Image source - https://bit.ly/36cLsXI

This article is written by Rashi Sharma, a student of Amity University, Noida.

Facts of the Case

Our Constitution aims at equality for all and imposes fundamental rights which are to be followed by every individual in the society and no legislative assembly or executive power can abridge the following of the same. The provisions found and implemented in part III in which the fundamental rights are conformed and everyone needs to follow them and directive principle of state policy cannot infringe them. Their argument about the fundamental right and its implementation are treated in regard to the Article 46 of the Constitution. In this case the petitioner filed a petition in the High Court of Madras stating that it was the violation of fundamental rights to not getting admissions in the medical college for education and specially the institutes maintained by the state. Our fundamental rights states that everyone is entitled to be educated and this was strictly a violation of the fundamental right to get admission or a seat in an educational institution. 

Four medical colleges are maintained by the State of Madras and only 330 seats are available for the students to get admission in. Reservation is made and implemented in these 330 seats as well for the students coming from outside 17 seats were reserved and 12 seats were reserved for the students who the state appoints on the discretionary power. Same as medical colleges the state maintains engineering colleges too and the total seats that were available are 394. For the students coming from outside 21 seats were reserved for them and 12 seats were available for the students who the state appoints on its discretionary power.

Before the Constitution came into force in the states the seats of the medical and engineering colleges were divided into the communal G.O which fixed reservation according to the discretion. 14 seats of the state were reserved in following manner i.e. Non-Brahmins 6 seats, Backward classes2 seats, Brahmins 2 seats, Harijans 2 seats, Anglo Indians and Indian Christians 1 and 1 for the Muslims. Principles were made by the state to elect members on the basis of the educational qualifications and with the help of the marks that were obtained by students in the exam to elect them on the basis of merit. The Medical colleges further fixed the provisions to reserve 20% seats for the women. The principle and the concept started in old G.O communal prevailed after the commencement of the Constitution as well as 6th January 1950. 

On June 7th, 1950 an application was made by the applicant in college in High Court by Srimathi Dorairajan in which he filed an application stating the facts of the violation of his fundamental rights for the admission in the medical college. He said he was not counted eligible for the seat because he belonged to the community of Brahmins and the seats decided were already filled. He said that the provisions stated the G.O communal made his application been grabbed by someone else but his qualification were more efficient for the position in college. 

According to the statement made under Article 15 (1) of the Constitution it was violation of his fundamental right on the contrary the court stated the fact that the applicant did not register in college and therefore according to Article 29 (2) of the Constitution there was no such violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The high court also stated the fact that no such petitions are accepted in the court about which the applicant has not even placed the application in the college. The G.O communal system was strictly based on the concept of caste, religion and race rather than based on the wealth or the income of the person or the well being and all this is strictly violation of the fundamental right stated under Article 29 (2) of the Constitution. Although till the full discussion of the facts of the case no infringement of fundamental rights have been observed till now that is conformed in part III of the Constitution. No object is laid on the state by the Constitution or laws stated in part IV in the form of directive principles and the state is allowed by the provision of directive principle in matter of education and there is no infringement of any fundamental rights.

Petitioner’s Issue

He stated that to the advocate general and the judiciary the whole concept to reserve seats was totally based on the caste, religion and race. According to article 46 of the Constitution it aims at providing education to the weaker section and the backward class of the society i.e. the schedule caste and schedule tribes. This provision is stated and is counted in part IV of the Constitution and includes certain provisions of directive state policy which are not generally enforced by the court. The Article 46 which provides education to the weaker section also takes them towards social injustice and their exploitation in the society. Lot of emphasis has been laid on the Article 46 and keeping in mind the concept of the Article G.O communal community was amended in the state and the order was passed by the state itself and the petitioner are not able to get admission in the colleges because according to this there is no infringement of the fundamental rights. Therefore it has been stated by the general that Article 46 overrules the provision and law stated in Article 29 (2) of the Constitution. 

On the contrary the petitioner explained that they deny the above rule that is stated by the Advocate General. The Directive principle of state policy which were made enforceable by the court through Article 37 States that they cannot overrules the provision stated in part III of the Constitution which are stated in Article 32 and in relation to all the enforced writs. No legislative or executive assembly can abridge the policy of fundamental rights and the rights provided by it except the provisions told in part III of the Constitution. 

This case has taught is the exact way to examine the provisions stated in part III and IV and how they are applicable. However till now there is no infringement of fundamental rights that are stated in part III of the Constitution and state is free to act according to the directive policy of part IV or the part III but there are certain restrictions imposed by legislative and executive and the Constitution imposed on the state. 

