NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

SEMESTER IV
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY;
CRITICAL ANALYSIS

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED
BY
MISS KULDEEP KAUR PANKAJ SINGH
2019 BA LLB 53
CONTENTS
 Introduction ……………………………………………………….
 Objective of study…………………………………………
 Scope of Study………………………………………………
 Research of methodology…………………………………………………
 Statement of problem……………………………………………….
 Fundamental Right and Directive Principle of State Policy ………………………
 Fundamental Right and Dpsp ; The Relationship…………………………
 Purpose of Insertion Of part iii and iv ……………………………………….
 Tussle between the legislative and judiciary…………………………………
 Fundamental right and directive principle of state policy; conflicting or
complimentary………………………….
 Conclusion……………………………………………….
 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 state1. 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 2. 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.”

1
 Austin 1999, p. 50
2
 Basu 2003, p. 35
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.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This project covers Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy as two
individual concepts. The project later sees the merging of both these concepts and the
conditions that prevailed in India when the tussles over Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles of State policy took place. This project, though in brief also discusses some famous
cases which were of utmost importance in the formation of current laws and scenarios
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.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Study is limited to the discussion about the issues in regards to fundamental and directive of
state policy law. My piece of research includes a keen comprehension in Parsi law and what
major changes come in to society through his reform of Parsi law.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The researcher has analysed the laws related to the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY / law and
how far they are effective in the modern-day context. Further, the researcher has looked into
the lacunas of the law and has made certain suggestions which need to be incorporated.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF

STATE POLICY: ABOUT

The Fundamental Rights in Indian constitution acts as a guarantee that all Indian  states and
territories3 of India 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 4.
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
Duties5" 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."

3
 "Panchayati Raj in India". Poorest Areas Civil Society. Archived from  the original on 30 July 2007.
Retrieved 29 June  2006.
4
 "Shah Bano legacy". p.  1. Archived from the original  on 1 September 2006. Retrieved  11
September  2006.

5
Basu, Durga Das (2003).  Shorter Constitution of India (13th ed.). Nagpur: Wadhwa & Co.
p. 1972.  ISBN  978-81-8038-206-2.
 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 Constitution6. 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

6
Introduction to the Constitution of India (15th ed.). New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India. p. 475. ISBN 81-203-
0839-5.
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.

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 Principle7 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.”

7
 "Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar". Dr. Ambedkar Foundation. Archived from  the original on 5 May 2006.
Retrieved 29 June  2006.
 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.

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.”
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, 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, 1973

SC observed:

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 Thomas, 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 Kerala,

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.”

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp.,

1985 The Supreme Court has argued in Olga Tellis that since the directive principles are
fundamental in the governance of the country they must, therefore, be regarded as equally
fundamental to the understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of
fundamental rights.

Unnikrishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 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, 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.8”

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 Nath9.

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, JJ 10 .,
observed: “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.” 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.”

8
In re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956: 1959 SCR 995
9
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643
10
AIR 1973 SC 1461 at 1641: (1973) 4 SCC 225
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

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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. http://www.facts-about- india.com/fundamental-rights- in-India.php

2.http://www.importantindia.com/2041/fundamental-rights-and-directive-principles-of-
statepolicy/

3.http://www.vajiramandravi.in/conflict-between-fundamental-rights-and-
directiveprinciples.html

4. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2478587

5.http://www.gktoday.in/conflict-between-fundamental-rights-and-directive-principles-of-
statepolicy/

6.https://abhijeetgautam.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/inter-relationship-between- fundamental
rights-and-directive-principles/

7.http://www.iupindia.in/1401/Law%20Review/Evolution_of_the_Relationship.html

8. http://www.grkarelawlibrary.yolasite.com/resources/LLM-Const-1-Queency.pdf