State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan

Last updated

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.svg
Court Supreme Court of India
Full case nameState of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
Citation(s)AIR 1951 SC 226
Case history
Subsequent action(s)Enactment of the First Amendment to the Constitution of India.

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India. This judgement led to the First Amendment of the Constitution of India. It was the first major judgement regarding caste-based reservations in Republic of India. In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court judgement, which in turn had struck down the Government Order (G.O) passed in 1927 in the Madras Presidency. [1] The G.O had provided caste-based reservation in government jobs and college seats. The Supreme Court's verdict held that providing such reservations violated Article 29 (2) of the Indian Constitution. [2]

Here, the court held that Directive Principles of State Policy must conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights. The chapter on Fundamental Rights was sacrosanct, and DPSPs as in article 37 are expressly made unenforceable by a Court, hence, cannot override the provisions found in Part III which, notwithstanding other provisions, are expressly made enforceable by appropriate Writs, Orders or directions under article 32. DPSP can only be implemented as long as there is no infringement of Fundamental Rights under Part III, subject to limitations to legislative and executive powers provided under different parts of the Constitution. It was only in Minerva Mills case that a balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSP was sought. [3] [4]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest judicial body in India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India</span> Rights provided to Indian citizens

The Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties' are sections of the Constitution of India that prescribe the fundamental obligations of the states to its citizens and the duties and the rights of the citizens to the State. These sections are considered vital elements of the constitution, which was developed between 1949 by the Constituent Assembly of India.

The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.

The Fundamental Rights in India enshrined in part III of the Constitution of India guarantee civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These rights are known as "fundamental" as they are the most essential for all-round development i.e., material, intellectual, moral and spiritual and protected by fundamental law of the land i.e. constitution. If the rights provided by Constitution especially the Fundamental rights are violated the Supreme Court and the High Courts can issue writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively, directing the State Machinery for enforcement of the fundamental rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Y. V. Chandrachud</span> 16th Chief Justice Of India

Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud was an Indian jurist who served as the 16th Chief Justice of India, serving from 22 February 1978 to the day he retired on 11 July 1985. Born in Pune in the Bombay Presidency, he was first appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court of India on 28 August 1972 and is the longest-serving Chief Justice in India's history at 7 years and 4 months. His nickname was Iron Hands after his well-regarded unwillingness to let anything slip past him.

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India is an Indian public interest litigation case challenging the conclusion of the Mandal Commission that about 52% of the total population of India belonged to Other Backward Classes classification. The National Sample Survey Organisation had estimated the OBC segment to be 42 per cent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Amendment to the Indian Constitution

The 42nd amendment, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1976, was enacted during the Emergency by the Indian National Congress government headed by Indira Gandhi.

<i>Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala</i> 1970 decision of the Supreme Court of India

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., also known as the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution. The case is also known as the Fundamental Rights Case. The court in a 7-6 decision asserted its right to strike down amendments to the constitution that were in violation of the fundamental architecture of the constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. S. Verma</span> 27th Chief Justice of India

Jagdish Sharan Verma was an Indian jurist who served as the 27th Chief Justice of India from 25 March 1997 to 18 January 1998. He was the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission from 1999 to 2003, and chairman of the Justice Verma Committee Report on Amendments to Criminal Law after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. He remains one of India's most highly regarded Chief Justices and eminent jurists in its history.

The Constitution Act, 1951, enacted in 1951, made several changes to the Fundamental Rights provisions of the Indian constitution. It provided means to restrict freedom of speech and expression, validation of zamindari abolition laws, and clarified that the right to equality does not bar the enactment of laws which provide "special consideration" for weaker sections of society.

Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation's fundamental law or supreme law. The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX of the Constitution of India. This procedure ensures the sanctity of the Constitution of India and keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament of India.

<i>I.C. Golaknath and Ors. vs State of Punjab and Anrs.</i> 1967 Supreme Court of India case

Golaknath v. State Of Punjab, or simply the Golaknath case, was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.

The Indian judiciary has made judgments related to reservations, a system of affirmative action that provides for disadvantaged groups. These groups are primarily Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and from 1987 extended to Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Some of the court judgements have been modified by the Indian parliament.

The National Commission for Backward Classes is an Indian constitutional body under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India established through Constitution Act, 2018 this amendment act in the constitution to make it a constitutional body under Article 338B of the Indian Constitution. It was constituted pursuant to the provisions of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993.

<i>Minerva Mills v. Union of India</i> Landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India

Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Constitutional amendment

The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1971, enables Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through Amendments of the Constitution. It also amended article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution. The amendment further made it obligatory for the President to give his assent, when a Constitution Amendment Bill was presented to him.

<i>Right to Privacy verdict</i> Indian Fundamental Rights Case Law

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. (2017), also known as the Right to Privacy verdict, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, which holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Judicial review in India is a process by which the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India examine, determine and invalidate the Executive or Legislative actions inconsistent with the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India explicitly provides for judicial review through Articles 13, 32, 131 through 136, 143, 226 and 246.

<i>Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Navtej Singh Johar &Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.

Bhuta-Lepcha is an ethnic grouping consisting of people of the Bhutia and Lepcha communities in Sikkim, India. Both these groups are listed as Scheduled Tribes by the Government of India.

References

  1. "Torch-bearer of reform". The Hindu. 18 November 2015. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 18 October 2023.
  2. "State of Madras Vs Smt.Champakam Dorairajan". Legal Service India. Retrieved 3 May 2010.
  3. "The State of Madras vs. Srimathi Champakam Dorair" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 15 March 2022.
  4. "Minerva Mills Ltd. & ORS. vs. Union of India & ORS" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 15 March 2022.