{"id":125817,"date":"1951-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1951-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951"},"modified":"2017-09-30T11:05:29","modified_gmt":"2017-09-30T05:35:29","slug":"the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam … on 9 April, 1951"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam … on 9 April, 1951<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 226, \t\t 1951 SCR 525<\/div>\n
Author: S R Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj), Fazal Ali, Saiyid, Sastri, M. Patanjali, Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K. & Das, S. R. Bose, Vivian<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSRIMATHI CHAMPAKAM DORAIRAJANandTHE STATE OF MADRASv.C.R. SR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n09\/04\/1951\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nFAZAL ALI, SAIYID\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1951 AIR  226\t\t  1951 SCR  525\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1954 SC 561\t (14,16)\n F\t    1958 SC 731\t (12)\n R\t    1958 SC 956\t (8)\n R\t    1959 SC 648\t (26)\n R\t    1962 SC1621\t (73,108)\n R\t    1963 SC 649\t (17)\n RF\t    1967 SC1643\t (22,164,227)\n E\t    1968 SC1379\t (2)\n R\t    1970 SC2079\t (16)\n RF\t    1972 SC1375\t (81)\n RF\t    1973 SC1461\t (506,648,1704,1714,1901,1918)\n RF\t    1975 SC 563\t (13)\n O\t    1976 SC 490\t (67,69,71,159)\n R\t    1979 SC  83\t (5)\n RF\t    1980 SC1789\t (115)\n RF\t    1985 SC1495\t (8)\n RF\t    1988 SC 305\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution  of  India,  Arts.  13.  16  (4),  29\t(2),\n46--Admission  to educational institutions--Executive  Order\nfixing number of seats for particular communities--Invalidi-\nty--Fundamental\t right\tagainst discrimination on the ground\nof    religion\t only--Directive   principles\t of    State\npolicy--Value of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    With regard to admission of students to the\t Engineering\nand  Medical Colleges of the State, the Province  of  Madras\nhad issued an order (known as the Communal G. O.) that seats\nshould\tbe filled in by the selection committee strictly  on\nthe following basis, i.e., out of every 14 seats, 6 were  to\nbe allotted to Non-Brahmin (Hindus), 2 to Backward Hindus, 2\nto  Brahmins, 2 to Harijans. 1 to Anglo-Indians\t and  Indian\nChristians and 1 to Muslims:\n    Held by the Full Court (Kania C.J., Fazl Ali,  PatanJali\nSastri,\t Mehr  Chand  Mahajan,\tMukherjea,   S.R.  Das\t and\nVivian\tBose  JJ.).--that the Communal\tG.O.  constituted  a\nviolation  of the fundamental right guaranteed to the  citi-\nzens  of India by Art. 29 (2) of the  Constitution,  namely,\nthat \"no citizen shall be denied admission to any education-\nal institution maintained by the State or receiving aid\t out\nof the State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste,\nlanguage  or any of them and was therefore void\t under\tArt.\n13.\nThe directive principles of State policy laid down in\tPart\nIV  the Constitution cannot in any way override\t or  abridge\nthe fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III.\tOn the other\nhand  they have to conform to and run as subsidiary  to\t the\nfundamental rights laid down in Part III.\nJudgment of the Madras High Court affirmed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.–Cases Nos. 270 an d 27  1
\nof 1951,
\n526<\/span>
\n    Appeals under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution of  India
\nfrom  the Judgment and Order dated 27th July, 1950,  of\t the
\nMadras High Court in certain applications under Art. 226  of
\nthe Constitution for protection of the fundamental rights of
\nthe  petitioners  under Art. 15 (1) and Art. 29 (2)  of\t the
\nConstitution and praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus
\nor other suitable prerogative writ restraining the State  of
\nMadras\tand all officers and subordinates thereof  from\t en-
\nforcing,  observing, maintaining or following the  order  of
