Consti Final

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of state Policy: A comparative study
Institute of Law
Nirma University
B.Com, LL.B. (Hons.)

III Semester (2012)
Contract -I
Title
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

of state Policy: A comparative study
Submitted To: Submitted By:

Mr. Hardik Pareek Nehpal singh
Asst. Professor 11bbl111
Page 1 of 29
Table of contents
Acknowledgement...................................................................................................................3
Certificate.................................................................................................................................4
Declaration…………………………………………………………………...........................5
Introduction to research problem and hypothesis....................................................................6
 Research problem
 Objective of the study
 Hypothesis
 Research methodology
 Scope of the research
1. General Introduction........................................................................................................8
2. Fundamental Rights
2.1. Origin & Development.....................................................................................................9
2.2. Fundamental rights in India.............................................................................................11
2.3. Why guaranteed rights ?...................................................................................................11
3. Directive principles of state policy
3.1. Meaning.............................................................................................................................12
3.2. Classification of the Directive Principles..........................................................................12
3.3 Object and purpose behind the directive principles...........................................................14

3.4. Nature of Directive Principles...........................................................................................14
3.5 Enforcement of Directive Principles – Role of Judiciary..................................................15
4. Relationship between part III and part IV of the constitution………………………..16
5. Distinction between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy…...22
6. Conclusion and Finding……………………………….……………………….……....25

7.References…………………………………………………………………………......26
Page 2 of 29
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A project report usually falls short of its expectations unless and

until it is guided by the right person at the right time. I have been guided by a number
of persons throughout the span of this research project. There are number of hands in
making this project fruitful and worthy.
First of all, I would like to acknowledge my subject coordinator Mr. Hardik

Pareek who handed me the authority to carry on the research project on a worth research
doing topic i.e Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of state Policy: A
comparative study and provided me with valuable suggestions and guidelines at every level
to make the project a valuable one and worthy. Further, I would like to acknowledge my
friends who all supported me and guided me to carry out the research in a well mannered
way.
Name & signature
Nehpal Singh (11bbl111
Page 3 of 29
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Nehpal Singh (11bbl111) is a student of IIIrd Semester

pursuing B.Com, LL.B (hons.), from Nirma University and the research areas
mentioned in the index have been performed by him with full sincerity and
dedication under my guidance and support.
DATE: 06.10.2012 Submitted To:

Mr. Hardik Pareek
Page 4 of 29
Declaration
I, Nehpal Singh (11BBL111), of Institute of Law, Nirma University, Semester III,

B.Com, L.L.B. (Hons.) declares that this project is a work of my own and whichever work
has been referred has been duly cited.
Page 5 of 29
Name & signature
Nehpal Singh (11bbl111)
Introduction to research problem and hypothesis
RESEARCH PROBLEM
The researcher aims at finding out the relationship between fundamental rights and directive
principles of state policy.
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

 To study the relationship and differences between Part III and Part IV of the
Indian constitution.
 To analyze of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State policy
with the help of case laws.
HYPOTHESIS
 Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy given and explained in
part III and part IV of Indian Constitution focus on interests of individuals and
welfare of state. Directive Principles cannot override Fundamental Rights and if in
case of any conflict between part III and part IV, part III would prevail.
Page 6 of 29
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The quality and value of research depends upon the proper and particular
methodology adopted for completion of research work. Looking at the vastness of the
research topic Doctrinal legal research methodology has been adopted. To make an
authenticated study of the research topic ‘An exploratory study of fundamental rights and
directive principles of state policy ’and enormous amount of study material is required .
The relevant information and data necessary for its completion has been gathered
from books, websites , newspapers etc.
SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

The research work deals with part III and IV of the Indian Constitution and aims to find out
conceptual relationship and differences between part III and part IV of the Indian
Constitution in the background of various cases.
Page 7 of 29
Chapter-1
1. General Introduction
An individual to lead a life requires some rights. Rights have been described as those claims
of an individual that are necessary for the development of oneself. The rights recognized by
state and provided in the constitution of India are called Fundamental Rights. These are the
rights of the individual that are enforceable through the court of law and are defined in part
III of constitution. The framers of the Indian constitution followed the American model in
adopting and incorporating Fundamental Rights for the people of India, these rights can be
divided in six categories as follows:
1. Right to equality (article 14 to 18)

