Indian Polity
Champakam Dorairajan Case and the Development of Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs)
For Prelims: Champakam Dorairajan Case, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, Article 46, Article 14, Article 16(4), 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, Article 15(4), Ninth Schedule, 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, Article 31C, Article 39(b) & (c), 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.
For Mains: The conflict between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and related judicial rulings.
Why is this in the News?
The Champakam Dorairajan Case of 1951 marked the first significant conflict between the Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs).
What is the Champakam Dorairajan Case, 1951?
Background of the Case:
In 1948, the Madras government issued a Communal General Order (GO), which reserved seats in educational institutions based on caste and religion. The government justified this by referring to Article 46, which mandates the promotion of education and economic advancement of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and other weaker sections.
Champakam Dorairajan, a woman from Madras, challenged this order in the Madras High Court (HC), arguing that it violated her right to equality under Article 14.
Madras High Court Verdict, 1950:
The Madras High Court declared the Communal GO unconstitutional, as it used caste and religion as criteria for classification. The Madras government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Verdict, 1951:
The Supreme Court, in a five-judge bench, upheld the Madras HC ruling, declaring the Communal GO unconstitutional. It concluded that the GO violated the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15(1) (Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Religion, Race, Caste, Sex, or Place of Birth). The Court also ruled that Fundamental Rights (FRs) take precedence over Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and established that Parliament can amend FRs through constitutional amendments.
Impact of the SC Ruling:
The ruling resulted in the invalidation of caste-based reservations in education, as the Constitution only allowed such reservations in public employment (Article 16(4)). This led to the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, which restored the provision for educational reservations.
First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951:
Amendments Made:
- Article 15(4) was added, enabling the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), SCs, and STs, thus permitting reservations in educational institutions.
Key Constitutional Provisions for Vulnerable Groups:
- Article 15(1): Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
- Article 15(4): Allows special provisions for the advancement of SEBCs, SCs, and STs, facilitating educational reservations.
- Article 16(4): Permits reservations in public employment for backward classes.
- Article 17: Abolishes untouchability.
- Article 46 (DPSP): Directs the state to promote the educational and economic interests of SCs, STs, and weaker sections.
What Was Amended by the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951?
