Case: The State Of Madras Vs. Srimathi Champakam

although this Article finds a place in Part IV of the Constitution which lays down certain directive principles of State policy and though the provisions contained in that Part are not enforceable by any Ct. the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental for the governance of the country and Art. 37 makes it obligatory on the part of the State to apply those principles in making laws. The argument is that having regard to the provisions of Art. 46, the State is entitled to maintain the Communal G. O. fixing proportionate seats for different communities and if because of that Order, which is thus contended to be valid in law and not in violation of the Constitution, the petnrs. are unable to get admissions into the educational institutions, there is no infringement of their fundamental rights. Indeed, the learned Advocate-General of Madras even contends that the provisions of Art. 46 override the provisions of Art. 29 (2). We reject the above noted contentions completely. The directive principles of the State policy, which by Art. 37 are expressly made unenforceable by a Ct. cannot override the provisions found in Part III which, notwithstanding other provisions, are expressly made enforceable by appropriate Writs, Orders or directions under Art. 32. The chapter of Fundamental Rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any Legislative or Executive act or order, except to the extent provided in the appropriate Art. in Part III. The directive principles of State policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights. In our opinion, that is the correct way in which the provisions found in Parts III and IV have to be understood. However, so long as there is no infringement of any Fundamental Right, to the extent conferred by the provisions in Part III, there can be no objection to the State acting in accordance with the directive principles set out in Part IV, but subject again to the Legislative and Executive powers and limitations conferred on the State under different provisions of the Constitution. 9. In the next place it will be noticed that Art. 16 which guarantees the fundamental right of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and provides that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste , sex , descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State also includes a specific clauses in the following terms:"(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments of posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State , is not adequately represented in the services under the State." If the argument founded on Art. 46 were sound then cl. (4) of Art. 16 would have been wholly unnecessary and redundant. Seeing, however, that cl. (4) was inserted in Art. 16, the omission of such an express provision from Art. 29 cannot but be regarded as significant. It may well be that the intention of the Constitution was not to introduce at all communal considerations in matters of admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds. The protection of backward classes of citizens may require appointment of members of backward classes in State services and the reason why power has been given to the State to provide for reservation of such appointments for backward classes may under those circumstances be understood. That consideration, however, was not obviously considered necessary in the case of admission into an educational institution and that may well be the reason for the omission from Art. 29 of a clause similar to cl. (4) of Art, 16. 10. Take the case of the petnr. Srinivasan. It is not disputed that he secured a much larger number of marks than the marks secured by many of the Non-Brahmin candidates and yet the Non. Brahmin candidates who secured less number of marks will be admitted into six out of every 14 seats but the petnr. Srinivasan will not be admitted into any of them. What is the reason for this denial of admission except that he is a Brahmin and not a Non-Brahmin. He may have secured higher marks than the Anglo Indian and Indian Christians or Muslim candidates but, nevertheless, he cannot get any of the seats reserved for the last mentioned communities for no fault of his except that he is a Brahmin and not a member of the aforesaid communities. Such denial of admission cannot but be regarded as made on ground only of his caste. 11. It is argued that the petnrs. are not denied admission only because they are Brahmins but for a variety of reasons, e. g. (a) they are Brahmins, (b) Brihmins have an allotment of only two seats out of 14 and (c) the two seats have already been filled up by more meritorious Brahmin candidates. This may be true so far as these two seats reserved for the Brahmins are concerned but this line of argument can have no force when we come to consider the seats reserved for candidates of other communities, for so far as those seats are concerned, the petnrs. are denied admission into any of them not on any ground other than the sole ground of their being Brahmins and not being members of the community for whom those reservations have been made. The classification in the Communil G. O. proceeds on the basis of religion, race and caste. In our view, the classification made in the Communal G. O. is opposed to the Constitution and constitutes a clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen under Art. 29 (2) In this view of the matter, we do not find it necessary to consider the effect of Art. 14 or 15 on the specific Articles discussed above.