Respondent’s Issue

In Article 16 of the Constitution aims at providing equality to all at all levels and with no discrimination on the basis of caste color, creed religion, sex and race. It aims at equality for all at the places of employment, education and other services so that no one as a citizen of the country is left untreated. All the backward class people are benefitted in the same keeping in mind the view of the G.O communal which was formed and favoured by the respondent. 

Article 16 (4) states that nothing can prevent state from making laws for the reservation of the backward classes as citizens which is the opinion of the state and the law and they can be appointed to the place of their choice. This is the service of the state that is fulfilled under the clause. The argument and the emphasis that is raised in Article 46 in the case cannot overrule provision that is stated in Article 16 (4) of the Constitution that aims at equality for all and if it did override the clause then its existence would have been strictly reluctant and non-existent. The clause (4) existed in Article 16 and is regarded as the omission of the Article 29 of the Constitution. It must not have been the sole motive of the Constitution to forum the communal or to support them for the reservation for the few or to raise the state funds. To protect and secure the future of the masses of the backward classes it is really important to secure and appoint them in all kind of services. 

The power to make reservation for these classes has been given to the state to appoint them to the services. This case proves the need to reserve seats for them and why the power if given in the hands of the state is strictly proved. The provision and the law stated in the Article 29 do not mean that it over ride the provision of Article 16 (4) and hence this proves that the reservation for them in the educational institutions will be a better and positive decision. The reservation for the undeserved class is strictly necessary because so that it provides equal state for them in the state. Respondent’s view for the same is that it is strictly necessary for the people who do not get recognition in the state to acknowledge the matter and provide them equal stake in the educational system.

Judgment for the Case

The infringement covers both the case that were filed in the High Court (State of Madras vs. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan) and the case State of Madras vs. C.R. Srinivasan and the Judgment for the same were filled by the High Court at Madras on 27th July, 1950. The appeals were dealt separately under Article 226 of the Constitution which started the breach of the fundamental right to get admission in an educational institution of the state. 

The number of seats that are available in the medical colleges in State of Madras are 330 and in the four respective colleges. Out of the 330 seats 17 seats are reserved for the students that are coming from outside the state and 12 seats were reserved for the candidates that were appointed by the state on the discretionary allotment of the state. 

Same as medical colleges in the state engineering colleges too were maintained in the state of Madras and the number of seats that were counted in the state were 394. Out of these 394 seats these seats were filled by the 21 students who are coming from the outside and 12 seats were conformed for the people or students who were appointed by the discretionary power of the state or allotted by the states. 

Before the commencement of the Constitution before the many years the available seats of the medical and the engineering colleges were filled by the students who were divided under the groups that were divide under the four classes of the people and that four classes were divided into the community called the G.O communal community which divided the students in the category as follows:

  1. Non-Brahmins were allotted the 6 seats
  2. Backward Hindus were allotted 2 seats
  3. Brahmins were allotted the 2 seats
  4. Harijans were allotted the 2 seats
  5. Anglo-Indians and Indian-Christians were allotted 1 seat
  6. Muslim were allotted 1 seat 

These classes were divided on the basis of the regional discrimination of the caste or religion in the country. The G.O. communal community was formed o the basis of the deserving candidates and the students who obtain maximum marks in the exam and the educational qualification of the students in the state. 

The seats that were reserved in the medical colleges and 20% of which were actually filled by the women in the state as students in the colleges that were open for the candidates of the every region of the state. These seats were open for the students and were open for all for all regions and caste and no discrimination was made for the same. The women were elected on the basis of the educational qualification of the same and were elected on the medium of merit if the marks obtained meet the qualification area and the same stand for them men in the state that were elected on the same basis in the state and visa-versa. It has been noticed that the provisions stated in the old G.O communal community remained same after and before the commencement of the Constitution and then it was decided that the admissions made in the colleges were on the basis on the old rules that were adhered in the old G.O communal community. 

It was found by the court that the admission letter was actually not submitted in the medical college to get admission in the same and was faking the admission application which was supposed to be rejected by the medical college. Sri Srinivasan who actually applied for the admission application stated in the case filed a petition which included the writ of mandamus or any other form of writ that restrict the officers or any other person in the State of Madras whosoever follows the provisions that were stated in the G.O communal community and through which the admissions in the engineering college were sought to happen and because of which it was a strict violation of the fundamental Right 15 (1) of the petitioner and Article 29 (2) which were written in the affidavit of the petitioner which was submitted in the court. Under the article 15 (1) and 29 (2) which were stated in the affidavit and the petitioner filed by the petitioner stated that he appeared in the intermediate examination that were held in March, 1950 group 1 and the mars that were obtained by the petitioner in the examination were of the group I and A grade level in spite of which also he was not able to get admission in the same.

