Why in news?

Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi questioned the continued existence of colonial-era laws, citing one that permitted the arrest of people dancing in public places.

The PM was referring to the Dramatic Performances Act, 1876, which empowered the British government to ban public performances deemed scandalous, defamatory, seditious, or obscene.

He highlighted his government's efforts to repeal outdated and obsolete laws, emphasizing the need for legal reforms even 75 years after independence.

What’s in today’s article?

• Dramatic Performances Act, 1876
• Status of the Dramatic Performances Act After Independence
• Court’s Examination of the Dramatic Performances Act
• Continuation of Colonial-Era Laws in India

Dramatic Performances Act, 1876

• The Act was enacted by the British government to suppress nationalist sentiment in India, particularly after the visit of the Prince of Wales (1875-76).
• It was part of a broader crackdown that included the Vernacular Press Act (1878) and the sedition law (1870).
• Key Provisions
  • Ban on Performances: The government could prohibit any play, pantomime, or drama in public if deemed scandalous, defamatory, seditious, or obscene.
  • Government’s Discretion: The ban was based on the government’s opinion, without the need for concrete proof.
  • Search and Seizure Powers: Magistrates could search and seize venues suspected of hosting prohibited performances.
  • Punishment: Violators faced up to three months in jail, a fine, or both.

Status of the Dramatic Performances Act After Independence

• The Act was formally repealed in 2018 by then government as part of an effort to remove obsolete laws.
  • The Modi government undertook a flagship exercise to repeal obsolete laws, aiming to improve ease of doing business.
    • Since 2014, over 2,000 obsolete laws have been repealed.
  • Although the Dramatic Performances Act, 1876, was declared unconstitutional and no longer in use, it was formally repealed by Parliament through the Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017.
• However, it had not been a valid law since 1956 due to its inconsistency with the Indian Constitution.
• Judicial Rulings
  • Allahabad High Court (1956): In State vs. Baboo Lal and Ors., the court ruled the law unconstitutional.
  • Madras High Court (2013): Struck down the Tamil Nadu Dramatic Performances Act, 1954.
• State-Level Implementation
  • Some states, including Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Delhi, and Tamil Nadu, had enacted similar laws.
  • These laws were later repealed in several states and Union Territories, including Delhi.

Court’s Examination of the Dramatic Performances Act

• Background of the Case (1953)
  • The Lucknow branch of the Indian People’s Theatre Association (IPTA) planned to stage a play based on Munshi Premchand’s short story Idgah (1938).
  • Initially, the theatre group received permission, but the Lucknow magistrate later revoked it without explanation.
  • The prohibitory order was served mid-performance, but the artists continued the play, leading to legal action.
• Allahabad High Court’s Approach
  • Instead of focusing on the specific facts of the case, the court examined the constitutionality of the Dramatic Performances Act, 1876.
  • It referred to previous rulings where colonial-era laws violating fundamental rights had been struck down or modified.
• Key Court Ruling (1956)
  • The court declared the Act unconstitutional, stating that its procedural restrictions on free speech and expression violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
  • The law did not meet the “reasonable restrictions” criteria under Article 19(2).
  • The ruling also acknowledged concerns that the case could be an instance of political victimization.

Continuation of Colonial-Era Laws in India - Reasons

• Continuity Under Article 372
  • Article 372 of the Constitution states that laws in force at the time of Independence would continue unless repealed or amended.
• Lack of Presumption of Constitutionality
  • Colonial laws are not presumed constitutional. When challenged, the government must justify their validity.
  • In contrast, laws enacted by independent India’s Parliament are presumed constitutional, and the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to show they violate the Constitution.
• Government Defenses of Colonial Laws
  • Successive governments, including Congress-led ones, have defended preventive detention laws and those declaring unlawful associations.
  • The current government has:
    • Retained the sedition law, renaming it under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
    • Defended the marital rape exception, a colonial-era provision, which is currently under challenge in the Supreme Court.