top of page

The State Of Madras vs. Srimathi Champakam

Supreme Court of India

The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam ... on 9 April, 1951

Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 226, 1951 SCR 525

Author: S R Das

Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj), Fazal Ali, Saiyid, Sastri, M. Patanjali, Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K. & Das, S. R. Bose, Vivian

PETITIONER:

THE STATE OF MADRAS

Vs.


RESPONDENT:

SRIMATHI CHAMPAKAM DORAIRAJANandTHE STATE OF MADRASv.C.R. SR


DATE OF JUDGMENT:

09/04/1951


BENCH:

DAS, SUDHI RANJAN

BENCH:

DAS, SUDHI RANJAN

KANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)

FAZAL ALI, SAIYID

SASTRI, M. PATANJALI

MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND

BOSE, VIVIAN

MUKHERJEA, B.K.


CITATION:

1951 AIR 226 1951 SCR 525

CITATOR INFO :

F 1954 SC 561 (14,16)

F 1958 SC 731 (12)

R 1958 SC 956 (8)

R 1959 SC 648 (26)

R 1962 SC1621 (73,108)

R 1963 SC 649 (17)

RF 1967 SC1643 (22,164,227)

E 1968 SC1379 (2)

R 1970 SC2079 (16)

RF 1972 SC1375 (81)

RF 1973 SC1461 (506,648,1704,1714,1901,1918)

RF 1975 SC 563 (13)

O 1976 SC 490 (67,69,71,159)

R 1979 SC 83 (5)

RF 1980 SC1789 (115)

RF 1985 SC1495 (8)

RF 1988 SC 305 (7)


Legal article

Doctor, November 25, 1949. BR Ambedkar issued a solemn warning in the Constitutional Assembly. “On January 26, 1950, we will be equal in politics and unequal in social and economic life. We must resolve this contradiction as soon as possible, otherwise. Those who suffer from inequality will destroy the structure of political democracy that this parliament has built so hard. ”To prevent such an outburst of dissatisfaction, the preamble to the Constitution is clearly“ social, We aim to ensure justice for all citizens, economically and politically, and equality of status and opportunity.

When the Constitution came into force in 1950, Brahmin candidate Champacam Dryrajan petitioned for the issuance of a Mandamus warrant that would prevent the (then composed) state of Madras from enacting local ordinances. Submitted. , Provided a constitutional reservation. The complete bench of the Madras High Court upheld the petitioner’s allegations. The state has appealed to the Supreme Court. Seven judges dismissed the appeal. It was this ruling that required the First Amendment, adding Article 4 to Article 15. (It was later revealed that the woman had filed a written petition based on a false affidavit. She did not challenge her from her seat.)


Case Note:

Regarding the admission of students to the state’s technical and medical colleges, the Madras Presidency has issued an ordinance that sets a fixed number of seats for certain communities. The GO of the local government was invalidated under Article 13 because it was found to be an infringement of the basic rights guaranteed to the Indian people under Article 29 (2) of the Constitution of India. The Guiding Principles of National Policy set out in Part IV of the Constitution cannot invalidate or limit the basic rights guaranteed in Part III, while the basic rights set out in Part III. Must correspond to and be subordinate to them.


Facts:

The chapter on basic rights is sacred and cannot be reduced by legislative or administrative acts or ordinances, except as provided in the relevant art of Part III. The guiding principles of national policy cannot invalidate the provisions contained in Part III, but they must correspond to and be subordinate to the chapter on basic rights. Therefore, taking into account the provisions of Article 46, the state has the right to maintain the GO of the municipality to establish a seat proportional to the state university of the various communities, and as a result, certain individual citizens. If they do not have access to educational institutions, they cannot claim infringement of their basic rights in order to obtain them.

The Municipal GO classification above is based on religion, race, caste, is unconstitutional, and represents a clear breach of citizens’ rights under Article 29 (2).

However, unless there is an infringement of the basic rights under Part III of the Constitution, we cannot object to a country that acts in accordance with the policy principles set out in Part IV, subject to legislative and administrative powers. Restrictions given to the country under various provisions of the Constitution.

With regard to admission of students to the Engineering and Medical Colleges of the State, the Province of Madras had issued an order (known as the Communal G. O.) that seats should be filled in by the selection committee strictly on the following basis, i.e., out of every 14 seats, 6 were to be allotted to No Brahmin (Hindus), 2 to Backward Hindus, 2 to Brahmins, 2 to Harijans. 1 to Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians and 1 to Muslims. On 761950, Smt. Champakam Dorairajan made an apply. To protect the basic rights under Articles 15 (1) and 29 (2) of the Constitution, I prayed for the Madras State Justice HC under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a Mandamus letter. Other appropriate letters of authority that limit Madras State and state that all officials and their subordinates enforce, monitor, maintain or comply with the enforcement, compliance, maintenance or compliance of the authorities involved in an emergency. Or general instruction, refd. As a local government G. It is alleged that admission to O. Madras Medical College was requested or violated its basic rights and was regulated in association with the violation. From an affidavit filed to assist her pet. It doesn’t seem to be pent. I was actually applying for admission to the Medical Association. She states that at her request she was told she would not enrolled in college because she belonged to the Brahmin community. However, the conservativeness of their pets was not challenged. Because there is no real application. Take her with me.

