The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Communal G.O. in 1927 making compartmental reservation of posts for various communities. Subsequently the G. O. was revised. In 1950 one Smt. Champakam Dorairajan who intended to join the Medical College, on enquiries came to know that in respect of admissions into the Government Medical College the authorities were enforcing and observing an order of the Government, namely, notification G. O. No. 1254 Education dated 17-5-1948 commonly known as Communal G. O. which restricted the number of seats in Government Colleges for certain castes. It appeared that the proportion fixed in the old Communal G. O. had been adhered to even after commencement of the Constitution on January 26, 1950. She filed a writ petition on 7th June 1950 under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the State of Madras from enforcing the said Communal G. O. on the ground that the G. O. was sought or purported to be regulated in such a manner as to infringe the violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 15(1) and 29(2). Similarly one Srinivasan who had applied for admission into the Government Engineering College at Guindy also filed a writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus for the same relief as in Champakam Dorairajan.
A Full Bench of the Madras High Court heard both the writ petitions and allowed them (vide Smt. Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 Madras 120). In this connection it may be mentioned that while the writ petition was pending before the High Court, another revised G. O. No. 2208 dated June 16, 1950 substantially reproducing the communal proportion fixed in the old Communal G. O. came into being. The State on being aggrieved by the judgment of the Madras High Court preferred an appeal before Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCR 525. A seven Judges Bench dismissed the appeal holding that “the Communal G. O. being inconsistent with the provisions of Article 29(2) in Part III of the Constitution is void under Article 13.” This judgment necessitated the introduction of a Bill called Constitution (First Amendment) Bill for overriding the decision of Supreme Court in Champakam’s case (supra).
During the Parliament Debates held on 29th May 1951 Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru, the then Prime Minister while moving the Bill to amend the Constitution stated as follows :
“We have to deal with the situation where for a variety of causes for which the present generation is not to blame, the past has the responsibility, there are groups, classes, individuals, communities, if you like, who are backward. They are backward in many ways – economically, socially, educationally – sometimes they are not backward in one of these respects and yet backward in another. The fact is therefore that if we wish to encourage them in regard to these matters, we have to do something special for them ………
Therefore one has to keep a balance between the existing fact as we find it and the objective and ideal that we aim at.”
Thereafter, the Bill was passed and clause (4) to Article 15 was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act. The object of the newly introduced clause (4) to Article 15 was to bring Articles 15 and 29 in line with Articles 16(4), 46 and 340 and to make it constitutionally valid for the State to reserve seats for backward class of citizens, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the public educational institutions as well as to make other special provisions as may be necessary for their advancement.