Search results
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.
- Introduction
- Background of The Case
- Issues Before The Court
- Judgment
- Legacy
The case of Smt. Champakam Dorairajan v/s state of Madras is a landmark case that was delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1951.This case along with the case of Romesh Thappar v/s state of Madras, led to the first amendmentof the Indian Constitution.In 1927, Province of Madras had issued a government order known as Communal G.O, with regard to the admission of students to the Engineering & Medical collages of the state.The order stated that the seats in Engineering & Medical Collages should be filled on the following basis: 6 seats for Non-Brahmin Hindus, 2 seats for Backward Hindus, 2 seats for Brahmins, 2 seats...In 1950, Srimati Champakam Dorairajan, a Brahmin candidate, filed an application to High Court of Madras under Article 226 of Indian Constitution, complaining of a breach of her fundamental right t...The High Court of Madras delivered its judgement and ruled in favor of Champakam Dorairajan.The main issue before the court was whether the Communal G.O. of 1927, which provided for reservation in admission to educational institutions based on religion, race and caste, was in violation of...The State of Madras argued that the provisions of these articles have to be read along with other articles in the Constitution, particularly Article 46which charges the State with promoting the edu...The Supreme Court held that the Communal G.O. of 1927 constituted a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen of India by Article 29(2) of the Constitution and was therefore void...The Court held that 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 III.The Court held that the classification in the said Communal G.O. proceeds on the basis of religion, race and caste and is opposed to the Constitution and constitutes a clear violation of the fundam...The Supreme Court’s judgement in Smt. Champakam Dorairajan v/s State of Madras case held that the Communal G.O. of 1927, which provided for reservation in admission to educational institutions base...The judgement of the Supreme Court led to the first amendment of the Indian Constitution, which added Clause (4) to Article 15, and also brought clarity to the relationship between the directive pr...Sep 17, 2020 · State of Madras vs. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan is a landmark case delivered by the Supreme Court of India that, along with Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras (1950), led to the first amendment to the Indian Constitution In 1951.
May 23, 2022 · The Supreme Court at Bombay and Madras was established by a charter of 1753. The powers of the Recorder Court were transferred to the Supreme Court and exercised the same jurisdiction and same restrictions as the Supreme Court.
Jun 5, 2024 · The petitioner approached the Supreme Court of India, claiming that the ban by the Madras Government on the weekly journal Cross Roads is a violation of its fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression conferred upon him by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Jun 6, 2020 · This was the first major case concerning reservations in the Republic of India. Also, it led to the 1 st Constitutional amendment. the Supreme Court sustained the Madras High Court judgement and struck down the Government Order passed in 1927 in the Madras Presidency.
People also ask
Why did Champakam Dorairajan v State of Madras come before Supreme Court?
Why did the Supreme Court uphold the Madras High Court ruling?
How did the Madras Supreme Court impact the constitutional amendment?
What is the significance of state of Madras vs SMT Champakam Dorairajan?
Apr 22, 2022 · In A.K. Gopalan vs the State of Madras, the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of Article 21 and restricted it by diminishing its real value and gave the decision in favour of the government. However, among the 6 judges’ bench, only Justice Fazl Ali was not favouring this judgment.
