# Nos. 270 and 271 of 1951. .April 9· v. Srimothi Ch4mMam Dorasrajon

- **Citation:** [1951] 1 S.C.R. 525
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1950-07-27
- **Bench:** Sm1 HAlllLAL KANIA C. J. FAZL Au, Patanjali Sastu, Hll. CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHUJEA, S. R. Das, VMAN BosE
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nos-270-and-271-of-1951-april-9-v-srimothi-ch4mmam-dorasrajon-107
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

525
Constitution of India, Arts. 13, 16 (4), 29 (2), 46-Admission to
educational institution1-E:cecuti11e Order fi:cint number of seius for
particular
communities-Invalidity-Fundamental
ritht
aiainst
discrimination on the iround of reli1ion only-Directive principles
of State policy-Value of.
With regard to admission of students tO the Engineering and •
Medical Colleges of the State, the Province of Madras had issued
an order (known as the
Communal G. 0.) that seats should be
filled in by the selection committee strictly on the following basis,
i.e., out of every 14 scats, 6 were to be allotted to Non-Brahmin
(Hindus), 2 to Backward Hindus, 2 to Brahmins, 2 to Harijans,
1 to Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians and 1 to Muslims :
Held by the Full Court (Kania C. /., Fazl Ali, Pataniali Sastri,
Mehr
Chand
Mahaian,
Mukher;ea, S.
R.
Das
and . Vivian
Bose 1/.)-that the Communal G. 0. constituted a violation of
the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens of
India
by
Art. 29 (2) of the
Constitution, namely, that "no citizen shall be
denied admission to any educational institution maintained
by
the
State or receiving aid out of the
State funds on grounds only
of religion, race, caste, language or any of them," and was therefore void under Art. 13.
The directive principles of State policy laid down in Part IV
of the Constitution cannot in any
way override or
abridge the
fundamental rights guaranteed by Part UI. On the
other hand
they have to conform to and
run as subsidiary to the fundamental rights laid down in Part tu .
Judgment of the Madras High Court affirmed.
C1v1L
APPELLATE
JuRisDICTION.-Case
Nos. 270
and 271 of 1951.
.April 9·
1951
v.
Srimothi
Ch4mMam
Dorasrajon
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1951]
Appeals under Art. 132 ( 1) of the
Constitution of
India from the
Judgment and
Order dated 27th July,
1950, of the Madras High Court in certain applications
under Art. 226 of the Constitution for protection of the
fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 15 ( 1)
and Art. 29 (2) of the Constitution and praying for the
issue of a writ of mandamus or other suitable prerogative
writ restraining the
State of
Madras and all
officers and subordinates thereof from enforcing, observing, maintaining or following the order of the
Government known as the
Communal G. 0. which laid down
rules to be observed· by the selection committee in the
matter of admission of students to the
Medical
and
Engineering Colleges of the State.
V. K. T. Chari, Atl11ocatt:-General, Madras (R. Ganapat/1y lyt:r, with him) for the appellant.
Al/adj
Krjshnasw11mj
Aiyar (Al/adj
Kupuswamj
Ajyar, with him) for the respondents.
1951, April 9. The Judgment of the
Court was
delivered by
Das].
DAs J.-This judgment covers both Case No. 270 of
1951 (State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairaian) and Case No. 271 of 1951 (State of Madras v.
C. R. Srini11asan) which are appeals from the judgment passed by the
Higl)
Court of
Judicature at
Madras on July 27, 1950, on two separate applications
under article 226 of the Constitution complaining of
breach of the petitioners' fundamental
right
to get
admission into educational institutiQns
maintained
by
the State.
·
The
State of
Madras
maintains
four
Medical
Colleges and only 330. seats aie
available
for students
in those
four Colleges. Out of
these
330 scats, 17
seats are reserved for students
coming from outside
the
State and 12 seats are .reserved
for discretionary
allotment by the · State and the balance of the scats
available are apportioned between four distinct groups
of districts in the State.
'
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
527
Likewise, the
State of
Madras
maintains
four
Engineering
Colleges and the total number of seats
available for students in those
Colleges are only 395.
Out of these, 21 seats are reserved for students coming
from outside
the
State, 12 seats are reserved for
discretionary allotment by the State and the balance
of the seats available are
apportioned
between the
same four distinct groups of district

## Text

...