2. Right to freedom (article 19 to 22)
3. Right against exploitation ( article 23 to 24)
4. Right to freedom of religion (article 25 to 28)
5. Cultural and educational rights (article 29 to 30)
6. Right to constitutional Remedies
Directive principles of state policy are included in part IV (article 36 to 51) of the Indian
constitution. The constitution makers were inspired to include Directive principles of state
policy in the constitution from the constitution of Ireland. The main objective of including
such a provision was to lay down certain principles for the guidance of the government.
While formulating their polices the government is expected to form according to these
polices. These principles are not enforceable by the courts. The Directive Principles also urge
the nation to develop a uniform civil code and offer free legal aid to all citizens. They urge
measures to maintain the separation of the judiciary from the executive and direct the
government to organize village panchayats to function as units of self-government. These
provisions, contained in Part IV of the Constitution of India, are not enforceable by any court,
but the principles laid down therein are considered fundamental in the governance of the
country, making it the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws to establish
a just society in the country. Directive Principles are classified under the following
Page 8 of 29
categories: Gandhian, economic and socialistic, political and administrative, justice and legal,
environmental, protection of monuments and peace and security.
2. Fundamental rights
2.1. Origin & Development
Part III of the constitution of India, titled as “fundamental right” secures to the people of
India, certain basic, natural and inalienable rights. These rights have been declared essential
rights in order that “human liberty may be preserved, Human personality developed and an
effective social and democratic life promoted.
Bhagwati. J in the case of Menaka Gandhi v/s Union of India 1 held that these fundamental
rights represent and basic value cherished by the people of this country since the Vedic times
and they are calculated to protect the dignity of the individual and create conditions in which
every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent. They weave a “pattern
of guarantees on the basic structure of human rights”, and impose negative obligations on the
state not to encroach on individual liberty in its various dimensions.
The aim behind having a declaration of fundamental rights is to make inviolable certain
elementary rights appertaining to the individual and to keep them unaffected by the shifting
majorities in the legislatures. It is to preserve certain basic human rights against interference
the state.
These rights are basic to a democratic polity. The object is not only, to ensure the
inviolability of certain essential rights against political vicissitudes, but also to impress upon
the people the fact of their having reached a new level of national existence. 2 The guarantee
of certain basic human rights is an indispensable requirement of a free society. The purpose is
to preserve, for the benefit of the people, their fundamental rights against infringement by the
institutions created by the constitution.
1
AIR 1978 SC 597
2
Bakshi P.M., The Constitution of India, 9th Edn. 2009 New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 of 29
The origin of the concept of fundamental rights may be traced to the 13th century England. It
was in 1215 that the people of England revolted against King John at Ranneymade and
enforced their demand for reiteration of their claims against the Royal Absolutism. 3 They, for
the first time, seceded in extraction assurances, from the King, for respect of their ancient
liberties. The King was made to acknowledge that there were certain rights of the subject
which could not be violated even by a sovereign in whom all power was legally vested. The
Magna Carta, 1215, which evidenced people’s success, was a written document. It enjoined
“respect for the law by the king; for bade denial of or delayed justice; prohibited unlawful
detention and excessive fines. In 1628, the petition of rights was presented to King Charles I,
which was the first step in the transfer of sovereignty from the King to parliament. 4 It was
passed as the bill of rights, 1689, which dealt with rights and liberties of the British people.
In England the concept of “Rule of Law” forms the very bed-rock of British constitution,
“Rule of Law” explains that an individual in England has the right and freedom to take
whatever action he likes, so long as he does not violate any rule of the ordinary law of the
land. The rights of the individual are secured by the ordinary law there. The proclamations of
certain rights of the people, made from time to time, in the form of charters such as Magna
Carta 1215, and the Bill of rights, 1689 are therefore, merely declaratory. 5 These charters are
binding on the executive but impose no limitation on the power of parliament. The protection
