Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Cases Nos. 270 and 271 of 1951
Equivalent citations
1951 AIR 226, 1951 SCR 525.
Petitioner
State of Madras
Respondent
Champakam Dorairajan
Date of Judgment
09/04/1951.
Bench
- DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
- KANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)
- FAZAL ALI, SAIYID
- SASTRI, M. PATANJALI
- MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND
- BOSE, VIVIAN
- MUKHERJEA, B.K.
Subsequent Action(s)
Enactment of the First Amendment to the Constitution of India.
Facts of the Case
In the 1950s, there prevailed a quota/reservation policy for admission to academic institutions in Madras. There were around 4 engineering and medical colleges each that were upheld by the State. In the engineering colleges and medical colleges, which were financed and upheld by the state where the entire number of seats was 330 spots and 395 spots, respectively 17 spots were preoccupied/reserved for those pupils who were from other domains, and 12 spots were secured for voluntary assignment by the State, and the remaining place for 4 groups of communities in the State in which 6 spots were booked for non-Brahmins, 2 spots allotted for backward classes, 2 seats allotted for Brahmins, 2 seats assigned for Harijans, 1 assigned for Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians, 1 allotted for Muslims, and 20% assigned for women. The assignment was designed on different schemes which were based on educational qualifications and marks secured by the applicants who were from specific communities of the state. The quota system was pursued even after the introduction of the Constitution.
Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan, a Brahmin, was not able to acquire admission into the Medical College in spite of her proficient marks because she belongs to a Brahmin. So, she appealed to the Madras High Court under Article 226 referring to the contravention of her fundamental right of not getting into the medical college. And she also claimed a breach of her fundamental rights under Article 15 (1) and Article 29 (2) and asked the court to repeal the Communal Government Order, by a mandamus writ. C. R. Srinivasan also appealed a petition in the Madras High Court which includes her not getting into an Engineering College in spite of her eligibility. She secured 369 marks out of 450 marks. She also alleged for the matter of the Writ of Mandamus to repeal the Communal G.O.
Issue(s) of the Case
- If the Communal Government Order 1921 provided by the State of Madras Constitutionally licit or not?
- If the State can create quotas or reservations for seats in the academic institutions hinged on caste or religion?
Arguments raised by Appellant
The appellant focused on the point of the proviso of Article 46 which states that a state has to promote the academic and economic interests of fragile sections, generally the SCs and STs, and secure them from any type of social prejudice. Therefore, Article 46 provides the privilege to the state to sustain the Communal Government Order by reserving a place for various communities that are affiliated to the state. Consequently, the Communal G.O. is legitimate and permissible in law. So, there is no infringement of the Constitution for which the candidates failed to get into the colleges according to their proficiency and their fundamental rights are not infringed at the same time. In this instance, the proviso of Article 46 revokes the provisos of Article 29(2). It was expressed that Article 46 comprised Part IV of the Indian Constitution concerned with the Directive Principles (DPSP) where Article 37 simply speaks that “The provisos carried in Part IV shall not be implemented by any court, but the principles therein placed down are notwithstanding fundamental in the administration of the country and it shall be the obligation of the State to execute these principles in making laws.”
Arguments raised by Respondent
The defendant asserted that the Communal Government Order under the proviso of Article 46 is an understandable infringement of the Fundamental Rights. The respondent also attached that Caste need not be a hindrance for qualifying students to persuade into a college upheld by a state. Reservation according to the Caste-based is an infringement of Article 16(1). It was stated that Article 29 was not objected at admission to academic institutions rooted in religion, caste, or race. Article 15(1) and Article 29(2) got infringed as the state was biased against and contradicted admission into a college on the footing of caste.
Judgment
The High Court of Madras flattened the Communal G.O. since the quota system which is rooted in caste and opposed the Constitution of India. Both the petitions were concerned with Article 226 of the Constitution which is the grounds behind the infringement of the fundamental right to persuade into a college. After that, the state of Madras filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Madras High Court’s where the Supreme Court supported that the grading in the Communal G.O. furnished by the Madras government hinged on religion, caste, and race understandable infringement of the Constitution of India and also an infraction of Article 29(2) in Part III of the constitution which secured the fundamental rights to the Indian citizens. The Court deemed that the State cannot acquire a particular place to allow admission to the applicants rooted in their religion, caste, and race which is infringing the proviso of Article 16 (2). Refusing admission on the bases of caste is a violation of Article 15(1). The provisos of Communal G.O. were introduced by the court which was declared invalid under Article 13 of the Constitution. The court gave a decision in support of Champakam Dorairajan. But an issue appeared “Do Fundamental Rights are superseding DPSP?” Therefore, the court held that in this case which is in an essential dispute between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, “It will always on every occasion the Fundamental Rights that will triumph”.
Analysis
The case not only secured and safeguarded the Fundamental Rights of the Indian citizens but also the Indian Parliament responded to the verdict of the case at the same time with the idea of amending and altering the laws which were imminent in dispute with DPSPs. This case guided the First Amendment to the Constitution of India. The First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 was sanctioned to affix Clause 4 to Article 15. Article 15(4) was executed by the constitution. So, to authorize the state to create any specific provisos for the enhancement of backward classes.
Also, under Article 15(4), The Government can allot seats for the candidates of backward classes in government institutions or the institutions which are accruing help from the state. But it doesn’t permit the state the privilege to assign quotas to private institutions. Further, reforms were linked to the freedom of trade and business, the land reform measures, and freedom of speech which were granted by Article 19(1)(g). Article 19(1)(g) is a theme of sensible restrictions that the state may levy in matters of the general public. Thus, it is legitimate in nature. Prior to this case, there was an inherent dispute between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs since there was no transparency as to which would be more prevailing – Fundamental Rights or DPSPs in the instance of a dispute. But after this case, there is an explanation that “Fundamental Rights are prevailing over the DPSPs”.
Conclusion
It was a milestone case in which the Supreme court of India presented a chronicle judgment. It steered to the First
Amendment. This case revealed the eminence of Fundamental Rights and in what manner Fundamental Rights and
DPSPs are covered. If there is any violation in the fundamental right of a person owing to any direction at that time
the specific order will be examined as null and void like the present case where the Communal Government Order which was infringing the Fundamental Rights of Champakam Dorairajan who repudiated admission to an academic institute on basis of reservation was flattened by the court. This case also spotlighted the need for evolving different laws in the constitution which are infringing the Fundamental Rights of the people of India. Fundamental Rights are eternally superior and eminence for the citizens of the country as it grants them basic privileges which aid them to live with peace and freedom.
This article is written by Ashmita Dhumas, who has completed BA LLB from Agra College and is doing a diploma in
Corporate Law from Enhelion.
