State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2019) |
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan | |
---|---|
Court | Supreme Court of India |
Full case name | State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan |
Citation(s) | AIR 1951 SC 226 |
Case history | |
Subsequent action(s) | Enactment of the First Amendment to the Constitution of India. |
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (
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. It was only in Minerva Mills case that a balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSP was sought.[3][4]
References
- ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 18 October 2023.
- ^ "State of Madras Vs Smt.Champakam Dorairajan". Legal Service India. Retrieved 3 May 2010.
- ^ "The State of Madras vs. Srimathi Champakam Dorair" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 15 March 2022.
- ^ "Minerva Mills Ltd. & ORS. vs. Union of India & ORS" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Retrieved 15 March 2022.