It has been taken into consideration that the marks obtained by the petitioner i.e. Sri Srinivasan were 369 out of the total of 450 which were to be taken into consideration into the admission in the engineering college of the state. The appeal was registered in the High Court numbered as 271 in 1952 and was registered as the appeal for the colleges. The court further stated the fact with the judgment that these two applicants were allowed to get admission in the medical and the engineering college and no college would deny taking them on the merit which was decided by the college. It also stated that the admission was totally on the basis of the merit and no court or any other party would deny taking the applicants for the study in the college on merit. 

Article 29 (2) of the Indian Constitution which occurs in part II of the Constitution

Fundamental and Cultural Rights stated by the Article

  1. Any sections of the citizens of the country that is residing in any part of the state or the country are free to adhere to the language and the culture they want to follow and stick to the rights they want to follow the same. 
  2. The law states that no citizen in the country shall not be denied for the admissions in the educational institutions for the same and they are entitled to receive the funds raised by the institution and the state without any discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, sex, race etc.

It has been noticed that the CL (1) of the Article saves the culture and script of the people citizens residing in any place near CL (2) states the fundamental rights that are saved for the citizens of the country. It guarantees the right to get admission in any part of the country in any educational institutions in the whole part of the country and CL (2) states the provisions that are fixed for every member of the country and not as a member of any communal community or society. This is the right is fixed for the citizens for the country without any discrimination on the basis of caste, color, sex and religion. If any citizen has the qualification that meets the needs of the college and if he does not get the admission in the college there is no such right for the breach of the fundamental right of the candidate. 

The argument is raised for Article 46 in the case. Because of the formation of the G.O Communal the few were favoured for the reservation of the seat in the colleges but there is no such breach of fundamental right in the case as there is no breach of the right stated in the Article. The petitioner pled that they were not able to get admission in the medical and engineering college but it was stated that there was no infringement of fundamental right in the case. It was stated that provision of article 46 overrides the provision stated in article 29 (2) of the Constitution but it was rejected i.e. the above statement was fully rejected on the fact that Article 37 stated in part III of the Constitution are made enforceable by the written writs and the provision stated in Article 32 of the Constitution. 

The provisions that lie in part III of the Constitution cannot be stopped from using as directive principle of state policy stated in part IV of the Constitution. The act of the fundamental rights cannot be abridged and cannot be overridden by any executive or legislative power. In the next place it has been noticed that Article 16 that guarantees the equality for all at the places of employment at the public services and it is stated as a fundamental right which cannot be discriminated on the basis of caste, religion, sex, color, place of birth, residence etc and no one can infringe the right that is stated for the people in the country. 

Article 14 CL (4) states that nothing in this article prevent the state from making laws for the reservation of the backward classes in the areas of education employment etc and with discrimination. 

Let’s just take the case of Sri Srinivasan he did not get admission in the engineering because he was stated to belong to the Brahmins community though it has been seen that he scored marks much more than any other non-Brahmin student and they got admission on getting less marks too. This is because not just because of the case of the Brahmin caste but it is because of many reasons for the admission like 1) Because he was a Brahmin, 2) Brahmins can grab oly two seats out of 14 seats that are fixed for the allotment 3) and the reserved two seats are already grabbed by the other candidates who were more deserving. 

With the above stated facts of the case we have come to the conclusion that the provisions stated in G.O communal are stated inconsistent and undemanding in Article 29 (2) in part III of the Constitution and are also stated void in Article 13 of the Constitution. 

Critical Analysis of the Case with other Cases

The above case of Champakam can be compared to the case, whose judgment was declared three days before the Independence Day in 2005, and the case was Inamdar and Ors vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors on 2005 stated the facts which relates to the reservation policy of the state and the government that are decided for the backward classes. The court stated that it is not in the hands of any state to decide the percentage of the reservation that is decided for Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes, and other backward classes and hence it is totally decided by the law.

The Judgment was solely travelling from the Supreme Court and the members of the parliament that states that the quota for the reservation of the backward classes is decided by the government and not by the State. The judgment further extends the rights stated in Article 19 (1) (g) to carry on occupation and other formalities which are related to the backward classes. The judgment also mentions the criteria according to which the reservation is made i.e. the seat cannot be filled by the candidate who scores less marks in the exams on the student who is scoring more and better marks the seat will go to him as he will be more meritorious. 