of the rights and freedoms of the individual in England therefore, rests not on constitutional
guarantees, but on public opinion good sense of the people, strong common law traditions
and the sagacity of parliament itself.
The American adopted the constitution making for securing their bill of rights. The original
constitution framed in 1787 and brought into force in 1789, did not contain any fundamental
rights for Americans.6 It was met with serious condemnation. Consequently, the first ten
amendments were enacted in 1791, incorporating the fundamental rights. These amendments
have been described as the American “Bill of Rights” the rights are binding on the executive
as well as the legislature. 7The courts of America therefore are competent to declare, an act of
the congress as unconstitutional, on the ground of violation of any provision of their bill of
rights.
3
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Meaning-of-Fundamental-Rights-24368.asp
4
www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm
5
www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm
6
www.history.com/topics/constitution
7
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights
Page 10 of 29
2.2. Fundamental rights in India
The framers of the Indian constitution followed the American model in adopting and
incorporating the fundaments rights for the people of India. The constitution, not only secures
the fundamental rights, but also, provides a speedy and effective remedy for their
enforcement.
In the preamble to the constitution, wherein the people of India solemnly resolved to
constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic and to secure to
themselves justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. They have been said to be the very
foundation and the corner-stone of the democratic way of life ushered in this country by the
constitution. These rights have been declared as sacrosanct, inalienable and inviolable. 8 The
minorities regard these rights as the bedrock of their political existence, while the majorities
consider them as guarantee for their way of life. A significant feature of the Indian Bill of
Rights is that the remedy for the enforcement of the fundamental rights is itself declared a
fundamental right and is included in the very chapter on fundamental rights. An act of the
state whether legislative or executive, if inconsistent with a fundamental rights is declared to
be null and void the nullity of such an act does not rest upon judicial pronouncement but
upon the express provision contained in Article 13.
2.3. Why guaranteed rights?
The very purpose to withdraw certain subjects from the changing pattern of political
controversy, to place them beyond the reach of a majority in a legislature and officials in the
government and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. 9 For, if the
danger of personal rule by despotic rulers has more or less disappeared as a result of
representative institutions coming into their own, that from legislative interference has
8
Dr. Pandey J.N. “The Constitutional Law of India”49th edition Publish in 2012 Central law agency
9
Jain M.P., Indian constitutional Law, 10th edition ( Lexis Nexis ,Wadhwa publication Nagpur )
Page 11 of 29
correspondingly increased because of the high handed manner in which majorities might
manage affairs in legislature. A dominant group of legislators could pass any discriminatory
or unjust legislation and prejudice the interests of considerable section of the people. 10 This
meant in reality the substitution of one kind of tyranny by another replacement of personal
rule of the monarch by the tyranny; of the legislative majority. One’s right to life, liberty and
property, to free speech and free expression, freedom of worship and assembly and other
fundamental rights are not subjects to be submitted to vote. They should not depend on the
outcome of elections.
When legislatures were prohibited from encroaching upon certain rights through
constitutional safeguards, the protection of these rights was achieved against the arbitrary
conduct of both the executive and the legislature. 11 When and independent judiciary was
made the guardian of these rights was completely and enjoyment of these rights by all
irrespective of wealth or social status, race or religious belief, was fully ensured. Herein lays
the importance of fundamental rights. The United States has led many countries in this
respect. Today, the idea of a list of a list of written rights as an integral part of new
constitution has been generally adopted. Even the British do not seriously contest the wisdom
of this arrangement and are prepared to concede is value at least to a limited extent.
10
Basu D.D , Introduction to the Constitution of India, New Delhi 2002, Wadwa and co. Law publishers.
11
Sukla V.N. 11th edition by Mahendra P. Singh, , New Delhi 2006 Eastern book co.
Page 12 of 29
3. Directive principles of state policy
3.1. Meaning
Directive Principles of State Policy are in the form of instructions/guidelines to the

