DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE
PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
Constitutional Law – I

ABSTRACT
Kaushik Nanduri
INTRODUCTION

The justifiability of Fundamental Rights and non-justifiability of Directive Principles on the one
hand and the moral obligation of State to implement Directive Principles (Article 37) on the
other hand have led to a conflict between the two since the commencement of the Constitution.
In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict
between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. It
declared that the Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the
Fundamental Rights. But, it also held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the
Parliament by enacting constitutional amendments acts. As a result, the Parliament made the
First Amendment Act (1951), the Fourth Amendment Act and the Seventeenth Amendment Act
to implement some of the Directives. The above situation underwent a major change in 1967
following the Supreme Court's judgement in the Golaknath case (1967). Whenever conflicts arise
between fundamental rights and directive principles, fundamental rights prevail over the
directive principles because, in terms of Arts. 32 and 226, fundamental rights are enforceable by
the courts. If a law is in conflict with a fundamental right, it is declared void by the Supreme
Court. But no law can be declared void on the ground that it is violative of a directive principle.
In 1951, in Champakam Dorairajan vs. The State of Madras 1, the Supreme Court held “The
chapter on Fundamental Rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any legislative or
executive act. The Directive Principles of State Policy have to conform and are subsidiary to the
chapter on Fundamental Rights.”

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

The Fundamental Rights in Indian constitution acts as a guarantee that all Indian citizens can
and will live their lives in peace as long as they live in Indian democracy. They include
individual rights common to most liberal democracies, such as equality before the law, freedom
of speech and expression, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, freedom of religion,
and the right to constitutional remedies for the protection of civil right. An important feature of

1
SC 28 1951
the constitution is the Directive Principles of State Policy. Although the Directive Principles are
asserted to be "fundamental in the governance of the country," they are not legally enforceable.
Instead, they are guidelines for creating a social order characterized by social, economic, and
political justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity as enunciated in the constitution's preamble. The
Forty-second Amendment, which came into force in January 1977, attempted to raise the status
of the Directive Principles by stating that no law implementing any of the Directive Principles
could be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated any of the Fundamental Rights.
The amendment simultaneously stated that laws prohibiting "antinational activities” or the
formation of “antinational associations” could not be invalidated because they infringed on any
of the Fundamental Rights. It added a new section to the constitution on "Fundamental Duties"
that enjoined citizens "to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among all the
people of India, transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities." However,
the amendment reflected a new emphasis in governing circles on order and discipline to
counteract what some leaders had come to perceive as the excessively freewheeling style of
Indian democracy. After the March 1977 general election ended the control of the Congress
(Congress (R) from 1969) over the executive and legislature for the first time since independence
in 1947, the new Janata - dominated Parliament passed the Fortythird Amendment (1977) and
Forty-fourth Amendment (1978). These amendments revoked the Fortysecond Amendment's
provision that Directive Principles take precedence over Fundamental Rights and also curbed
Parliament's power to legislate against "antinational activities."

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DPSP: THE RELATIONSHIP

The important question is where there is a conflict between the fundamental rights and directive
principles, which should prevail? The Fundamental Rights are the rights of the individual
citizens guaranteed by the Constitution. The directive principles lay down various tenets of a
welfare state. The conflict arises when the State needs to implement a directive principle and it
infringes/ abridges the fundamental rights of the citizens. The chapters on the fundamental rights
& DPSP were added in order of part III and part IV of the constitution. The Fundamental rights
are justifiable and guaranteed by the constitution. The Directive principles were directives to the
state and government machinery. But they are not enforceable, by the law.
PURPOSE OF INSERTION OF PART III AND PART IV

The framers of the Indian constitution were aware that there were other constitutions which had
given expression to certain ideals as the goal towards which the country should strive and which
had defined the principles considered fundamental to the governance of the country. They were
aware of the event that had culminated in the charter of United Nations. Universal declaration of
Human rights had been adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, for India was a
signatory to it. It contained a basic and fundamental rights appertaining to all men. These rights
were born of the philosophical speculation of the Greek and Roman stoics and nurture by the
jurists of ancient Rome. These rights had found expression in a limited form in the accords of
1188 entered into between King Alfonso IX and the Cortes of Leon, the Magna Carta of 1215
and the guarantees which King Andrew II of Hungary was forced to give by his Golden bull of
1822. The French National Assembly also included the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of
the Citizen”. The first ten amendments to the constitution of the United States of America
contained certain rights akin to Human rights. Constitution of Eire, Japan also contained similar
rights and Directive principles. Section 8 of the article 1 of the U.S constitution contained a
Welfare clause empowering the federal Government to enact laws for the overall general welfare
of the people. U.S.A, the U.K and Germany had passed social welfare legislation. The framers of
the Indian constitution, therefore, headed the constitution of India with a preamble which
declared India’s goal and inserted parts III and IV in the constitution.

The question of relationship between the Directive Principles and the Fundamental rights has
caused some difficulty, and the judicial attitude has undergone transformation on this question
over time. Initially, the courts adopted a strict and literal legal position in this respect. The
Supreme Court adopting the literal interpretative approach to Art. 37 ruled that a Directive
Principle could not override a Fundamental right, and that in case of conflict between the two,
the Fundamental right would prevail over the Directive Principle.

