The document summarizes key information about the First Amendment of the Indian Constitution and two related Supreme Court cases. The First Amendment was enacted in 1951 and made changes to fundamental rights provisions, allowing for special provisions for disadvantaged groups and validating land reform laws. It was passed in response to the Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras case, which struck down a ban on a newspaper on free speech grounds. It also responded to State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, which struck down the state's caste-based reservation system as unconstitutional, leading to political and social upheaval. The amendment added provisions allowing for affirmative action.

1. First Amendment of the
Constitution of India
By Agam raj
(sharda univercity)

2.  The First Amendment of the Constitution of India, enacted in 1951, made
several changes to the Fundamental Rights provisions of the constitution.
It provided against abuse of freedom of speech and expression, validation
of zamindari abolition laws, and clarified that the right to equality does
not bar the enactment of laws which provide "special consideration" for
weaker sections of society.
 The formal title of the amendment is the Constitution (First Amendment)
Act, 1951. It was moved by the then Prime Minister of India, Jawaharla
Nehru, on 10 May 1951 and enacted by Parliament on 18 June 1951.[1]
 This amendment set the precedent of amending the Constitution to
overcome judicial judgements impeding fulfilment of the government's
perceived responsibilities to particular policies and programmes. The
amendment's language giving it retrospective as well as prospective effect
was used by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi during the Emergency, to render
constitutional, actions that had been both illegal and unconstitutional.
First Amendment of the Constitution
of India

3.  Empowered the state to make special provision for advancement of
socially and economically backward classes.
 Provided for the saving of laws providing for acquisition of the State,
etc.
 Added ninth schedule to protect the land reform and other laws included
in it and judicial review.
 Provided that state trading and nationalization of any trade or business
by state is not to be invalid on the ground of violation of the right to
trade or business
First Amendment Act, 1951

4. FACTS OF THE CASE
The petition was filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution by the
petitioner against the order of Government of Madras imposing a
ban upon the entry and circulation of the petitioner's weekly journal
Crossroads, printed and published in Bombay. The order was passed
under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949.
Romesh Thappar vs The State Of
Madras on 26 May, 1950

5. Decision:
 The Court found that the ban constituted a violation of the right to
freedom of expression.
 The starting point in considering the merits was freedom of
circulation of the press:
 -The Court considered whether the ban could have been legitimately
instituted for public order purposes. It considered the law on the
basis of which the ban had been ordered and noted that it was
drafted in broad and vague terms. This was not legitimate. On the
face of it, the Law allowed restrictive action to be taken even in
cases where no objective public safety threat existed. This went
beyond what was constitutionally permissible and the ban was
therefore quashed.
Romesh Thappar vs The State Of
Madras on 26 May, 1950

6.  State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226) is a landmark
decision of the Supreme Court of India. This verdict led to the First
Amendment of the Constitution of India. It was the first major verdict
regarding reservations in Republic of India. In its ruling the Supreme Court
upheld the Madras High Court verdict, which in turn had struck down the
Communal Government Order (G.O) passed in 1927 in the Madras Presidency.
The Communal G.O had provided caste based reservation in government jobs
and college seats. The Supreme Court's verdict held that providing such
reservations was in violation of Article 16 (2) of the Indian Constitution.
State of Madras v. Champakam
Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226)

7.  Champakam Dorairajan was a brahmin girl from the Madras state.
In 1951, she could not get admission in a medical college even
though she had scored sufficient marks due to a communal GO
issued by the government. In 1950 Madras state, the quota
system was very different that what it is today.
State of Madras v. Champakam
Dorairajan

8.  The court states,
 With regard to admission of students to the Engineering
and Medical Colleges of the State, the Province of Madras had
issued an order (known as the Communal G. O.) that seats
should be filled in by the selection committee strictly on the
following basis, i.e.,
 out of every 14 seats,
 6 were to be allotted to Non-Brahmin (Hindus),
 2 to Backward Hindus,
 2 to Brahmins,
 2 to Harijans.
 1 to Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians and
 1 to Muslims
State of Madras v. Champakam
Dorairajan

9.  The above system had been in place for a few years. The communal GO
did not mention backwardness in anyway. So it can be safely assumed
that most of the seats were filled based on caste basis, and it was the
most forward of the non-brahmin castes that filled the big quota (6).
The communal GO just distributed seats based on a idea to "cap"
particular communities.
 So the girl (Champakam) moved the Supreme Court and claimed she
had been discriminated ONLY based on her birth (caste), the court
agreed and struck down the entire GO. Major agitations broke out in TN
– leading to political and social upheaval. India had just been formed,
the lok sabha had not even met, and the government was forced to
amend the constitution for the first time, due to the quota situation in
the Madras state. The amendment added a "clause 4 to Section 15"
State of Madras v. Champakam
Dorairajan

10. 
 THANK YOU