STATE OF MADRAS VS SRIMATHI CHAMPAKAM DORAIRAJAN
The Supreme Court in State of Madras Vs Shrimathi Champakam Dorairajan (1951) AIR 226 held that Communal G.O. providing reservation for different communities in educational institutions was violative of Article 29 (2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also held that the Directive Principles of State Policy has to run subsidiary to Fundamental Rights.
The Parliament vide 1st Amendment to the Constitution nullified the decision of the Supreme Court by introducing Article 15 (4) which provided that Nothing in Article 15 or Article 29 (2) shall prevent the State from making any special provision for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
FACTS OF THE CASE
State of Madras had certain medical and engineering colleges. Seats in these medical or engineering colleges were being filled according to Communal G. O. under which for every 14 seats to be filled by the selection committee six seats were reserved for Non- Brahmins, two seats were reserved for backward Hindus, two seats were reserved for Brahmins, one seat was reserved for Anglo Indian Christians and one seat was reserved for muslims. The proportion fixed in the old Communal Order continued even after independence.
Smt. Champakam Dorairajan filed writ petition before the High Court on the ground that the communal order is violating her fundamental rights under Article 15 (1) and Article 29 (2). High Court allowed the Petition of the Smt. Champakam Dorairajan.
Sri Srinivasan who has applied for admission in Government Engineering Colleges also filed similar Writ Petition on similar grounds which was also allowed by the High Court.
State of Madras filed appeals before the Supreme Court.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
The State of Madras admitted that these two petitioners would have been admitted if selections would have been made on merit alone.
The Supreme Court noted that Article 29 (2) provides that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. The right to get admission into educational institutions of the kind mentioned in clause (2) is a right which an individual citizen has as a citizen and not as a member of community or class of citizens. The right cannot be denied only on the basis of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. If a person has requisite academic qualifications but refused only on the ground of religion, race, caste, language or any of them, then there is clear breach of Fundamental Right.
It was contended by State that Article 46 charges the State with promoting special care and the educational interests of the weaker section of people in particular Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It was contended that Article 46 would override the provisions of Article 29 (2).
Argument of State was completely rejected by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that Directive Principles are un-enforceable by Court and cannot override provisions under Part III (Fundamental Rights) which have been specifically made enforceable by State. The Directive Principles of State Policy have to confirm to and run subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights. So long there is no infringement of Fundamental Rights there cannot be any objection to the State acting in accordance with the Directive Principles of State Policy.
The Supreme Court observed that the Constitution intended to make provision in favour of backward class of citizens, who are not adequately represented in services, under Article 16 (4) but there are no such provision in respect of admission to colleges.
The Supreme Court held that Communal G.O being inconsistent with provisions of Article 29 (2) in Part III of the Constitution is void under Article 13.
___________________________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.