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It will be noticed that while Cl. (1) protects the language, script or culture of a section of the citizens, cl. (2) guarantees the fundamental right of an individual citizen. The right to get admission into any educational institution of the kind mentioned in Cl. (2) is a right which an individual citizen has as a citizen and not as a member of any community or class of citizens. This right is not to be denied to the citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. If a citizen who seeks admission into any such educational institution has not the requisite academic qualifications and is denied admission on that ground, he certainly cannot be heard to complain of an infraction of his fundamental right under this Article. But, on the other hand, if he has the academic qualifications but is refused admission only on grounds of religion, race, caste, language or any of them, then there is a clear breach of his fundamental right8. The learned AdvocateGeneral appearing for the State contends that the provisions of this Article have to be read along with other Articles in the Constitution. He urges that Art. 46 charges the State with promoting with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and with protecting them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. It is pointed out that although this Article finds a place in Part IV of the Constitution which lays down certain directive principles of State policy and though the provisions contained in that Part are not enforceable by any Ct. the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental for the governance of the country and Art. 37 makes it obligatory on the part of the State to apply those principles in making laws. The argument is that having regard to the provisions of Art. 46, the State is entitled to maintain the Communal G. O. fixing proportionate seats for different communities and if because of that Order, which is thus contended to be valid in law and not in violation of the Constitution, the petnrs. are unable to get admissions into the educational institutions, there is no infringement of their fundamental rights. Indeed, the learnedl of Madras even contends that the provisions of Art. 46 override the provisions of Art. 29(2).We reject the above noted contentions completely. The directive principles of the State policy, which by Art. 37 are expressly made unenforceable by a Ct. cannot override the provisions found in Part III which, notwithstanding other provisions, are expressly made enforceable by appropriate Writs, Orders or directions under Art. 32. The chapter of Fundamental Rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any Legislative or Executive act or order, except to the extent provided in the appropriate Art. in Part III. The directive principles of State policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights. In our opinion, that is the correct way in which the provisions found in Parts III and IV have to be understood. However, so long as there is no infringement of any Fundamental Right, to the extent conferred by the provisions in Part III, there can be no objection to the State acting in accordance with the directive principles set out in Part IV, but subject again to the Legislative and Executive powers and limitations conferred on the State under different provisions of the ConstitutionIf the argument founded on Art. 46 were sound then cl. (4) of Art. 16 would have been wholly unnecessary and redundant. Seeing, however, that cl. (4) was inserted in Art. 16, the omission of such an express provision from Art. 29 cannot but be regarded as significant. It may well be that the intention of the Constitution was not to introduce at all communal considerations in matters of admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds. The protection of backward classes of citizens may require appointment of members of backward classes in State services and the reason why power has been given to the State to provide for reservation of such appointments for backward classes may under those circumstances be understood. That consideration, however, was not obviously considered necessary in the case of admission into an educational institution and that may well be the reason for the omission from Art. 29 of a clause similar to cl. (4) of Art, 1611. It is argued that the petnrs. are not denied admission only because they are Brahmins but for a variety of reasons, e. g. (a) they are Brahmins, (b) Brihmins have an allotment of only two seats out of 14 and (c) the two seats have already been filled up by more meritorious Brahmin candidates.This may be true so far as these two seats reserved for the Brahmins are concerned but this line of argument can have no force when we come to consider the seats reserved for candidates of other communities, for so far as those seats are concerned, the petnrs. are denied admission into any of them not on any ground other than the sole ground of their being Brahmins and not being members of the community for whom those reservations have been made. The classification in the Communil G. O. proceeds on the basis of religion, race and caste. In our view, the classification made in the Communal G. O. is opposed to the Constitution and constitutes a clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen under Art. 29 (2) In this view of the matter, we do not find it necessary to consider the effect of Art. 14 or 15 on the specific Articles discussed above.