CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan

Judgement led to First Amendment of the Constitution of India.

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 14, 2025
Entity authorityQ7603762 ↗
Source-derived summary

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 the Republic of India. In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court judgement, which in turn had struck down the Government Order (G.O) passed in 1927 in the Madras Presidency. The G.O had provided caste-based reservation in government jobs and college seats. The Supreme Court's verdict held that providing such reservations violated Article 29 (2) of the Indian Constitution.

Here, the court held that Directive Principles of State Policy must conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights. The chapter on Fundamental Rights was sacrosanct, and DPSPs as in article 37 are expressly made unenforceable by a Court, hence, 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. DPSP can only be implemented as long as there is no infringement of Fundamental Rights under Part III, subject to limitations to legislative and executive powers provided under different parts of the Constitution.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan” as judgement led to First Amendment of the Constitution of India. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around State, Madras and Champakam.

Editorial reviewA useful synthesis for locating the documentary relationships between formal authority, participants and affected communities. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1951, 1927—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with State, Madras and Champakam providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan”, the useful work is to connect “judgement led to First Amendment of the Constitution of India” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Chronology, provenance and viewpoint should be read together before a broad social or political interpretation is accepted. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 14, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q7603762. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1951 and 1927.

Critical limits

Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan primary sources, State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan archive and State research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan”?
  2. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
  3. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.