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
THE STATE OF MADRAS
"·
SRIMATHl CHAMPAKAM DORAIRAJAN
and
THE STATE OF MADRAS
ti.
C. R. SRINIVASAN
[Sm1 HAlllLAL KANIA C. J. FAZL Au,
PATANJALI SASTU, M&Hll. CHAND MAHAJAN,
MuKHUJEA, S. R. DAS and VMAN BosE JJ.]
525
Constitution of India, Arts. 13, 16 (4), 29 (2), 46-Admission to
educational institution1-E:cecuti11e Order fi:cint number of seius for
particular
communities-Invalidity-Fundamental
ritht
aiainst
discrimination on the iround of reli1ion only-Directive principles
of State policy-Value of.
With regard to admission of students tO the Engineering and •
Medical Colleges of the State, the Province of Madras had issued
an order (known as the
Communal G. 0.) that seats should be
filled in by the selection committee strictly on the following basis,
i.e., out of every 14 scats, 6 were to be allotted to Non-Brahmin
(Hindus), 2 to Backward Hindus, 2 to Brahmins, 2 to Harijans,
1 to Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians and 1 to Muslims :
Held by the Full Court (Kania C. /., Fazl Ali, Pataniali Sastri,
Mehr
Chand
Mahaian,
Mukher;ea, S.
R.
Das
and . Vivian
Bose 1/.)-that the Communal G. 0. constituted a violation of
the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens of
India
by
Art. 29 (2) of the
Constitution, namely, that "no citizen shall be
denied admission to any educational institution maintained
by
the
State or receiving aid out of the
State funds on grounds only
of religion, race, caste, language or any of them," and was therefore void under Art. 13.
The directive principles of State policy laid down in Part IV
of the Constitution cannot in any
way override or
abridge the
fundamental rights guaranteed by Part UI. On the
other hand
they have to conform to and
run as subsidiary to the fundamental rights laid down in Part tu .
Judgment of the Madras High Court affirmed.
C1v1L
APPELLATE
JuRisDICTION.-Case
Nos. 270
and 271 of 1951.
.April 9·
1951
v.
Srimothi
Ch4mMam
Dorasrajon
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1951]
Appeals under Art. 132 ( 1) of the
Constitution of
India from the
Judgment and
Order dated 27th July,
1950, of the Madras High Court in certain applications
under Art. 226 of the Constitution for protection of the
fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 15 ( 1)
and Art. 29 (2) of the Constitution and praying for the
issue of a writ of mandamus or other suitable prerogative
writ restraining the
State of
Madras and all
officers and subordinates thereof from enforcing, observing, maintaining or following the order of the
Government known as the
Communal G. 0. which laid down
rules to be observed· by the selection committee in the
matter of admission of students to the
Medical
and
Engineering Colleges of the State.
V. K. T. Chari, Atl11ocatt:-General, Madras (R. Ganapat/1y lyt:r, with him) for the appellant.
Al/adj
Krjshnasw11mj
Aiyar (Al/adj
Kupuswamj
Ajyar, with him) for the respondents.
1951, April 9. The Judgment of the
Court was
delivered by
Das].
DAs J.-This judgment covers both Case No. 270 of
1951 (State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairaian) and Case No. 271 of 1951 (State of Madras v.
C. R. Srini11asan) which are appeals from the judgment passed by the
Higl)
Court of
Judicature at
Madras on July 27, 1950, on two separate applications
under article 226 of the Constitution complaining of
breach of the petitioners' fundamental
right
to get
admission into educational institutiQns
maintained
by
the State.
·
The
State of
Madras
maintains
four
Medical
Colleges and only 330. seats aie
available
for students
in those
four Colleges. Out of
these
330 scats, 17
seats are reserved for students
coming from outside
the
State and 12 seats are .reserved
for discretionary
allotment by the · State and the balance of the scats
available are apportioned between four distinct groups
of districts in the State.
'
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
527
Likewise, the
State of
Madras
maintains
four
Engineering
Colleges and the total number of seats
available for students in those
Colleges are only 395.
Out of these, 21 seats are reserved for students coming
from outside
the
State, 12 seats are reserved for
discretionary allotment by the State and the balance
of the seats available are
apportioned
between the
same four distinct groups of districts.