Champakam Dorairajan case, 1951 The Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Champakam
Dorairajan, stated—-
1. The Directive Principles should conform, and run as subsidiary, to the Fundamental rights.

2. “The Directive Principles of the state policy, which by Art. 37 are expressly made
unenforceable by a court 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.

3. The chapter on fundamental rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any
legislative or executive act or order, except to the extent provided in the appropriate article in
part III.

4. The Directive Principles of state policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the
chapter on Fundamental rights.”

DOCTRINE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

The Supreme Court started giving a good deal of value to the Directive principles from a legal
point of view and started arguing for harmonizing the two the Fundamental rights and Directive
Principles. “Where two judicial choices are available, the construction in conformity with the
social philosophy” of the Directive Principles has preference. The courts therefore could
interpret a statute so as to implement Directive Principles instead of reducing them to mere
theoretical ideas. This is on the assumptions that the law makers are not completely unmindful or
obvious of the Directive Principles. Further the courts also adopted the view that in determining
the scope and ambit of Fundamental Rights, the Directive Principles should not be completely
ignored and that the courts should adopt the principles of harmonious construction and attempt to
give effect to both as far as possible.

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab 2, 1967 The Supreme Court there emphasized that the
fundamental rights and directive principles formed an “integrated scheme” which was elastic
enough to respond to the changing needs of the society. Kesavanand Bharti v State of Kerala 3,
1973 SC observed:

2
AIR 1967 SC 1643
3
AIR 1973 SC 1461
1. “the fundamental rights and directive principles constitute the “conscience of the constitution”
there is no antithesis between the fundamental rights and directive principles and one
supplements the other.”

2. “both parts III (fundamental rights) and IV (directive principle) have to be balanced and a
harmonized. State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas4, 1976 The Supreme Court said that the Directive
Principles and Fundamental rights should be construed in harmony with each other and every
attempt should be made by the court to resolve any apparent in consistency between them.

Pathumma v. State of Kerala5, 1978 The Supreme Court has emphasized that the purpose of the
directive principles is to fix certain socioeconomic goals for immediate attainment by bringing
about a non-violent social revolution. The constitution aims at bringing about synthesis between
Fundamental rights and the Directive principles.

Minerva Mills v UOI, 1980 SC observed:

1. that the fundamental rights “are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end.” The
end is specified in the directive principles.

2. Fundamental rights and directive principles together “constitute the core of commitment to
social revolution and they, together, are the conscience of the constitution.” The Indian
constitution is founded on the bedrock of “balance” between the two.

3. “To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the constitution.
This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential
feature of the basic structure of the constitution.”

4. the goals set out in directive principles are to be achieved without abrogating the fundamental
rights.

5. “It is in this sense” that fundamental rights and directive principles “together constitute the
core of our constitution and combine to form its conscience. Anything that destroys the balance
between the two parts will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of our
constitution.”
4
AIR 1976 SC 490
5
AIR 1978 SC 56
Unnikrishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh6, 1993 SC said:

1. that the fundamental rights and directive principles are supplementary and complimentary to
each other, and not exclusionary of each other, and

2. that the fundamental rights are but a means to achieve the goal indicate in the directive
principles, that “fundamental rights must be construed in the light of the directive principles.”
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v Union of India 7, 2008 Recently, in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v Union
of India SC observed that no distinction can be made between the two sets of rights. The
Fundamental right represents the civil and political rights and the directive principles embody
social and economic rights. Merely because the directive principles are non-justiciable by the
judicial process does not mean that they are of subordinate importance.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY:

CONFLICTING OR COMPLIMENTARY

Without, therefore, making the directive principles justifiable as such, the courts began to
implement the values underlying these principles to the extent possible. The Supreme Court
began to assert that there is “no conflict on the whole” between the fundamental rights and the
directive principles. ‘They are complementary and supplementary to each other.”

1 Since then, the judicial attitude has become more positive and affirmative towards directive
principles, and both fundamental rights and directive principles have come to be regarded as co-
equal. There is in effect a judicial tendency to interpret Fundamental rights in the light of, and so
as to promote, the values underlying Directive Principles. This aspect of the directive principles
was stressed upon by the Supreme Court in Golak Nath.

2 The Supreme Court there emphasized that the fundamental rights and directive principles
formed an “integrated scheme” which was elastic enough to respond to the changing needs of the
society.

In Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, HEGDE and MUKHERJI, JJ3 ., observed: “the
fundamental rights and directive principles constitute the “conscience of the constitution” there is

6
AIR 1993 SC 84
7
AIR 2008 SC 112
no antithesis between the fundamental rights and directive principles and one supplements the
other.” SHELAT and GROVER, JJ., observed in their judgment: “both parts III (fundamental
rights) and IV (directive principle) have to be balanced and a harmonized then alone the dignity
of the individual can be achieved they were meant to supplement each other.”

The Supreme Court said in State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas , that the Directive Principles and
Fundamental rights should be construed in harmony with each other and every attempt should be
made by the court to resolve any apparent in consistency between them.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this project aims to study the relationship between the Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles of State Policy as per the Constitution of India with help of various cases as
mentioned as well as articles and papers from peer reviewed journals. In this manner, the
researcher hopes to bring out the scope, significance and relationship between the Fundamental
Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.