Relation between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights The directive

principles differ from fundamental rights in the following aspects:

(1) Fundamental Rights are justiciable,

directives, non-justiciable.

According to Article 37, Directive Principles, though they are fundamental in the
governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles
in making law, are expressly made non-justiciable.

The fundamental rights are enforceable by the courts. and the courts are bound to
declare as void any law that is inconsistent with any of the fundamental rights. The
Directive Principles on the other hand, are not so enforceable by the courts, nor can
the courts declare as void any law which is otherwise void on the ground that it
contravenes any of the directives.

For instance, if a person is illegally detained, a writ of habeas corpus can be obtained
by the detenue. But, if the Government does not separate judiciary from the executive
or introduce free and compulsory education the courts cannot help the aggrieved.

In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan," it was observed that in case of any

conflict between fundamental rights and Directive Principles, fundamental rights shall
prevail. But a year later, when the court dealt with Zamindari Abolition cases its
attitude was considerably modified.

In the State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, the Court relied on Article 39 in deciding
that a certain Zamindari Abolition Act had been passed for a public purpose within the
meaning of Article 31. Finally, in Re Kerala Education Bill, the Supreme Court
observed that though the directive principle cannot override the fundamental rights,
nevertheless in determining the scope and ambit of fundamental rights the court may
not entirely ignore the directive principles but should adopt "the principles of
harmonious construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as
possible".

Likewise, states should make cattle protection laws prohibiting slaughter of cows and
calves and other cattle have been upheld because they are meant to give effect to
Article 48 of the Constitution. Again, Article 44 has been referred to in upholding
validity of the Excise Rules empowering the Central Government to grant exemption
from payment of duty to small co-operative societies of weavers producing cotton
fabrics on powerlooms.

While Part III contains negative injunctions to the State not to do various things. Part
IV contains positive commands to the State to promote what may be called a social
and welfare State.
Though these directives are not enforceable by the courts, yet these principles have
been declared to be fundamental in the governance of the country.

It is the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. If any Government
ignores them they will certainly have to answer for them before the electorate at the
time of election. It is wrong to say that there is no sanction behind them. In this age of
democracy vigilant public opinion is the real force behind an institution which stands
for the benefit of the individual.

The Government in a parliamentary system is under a constant fire of criticism. The

actions of the Government are subject to scrutiny by the masses and the distinguished
leaders of the different parties. If the Government pursues a policy in accordance with
the principles of the Constitution, people tolerate it, otherwise they oust it in the next
elections. Since the Directive Principles have been embodied in the Constitution, the
Government is apt to implement them. They may not be the legal force behind them
but the highest tribunal-the public opinion- stands behind them. No Government can
afford to ignore these directives, if it is not keen to doom its future for all time to
come.

There is no antithesis between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles.
They are meant to supplement one another. Granville Austin has described the
fundamental rights
and the directive principles as the "conscience of our Constitution". Shelat and
Grover, JJ, in Keshvanand Bharti's case observed, "Fundamental Rights and the
Directive Principles are meant to supplement one another. It can well be said that the
directive principles prescribed the goal to be attained and the fundamental rights lay
down the means by which that goal was to be achieved.

The Directive Principles are also relevant to consider what are reasonable restrictions
under Article 19. Article 19 permits the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the
fundamental rights. A restriction which promotes any objective embodied in the
Directive Principles is usually considered reasonable by courts of law. Thus, in the
State of Bombay v. Balsara, the Supreme Court gave weight of Article 47 which
directs the State to bring about prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drinks
except for medical purposes-to support its decision that the restriction imposed by the
Bombay Prohibition Act was a reasonable restriction on the right to drink in any
profession or carry on any trade.

In Bijoy Cotton Mills v. State of Ajmer, the Supreme Court up- held the
constitutional validity of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, by taking into consideration
(Article 43).

Art. 31-C and Directives.-Art. 31-C was added to the Constitution by the Constitution
25th Amendment, 1971. This Amendment has considerably enhanced the utility of
Directive Principles. The first part of Article 31-C provides that no law which is
intended to give effect to the directive principles contained in Arts. 39 (b) and (c)
shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or
abridges any of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 or 31 (Art. 31 has been deleted
by 44th Amendment Act, 1978) of the Constitution. The second part of Art. 31-C
provided that "no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy
can be called in question on the ground that it does not in fact give effect to such
policy."

