State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
Supreme Court of India · 9 April 1951 · 7 judges · 1951 AIR 226; 1951 SCR 525
The Communal G.O. allotting seats in State medical and engineering colleges by religion and caste violated Article 29(2) and was void under Article 13; directive principles cannot override fundamental rights.
Facts
The State of Madras maintained four medical and four engineering colleges. Seats were filled under the Communal G.O., which allotted every 14 seats as 6 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. G.O. No. 2208 of June 1950 substantially reproduced these proportions after the Constitution came into force. Champakam Dorairajan, who said she would not be admitted to medical college because she was a Brahmin, and C.R. Srinivasan, who had applied to the engineering college at Guindy, petitioned the Madras High Court under Article 226 invoking Articles 15(1) and 29(2). The State conceded they would have been admitted on merit alone. The High Court allowed both petitions, and the State appealed under Article 132(1).
Questions before the Court
- Does the Communal G.O. fixing seats in State colleges by community violate the right under Article 29(2) not to be denied admission on grounds only of religion, race or caste?
- Can the State rely on Article 46, a directive principle, to justify the Communal G.O. or to override Article 29(2)?
What the Court held
- Article 29(2) guarantees a right to the individual citizen as a citizen, not as a member of a community. A qualified applicant refused admission only on grounds of religion, race, caste or language suffers a clear breach of that right.
- The directive principles, made unenforceable by Article 37, cannot override Part III. Fundamental rights are not to be abridged by legislative or executive act except as Part III itself allows, and the directive principles must conform to and run as subsidiary to them.
- Article 16(4) expressly permits reservation of posts for backward classes; the absence of a similar clause in Article 29 is significant and shows the argument based on Article 46 cannot stand.
- A candidate kept out of the seats allotted to other communities is denied admission only because of caste. The Communal G.O. classifies on religion, race and caste, violates Article 29(2) and is void under Article 13. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
Why it matters
Decided unanimously by seven judges, the case holds that directive principles cannot override fundamental rights and must run as subsidiary to Part III. It struck down communal allocation of seats in State educational institutions under Article 29(2), and contrasts Article 29 with Article 16(4), which expressly permits reservation of posts for backward classes.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The directive principles of the State policy, which by article 37 are expressly made unenforceable by a Court, cannot override the provisions found in Part III which, notwithstanding other provisions, are expressly made enforceable by appropriate Writs, Orders or directions under article 32. The chapter of Fundamental Rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any Legislative or Executive Act or order, except to the extent provided in the appropriate article in Part III. The directive principles of State policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights.”
“The right to get admission into any educational institution of the kind mentioned in clause (2) is a right which an individual citizen has as a citizen and not as a member of any community or class of citizens. This right is not to be denied to the citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.”
“The classification in the Communal G.O. proceeds on the basis of religion, race and caste. In our view, the classification made in the Communal G.O. is opposed to the Constitution and constitutes a clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen under article 29(2).”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- The State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan
- Case
- Cases Nos. 270 and 271 of 1951
- Decided
- 9 April 1951
- Bench
- Hiralal J. Kania (CJ), Saiyid Fazal Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, Sudhi Ranjan Das, Vivian Bose
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.R. Das, J.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.