governments at the centre as well as states. Though these principles are non-justifiable, they
are fundamental in the governance of the country. The idea of Directive Principles of State
Policy has been taken from the Irish Republic. They were incorporated in our Constitution in
order to provide economic justice and to avoid concentration of wealth in the hands of a few
people. Therefore, no government can afford to ignore them. They are in fact, the directives
to the future governments to incorporate them in the decisions and policies to be formulated
by them.
3.2. Classification of the Directive Principles
Directive Principles of State Policy have been grouped into four categories. These are:
(1) The economic and social principles

(2) The Gandhian principles.
(3) Principles and Policies relating to international peace and security and
(4) Miscellaneous.
(1) The economic and social Principles:
The state shall endeavour to achieve Social and Economic welfare of the people by:
(a) Providing adequate means of livelihood for both men and women.
(b) Reorganizing the economic system in a way to
(c) Securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
(d) Securing suitable employment and healthy working conditions for men, women and
Children.
(e) Guarding the children against exploitation and moral degradation.
Page 13 of 29
(f) Making effective provisions for securing the right to work, education and public
Assistance in case of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement.
(g) Making provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity
relief.
(h) Taking steps to secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings
etc.
(i) Promoting education and economic interests of working sections of the people
(j) Securing for all the workers reasonable leisure and cultural opportunities.
(k) Making efforts to raise the standard of living and public health.
(l) Providing early childhood care and education to all children until they complete the
age of 6 years.
(2) The Gandhian Principles:
There are certain principles, based on the ideals advocated by Mahatma Gandhi. These
Principles are as follows: -
(a) To organize village Panchayats.
(b) To promote cottage industries in rural areas.
(c) To prohibit intoxicating drinks and drugs that are injurious to health.
(d) To preserve and improve the breeds of the cattle and prohibit slaughter of cows,
calves and other milch and drought animals.
(3) Directive Principles of State Policy Relating To International Peace and Security:
India should render active cooperation for world peace and security and for that the state
Shall endeavour to: -
(a) Promote international peace and security.
(b) Maintain just and honourable relations between nations.
(c) Foster respect for international laws and treaty obligations.
(d) Encourage settlements of international disputes by mutual agreement.
Page 14 of 29
(4) Miscellaneous:
The Directive Principles in this category call upon the state: -
(a) To secure for all Indians a uniform civil code.
(b) To protect historical monuments.
(c) To save environment from pollution and protect wild life.
(d) To make arrangements for disbursement of free legal justice through suitable legislation.
3.3 Object and purpose behind the directive principles
The founding fathers were aware of the drawbacks; the country had been suffering from such
as poverty unemployment, lack of education, social, economic, and political backwardness.
They in order to eradicate these evils, set forth in the very preamble, the ideals and objectives
to be achieved.12 The intention of the constitution framers was to establish in India a
democracy political, economic and social. To achieve this cherished goal, the framers were
unanimous to secure to the people practically all the prevailing political social and economic
rights. These rights were broadly speaking divided into two categories.
1 Political and Civil Rights
2 Social and Economic Rights
The political and Civil rights which were in opinion, with the reach of the individual were
provisional as fundamental rights and the latter being considered beyond individual’s reach
under the prevailing circumstances, were titled as Directive Principles of State Policy.
3.4. Nature of Directive Principles
In view of the non-enforceability, the directive principles have been described by some critics
as “pious expressions” or “resolution made by the new years day”. 13To other they appear as
an “instrument of instructions”. These expressions however, betray the ignorance of the
12
Basu D.D , Introduction to the Constitution of India, New Delhi 2002, Wadwa and co. Law publishers.
13
Page 15 of 29
critics about the legal utility of the Directives. Though they are non-enforceable, the
directives are the fundamental principles of governance and all the branches of government.
The executive, the legislature and the judiciary, have to take cognizance of them. In fact, the
judiciary has followed the principle of the harmonious construction between the fundamental
rights and the Directive principles of State policy. Judiciary has also taken the help of the
Directives while interpreting the various provisions of the constitution. While dealing with
relationship between the fundamental rights and the directive principles, Chandrachud, chief
Justice of India then, stated in Minerva Mill’s case 14, “the Indian constitution is founded on
the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV 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.
The executive has also resorted to them while justifying its (executive) actions. For instance,
in the case of Champakam Doriarajan v/s State of Madras 15, while defending the communal
order, of the Madras government, the plea was taken that it was done to promote the interest
of the weaker sections of the society as per Directive Principle of the State Policy provided
in Article 46 of the constitution of India.
The parliament also referred them while justifying its legislative measure. For instance, in
cases of Shankari Prasad16 and Golaknath17, the government of India pleaded before the
Supreme Court while defending the constitution (First Amendment Act, 1957) and the
constitution (Fourth Amendment Act, 1955 respective that they were enacted to five effects
to the directive principles of the state policy. Now directive principles of the state policy are
related to political policies, economic policies educational and cultural policies and health
policies.
3.5 Enforcement of Directive Principles – Role of Judiciary
The Directive principles, as has been earlier seen, impose positive delegation on the state.
These directives are address to the state. The term state has been defined by article 36 to have
the same meaning as is given to this term in part III of the constitution relating to the
14
AIR 1980 SC 1789
15
AIR 1951 SC 226
16
1951 AIR 458 1952 SCR 89
17
1967 AIR 1643 1967 SCR (2) 762
Page 16 of 29
fundamental rights. It thus means that the term State not only includes the legislature and the
executive organs of the government, but it also include its agencies and instrumentalities.
It follows that the directive principles can be implemented by executive action, so long as
these do not contravene any law. For the same reason, the local authorities or the state
instrumentalities shall have a moral obligation to follow these directives and to act in
consonance with these directives. Since the term, state includes judiciary also; the courts or
the statutory tribunals would be equally under a duty to give effect to the directives.18
4. Relationship between part III and part IV of the Indian

constitution
The genesis and objectives underlying part III and part IV have common desideratum in
responding to the social consciousness rest with the constitution making force. 19 Which
fundamental rights focus on interests of personality, the Directives principles look on to the
welfare of society. Judicial remedies for fundamental rights and non justice able of directive
principles are the deliberate strategies of the constitution. The dichotomy between part III and
part IV and the supremacy of former over the latter a theory based on formalistic and too
textual an interpretation in Champakam Dorairajan did not last for long time.
A government order of the Madras government divided seats in colleges on the basis of
religion and caste. This was repugnant to article 29(2). But it was argued that the government
order could be supported on the basis of article 46 of the constitution which makes the state
responsible for promoting the education interests of the weaker sections of people. The
Supreme Court held that the fundamental rights under Article 29(2) over the Directive
principle under article 46. So the government order was struck down. It was held that in case
of any conflict between part III and part IV, the part III would prevail. These observations of
the court were based on the literal interpretation of the provision of article 37 which declares
18
19
Page 17 of 29
the directive principle not justifiable. A remarkable change had come over in the judicial
attitude on the question of inter relationship.
In Inre Kerala Education bill20
The Supreme Court observed “though the directive principles can not override the
fundamental rights, nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of fundamental rights
the court could not entirely ignore the directive principle but should adopt the principle of
harmonious construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as 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.
In Chandrabhavan and Kesavananda Bharati21 cases inaugurated a new era of integrationist

