Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)

– Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles

Let us now take up the Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)—a judgment that clearly established the hierarchy between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy in the early years of the Constitution.

Background of the Case

In the early years after Independence, the Government of Madras issued an executive order known as the Communal Government Order (Communal GO).

This order:

• Provided proportionate reservation of seats in government medical and engineering colleges
• Allocation was done on the basis of community (Brahmins, Non-Brahmins, Muslims, Christians, Harijans, etc.)
• The stated objective was to promote the educational interests of backward classes, as envisaged under Article 46 (a Directive Principle)

Champakam Dorairajan, a Brahmin candidate, was denied admission despite having higher merit and challenged this order.

Core Constitutional Questions

The Supreme Court had to decide:

1. Can the State provide communal reservation in educational institutions?
2. Can Directive Principles override Fundamental Rights?
3. Is reservation based on religion, race, or caste constitutionally valid?

Supreme Court’s Judgement

(a) Striking Down the Communal GO

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Madras High Court and struck down the Communal GO.

The Court held that:

• The reservation scheme was based on religion, race, and caste
• Hence, it violated:
  • Article 15(1) – Prohibition of discrimination
  • Article 29(2) – No denial of admission to educational institutions maintained by the State on grounds of religion, race, caste, or language

Therefore, the Communal GO was declared unconstitutional.

(b) Directive Principles Cannot Override Fundamental Rights

This judgment laid down a clear constitutional principle:

• Directive Principles of State Policy cannot override or abridge Fundamental Rights
• They must conform to and run as subsidiary to Fundamental Rights

In simple words:

Noble objectives under Directive Principles cannot justify the violation of enforceable fundamental rights.

This was the first authoritative ruling on the relationship between Part III and Part IV of the Constitution.

Rejection of Article 46 as Justification

The State had argued that:

• Article 46 directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of backward classes

The Court accepted the importance of Article 46 but clarified that:

• Directive Principles are non-justiciable
• They cannot be enforced in a manner that infringes fundamental rights

Thus, constitutional morality overrode social policy objectives—at least at that stage of constitutional evolution.

Impact of the Judgement – Constitutional Amendment

The judgment created a serious practical difficulty:

• It made affirmative action in education constitutionally impossible under Article 15 as it then stood

To overcome this:

• The 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 was enacted
• A new Clause (4) was inserted in Article 15

Article 15(4):

• Empowers the State to make special provisions for:
  • Socially and educationally backward classes
  • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

This amendment nullified the effect of the Champakam Dorairajan judgment.

Constitutional Significance

This case is crucial because it:

• Established the primacy of Fundamental Rights in early constitutional interpretation
• Triggered the constitutional basis for reservation policies
• Demonstrated the dialogue between judiciary and legislature
• Became the foundation for later debates on:
  • Equality vs affirmative action
  • Substantive equality

Place in Constitutional Evolution

• Champakam Dorairajan (1951) → FRs superior to DPSPs
• 1st Amendment (1951) → Constitution modified to enable reservations
• Later cases (e.g., Kesavananda Bharati) → Harmonious construction of Parts III and IV

Thus, this judgment represents the first phase of constitutional interpretation.

Summary

The Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951) held that Directive Principles cannot override Fundamental Rights, struck down communal reservations in educational institutions, and directly led to the insertion of Article 15(4) by the 1st Constitutional Amendment.