in 2004, under Article 32 of the Constitution and questioned the constitutional validity of the conduct of Election Rules.
- Prohibition on FM Radio to Telecast News
Prior to the policy guidelines for phase III of the expansion plan for FM and community radio in 2011, the FM and community radio stations were not permitted to air any programme relating to these areas. In response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Apex Court asked the government to explain why it believes that private radios should not run their own news programme though private television channels and print media can. The rules in force narrowly define ‘what news is and what is not’.
The weather, traffic, counselling, coverage of cultural events, examinations, careers and such are defined as ‘information’, which is exempt from curbs. Indeed, the community radios can be operated cheaply and if liberalized, they would proliferate, but the government should not take them as threats. Rather they can be partners in development, spreading education and news locally.
- Internet Regulation and Freedom of Expression
The Internet communication crosses national territorial boundaries. Their global character is one of their principal characters, so much so that an effective regulation by state authorities is impossible. Attempts by one country to regulate the content of internet may affect the free speech rights of others. The different decisions of courts of different countries may also cause conflict. A number of measures were taken by the government to regulate the content on internet.
The Government of India asked the US to ensure that India-specific objectionable content be removed from the social media sites. The government also wanted these service providers to set up servers in India in order to regulate the content locally. However, such attempts have failed because of failure to fix liability, jurisdictional issues, and clashes in public policies among different nations, anonymity on the web etc. Brazil’s new internet law is a good step in this context. The new law enshrines the principle of ‘net neutrality’, which holds that network operators must treat all traffic equally. It also ensures that 100 million Brazilian internet users enjoy online privacy.
- Right to Privacy and Freedom of Expression
The right to one’s privacy should always be respected and must be restricted for reasonable cause. In India, there is no such national privacy policy. Although the concept of privacy is not explicitly listed as a fundamental right it is an essential component of Articles 19 and 21. Despite debates on an inadequate pending Privacy Bill, 2011, India does not have legislation examining the right to privacy. The Supreme Court has recognised a qualified right to privacy. The Indian Supreme Court gives constitutional protection to privacy by including it in Article 21which says that no citizen can be denied his life and liberty except by law and the right to privacy has been interpreted to be part of that.
There are certain restrictive powers available to the government like surveillance powers created by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Both the Central and State governments have power to intercept messages if their content compromises public safety. Section 80 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 gives police and senior Government Officials the power to enter any public place and search and arrest without warrant any person found therein who is reasonably suspected or having committed or about to commit an offence under this Act.
-
Copyright Law and Freedom of Expression
There are certain forms of possible conflict between freedoms of expression and copyright those have been previously overlooked. The reproduction of copyrighted work could be required for freedom of expression because of the importance copyrighted work has for citizens in a specific cultural space.
Intellectual property rights protect application of ideas and information that are of commercial value. It may be argued that copyright is a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution.
-
International Measures Taken to Overcome the Challenges
Freedom of expression is guaranteed by international treaties but there is a significant difference among countries in their view of the meaning of ‘free expression’ and how it should be protected. The protection for free expression is given in a number of organic documents such as the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR), the American International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR), the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).
According to the basic structure the individuals are guaranteed the right to receive information and freedom of expression through media of their choice. This right, however, is impeded by permissible restrictions to protect national security, individual privacy and reputation, the impartiality of courts, and the like. The current internet governance is neither democratic nor inclusive as the framework of Internet Governance (IG) is imperfect, especially with the United State’s strong influence and legal proximity to IG-related mechanisms.
European Union has rightly pointed out that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a good place to start, decentralization and renegotiating ICANN’s cosy relationship with the United States are some of the steps that need to be undertaken. Countries such as Russia and China, and some States in the Middle East, are attempting to increase the UN’s power to regulate the internet through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
CONCLUSION
Free speech is a sine qua non for a democracy. Therefore, the right of the citizens to free speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) should be treated as primary and the power of contempt should be treated as subordinate. All citizens of India are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and expression, contempt of court is indeed one of the reasonable restrictions that can act as a rider on this right. Besides, the right to freedom of speech and expression is also subject to certain reasonable restrictions such as defamation, decency and morality, public order and incitement of offences.
One could argue that the ambit of the reasonable restrictions enshrined between Clauses 2 to 6 of Article 19 of the Constitution of India are so wide that they restrict the very rights that clause 1 of Article 19 enshrines. However, the reasonable restrictions were included for maintaining the balance. The framers of the constitution knew that if they were to enshrine absolute rights on Indian citizens then there were chances of dire circumstances which might have affected and lead to the failure of constitutional machinery. Hence, the Constitution of India is rightly termed as a living document that has survived for over seven decades despite several amendments being made and various foiled attempts to dilute the spirit of the Indian Constitution.
Nice one