approach which could emphasis the under pinning of interrelated value of part III and part IV,
Kesavananda Bharati’s case stood for penetration of the notion of distributive justice
under Article39(b) and (c) into the property relations by upholding the constitutionality
of Article 31c. the legislative contributions through agrarian and economic reforms, labor
welfare and other social justice statutes have by focusing on social welfare, ultimately
enhanced the worth of fundamental rights. Judicial review, by removing unreasonable
provisions monitored this process. In practice, the interconnections of rights are more
sensitized when the government takes the directive principles of state policy seriously.
In Minerva Mills Limited v/s Union of India22
The court observed that the constitution was founded on the bed-rock of balance between part
III and part IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other was to disturb the harmony of
the constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and the directive
principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution. Both the
fundamental and directive principles of the state policy are embodying the philosophy of our
constitution, the philosophy of justice social economic and political. They are the two wheels
of the chariot as an aid to make social and economic democracy a truism.
20
http://www.indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=kerala%20education%20bill access on 2/10/2012
21
( 1973 ) 4 SCC 225
22
AIR 1980 SC 1789
Page 18 of 29
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v/s Union of India23
The approach of sticking to strict legalism in the implementation of laws enforcing directive
principles, which in turn promote fundamental rights, has increased the role of directive
principles in the inter-relationship doctrine.
The integrative approach towards fundamental rights and directive principles or that the both
should be interpreted and read together has now come to hold the field. It has now become a
judicial strategy to read fundamental rights along with Directive principles with a view to
define the scope and the ambit of the former. Mostly, directive principles have been used to
broaden and to give depth to some fundamental rights and to imply some more rights therein
for the people over and what are expressly stated in the fundamental rights.
By reading article 21 with the directive principles, the Supreme Court has expanded the
horizon of article 21 and derived there from different rights of the citizen. Some of them are:
Right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution free water, air and environments. The court
has derived this right by reading article 21 with article 48A.
Right to health has been recognized as fundamental rights of the workers under article
21. Article 23 and 24 deal with right against exploitation. Those articles reflect the principles
of article 39c. the directive principles that the tender age of children and not abused and the
children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in
conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against
exploitation and against moral and material abandonment are supported by the post Maneka
jurisprudence of rights of children under article 21 and 24. In Asad and Salal Hydro project
cases, the Supreme Court applied article 24 along with article 21 to prohibit child labor being
influence by the above directive principles. Right to education under article 21A is to be
understood with reference to directive principles contained in article 41 and 45.
It is necessary to look into interrelationship between specific directive principles and