\nthe  Government known as the Communal G.O. which  laid\tdown
\nrules  to  be  observed by the selection  committee  in\t the
\nmatter of admission of students to the Medical and Engineer-
\ning Colleges of the State.\n<\/p>\n
    V.K.T.  Chari,  Advocate-General, Madras  (R.  Ganapathy
\nIyer, with him) for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Aliadi Krishnaswami Aiyar (Alladi Kuppuswami Aiyar, with
\nhim) for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
    1951, April 9.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\n    DAS J. –This judgment covers both Case No. 9.70 of 1951
\n(State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan) and\tCase
\nNo.<\/a>  271 of 1951 (State of Madras v. C.R. Srinivasan)<\/a>  which
\nare  appeals from the judgment passed by the High  Court  of
\nJudicature  at\tMadras\ton July 27, 1950,  on  two  separate
\napplications under article 226 of the Constitution complain-
\ning  of breach of the petitioners’ fundamental right to\t get
\nadmission  into educational institutions maintained  by\t the
\nState.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t  State of Madras  maintains four  Medical  Colleges
\nand only 330 seats are available for students in those\tfour
\nColleges.  Out of these 330 seats, 17 seats are reserved for
\nstudents  coming  from outside the State and  12  seats\t are
\nreserved  for discretionary allotment by the State  and\t the
\nbalance of the seats available are apportioned between\tfour
\ndistinct groups of districts in the State.\n<\/p>\n
527<\/span><\/p>\n
    Likewise, the State of  Madras maintains four  Engineer-
\ning  Colleges  and the total number of seats  available\t for
\nstudents  in those Colleges are only 395. Out of  these,  21
\nseats  are  reserved for students coming  from\toutside\t the
\nState, 12 seats are reserved for discretionary allotment  by
\nthe State and the balance of the seats available are  appor-
\ntioned between the same four distinct groups of districts.
\n    For many years before the commencement of the  Constitu-
\ntion,  the seats in both the Medical Colleges and the  Engi-
\nneering\t Colleges so apportioned between the  four  distinct
\ngroups\tof districts used to be filled up according to\tcer-
\ntain  proportions  set forth in what used to be\t called\t the
\nCommunal G. O.\tThus, for every 14 seats to be filled by the
\nselection committee, candidates used to be selected strictly
\non the following basis:–\n<\/p>\n
   Non-Brahmin (Hindus)\t       ...\t6\n   Backward Hindus\t       ...\t2\n   Brahmins\t\t       ...\t2\n   Harijans\t\t       ...\t2\n   Anglo-Indians and Indian\n   Christians\t\t       ....\t1\n   Muslims\t\t       ...\t1\n<\/pre>\n
    Subject  to\t the aforesaid regional and what  have\tbeen
\nclaimed\t to  be protective provisions selection\t from  among
\nthe  applicants from a particular community from one of\t the
\ngroups\tof districts used to be made on\t certain  principles
\nbased  on academic qualifications and marks obtained by\t the
\ncandidates.   In the case of the Medical Colleges, not\tless
\nthan  20 per cent. of the total\t number of  seats  available
\nfor  students of the State were filled by  women  candidates
\nseparately  for each region, it being open to the  selection
\ncommittee  to admit a larger number of woman  candidates  in
\nany  region if qualified candidates were available  in\tthat
\nregion\tand  if they were eligible for selection  on  merits
\nvisa  vis the men candidates in accordance with the  general
\nprinciples governing such
\n528<\/span>
\nadmissions as laid down in those rules. It appears that\t the
\nproportion  fixed in the old Communal G.O. has been  adhered
\nto even after the commencement of the Constitution on  Janu-
\nary  26, 1950.\tIndeed, G.O. No. 2208, dated June 16,  1950,
\nlaying down rules for the selection of candidates for admis-
\nsion into the Medical Colleges substantially reproduces\t the
\ncommunal proportion fixed in the old Communal G.O.
