New Delhi: In the last decade, India has abolished about 1,500 laws that had lost their importance, said Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week, adding that several of these laws were brought about in the colonial era.
“Many of these laws were made during British rule. Now I will tell you something, you will be surprised to hear that there was a law called the Dramatic Performances Act. This law was made by the British 150 years ago; at that time, the British wanted that drama and theatre should not be used against the then government,” the Prime Minister said during his address at the NXT Conclave in Bharat Mandapam on 1 March.
There was a provision in the law, which allowed for the arrest of crowds of people found dancing in a place, he said.
“This law continued for 75 years after the country got independence. That is, if there is a wedding procession and 10 people are dancing, the police can arrest them, including the groom.” The law was repealed only by the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government, he added.
The now-revoked legislation in question is The Dramatic Performances Act, 1876, which was brought in under the tenure of Viceroy Thomas George Baring, the first Earl of Northbrook, who served in India in 1872-76.
Although the Act was repealed in several states and pronounced unconstitutional by several courts, such as the Madras High Court and the Allahabad High Court, it was only in August 2017—70 years after independence—that the central government managed to officially repeal it along with other “obsolete” colonial-era laws, such as the Fort William Act, 1881 and the Hackney-Carriage Act, 1879.
While the Fort William Act aimed to give power to the Chief-of-Army Staff for better governance of the fort in Bengal, the Hackney-Carriage Act related to the regulation and control of two-wheeled, one-horse vehicles in specific municipalities and cantonments in the country.
Also Read: Haryana govt notifies 4 fast-track courts amid criticism over implementation of cow protection law
Why the law was implemented
The origins of this colonial-era law date back to the days before Independence, when theatre was used as a medium of protest.
In the year 1875, Lord Northbrook wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for India, saying that there was a need for a law that would prohibit “theatrical representations”, which could lead to political excitement.
The letter named two Bengali plays—Chakar Darpan and Gaekwar Darpan—which related to the oppression of Indigo farm workers by foreign planters, and the mistreatment of Malhar Rao Gaekwad, ruler of the Baroda princely state, by the colonial rulers, respectively.
The plays attracted massive audiences, causing the government to bring in the 1876 law that banned local plays on obscure grounds, like being too “scandalous, obscene, defamatory, seditious or vilifying the British Government”.
It was passed with the objective of “better control of public dramatic performances”.
The law allowed the issuance of orders prohibiting any dramatic performance, which, in the colonial government’s opinion, fell under one of the restrictions. If a particular dramatic work was found to be offensive to the government, the performers or the owner of the premises where the play was being performed could be served with an order and penalties for the disobedience. Under this law, magistrates had the power to authorise the grant of warrants to the police to enter premises, arrest, and seize “scenery” and even dresses.
Besides this, the local government in specific localities was also allowed to pass orders, saying that no play would be performed in any place of public entertainment, except with a government licence. Failure to comply with the law could result in imprisonment up to three months, a fine, or both.
What performances were prohibited
Section 3 of the Act allowed the state government to prohibit certain dramatic performances, if it was of the opinion that “any play, pantomime or other drama performed or about to be performed in a public place” was of a scandalous or defamatory nature, or was likely to excite feelings of disaffection against the government established by law.
Moreover, if such a performance was likely to “deprave and corrupt persons present at the performance”, the government or magistrate could pass an order prohibiting it.
Further, the Act defined a public place as any building or enclosure, where people were admitted on paying a sum to witness a performance.
Post-independence versions of the law
To strengthen further control over dramatic performances of offending nature, several states brought about their own versions of the law, much after independence.
Some of these include Tamil Nadu in 1954, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala in 1961, Orissa in 1962, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh in 1964, Punjab and Andhra Pradesh in 1956.
Even Union Territories like Pondicherry came up with their own version in 1965. However, these laws were declared unconstitutional by courts, much before they were formally repealed.
In Madanlal Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan (1953), the Rajasthan High Court had ruled that the Rajasthan Dramatic Performances and Entertainments Ordinance, 1949 violated the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution, or the right to free speech. The provisions of that ordinance were nearly identical to the provisions of the Dramatic Performances Act, 1876.
In State vs. Baboo Lal & others (1956), a division bench or two-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court had to decide whether the law had become void, owing to the presence of Article 13, which states that any law that goes against the fundamental rights is void.
In that case, a play based on Idgah, a famous work of Hindi author Munshi Premchand, was being organised. It was to be staged by the Lucknow branch of the Indian People’s Theatre Association arranged in June 1953.
Despite writing a letter to the magistrate, with details of the time, date, place of the performance, the organisers were served with a notice that prohibited them from staging the play on grounds of not obtaining permission under Section 10 of Dramatic Performances Act, 1876.
The court had said that such a law is ultra vires, or beyond the scope of the Constitution, as it violates Article 19, which deals with the right to free speech.
“A play, which was prohibited in the district, may be staged in another district, and even in the same district the next year because in the meanwhile, the District Magistrate has been transferred. The fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 19 cannot be restricted in such an unreasonable manner,” the court had ruled.
In 2013, the Madras High Court, in N.V. Sankaran alias Gnani vs. State of Tamil Nadu, had declared several sections of the Tamil Nadu Dramatic Performances Act, 1954 as unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 19, which deal with the right to equality and free speech, respectively.
In this case, a man named N.V. Sankaran, who was running a theatre group was forced to eliminate dialogues from his play, only three hours before its performance, owing to a provision that mandated the requirement of an approval from the concerned authority, which was the Commissioner of Police in the said case. Subsequently, Sankaran, on behalf of this group, approached the Madras High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the law.
Declaring several sections of the Act ultra vires, the court had noted that under this law, there was no time-limit for the authorities giving approval to give an opportunity to those concerned, before prohibiting a play.
“Vesting of such uncanalised and absolute discretion in authorities, who may not follow a uniform yardstick is erroneous. Moreover, time is of essence when play is sought to be enacted in public place, and no time has been stipulated for grant of approval,” the court noted, striking down sections 2(1), 3, 4, 6 and 7 as unconstitutional. Broadly, these related to the definition of “objectionable performance”, and the power to prohibit a play along with penalties for disobeying orders, among others.
Other colonial-era laws
There are several colonial-era laws still in place. The most recent criminal law, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, still retains the offence of sedition under Section 152, albeit under the guise of a different name—“acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”.
The provision entails a punishment anywhere between seven years and life imprisonment, and a fine, for those who “excite” or attempt to excite feelings of secession, armed rebellion, or subversive or separatist activities against the country.
Under Section 299, the BNS also penalises the offence of blasphemy—another colonial-era provision—which it defines as deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
Besides this, there are several other acts in place, such as the Indian Police Act and the Foreigners Act, that were passed before India’s independence but still remain in place.
In February this year, the BJP government had said that it planned to introduce the Immigration and Foreigners Bill, 2025, which would replace four existing laws—Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, Foreigners Act, 1946, and Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000.
(Edited by Radifah Kabir)