fundamental rights in active practice. The central theme of directive principles is human
development with distributive justice, aims at upward movement of the entire social system
by making more people better off without making others worse off. The interrelationship
23
1984 SCC (3) 161
Page 19 of 29
between the two results in greater freedom and autonomy to all people, reduction of disparity
in access to resources and opportunities and sustainability of environment. Although
directives principles is a policy, because of its importance to human rights values, its
elevation to principle has taken place through the inter-relationship, at least in core areas.
I. Directive Principles of state policy, which are related to distributive justice, molded the
property relations by influencing the inter-relationship doctrine both directly strive for
promoting justice, social, economic and political, in the social order. According to article
39(b) and (c), the state shall direct its policy towards equitable distribution of the material
resources of the community, and non-concentration of wealth and means of production to the
common detriment. Article 38(2) directs state to minimize inequalities in income and status
amongst individuals and groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different
vocations. The protection of agrarian reform legislations under Article 31(4) and (6) was a
manifestation of achieving these goals in property relations. The post Kameshwar Singh
development of incorporating articles 31A and 31B into the constitution was for promoting
the policy of distributive justice. This meant the philosophy underlying article 39b and (c) in
the sphere of property relations became established after the incorporation of article 31c. This
provision immunizes the laws providing for implementation of Directive principles enshrined
in Article 39(b) and (c) from any challenges based on articles 14, 19 and 31.
It was in 1971 that the first step was taken to provide supremacy for directive principles in
the form of article 31c which was added to the constitution by the constitution twenty fifth
amendments Act, 1971
The effect of the insertion of articles 31c was to provide supremacy for directive principles
contained in articles and 39(c) over fundamental rights contained in articles 14, 19 and 31. It
enhanced the utility of directive principles which had stood the testimony of the Supreme
Court in
Kesavananda Bharti v/s State of Kerala24
The Court observed: In building up a just and social order it is sometimes imperative that the
fundamental rights shared be subordinated to directive principles, economic goals have no
uncontestable claims for priority over ideological ones on the ground that excellence comes
24
1973 ) 4 SCC 225
Page 20 of 29
only after existence. It is only if men exist that there can be fundamental rights.
To further widen the scope of the Directive principles, the constitution (42nd Amendment)
Act 1976, amended article 31c for providing supremacy for all the directive principles. The
effect of amendment was to give overriding effect to directive principles and to make them
immune from being declared as violative of the rights guaranteed by articles 14, 19 & 31.
However, the change incorporated by 42nd Amendment was struck down by the Supreme
Court in
Minerva Mills Ltd v/s UOI25
The Court thus restored Article 31c to its original State as inserted by Twenty fifth
amendments, 1971.
It thus follows that the Directive principles contained articles 39(b) and 39(c) shall have
supremacy on the fundamental rights contained in articles 14 & 19.
II. The inter-relationship doctrine is very much influenced by article 39A providing for equal
justice and free legal aid the justice delivery system. According to article 39A. The state shall
secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity
and shall in particular provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other
way to ensure that opportunities for securing or other disabilities. The role of this provision
was pivotal in removing the impediment of poverty in one’s access to grievance redressed
system
26
In M.H Hoskot Hussainara Khatoon in number of public interest litigation cases, this
provision was relied upon to bring the principle of equality into effect in the system of access
to justice. In M.H. Hoskot the court held that “free legal assistance at state cost is a
fundamental right of person accused of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or
personally liberty and his fundamental rights is implicit in the requirement of reasonable fair
and just procedure prescribed by article 21.
III. The directive principles that the state shall strive to secure its citizens right to an adequate
means of livelihood and make effective provision for securing rights to work article 41
25
AIR 1980 SC 1789
26
(1978) 3 SCC 544
Page 21 of 29
provided a basis for the supreme court in olga tellis to locate right to livelihood in right to life
under article 21, at least the circumstance of deprivation of that right. The post Maneka
approach of just a fair and reasonable procedure become a handy instrument in this regard
similarly various positive rights of life like right to food, health, environment and education
were evolved by emphasizing on the relevant directive principles of state policy. It is
important to note that the language of these provisions hinted the limitation of the scope of
the positive rights also. This enabled a pragmatic approach with regard to positive rights.
IV. The directive principle that “tender age of children are not abused” and article 39(f) could
give impetus to and also get supported by the post Maneka jurisprudence of rights of children
under articles 21 and 24. In Asiad construction and Salal hydro project cases the Supreme
Court applied Article 24 in collaboration with article 21 to prohibit child labor being partly
influenced by the above directive principles. In Lakshmikanth Pandey a case concerning
transnational adoption to conform to article 14, and 21 The PIL cases relating to rights of
children under custodial detention also reflect similar approach.
V. The directive principles of “Equal pay for equal work” and “participation of workers in
management” were received through right to equality under article 14 into part III in Randhir
Singh v/s UOI and national textile workers Union v/s P.R. Ramakrishna cases, and in turn
assisted freedom of occupation under article 19(1) or right to livelihood under Article 21. In
consumer education and research centre v/s UOI by reading article 21 with articles 39(c), 41,
43 and 48A K. Ramaswamy J held for the court, “The health and strength of the worker is an
integral facet of right to life”.
VI. The directive principles relating to uniform civil code has to potentiality of using the
interrelationship doctrine for its implementation. Application of articles 14, 19, 21 in
examining the constitutionality rights or right to maintenance has shown the permeability of
these noble principles into personal laws will be compelled to conform to these standards,
and hence uniform of constitutional spirit will persuade for uniform standards. In John
Vallmattam v/s UOI where section 118 of Indian success Act 1925 which discriminated
between religious communities in the matter of allowing death bed bequests was struck down
as violative of articles 14, 15, 16 and 26. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to
effectuate the policy of uniform civil code.
Page 22 of 29
VII. Articles 46 of DPSP provides a guidance for affirmative actions under articles 15(4) and
16(4) and a pointer for resonant the tension between formal and substantive equality by
laying emphasis on infusing of strength and ability to compete, through education and
training to the weaker sections.
VIII. The directives principles that the state shall Endeavour to foster respect for international
law and treaty obligations articles 51 has a great potentiality of absorbing the international
principle relating to guarantee of human rights , and thus influence the inter-relationship
doctrine.
In Air India statutory Corporation v/s United Labor Union
it has been held that the directive principles in the constitution are forerunners of the UNO
convention on right to development as inalienable human rights and every person and all
people are entitled to participate in contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural and
political development in which all human rights, fundamental freedoms would be fully
realized. These principles are embedded as integral part of the constitution in the directive
principles. Therefore, the directive principles now stand elevated to inalienable fundamental
human rights.
5. Distinction between fundamental rights and directive principles of state

