The woman in nine yards of saree and the First Amendment – OPSC OAS Mains GS Paper II PYQ

📝Model Answer

Introduction

The reference is to Champakam Dorairajan, a Tamil Brahmin woman from Madras, whose petition in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) became the first major challenge to Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court’s verdict in her favour struck down caste-based reservations in educational institutions, directly compelling Parliament to enact the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1951.

Body of the Answer

1. Background of the petitioner: Champakam Dorairajan sought admission to a medical college in Madras. Though she did not formally apply, she anticipated rejection under the existing quota system and approached the Madras High Court.
2. The Communal G.O.: The Madras Government operated under a Communal Government Order (1927), which reserved seats in medical and engineering colleges on the basis of caste and religion — for Brahmins, non-Brahmins, Muslims, Christians, and others in fixed proportions.
3. Nature of grievance: She contended that seats were allotted by community rather than merit, and that as a Brahmin she faced discrimination purely on grounds of caste and religion.
4. Fundamental Rights invoked: She argued this violated Article 15(1) (no discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex) and Article 29(2) (no denial of admission to state-aided institutions on grounds of religion, race, caste, or language).
5. State’s defence: The Madras Government relied on Article 46 (a Directive Principle) directing the State to promote educational interests of weaker sections, especially SCs and STs.
6. The core legal question: Whether a Directive Principle (Article 46) could override an enforceable Fundamental Right (Articles 15 and 29).
7. High Court verdict: The Madras High Court struck down the Communal G.O. as unconstitutional.
8. Supreme Court verdict (1951): A seven-judge bench unanimously upheld the High Court, ruling that Fundamental Rights are supreme and enforceable, while Directive Principles are subsidiary and cannot override them.
9. Key doctrine established: Directive Principles must "conform to and run subsidiary to" the Chapter on Fundamental Rights. This established the early primacy of Fundamental Rights over DPSPs.
10. Immediate consequence: The judgment made caste-based reservations in education legally untenable, creating a constitutional deadlock for the State’s social justice agenda.
11. Parliament’s response — First Amendment (1951): To overcome the verdict, Nehru’s government amended Article 15 by inserting Article 15(4), empowering the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, SCs, and STs.
12. Wider changes in the Amendment: The same First Amendment also added the Ninth Schedule (Articles 31A and 31B) to protect land reform laws, and imposed reasonable restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2).

Conclusion