Thus, the Amendment for the first time placed the Directive Principles contained in
Article 39
(b) and (c) above fundamental rights. The validity of first part of Article 31-C has
been upheld in the Fundamental Rights case." But the second part of this Article,
which barred the judicial scrutiny of laws passed to give effect to directives contained
in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39, was declared unconstitutional. Art. 31-C was again
amended by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. The Amendment has widened the scope
of Art. 31-C so as to cover all directive principles. For this purpose, the amendment
has substituted the words, "all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV" for the
words "the principles specified in clause (b) or (c) of Article 39" in Article 31-C of the
Constitution. The amendment thus gives precedence to all the directive principles over
the fundamental rights of citizens. If a law is enacted for giving effect to any of the
directives mentioned in Part IV its validity cannot be challenged in the Courts on the
ground that it is inconsistent with or takes aways or abridges any of the rights
guaranteed by Articles 14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution. However, the Court will still
have power to examine whether the law is really intended to give effect to directives,
to achieve some other purpose.

Art. 31-C, according to the objects of the Amendment, was necessary to achieve the
"socio-economic reform" or "revolution, which would end poverty and ignorance".
On behalf of the Government it was said that this has been done in order to restore
the primacy of the Directive Principles over the Funda- mena! Rights as was
intended by the framers of the Constitution. But this assertion is wrong as it is clear
from the discussion in the Assembly
that the framers did not intend to give the Directive Principles any primacy over the
Fundamental Rights. On the other hand, they made the Fundamental Rights,
justiciable rights (Art. 13) and the Directives non-justiciable rights. (Art. 37). The
intention of the framers of the Constitution as reflected from the discussion in the
Assembly and the final draft, therefore is that both the goals of individual liberty and
social welfare should be achieved by reading them together, without silencing either
of them. No Court could possibly say, in the face of Arts. 13 and 37 that non-
justiciable rights should prevail over the justiciable rights."

Recently, in the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India (unreported) the Supreme
Court by 4 to 1 majority has struck down Art. 31C as unconstitutional on the ground
that it destroys the "basic features" of the Constitution. The Court held that Art. 31 C
is beyond the amending power of the Parliament and is void since it destroys the basic
features of the Constitution by a total exclusion of challenge to any law on the ground
that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by
Arts. 14 or 19 of the Constitution. The Court will give its reasons later on. The
decision of the Court is in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. There is no
conflict between the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights. They are
complementary to each other. It is not necessary to sacrifice either of them for the
sake of the other. As described by Gramvill Austic, the fundamental tights and the
directive principles are the "Consience of our Constitution". It can well be said that
the directive principles prescribed the goal to be attained and the fundamental rights
lay down the means by which that goal is to be achieved.

Implementation of Directives.-Guided by the Directives the Central and the State

Governments have tried to the best of their resources to implement a large number of
Directives. Under Article 39 (b) the Governments have abolished the old institution of
hereditary proprietors, such as Zamindars, Jagirdars, etc. and made the tillers of the
soil real owners of the land. This reform has, by this time, been carried out almost
completely throughout India. Side by side with this laws have been enacted in many
States for the improvement of the condition of the cultivators. In order to prevent
concentration of land holdings even in actual cultivation many States have enacted
legislation fixing a ceiling, that is to say, a maximum area of land which may be held
by an individual owner. Untouchability, the age-old curse of the Indian Society. has
not been made an offence punishable by law.
The Government has fixed minimum wages for our workers, modernised our labour
laws and improved the conditions of labour. A large number of laws have been
enacted to implement the directives contained in Article 40. Panchayats have been
established in the remotest villages of our country. They have been vested with the
powers of civil administration, such as, medical relief, maintenance of village roads,
streets, tanks and wells, provisions for primary education, sanitation and the like.
They also exercise some judicial powers. For the promotion of cottage industries the
Government has established several boards. Many States have passed laws for
compulsory education and slaughter of cows and calves in some of the States have
been prohibited. In some States such as Judiciary has been separated from the
Executive.

After the 1971 Lok Sabha mid-term poll the Congress Government came forward with
much more radical policies towards implementation of the Directive Principles. The
Constitution was amended by the 25th Amendment Act, 1971, so as to enable the
Government to implement more speedily socio-economic reforms. This Amendment
added a new article: Article 31-C to Article 31 of the Constitution. The new Article
provides that no law which is
intended to give effect to the principles contained in Articles 39-B and 39-C, shall be
deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges
any of the rights conferred by Acriteles 14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution. The validity
of the 25th Amendment Act had been upheld by the Supreme Court in the
Fundamental Rights case.

Though much has been achieved still much more is to be achieved. Political
influences and economic and social disparities still exist, the standard of living of the
people is yet to be raised. Unemployment is yet to be implemented. But with all this it
can be safely concluded that efforts of the Government of the Union and of States are
really very encouraging and substantial in the imple- mentation of these objectives.