policy
Page 23 of 29
Fundamental Rights27 Directive principles of State Policy28
 Fundamental rights are  Directive principles of State policy

enforceable through courts of law. are not enforceable (non-justice
(justice able) able)
 Fundamental rights prohibit the  Directives are affirmative

state from doing certain things. instruction to the State to do
certain things.
 Civil and political rights are  Economic and social rights are
predominant in fundamental predominant in the directive
rights. principle
 Contravention of any fundamental  The courts cannot declare any law
rights can be rescinded by the as void on the ground that it
court. contravenes any of the directive
principles.
 Courts can strike down an act of  Directives do no confer upon or
Government violative of any take away any legislative power
fundamental right and can enforce from the appropriate legislature.
the right against the Government.
When one goes through the above differences between the Directive Principles in relation to
the Fundamental Rights, one tends to draw the inference that the Directive Principles are
rather inferior to the Fundamental Rights. But, there was a shift in the Judicial
pronouncements in regard to the interpretation of the Directive Principles of State Policy and
ever since Keshavananda Bharathi’s case, the Directive Principles began to receive more and
more importance. It therefore becomes necessary to trace these developments in judicial
pronouncements starting from Keshavanand Bharathi’s case in order to fully appreciate the
importance of the Directive Principles of State Policy and can be observed from some leading
Judgments of the Apex Court of our country.
KESHAVANANDA BHARATHI vs. STATE OF KERALA (AIR 1973 SC 1461)
27
28
Page 24 of 29
The relationship between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles has been very
well explained in this land mark judgment by the Apex Court thus:
If any distinction between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles on the basis
of a difference between ends or means were really to be attempted, it would be more proper,
in my opinion to view Fundamental Rights as the ends of the endeavours of the Indian people
for which the Directive Principles provided the guidelines.
Perhaps, the best way of describing the relationship between the Fundamental Rights of
individual citizens, which imposed corresponding obligations upon the State and the
Directive Principles would be to look upon the Directive Principles as laying down the path
of the Country’s progress towards the allied objectives and aims stated in the Preamble, with
Fundamental Rights as the limits of that path, like the banks of a flowing river, which could
be mended or amended by displacements, replacements or curtailments or enlargements of
any part according to the path. In other words, the requirements of the path itself were more
important.
MINERVA MILLS LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1980 SC 1789)
speaking for the Court, Justice Bhagawati (as he then was) observed:
The Indian Constitution is founded on the bed-rock of the balance between Parts III & IV. 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. The goals set out in Part IV have to
be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided for by Part III. It is in this sense
that Parts III & IV 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".
LINGAPPA POCHANNA vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 1985 SC 389)
While dealing with Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, the Court
Page 25 of 29
held that the said Act is an illustration of distributive Justice and observed that the Courts
should as far as possible uphold the Legislation enacted by the State to ensure distributive
Justice i.e., laws which seek to remove inequalities and also attempt to achieve a fair division
of wealth amongst members of the society.
GRIH KALYAN KENDRA WORKERS UNION vs. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1991 SC
1773)
In this case the Apex Court while dealing with Article 39(d) (Equal pay for equal work) held
thus:
Equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the Constitution as a Fundamental
Right but in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy as contained in Art. 39(d) of the
Constitution equal pay for equal work has assumed the status of the Fundamental Right in
service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14
and 17 of the Constitution.
STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. M.R. GANESH BABU (AIR 2002 SC 1955) (A) ARTS.
39(D), 16
For applicability of the rule equal pay for equal work, the relevant criterion is nature of work
and not volume of work done. Functions may be the same, but responsibility makes the
difference. Persons were holding similar posts and doing similar work, difference being only
in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, it was held that it affords valid
ground to give them different pay scales. Further, the Officers in junior management grade of
the Bank had challenged the benefit of higher starting pay given to Probationary Officer,
Trainee Officer and Rural Development Officer (Generalist Officers), but denied to Specialist
Officers such as Asstt. Law Officer, Security Officer, Asstt. Engineer etc. Such denial of
higher start to Specialist officers was held to be justified on the ground that the Specialist
Officers were not exposed to operational risk and do not take vital decisions as taken by
Generalist Officers. When it comes to question of pay scales and pay benefits, the
recommendations of Pay Commission, pay structure adopted by Government pursuant to
such recommendation, questions regarding equivalence of posts, nature of duties and
responsibilities attached to the post are the relevant considerations. (See State of Bihar Vs.
S.P.M. Staff Union : AIR 2002 SC 2145). Advocates working as part-time lecturers on purely
contractual basis, have no legal right to obtain writ of or in nature of mandamus directing
Page 26 of 29
authorities to grant minimum scale of pay of Assistant Professors. They being no in regular
employment, principles of service jurisprudence cannot be extended to an advocate who is
acting as part time lecturer (A.P. Angsumohan vs. State of Tripura : AIR 2004 SC 267).
6. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS
Having thus examined the various land mark judgments of the Supreme court with regard to
interpretation of Directive Principles of State Policy, it is now clear that in effect these
judgments have lifted Directive Principles to the level of Fundamental Rights and the broad
propositions laid down in the above cases will have far reaching effects in future in so far as
the interpretation of Directive Principles of State Policy is concerned. Thus it can be said that
though Directive Principles cannot override Fundamental Rights, but in so far as determining
the scope and ambit of Fundamental Rights, the Courts now cannot entirely ignore the
Directive Principles, but will have to apply the doctrine of harmonious construction so as to
give effect to both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
Page 27 of 29
Reference:
Books:
 Dr. J.N.Pandey “The Constitutional Law of India”49th edition Publish in 2012