Another case which restriction the violation of the rights was Oliver L. Brown et al vs. The Board of Education of (Topeka) KS et al which is the landmark case in the Constitution of US which stated the facts of the development of the country. It restricts the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution in which it also that that it disables the concept of discrimination the appointment of the candidates in the schools and colleges for the admission and no one shall be discriminated for the same and shall be appointed to the earliest according to the merit stated for the admission. 

Reservation policy in India in the field of Education and Employment

Reservation policy that covers about 50% of the available seats for the candidates that belong to the masses of Schedule caste, Schedule Tribes, and OBC in India which is the criteria that is fixed by the Indian Government. Reservation is the old age phenomena that is carried in India till date from the ancient times and with that it brought a lot of benefits and criticism in the same hand. The reservation policy originated from the roots of the period of ‘untouchability’ which has been practiced in Indian during 15AD and later till 19S till the time it came into force. To bring the sense of equality in the society and to remove the concept and concept of untouchability and discrimination on various issues reservation policy was introduced by DR. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi during the Pre-Independence Era. 

The roots of the Reservation were implemented but the Government of India Act, 1919 during the period of World War I. Then after that the Controversial Simon Commission came up in 1927 to expand the concept in hand. Before the Poona Pact 1932 Gandhi opposed the motion of separate reservation but it was decided and implemented by the British Prime Minister himself. 

Then during the post-Independence era various provisions relating to the reservation and equality of the backward classes in the various fields of education and employment were introduced and added in the Constitution of India. After the Decision of the Champakam Case in 1951, Article 15 with various clauses was amended which provided for the provisionally backward classes to participate equally in the matters of education and work. The Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act 2006 bought various corrections and provisions of expansion of the reservation which affected the Decision of the Supreme Court cases.

The Case of T.M Pai and P.A Inamdar case brought the provision of Article 15 (5) which stated that the privately runned organizations cannot make reservations implemented in the backward or the majority classes and have to treat all at equal level. The reservation policy till 2020 is restricted to the places of the public sector and not the private sector in whole. Then various provisions like Article 16(4), Article 17, Article 335, Article 15 etc of the Constitution aims at providing reservation and equality to backward classes. The Landmark case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India the Mandal Case gives the exact notification of the reservation policy in India in which 27% seats were reserved for the backward classes in the field of work i.e. jobs etc and the rule of Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) were added in the Constitution. 

Bibliography 

Statues 

  • The Constitution of India, 1949 (J.N. Pandey) 
  • The Constitution of India, 1949

Web Page

  • https://www.legalserviceindia.com, Article 195 State of Madras V. Smt Champakam Dorairajan 
  • https://www.indiankanoon.org “State of Madras vs. Smt Champakam” 
  •  https://www.lawnn.com, /State-of-Madras-vs.-Smt-Champakam/ 
  •  https://advocatetanmoy.com/2020/04/28/state-of-madras-vs-smt-champakam-dorairajan-and-anr/
  • www.indiankanoon.org /doc/149321/
  • “State of Madras V. Smt Champakam Dorairajan” Legal service India retrieved 3rd May 2010
  • http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l95-The-State-of-Madras-vs.-Smt.-Champakam-Dorairajan.html 
  • https://www.legitquest.com/case/the-state-of-madras-v-shrimati-champakam-dorairajan-and-cr-shrinivasan/E92AA
  • https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/1194.pdf 
  • https://www.aironline.in/legal-articles/State+of+Madras+v.+Champakam+Dorairajan

Cases

  • Brown Case, Topeka 347 US 4833 1954 https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka
  • Inamdar Case, writ petition (civil) 317 1993 https://www.lawnn.com/p-a-inamdar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors/
  • Indra Sawhney Case, AIR 2006 Ker 1, 2006 (2) JCR 276, 2005 (4) KLT 119 
  • http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1457/Indra-Sawhney-&-Others-Vs.Union-of-India.html
  • “State of Madras vs. Smt Champakam Dorairajan,” Legal Service India, Archived Retrieved 29th May 2009 “Indra Sawhney Etc. vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. on 16 November, 1992″. IndianKanoon.org. Archived from the original on 17 September 2012. Retrieved 22 August 2012. (4) Reservation being an extreme form of protective measure or affirmative action it should be confined to a minority of seats. Even though the Constitution does not lay down any specific bar but the Constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality, the principle of balancing equality ordains reservation, of any manner, not to exceed 50%.”, “Reservation in promotion is Constitutionally impermissible as once the advantaged and disadvantaged are made equal and are brought in one class or group then any further benefit extended for promotion on the inequality existing prior to being brought in the group would be treated equally unequally. It would not be eradicating the effects of past discrimination but perpetuating it.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here