\n    On\tJune 7, 1950, Srimathi Champakam Doratrajan made  an
\napplication to the High Court of Judicature at Madras  under
\narticle 226 of the Constitution for protection of her funda-
\nmental rights under article 15 (1) and article 29 (2) of the
\nConstitution and prayed for the issue of a writ of  mandamus
\nor other suitable prerogative writ restraining the State  of
\nMadras\tand all officers and subordinates thereof  from\t en-
\nforcing,  observing, maintaining or following  or  requiring
\nthe enforcement, observance, maintenance or following by the
\nauthorities concerned of the notification or order generally
\nreferred to as the Communal G.O. in and by which  admissions
\ninto the Madras Medical Colleges were sought or purported to
\nbe  regulated in such manner as to infringe and involve\t the
\nviolation  of  her fundamental rights.\tFrom  the  affidavit
\nfiled  in support of her petition, it does not\tappear\tthat
\nthe  petitioner\t had actually applied for admission  in\t the
\nMedical\t College.   She states that on inquiry she  came  to
\nknow  that she would not be admitted to the College  as\t she
\nbelonged  to the Brahmin community.  No objection,  however,
\nwas  taken  to the maintainability of her  petition  on\t the
\nground\tof absence of any actual application  for  admission
\nmade  by her.  On the contrary, we have been told  that\t the
\nState  had  agreed  to reserve a seat for  her,\t should\t her
\napplication  before the High Court succeed. In the  peculiar
\ncircumstances,\twe  do not consider it necessary  to  pursue
\nthis  matter any further. But we desire to  guard  ourselves
\nagainst\t being\tunderstood as holding that we approve  of  a
\nperson\twho has not actually applied for admission  into  an
\neducational  institution  coming  to  Court  complaining  of
\ninfringement of any fundamental right
\n529<\/span>
\nunder article 29 (2).  The High Court by its judgment deliv-
\nered on July 27, 1950, allowed this application of  Srimathi
\nChampakam  Dorairajan.\tThe  State of Madras has now come up
\nbefore us on appeal which has been numbered Case No. 270  of
\n1951.\n<\/p>\n
    Sri\t Srinivasan who had actually applied  for  admission
\ninto  the Government Engineering College at Guindy, filed  a
\npetition  praying for a writ of mandamus or any\t other\twrit
\nrestraining  the  State of Madras and all  officers  thereof
\nfrom  enforcing,  observing, maintaining  or  following\t the
\nCommunal G.O. in and by which admission into the Engineering
\nCollege\t was sought to be regulated in\tsuch manner  as\t  to
\ninfringe and involve the violation of the fundamental  right
\nof the petitioner under article 15 (1) and article 29 (2) of
\nthe Constitution.  In the affidavit filed in support of\t his
\npetition,  the petitioner has stated that he had passed\t the
\nIntermediate  Examination held in March, 1950, in  Group  1,
\npassing the said examination in the first class and  obtain-
\ning marks set out in paragraph 1 of his affidavit.  It\twill
\nappear that in the optionals which are taken into considera-
\ntion   in  determining\tthe academic test for  admission  in
\nthe  Engineering College the petitioner\t Srinivasan  secured
\n369 marks out of a maximum of 450 marks. The High Court\t has
\nby  the same judgment allowed this application also and\t the
\nState  has  filed an appeal which has been numbered  271  of
\n1951.  The learned counsel appearing for the State of Madras
\nconceded that these two applicants would have been  admitted
\nto  the educational institutions they intended to  join\t and
\nthey would not have been denied admission if selections\t had
\nbeen made on merits alone.\n<\/p>\n
    Article 29 which occurs in Part III of the\tConstitution
\nunder  the  head “Cultural and Educational Rights”  runs  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
   “(1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territo-
\nry of India or any part thereof having a distinct  language,
\nscript\tor culture of its own shall have the right  to\tcon-
\nserve the same.\n<\/p>\n
530<\/span><\/p>\n
    (2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educa-
\ntional institution maintained by the State or receiving\t aid
\nout of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
\nlanguage or any of them.”\n<\/p>\n
    It\twill be noticed that while clause (1)  protects\t the
\nlanguage,  script or culture of a section of  the  citizens,
\nclause (2) guarantees the fundamental right of an individual
\ncitizen.   The right to get admission into  any\t educational
\ninstitution  of the kind mentioned in clause (2) is a  right
\nwhich  an individual citizen has as a citizen and not  as  a
\nmember of any community or class of citizens. This right  is
\nnot to be denied to the citizen on grounds only of religion,
\nrace,  caste,  language or any of them.\t If  a\tcitizen\t who
\nseeks  admission into any such educational  institution\t has
\nnot  the  requisite academic qualifications  and  is  denied
\nadmission  on that ground, he certainly cannot be  heard  to
\n,complain  of an infraction of his fundamental\tright  under
\nthis article. But, on the other hand, if he has the academic
\nqualifications\tbut is refused admission only on grounds  of
\nreligion,  race, caste, language or any of them, then  there
\nis a clear breach of his fundamental right.
