Champakam Dorairajan Case and the Development of Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs)

 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?

• Fundamental Rights:
  • Article 15(4): Special provisions for SEBCs, SCs, and STs.
  • Article 19: Expanded reasonable restrictions on free speech, covering areas like security of the state, public order, and incitement to offenses.
• Parliament and State Legislatures:
  • Article 85 & 174: Ensured that the gap between two parliamentary or state legislative sessions does not exceed six months.
  • Article 87 and 176: Required the President/Governor's address to the legislature only once after each general election and at the beginning of the first session each year.
• Land Reforms:
  • Article 31A: Protected laws related to the acquisition of estates and property rights from being challenged under fundamental rights.
  • Article 31B: Created the Ninth Schedule, protecting certain laws from judicial review concerning fundamental rights.
• SCs and STs: The President was given authority to specify SCs (Articles 341) and STs (Articles 342) for each State separately.

Other Key Judgments on the Conflict Between FRs and DPSPs:

1. Golaknath Case, 1967:
   The Supreme Court reversed the Champakam Dorairajan decision, ruling that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights, thereby ensuring their absolute protection.

2. Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973:

   • Background: The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 introduced Article 31C, which shielded laws intended to implement DPSPs (e.g., Articles 39(b) & (c)) from judicial review, even if they violated Fundamental Rights.
   • Verdict: The Supreme Court upheld the protection of laws under Article 39(b) & (c) but struck down the second provision that prevented judicial review. The case also introduced the Basic Structure doctrine, which holds that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments.

3. Minerva Mills Case, 1980:

   • Background: The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 expanded Article 31C’s protection to cover all DPSPs, prioritizing them over FRs under Articles 14, 19, and 31.
   • Verdict: The Supreme Court struck down this extension, maintaining that there must be a balance between FRs and DPSPs. It ruled that DPSPs cannot override FRs, thus preserving the Constitution’s equilibrium.

Current Status:

Fundamental Rights (FRs) take precedence over Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). However, Parliament can amend Articles 14 and 19 to implement Articles 39(b) and 39(c).

Conclusion:

The Champakam Dorairajan case established the supremacy of Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles, influencing constitutional amendments and judicial interpretations. Subsequent rulings, including Golaknath, Kesavananda Bharati, and Minerva Mills, have shaped the delicate balance between FRs and DPSPs, ensuring social justice while upholding individual freedoms and the concept of judicial review.

Drishti Mains Question:

Analyze the Supreme Court’s evolving stance on the conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, citing key cases.

UPSC Civil Services Examination Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

Prelims:

Q. Which part of the Constitution of India declares the ideal of the Welfare State? (2020)

(a) Directive Principles of State Policy

(b) Fundamental Rights

(c) Preamble

(d) Seventh Schedule

Ans: (a)

Mains:

Q. “Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited and it cannot be enlarged into absolute power.” In light of this statement, explain whether Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution can destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution by expanding its amending power? (2019)

Tags : UPSC 2025 current affairs preparation, UPSC current affairs January 2025, UPSC 2025 daily current affairs, Best sources for UPSC current affairs 2025, UPSC 2025 current affairs for prelims, UPSC 2025 current affairs for mains, Important current affairs for UPSC 2025, UPSC current affairs strategy 2025, UPSC 2025 current affairs notes, UPSC current affairs PDF 2025, Current affairs for UPSC 2025 preparation, UPSC 2025 current affairs online classes, UPSC current affairs quiz 2025, How to study current affairs for UPSC 2025, UPSC 2025 current affairs magazines, Current affairs for UPSC 2025 prelims and mains, Current affairs updates for UPSC 2025, UPSC 2025 current affairs analysis, Current affairs for UPSC 2025 PDF download, UPSC 2025 current affairs important topics, UPSC reading comprehension tips, UPSC reading comprehension practice papers,  UPSC reading comprehension strategy, UPSC reading comprehension questions,  UPSC reading comprehension exercises,  How to improve reading comprehension for UPSC, UPSC reading comprehension question papers PDF,  Important reading comprehension topics for UPSC, UPSC reading comprehension passage solutions, UPSC reading comprehension best books, UPSC GS reading comprehension examples, UPSC Prelims reading comprehension preparation,