Champakam Dorairajan at all times needed to be a physician – an uncommon dream for married ladies within the Nineteen Forties. So when a legislation, within the type of a authorities Basic Order received in the way in which, she determined to problem it.
In 1948, the Madras authorities launched the Communal Basic Order, extensively known as the Communal G.O., which apportioned admissions to academic establishments based mostly on caste — out of each 14 seats, 6 had been 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.
On studying that as a Brahmin lady, “she had little or no likelihood of being admitted” to a medical school, Champakam moved the Madras Excessive Court docket. Her case was that the federal government’s coverage violated her proper to equality. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan And Anr. v The State of Madras turned the primary case to check if the Structure permitted caste-based reservations for admission to academic establishments.
In July 1950, the Madras HC struck down the G.O. however the State challenged the order within the Supreme Court docket. On April 9, 1951, a full bench of 5 judges of the Supreme Court docket struck down the legislation as unconstitutional, declaring that the classification within the legislation “constituted a transparent violation of the basic rights assured to the citizen”.
“The classification within the Communal G.O. proceeds based mostly on faith, race and caste. In our view, the classification made within the Communal G.O. is against the Structure…,” the SC had dominated.
The Supreme Court docket ruling prompted the federal government to introduce adjustments within the Structure by way of the First Modification that expressly supplied for affirmative motion in greater schooling – till then, the Structure solely supplied for reservation in public employment. The case additionally ignited an enduring debate on benefit, equality, and discrimination — one that is still related to today.
Born in 1915, Dorairajan, with a Bachelor’s diploma in Physics and Chemistry from the College of Madras in 1934, hoped to turn out to be a physician, however “monetary difficulties” led to her turning into a instructor as an alternative.
Story continues beneath this advert
In its ruling, the SC quoted from her affidavit and mentioned that “it doesn’t seem that the petitioner had truly utilized for admission within the Medical School” however “that on inquiry, she got here to know that she wouldn’t be admitted to the School as she belonged to the Brahmin group.”
By the way, her husband’s enterprise, Greenback & Firm, a pharma manufacturing unit, at the moment was adjoining to the famend Row & Reddy, a Madras-based legislation agency within the iconic Andhra Insurance coverage Constructing on Thambuchetty Avenue in Chennai. Previous timers in Row & Reddy recall Mr Dorairajan often dropping in for a cup of espresso and a chat with the legal professionals on the agency. “Mrs Dorairajan, wearing a nine-yard saree, used to go to her husband typically,” says 88-year-old NGR Prasad, the managing associate on the agency.
Maybe it was this familiarity with legal professionals and the authorized system that prompted Dorairajan to strategy the courtroom. Famend legal professionals V V Srinivasa Iyengar and Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, who was additionally a member of the Constituent Meeting and the provisional Parliament which launched the First Modification, argued in opposition to the federal government.
Chatting with The Indian Categorical, Dorairajan’s daughter, Professor Geetha Durairajan, who taught on the English and Overseas Languages College in Hyderabad, says that although her mom couldn’t be a physician, she used her schooling in different methods. “My father supported her dream however because of the coverage at the moment, she couldn’t be admitted. By the point the ruling got here, she had a toddler and was now not in a spot the place she may commit the effort and time wanted to review drugs. She was a housewife with 5 kids however she taught us math, physics, and every little thing else and used her schooling in different methods.”
Story continues beneath this advert
“My mom handed away in 1981 once I was about 25 years outdated. My recollections of the case are solely from a number of conversations in passing with my mother and father, however I learn up on it as an grownup,” Durairajan provides.
In his seminal e book, Working a Democratic Structure, historian Granville Austin wrote that the Structure on the time of its enactment had over “two dozen articles offering for the compensatory therapy for deprived residents or for safeguarding them from discrimination.”
Whereas Article 14 recognises the suitable to equality, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of faith, race, caste, intercourse or place of origin, Article 16(4) supplies for reservation in public employment in favour of any backward class of residents, and Article 17 supplies for the abolition of untouchability. Nevertheless, since there was no categorical provision offering for reservation in academic establishments, the federal government pleaded with the Court docket to take a look at the “letter and spirit of the Structure”.
Following the setback within the Supreme Court docket, the federal government introduced within the First Modification, introducing Article 15(4) to the Structure to permit the state to make legal guidelines or “any particular provision for the development of any socially and educationally backward lessons of residents or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes”.
Story continues beneath this advert
One other conclusion of the courtroom within the ruling — on the primacy of basic rights over directive rules of state coverage — was additionally watered down over time. The federal government had argued that Article 46 of the Structure, which is part of directive rules, mandates the promotion of the tutorial and financial pursuits of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and different weaker sections. Nevertheless, the courtroom mentioned that the provisions “expressly made unenforceable by a courtroom, can not override” basic rights. In later years, the courtroom has allowed encroachment of rights to offer impact to directive rules. For instance, Article 48 that prohibits the slaughter of cows was balanced with the suitable to hold on commerce and occupation and social welfare measures had been balanced with property rights.
“Champakam Dorairajan ruling reveals that the judiciary began from a basically fallacious place as if we had been a casteless society. That reservation below Article 15, which was launched by way of an modification, was handled as an exception to the rule of equality in Article 14 for a lot of a long time even after the ruling,” former Madras Excessive Court docket choose Okay Chandru instructed The Indian Categorical.
In later years, the courtroom’s textual studying of the Structure was criticised and corrected. Within the 2024 ruling permitting sub-classification of quota, then Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud termed the strategy of the SC in Champakam’s case a “formalistic and reservation-limiting strategy.”
Dorairajan’s case maybe had extra to do with realising her private targets moderately than making a case in opposition to affirmative motion, however the courtroom’s ruling is a stark reminder of the place to begin from which the legislation on equality has advanced.
Story continues beneath this advert
“I do really feel proud that her case is part of constitutional historical past and that my father supported her,” Geetha Durairajan says.