\n    The\t learned  Advocate-General appearing for  the  State
\ncontends that the provisions of this article have to be read
\nalong with other articles in the Constitution. He urges that
\narticle\t 46  charges the State with promoting  with  special
\ncare  the  educational and economic interests of the  weaker
\nsections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled
\nCastes\tand the Scheduled Tribes, and with  protecting\tthem
\nfrom  social injustice and all forms of exploitation. It  is
\npointed out that although this article finds a place in Part
\nIV  of\tthe Constitution which lays down  certain  directive
\nprinciples  of State policy and though the  provisions\tcon-
\ntained\tin that Part are not enforceable by any\t Court,\t the
\nprinciples  therein laid down are  nevertheless\t fundamental
\nfor  the governance of the country and article 37  makes  it
\nobligatory  on the part of the State to apply those  princi-
\nples in making laws.  The argument is that having regard  to
\nthe  provisions\t of  article 46, the State  is\tentitled  t0
\nmaintain the Communal
\n531<\/span>
\nG.O.  fixing proportionate seats for  different\t communities
\nand if because of that Order, which is thus contended to  be
\nvalid  in law and not in violation of the Constitution,\t the
\npetitioners are unable to get admissions into the education-
\nal institutions, there is no infringement of their fundamen-
\ntal  rights. Indeed, the learned Advocate-General of  Madras
\neven contends that the provisions of article 46 override the
\nprovisions  of\tarticle 29 (2). We reject  the\tabove  noted
\ncontentions  completely.  The directive\t principles  of\t the
\nState  policy, which by article 37 are expressly made  unen-
\nforceable  by a Court, cannot override the provisions  found
\nin  Part  III which, notwithstanding other  provisions,\t are
\nexpressly  made enforceable by appropriate Writs, Orders  or
\ndirections  under  article 32. The  chapter  of\t Fundamental
\nRights\tis sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged  by\t any
\nLegislative or Executive Act or order, except to the  extent
\nprovided in the appropriate article in Part III. The  direc-
\ntive  principles of State policy have to conform to and\t run
\nas subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights.  In\t our
\nopinion,  that\tis the correct way in which  the  provisions
\nfound in Parts III and IV have to be understood. However, so
\nlong as there is no infringement of any Fundamental.  Right,
\nto the extent conferred by the provisions in Part 1II, there
\ncan  be no objection to the State acting in accordance\twith
\nthe  directive\tprinciples set out in Part IV,\tbut  subject
\nagain  to the Legislative and Executive powers\tand  limita-
\ntions  conferred on the State under different provisions  of
\nthe Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe next place, it will be noticed that\t article  16
\nwhich guarantees the fundamental right of equality of oppor-
\ntunity in matters of public employment and provides that  no
\ncitizen\t shall,\t on grounds only of religion,  race,  caste,
\nsex,  descent, place of birth, residence or any of them,  be
\nineligible  for, or discriminated against in respect of\t any
\nemployment or office under the State also includes a specif-
\nic clause in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
    ”  (4) Nothing in this article shall prevent  the  State
\nfrom  making, any provision for the reservation of  appoint-
\nments of posts in favour of any backward class
\n532<\/span>
\nof  citizens  which,  in the opinion of the  State,  is\t not
\nadequately represented in the services under the State.”\n<\/p>\n
    If\tthe arguments founded on article 46 were sound\tthen
\nclause\t(4)of article 16 would have been wholly\t unnecessary
\nand redundant. Seeing, however, that clause (4) was inserted
\nin  article  16, the omission of such an  express  provision
\nfrom  article 29 cannot but be regarded as  significant.  It
\nmay  well be that the intention of the Constitution was\t not
\nto  introduce at all communal considerations in\t matters  of
\nadmission into any educational institution maintained by the
\nState  or receiving aid out of State funds.  The  protection
\nof  backward classes of citizens may require appointment  of
\nmembers of backward classes in State services and the reason
\nwhy power has been given to the State to provide for  reser-
\nvation\tof such appointments for backward classes may  under
\nthose  circumstances  be  understood.  That   consideration,
\nhowever, was not obviously considered necessary in the\tcase
\nof  admission into an educational institution and  that\t may
\nwell  be  the reason for the omission from article 29  of  a
\nclause similar to clause (4) of article 16.
