FACTS OF THE CASE
- In 1950 , in Madras , there was the prevalence of the quota system or we can say the reservation system for the admission in the colleges. The State well looked four medical and engineering colleges.
- As the State financed the above mentioned colleges and the admission process was on the basis where every 14 seats comprised of , 6 were given to Non – Brahmins , 2 to backward classes , 2 to Brahmins , 2 to Harrijans , 1 to Anglo Indian and 1 to Muslim.
- This allocation of the seats were based on the Communal Government Order . The Communal (G.O) was based on the caste system and the admission process worked on this respective order on those colleges which was maintained by State of Madras
- The state of Madras asserted that they were allowed to maintain and enforce Communal Government Order as per the Article 46 of the Indian Constitution , which spells the Directive Principles of the State Policy.
- They were empowered by the Article to maintain the order for the promotion of education of Scheduled Castes , Scheduled Tribes and other Weaker Section .
- Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan , Brahmin filed the petition in the High Court of Madras under the Article 226 of Indian Constitution . She was not able to get the admission into the Medical College, though she had scored the competent marks. The only reason behind was that she is Brahman.
- She asserted and alleged that her Fundamental Rights under Article (15)(1) and Article 29(2) were violated. She had filed the petition before the High Court of Madras for issuance of Writ, Mandamus. To restrain the State of Madras from enforcing the Command of Communal Government Order.
- Another Petition was filed by C.R Shrinivas before the High Court of Madras. The issue of his admission in engineering College. He also asserted for the issuance of Writ Mandamus.
- The High Court of Madras invalidated the Communal Government Order as it was Caste based Reservation and against the constitution of India.
- Aggrieved by the judgement of High court of Madras , the State of Madras appealed in Supreme Court of India.
ISSUE RAISED
- Which will prevail over the other in the conflict of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy ?
- After the enforcement of Constitution in India , Communal Government order ,1927 still should be in existence ?
- Whether the Communal Government Order ,1927 was against the Constitution or Not?
CONTENTIONS BY APPELLANT :
- The appellant argued that , State was concerned for the weaker section of the society. And asserted that article 46 of the Indian Constitution states that a State has to promote the academic and economic interest of infirm or weaker section , primarily the Scheduled Tribes and scheduled castes and prevent them from social injustice.
- Consequently , Article 46 empower the State to prevail the Communal Government Order by providing reserves to the various communities.
- The Communal Government Order is permissible and legitimate as per the provision of Indian Constitution.
- Appellant contented that there is no any infringement of the Indian Constitution and Fundamental Rights of the Candidates who has failed to get admission in college according to their proficiency.
- The provision 46 of the Indian Constitution rescind the Article 29(2)of the Indian Constitution.
CONTENTIONS BY RESPONDENT :
- Defendant contended that the Communal Government Order under the Article 46 of Indian Constitution is the Infringement of the Fundamental Rights.
- Respondent proceeded by asserting that Communal Government Order provided the Caste based System. It comprise of social discrimination and injustice.
- Respondent asserted that Caste should not be the criteria for qualifying students to persuade into the college which was financed and maintained by the State of Madras.
- The system of reservation was based on Communal Government Order which upheld the Caste discrimination and infringement of Article (16)(1).
- Article 15(1) and Article 29(2) infringed by the Communal Government which the State of Madras prevailing from long.
JUDGEMENT
The High Court of Madras struck down the impugned Communal Government Order which prevails the quota system which is rooted in the Caste and opposed the Constitution in India .
The Court held that the Fundamental Rights are of Paramount importance and they have higher value. The essence of the Constitution lies in its Fundamental Rights which cannot be supersede by any legislative or executive order except under the extent of the appropriate provision under Part 3 .
The State should make laws or rules and regulation while keeping in mind that they do not suppress and go against the Fundamental Rights of Indian Constitution
The directive Principles of State policy is the ancillary or auxiliary to the Fundamental Rights. They are also important but they cannot be substituted for the Fundamental Rights.
The court , looked upon the Article 37 of the Indian Constitution , which clearly provide that Article under Part 4 of the Indian Constitution forming Part of the Directive Principles of State Policy cannot be enforced in the court of the lay.
These principles are important for the citizen of the country and States are under the obligation to apply them for the welfare of the Society.
In the dispute between fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State policy , provision 37 of Indian constitution holds importance as it shows that though Directive Principles are important but its not allowed to go against the Fundamental Rights of Constitution of India.
So, the conflict between Article 29(2) and 46 is to be looked through Article 37.
The Court held Article 29(2) mandates there shall be no discrimination in the education institution and the provision of Article 46 cannot be used to substitute or go beyond it by the State.
In the issue of Champakam Dorairajan , the Court Stated that it was held in affidavit filed in support of the petition that she actually did not apply in the medical college of the State.
She told that she come to know that she would not be admitted into the college because she was a Brahmin and thus did not able to apply for it.
However the Court upheld that there was no objection raised for it and after the Judgement the State has promised to reserve a seat for her if she applies.
At last , Court opined that Communal Government Order being inconsistent with the provision of Article 29(2) in Part 3 of the Indian Constitution is void under Article 13.
Result , therefore is that the appeal stand dismissed with costs.
CONCLUSION
The Judgement of Supreme Court is historic and unforgettable. It led to the landmark judgement. The judgement Stated the First Amendment in the Constitution of India in relation to the reservation policy.
The Amendment comprise the addition of Clause 4 under Article 15
The judgement struck down the impugned Communal Government Order . This Order has the reservation policy which provided the Caste discrimination.
Judgement become significant as resolves the conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.
Through this milestone case , we get to know that Fundamental Rights are most important and Fundamental Rights are most important and Fundamental Rights holds the upper position over the Directive Principles of State Policy .
Whenever the Fundamental Rights is violated and Directive Principles of State policy is in question then the Fundamental Rights will Prevails.
The First Amendment in Constitution of India , which comprise the addition of reservation policy in the Constitution by introducing Clause 4 in the Constitution.
This article is written by Pragati Gautam, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
