Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy

The Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution starting from Article 12 to Article 35,
whereas the Directive Principles of State Policy or the (herein referred to as DPSP) are encompassed in Part IV of
the Constitution of India from Article 35-51. Both the Directive Principles along the Fundamental Rights
comprise the philosophy of the Constitution.

Fundamental Rights
Fundamental rights are known as “basic rights” as without which a human being cannot survive in
dignified manner in a civilized society. These rights are justifiable in nature so one can go to Courts if
one’s right was violated or infringed.
Why it is called fundamental rights:
1. Firstly, these rights are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution of the Country which is the
fundamental law of the land.

2. Secondly, they become fundamental in the sense that they are most essential for the all-round material,
intellectual, moral, and spiritual development of an Individual.

Fundamental rights are enshrined in Part III of Indian Constitution from Article 12-35. Six Fundamental
rights are as follows:
i) Right to equality (Article 14-18)
(ii) Right to freedom (Article 19-22)
(iii) Right to freedom of religion (Article 23-24)
(iv) Right against exploitation (Article 25-28)
(v) Cultural and educational rights (Article 29-30)
(vi) Rights to constitutional remedies (Article 31-32)
Directive Principles of State Policy
Part-IV of the constitution deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy. They are considered as
positive rights as they impose positive obligations on the state. They are non-justifiable in nature yet
they are important to provide guidelines to Legislature to formulate a policy. DPSP helps the State to
attain its Socio-economical goals.
Article 36-51 of the Indian Constitution entails DPSP. Some of them are of current topics of debate in
the Parliament.
These Directives are often classified into three broad categories:

Socialistic Principles – For e.g. Article 38, to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order
permeated by justice .

Gandhian Principles –Article 40 to organize village panchayats and endow them with necessary powers and
authority to enable them function as units of self – government. This is known as Gandhian Principles.

Liberal–Intellectual Principles– Article 50 which further imposes an obligation upon the state to separate
judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.

Some the DPSP are as follows:

 Right to work
 Uniform Civil Code
  Right to education
 Maternity benefit
Difference between Fundamental Rights and DPSP:
Both the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Rights appear as constitutionally
distinct but when we trace back their historical origin, we find that both had originated from a
common origin.

Fundamental Rights DPSP 

They are enumerated in Part III of the They are enumerated in Part IV of the Indian
Indian Constitution. Constitution.

Covered under Articles 12 to 35  Covered under Articles 36 to 51 .

Borrowed from US Constitution (Bill of

Borrowed from the Irish Constitution.
Rights)

They are justifiable in nature i.e.; they are

They are non-justifiable in nature i.e.; they
legally enforceable in the court of law in
are not legally enforceable in the court of law.
case of their violation.

They promote the ideal of political They promote the ideal of social and
democracy. economic democracy.

They promote the welfare of the

They promote the welfare of the community.
individual.

Almost all Fundamental Rights, excluding

few like Right to Education etc, do not DPSP’s require legislation for their
require any legislation for their implementation. They are not automatically
implementation. They are automatically enforced.
enforced.

These are negative as they restrict the These are positive as they require the State to

power of the state.  take certain steps.

The courts cannot declare a law violative of

any of the Directive Principles as
Judiciary can declare a law
unconstitutional and invalid.
as unconstitutional and invalid if
it violates the Fundamental Rights. However, they can uphold the validity
of a law on the ground that it was enacted to
give effect to a directive
Fundamental Rights can be suspended
only in case of Emergency except Articles Directive Principles of State Policy can never
20 and 21 that cannot be suspended even be suspended, even during an emergency.
during an emergency.
Relation between Fundamental Rights and DPSP:

Instead of having certain distinctions, Constitution Framers always talked about the coherence between
Fundamental Rights and DPSP.

1. Dr. B.N. Rau, who was the chief sponsorer of these principles and who anticipated this conflict, felt that
harmonious construction and compromise on the part of Judiciary would in future resolve this conflict.
 2. Dr B.R. Ambedkar was also of same view as Dr. Rau suggested and said that “It is the intention of the
Assembly that in future both the Legislature and the Executive should be made the basis of the
Legislation and Executive action that may be taken hereafter in the matter of governance of the
Country”.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati defines inter relation between Fundamental Rights and DPSP as “It is not possible to fit
Fundamental Rights and DPSP in two different and strictly defined categories”.

We can safely presumed from the above observations given by Constitution Framers that Fundamental Rights
and DPSP are interrelated to each other.

The judicial interpretation on the relation between Fundamental Rights and DPSP through certain leading
case laws.

 In State of Bihar v.Kameshwar Singh3, the Apex Court relied on Article 39(b) and held that certain
Zamidari Abolition Laws had been passed for a Public purpose within the meaning of Article 13(2).
Directive Principles were not merely the policy of any particular party but were intended to be
principles fixed by the Constitution for directing the State Policy.

 In Mohd Hanif Quereshi v. State of Bihar4, petitioner argued that he was prevented from doing his
occupation which is butchering of animals which include cow also and said that it lead to violation of
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Then Supreme court rely on Article 48 of Indian constitution and
held that preventing cows from butchering does lead to the violation of petitioner’s right and observed
two important things ;

(a) the State should take note of the Directive Principles in determining the scope of Fundamental Rights

(b) adopting the doctrine of harmonious construction.

Court should give effect to both the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles.

Principle of harmonious construction:

In Kerala Education Bill, 19575 the Apex court while affirming the primacy of fundamental rights over the
directive principles, it held that 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 give effect
to both as much as possible. The Supreme Court began to

Landmark Judgement

1. In the case of State of Madras v. Champak Dorairajan, it was held by the court that “the
Directive Principles of the State Policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the chapter
of Fundamental Rights”, According to the court, since Fundamental Rights are justifiable and
enforceable rights, the directive Principles are not. The laws to implement Directive Principles
could not take away Fundamental Rights. The Directive Principles should run subsidiary and
conform to the Fundamental Rights.
2. In the case of Keshvananda Bharti v. Union of India, it was held by the court that both the
fundamental rights and directive principle are suppose to supplement on another in every case.
Both are considered to be an important but directive principles are not directly enforceable in
nature.
3. In the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India, it was held by the court that Article 31-C which
was amended by the 42nd Amendment and was held constitutional on the ground that it
destroys the basic features relating to the constitution. Most of the element of the constitution
has been taken by the part III and Part IV.