\n   Take\t the case of the petitioner Srinivasan.\t It  is\t not
\ndisputed that he secured a much larger number of marks\tthan
\nthe marks secured by many of the Non-Brahmin candidates\t and
\nyet  the Non-Brahmin candidates who secured less  number  of
\nmarks  will be admitted into six out of every 14  seats\t but
\nthe petitioner Srinivasan will not be admitted into any\t ,of
\nthem. What is the reason for this denial of admission except
\nthat  he  is a Brahmin and not a Non-Brahmin.  He  may\thave
\nsecured higher marks than the Anglo-Indian and Indian Chris-
\ntians or Muslim candidates but, nevertheless, he cannot\t get
\nany of the seats reserved for the last mentioned communities
\nfor  no fault of his except that he is a Brahmin and  not  a
\nmember\tof the aforesaid communities. Such denial of  admis-
\nsion  cannot but be regarded as made on ground only  of\t his
\ncaste.\n<\/p>\n
    It is argued that the petitioners are not denied  admis-
\nsion only because they are Brahmins but for a
\n533<\/span>
\nvariety\t of reasons, e.g., (a) they are Brahmins, (b)  Brah-
\nmins  have an allotment of only two seats out of 14 and\t (c)
\nthe two seats have already been filled up by more  meritori-
\nous Brahmin candidates. This may be true so far as these two
\nseats reserved for the Brahmins are concerned but this\tline
\nof  argument can have no force when we come to consider\t the
\nseats reserved for candidates of other communities, for,  so
\nfar as those seats are concerned, the petitioners are denied
\nadmission into any of them not on any ground other than\t the
\nsole ground of their being Brahmins and not being members of
\nthe  community lot whom those reservations have\t been  made.
\nThe  classification  in the Communal G.O.  proceeds  on\t the
\nbasis of religion, race and caste.  In our view, the classi-
\nfication made in the Communal G.O. is opposed to the Consti-
\ntution and constitutes a clear violation of the\t fundamental
\nrights\tguaranteed to the citizen under article\t 29(2).\t  In
\nthis  view  of the matter, we do not find  it  necessary  to
\nconsider  the  effect of articles 14 or 15 on  the  specific
\narticles discussed above.\n<\/p>\n
    For the reasons stated above, we are of opinion that the
\nCommunal  G.O.\tbeing inconsistent with\t the  provisions  of
\narticle 29 (2) in Part III of the Constitution is void under
\narticle\t 13.  The result, therefore, is that  these  appeals
\nstand dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellant: P.A. Mehta.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the respondents: M.S.K. Sastri,
\n534<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam … on 9 April, 1951 Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 226, 1951 SCR 525 Author: S R Das Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj), Fazal Ali, Saiyid, Sastri, M. Patanjali, Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K. & Das, S. R. Bose, Vivian PETITIONER: THE STATE OF MADRAS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-125817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam ... on 9 April, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam ... on 9 April, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1951-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-30T05:35:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam … on 9 April, 1951\",\"datePublished\":\"1951-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-30T05:35:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951\"},\"wordCount\":2603,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951\",\"name\":\"The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam ... on 9 April, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1951-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-30T05:35:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam … on 9 April, 1951\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam ... on 9 April, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam ... on 9 April, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1951-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-30T05:35:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam … on 9 April, 1951","datePublished":"1951-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-30T05:35:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951"},"wordCount":2603,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951","name":"The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam ... on 9 April, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1951-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-30T05:35:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madras-vs-srimathi-champakam-on-9-april-1951#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Madras vs Srimathi Champakam … on 9 April, 1951"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125817","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=125817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125817\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}