For many years before the commencement of the
Constitution, the seats in both the Medical
Colleges
and the
Engineering Colleges so apportioned between
the four distinct
groups of districts used · to be
filled
up according to certain proportions set forth in what
used to
be called
the
Communal G.O.
Thus, for
- every 14 seats to be filled by the sdection committee,
candidates used to be selected strictly on the
following
basis:-
Non-Brahmin (Hindus)
Backward Hindus
Brahmins
Harijans
Anglo-Indians and Indian
Christians
Muslims
6
2
2
2
I
Subject to the aforesaid regional and what have
been claimed
to
be
prottct1vc
prov1S1ons
selection
from among the
applicants from a particular community from one of the groups of districts used to be
made on certain principles based on academic qualifications and marks obtained
by
the candidates. In
the case of the
Medical
Colleges, not less than 20 per
cent. of the
total
number
of seats
available for
students of the
State were filled by women candiates
separately for each region, it being open to the selection committee to admit a larger number of
woman
candidates in any region if qualified candidates were
available in that region and if they
were eligible
for
selection on merits vis a vis the
men candidates in
accordance with the general principles governing such
1951
The State of
Madras
v.
Srimathi
Champakam
Dorairajan
Das].
1951
Th< Stal< of
Madras
v.
Srimathi
Chompakam
Dorairajan
Das].
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1951]
admissions as laid , down in those rules. It appears that
the proportion fixed in the old
Communal
G. 0. has
been adhered to even after the commencement
of the
Constitution on
January
26,
1950.
Indeed, G. 0.
No. 2208, dated June 16, 1950, laying down rules
for
the selection
of
candidates for
admission into
the
Medical Colleges substantially repi;oduces the communal
proportion fixed in the old Commu111l G. 0.
On June 7, 1950, Srimathi
Champakam Dorairajan
made an application to the
High Court of Judicature
at
Madras under article 226 of the
Constitution
for
protection of her fundamental rights under article 15
(1) and article 29 (2) of the Consiitution and prayed
for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other suitable
prerogative writ restraining the
State of
Madras and
all officers and subordinates thereof
from enforcing,
observing, maintaining or following
or requiring the
enforcement, observance, maintenance 9r following by
the authorities concerned of the notification
or
order
generally referred to as the Communal G. 0. in and by
which admissions into the Madras
Medical
Colleges
were sought or purported
to be regulated in such
manner as to infringe and involve the violation of her
fundamental rights. From the affidavit filed in support of her petition,
it does
not appear
that the
petitioner had actually applied for
admission
in the
Medical College. She states that on inquiry she came
to know that she would not be admitted to the College
as she belonged
to
the
Brahmin community. No
objection, however, was taken to the maintainability
of her petition on the ground of absence of any actual
application for admission made by her. On the contrary, we have been told that the
State had
agreed
to reserve a seat for her, should her application
before
f
the High Court succeed. In the peculiar circumstances,
we do not consider it
necessary to pursue this
matter
any further. But we desire to guard ourselves against
,
being understood as holding that we
approve
of a
person who has not actually
applied
for
admission
into an cduca;ional institution coming to
Court complaining of infringement of any fundamental right
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
529
under article 29 (2). The High Court by its judgment
delivered on July ll, 1950, allowed this application
of
Srimathi
Champakam
Dorairajan.
The State
,of
Madras has now come up before us on appeal which has
been numbered Case No. 270 of 1951.
Sri Srinivasan who had actually applied for admission
into the
Government
Engineering
College at
Guindy, filed a petition praying for a writ of mandamus
or any other writ restraining the
State of
Madras .and
all officers thereof from enforcing, observing, maintaining or following the Communal G.O. in and by which
admission into the
Engineering College was sought to
be
regulated in
such
manner as
to infringe
and
involve the violation of the fundamental
right
of the
petitioner under article 15 (1) and artide 29 (2) of the
Constitution. In the affidavit filed in support of his
petition, the petitioner has stated
that he had passed
the Intermediate
Examination held in March, 1950, in
Group 1, passing the said examination in the first class
and obtaining marks set out
in
paragraph
1 of his
affidavit.