On the contrary, the state was said to have agreed to reserve her seat if she applied. Before H.C. succeeds. I don’t think we need to pursue this issue further due to special circumstances. However, I would like to be careful not to recommend people who have not actually applied for admission to an educational institution that comes to Ct. Complaints about infringement of basic rights under Article 29 (2). HC approved this application in a judgment of 27 July 1950. Phone Sm. Champak Dry Rajan.


Issues raised:

The petitioner’s problem:

A learned lawyer who appears in the state argues that the provisions of this provision must be read in conjunction with other provisions of the Constitution. He specializes in Article 46 to promote the educational and economic interests of the weak parts of the population, especially the enlisted castes and enlisted tribes, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. Demands that the state be obliged to pay attention. This article finds a place in Part IV of the Constitution that establishes specific guiding principles for state policy, although the provisions contained in this part are not enforceable by any court, but the principles contained therein. Note that is still basic. In the actions of national governments, and Article 37, the law requires states to apply these principles. The

Discussion takes into account the provisions of Article 46, and thanks to this rule, the state has the right to maintain the GO of the local government to establish proportional seats in different communities, therefore. It is claimed to be effective against violating this rule. The Constitution, petitioners are not granted access to educational institutions and do not violate their basic rights. In fact, the learned Madras even claims that the provisions of Article 46 invalidate the provisions of Article 29 (2).

I completely reject the above allegations. The Guiding Principles of National Policy, explicitly declared unenforceable by the Court under Article 37, are expressly, notwithstanding other provisions, by the corresponding orders, orders or instructions under Article 32 of the Fundamental Rights. The provisions of Part III, which have been declared enforceable, cannot be overturned. Is sacred and cannot be underestimated by legislative or administrative legislation or regulation, except as provided in the relevant Articles of Part III. The guiding principles of national policy must correspond to and be subordinate to the chapter on basic rights.

We believe this is the correct way to understand the provisions of Part III and IV. However, unless the fundamental rights conferred by the provisions of Part III are violated, no objection can be made to a country acting in accordance with the policy principles set out in Part IV, but again with legislative and administrative authority. Restrictions apply. It was awarded to the state under various provisions of the Constitution. Respondent’s


Question:

Second, it guarantees the fundamental right to equal opportunity in the issue of public employment, and citizens are ineligible for religion, race, caste, gender, offspring, place of birth, place of birth, or employment or duties within the state. Either or because they are discriminated against, each of them contains certain provisions of the following terms:

“(4) Nothing in this section prevents the state from providing appointment reservations for the benefit of younger citizens who are not properly represented by government services in the state’s view.”

If The argument was valid and paragraph (4) of Article 16 was completely unnecessary and unnecessary, but since paragraph (4) was inserted in Article 16, such an explicit statement in Article 29. The lack of provisions is not intended to introduce community considerations regarding admission to state-owned or state-sponsored educational institutions. To protect junior citizens, it may be necessary to appoint junior members to government services. In such a situation, one can understand why the country was empowered to reserve such an appointment for the younger class. However, in the case of admission to an educational institution, this consideration is clearly not considered necessary, which may be the reason why the same provisions as in Article 16 (4) were omitted from Article 29.


Judgement:

S. R. J This ruling relates to both 1951 Case No. 270 (Madras State vs. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan) and 1951 Case No. 271 (Madras State vs. C). R. Srinivasan) is an appeal against Madras’s judicial H.C. ruling on July 27, 1950, with two separate apples. Under the art. Article 226 of the Constitution complains about the infringement of the petitioner’s basic right to access state-run educational institutions.

There are four medical colleges in Madras State, and students at these four colleges are only available in 330 locations. Of these 330 seats, 17 are reserved for out-of-state students, 12 are reserved for state discretionary allocation, and the remaining available seats are in four different districts of the state. Will be assigned. Like the

, Madras State has four engineering departments, and the total number of locations available to students at these universities is only 395. Of these, 21 are reserved for out-of-state students and 12 are reserved for allocation at their discretion. The state and the remaining vacant seats are divided into the same four different district groups.

Years before the Constitution, both the medical college and engineering seats, thus dispersed in four different district groups, were filled according to a clear ratio established in what was formerly known as the community. Was done. Every 14 seats filled out by the selection committee were selected according to the following criteria.

Non-Brahmin (Hindu) ... 6

Back Hindus ... 2

Brahmin ... 2

Harijan’s ... 2

Anglo Indians and Christians in India ... 1

Muslims ... 1

The choice of applicants from a particular municipality from one of the county groups was based on specific principles based on the applicant’s educational background and grade, in accordance with the aforementioned areas and perhaps protection provisions. In the case of medical treatment, it is 20% or more. University. The total number of places available to undergraduates in the country is filled with female candidates individually for each region, and the selection committee will be available to qualified candidates in that region and if they come, each You are free to accept more female candidates in your area, in accordance with the general principles for such admissions set out in this rule, for the selection of benefits to male applicants. That is the case