Professional Documents
Culture Documents
And Directive Principles of State Policy: A Critical Analysis
And Directive Principles of State Policy: A Critical Analysis
Submitted To:
Ms. Indra Nath Dey
(Faculty Member, Constitutional Governance-I)
Submitted By:
Devendra Dhruw Roll No: 59, Section C, Semester III B.A. L.L.B.
(HONS.)
I hereby declare that the project work entitled “Relationship Between Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles of State Policy: A Critical Analysis” submitted to Hidayatullah National Law
University, Raipur, is a record of an original work done by me under the able guidance of Mr Indra
Nath Dey, Faculty-in-charge, Constitutional Governance-I, Hidayatullah National Law University,
Raipur.
Devendra Dhruw
Semester III
Roll No. 59
Section C
Page | 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I feel highly elated to work on the topic “Relationship Between Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles of State Policy: A Critical Analysis”. This research venture has been made
possible due to the generous co-operation of various persons. To list them all is not practicable, even
to repay them in words is beyond the domain of my lexicon.
May I observe the protocol to show my deep gratitude to the venerated Faculty Member, Ms. Indra
Nath Dey, for his kind gesture in allotting me such a wonderful and elucidating research topic. His
consistent supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of immense help in
understanding and carrying out the nuances of the project report.
Page | 2
CONTENTS
Declaration...................................................................................................................1
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................2
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 4
Research Methodology................................................................................................. 5
Conclusions................................................................................................................13
References..................................................................................................................14
Page | 3
INTRODUCTION
The justiciability of Fundamental Rights and non-justiciability 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, 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.”
Page | 4
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
To analyze and understand the concepts of Fundamental rights and DPSPs individually.
To find out the relationship between the two concepts of Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles of State Policy.
To study the tussle of the legislature and Judiciary regarding both the concepts
To study in brief some important court judgments which lead to the current situation of the
Fundamental Rights and DPSPs
To critically evaluate if Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are conflicting or complementary.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology adopted is descriptive analytical. Through my project I aim to describe
and analyze the relationship that exists between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs and also discuss the
whole development procedure which was followed to reach to the proper conclusion over
Fundamental rights and DPSPs' applicability and ambit. The sources of data in the project include -
books, websites, discussions on the topic with the subject teacher, seniors and friends.
Page | 5
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE
PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY: ABOUT
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 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 Forty-third Amendment (1977)
and Forty-fourth Amendment (1978). These amendments revoked the Forty-second Amendment's
provision that Directive Principles take precedence over Fundamental Rights and also curbed
Parliament's power to legislate against "antinational activities."
Page | 6
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.
Page | 7
TUSSLE BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND JUDICIARY
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.
Page | 8
Kerela Education Bill, 1958
In re Kerala Education Bill, SC observed
1. while affirming the primacy of fundamental rights over the directive principles, qualified the
same by pleading for a harmonious interpretation of the two.
2. that “nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of the Fundamental rights relied upon by
or on behalf of any person or body, the court may not entirely ignore these Directive Principles of
state policy laid down in part IV of the constitution but should adopt the principle of harmonious
construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as possible.”
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.”
Page | 9
Pathumma v. State of Kerala, 1978
The Supreme Court has emphasized that the purpose of the directive principles is to fix certain socio-
economic 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.
Page | 10
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v Union of India, 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.
Page | 11
4
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.
4
AIR 1976 SC 490: (1976) 2 SCC 310
Page | 12
CONCLUSION
The Directive principles and Fundamental rights are not now regarded as exclusionary of each other.
They are regarded as supplementary and complementary to each other. The directive principles
which have been declared to be “fundamental” in the governance of the country cannot be isolated
from fundamental rights. The directive principles have got to be read into the fundamental rights. An
example of such relationship is furnished by the “right to education”.
By and large this assimilative strategy has resulted in broadening, and giving greater depth and
dimension to, and even creating more rights for the people over and above the expressly stated,
fundamental rights. That biggest beneficiary of this approach has been Art 21.
At the same time, the values underlying the directive principles have also become enforceable by
riding on the back of the fundamental rights. Courts have used directive principles not to restrict, but
rather to expand, the ambit of the fundamental rights.
The theme that “fundamental rights are but a means to achieve the goal indicated in the directive
principles” and the fundamental rights must be construed in the light of the directive principles” has
been advocated by the Supreme Court time and again.
Accordingly, the directive principles are regarded as a dependable index of “public purpose”. If a
law is enacted to implement the socio-economic policy envisaged in the directive principles, then it
must be regarded as one for public purpose. Thus, in State of Bihar v. kameshwar, the supreme court
relied on Art. 39 to decide that the law to abolish zamindari had been enacted for a “public” purpose
within the meaning of Art. 31.
It may be concluded by saying that, one should try to establish harmony between fundamental rights
and Directive Principles, since maintenance of harmony between them is a basic feature to the
constitution
Page | 13
REFERENCES
Page | 14