It will appear that in the optionals which
are taken
into consideration
in
determining
the
academic test for admission in the Engineering College
the petitioner
Srinivasan secured 369 marks out of a
maximum of 450 marks. The
High
Court has by the
same
judgment allowed this application
also
and the
State has filed an appeal which has
been
numbered
271 of 1951.
The learned counsel appearing
for the
State of
Madras conceded
that these two applicants
would have been
admitted to the educational institutions they intended to join and they. would not have
been denied admission if selections had been
made on
merits alone.
Article 29 which occurs in Part III of the Constitution under the head "Cultural and Educational Rights"
runs as follows :
"(1) Any section of the citizens residing in
the
territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct
language, script or culture of its own shall have the
right to conserve the same.
1951
The State of
Madras·
v.
Srimathi
Champakam
Dorairqjan
Das].
1951
The Stau ef
Madras
...
Srimathi
Champakam
Dorairflian
Das].
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1951]
(2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any
educational institution maintained
by the
State
or
receiving aid out of
State funds on grounds only of
religion, race, caste, language or any of them.
It will be noticed that while clause ( 1) protects the
language, script or culture of a section of the
citizens,
clause (2) guarantees the fundamental right of an individual citizen.
The
right to get
admission into any
educational institution of the kind mentioned in clause
(2) •is a right which an indivjdual
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 on! y on grounds
of religion, race, caste, language or any of them, then
there is a clear breaclt of his fundamental right.
The learned Advocate-General 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 article "6 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
Court, the principles therein laid down are nevertheless
fundamental for the governance of the
country and
article 37 makes it obligatory on the part of the
State
to apply those principles in making laws.
The argu·
ment is that having regard to the provisions of article
"6, the
State is entitled to
maintain the
Communal
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
531
G. 0. 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 petitioners
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 article 46 override the provisions
of article 29(2). We reject the above noted contentions
completely. The directive principles of the State policy,
which by article 37 are expressly made
unenforceable
by a
Court, 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. 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
article 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.
In the next place, it will be noticed that article 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 clause iii the following terms :-
" ( 4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State
from ma!cing any
provision for
the reservation of
appointments of posts in favour of any backward class
1951
Tke State of
Madras
v.
Srimathi
Champa/cam
Dorairajan
Das].
1951
The State of
Madras
...
Srimathi
Ckampakam
Dorairojan
Das]
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
of citizens which, in the opinion of the
adequately
represented
in the services
State."
[1951]
.State, is not
under
the
If the arguments founded on article 416 were sound
then clause ( 4) of article 16 would have
been wholly
unnecessary and redundant.
Seeing, however, that clause
( 4) was inserted in artick 16, the omission of such an
express provision from article 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 pccessary in the case of admission into an
educational institution and that may well be the reason
for the omission from article 29 of a clause similar to
clause ( 4) of article 16.
Take the case of the petitioner Srinivasan.
It is not
disputed that he secured a much
larger
number
of
marks than the marks secured by many of the NonBrahmin
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 petitioner
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 scats 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.
It is argued that the petitioners
arc ·not denied
admission only because they arc Brahmins but for a
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
533
variety
of reasons, e.g., (a) they are Brahmins,
(ho)
8rahmins have an allotment of only · two scats out of
l4 and ( c) the two scats have already
been filled up
by more meritorious
Brahmin candidates. This may
be true
so
far as these two seats reserved for
the
· 8rahmins arc concerned but this line of
argument can
have no force
when
we come to consider .the scats
reserved for candidates
of other communities,
for, so
far as those
seats
are concerned,
the petitioners
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
Communal G. 0. proceeds on the basis of religion, race and caste.
In our view,
the
classification
made in the Communal G. 0. is opposed to the Constitution and constitutes a clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed
to the citizen under article
29 (2). In this view of the matter, we
do not find it
necessary to consider the effect of articles 14 or
15 on
the specific articles discussed above.
For the reasons stated above, we arc of opinion that
the Communal G. 0. being inconsistent with the provisions of article 29 (2) in Part III of the
Constitution
is void under article 13. The result, therefore, is that
these appeals stand dismissed with costs.
Appeals dismissed.
Agent for the appellant: P. A; MehttZ.
Agent for the respondents : M. S. K. StZStri.
19.51
Th4 Stale of
MadrtU
.Y.
Srimathl
Champakam
Dorairajan
D'"J