Option a is correct: The First Amendment Act, 1951, added the fourth clause to Article 15 that empowered the government to make any law for the upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It reads, “Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.”. The added clause elucidates that in case such special provisions are introduced, they cannot be said to be breaching Article 15 and Article 29(2) of the Constitution.

The need to insert this clause was felt after the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam (1951). According to the facts of this case, the Madras government issued an Order that provided reservation on the grounds of religion, race, and caste. This Order was contended to be in breach of Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court also gave a literal interpretation to the constitutional provisions and held that reserving seats in public institutions for backward classes violates Articles 15(1) and 29(2). Therefore, in order to nullify the effect of similar judicial pronouncements, Article 15 was amended.  

Similarly, Article 19(1)(a) grants the right to free speech and expression to Indian citizens. This right is considered an essential feature of democracy. However, Article 19(2) specifies the restrictions that can curtail this freedom. The First Amendment to the Indian Constitution altered these restrictions by widening their ambit. The second change, via the Amendment Act of 1951, was made to Clause 6 of Article 19.

Need of amendment of Article 19(2)

When the Constitution was adopted, the barriers to free speech and expression included ‘security of state’, ‘decency or morality’, ‘contempt of Court’, and ‘defamation’. With the First Amendment, the following three restrictions were added to Clause 2 of Article 19:

• Friendly relations with foreign states-This was added to prohibit any kind of malicious propaganda against a foreign nation. This addition was an attempt to build friendly relations with foreign states.
• Public Order-This barrier was constructed in response to the case of Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras (1950). The Supreme Court observed that the ambit of Article 19(1) was so large that it can even acquit a person charged with the offence of murder. Also, the Court stated that the expression ‘security of state’ is not comprehensive enough to include the concept of ‘public order’. This decision was sufficient to introduce an amendment to Article 19(2).

In the case of Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra and Others (1961), the Supreme Court examined the ambit of restriction ‘public order’. In this case, Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 was upheld on the ground that it was a reasonable restriction to prevent a person from carrying out certain acts if those acts were likely to disturb public tranquillity or result in a riot or an affray.

• Incitement to an offence- This is a limitation on free speech in the form of opinions or agitations on the involvement of an accused in any crime.

Need for amendment of Article 19(6)

The alteration was made in Article 19(6) via the First Amendment, and the intention behind this was to avoid objections to the power of the state to create any monopoly.

Article 19(6) is a reasonable restriction on the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. Before the First Amendment, the State had the power to impose reasonable restrictions by asserting that it is in the interests of the general public. This conferred the state the power to implement any scheme of nationalisation provided it is ‘reasonable’. However, the Amendment in 1951 added the clause which said, “the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise”, thus removing any scope of ambiguity regarding the power of the government to nationalise. This modification even excluded the factor of reasonableness while creating such a monopoly.

The Supreme Court in the case of Saghir Ahmad v. the State of U.P. and Others. (1954) studied the consequences of this amendment. The Court observed that after this alteration, the government can create a monopoly in its own favour, but this clause will prevent it from creating any monopoly in the favour of third parties.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/first-amendment-to-constitution-challenged-supreme-court-8252509/

First amendment of Indian Constitution

The Question has been dropped by UPSC.