Central law agency
 The Constitution of India, P.M.Bakshi,9th Edn. (New Delhi: Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt.Ltd.,2009)
 M.P. Jain, Indian constitutional Law, 10th edition ( Lexis Nexis ,Wadhwa
publication Nagpur )
 Basu D.D , Introduction to the Constitution of India, New Delhi 2002, wadwa
and co. Law publishers.
 Sukla V.N. 11th edition by Mahendra P. Singh, , New Delhi 2006 Eastern
book co.
Web Sites:
 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles (Access on:24/09/2012)

 http://www.civilserviceindia.com/subject (Access on:25/09212)
 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles (Access on 25/09/2012)
 http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm access on 27/09/2012
 http:// www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm access on 28/09/2012

 http:// www.history.com/topics/constitution access on 23/09/2012
Page 28 of 29
Cases:
 Kesvananda Bharti V. State Of Kerala, ( 1973 ) 4 Scc 225

 Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh V. Union Of India,(1981) 1
Scc 246
 Minerva Mills V. Union Of India Air 1980 Sc 1789
 Menaka Gandhi V/S Union Of India Air 1978 Sc 597
 Champakam Doriarajan V/S State Of Madras Air 1951 Sc 226
 Bandhua Mukti Morcha V/S Union Of India 1984 Scc (3) 161
 M.H Hoskot Hussainara Khatoon V. Union Of India (1978) 3 Scc 544

 Lingappa Pochanna Vs. State Of Maharashtra (Air 1985 Sc 389)
 Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union Vs. Union Of India (Air 1991 Sc
1773)
Page 29 of 29

Consti Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of state Policy: A comparative study

B.Com, LL.B. (Hons.)

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

Submitted To: Submitted By:

3.2. Classification of the Directive Principles..........................................................................12

3.3 Object and purpose behind the directive principles...........................................................14

4. Relationship between part III and part IV of the constitution………………………..16

5. Distinction between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy…...22

6. Conclusion and Finding……………………………….……………………….……....25

A project report usually falls short of its expectations unless and

First of all, I would like to acknowledge my subject coordinator Mr. Hardik

Name & signature

Nehpal Singh (11bbl111

This is to certify that Nehpal Singh (11bbl111) is a student of IIIrd Semester

DATE: 06.10.2012 Submitted To:

I, Nehpal Singh (11BBL111), of Institute of Law, Nirma University, Semester III,

Name & signature

Nehpal Singh (11bbl111)

Introduction to research problem and hypothesis

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

1. Right to equality (article 14 to 18)

2.1. Origin & Development

2.2. Fundamental rights in India

2.3. Why guaranteed rights?

3. Directive principles of state policy

Directive Principles of State Policy are in the form of instructions/guidelines to the

3.2. Classification of the Directive Principles

(1) The economic and social principles

(1) The economic and social Principles:

(b) Reorganizing the economic system in a way to

(e) Guarding the children against exploitation and moral degradation.

Assistance in case of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement.

(2) The Gandhian Principles:

Principles are as follows: -

(a) To organize village Panchayats.

(b) To promote cottage industries in rural areas.

calves and other milch and drought animals.

Shall endeavour to: -

(a) Promote international peace and security.

(b) Maintain just and honourable relations between nations.

(c) Foster respect for international laws and treaty obligations.

(d) Encourage settlements of international disputes by mutual agreement.

The Directive Principles in this category call upon the state: -

(a) To secure for all Indians a uniform civil code.

(b) To protect historical monuments.

(c) To save environment from pollution and protect wild life.

3.3 Object and purpose behind the directive principles

2 Social and Economic Rights

3.4. Nature of Directive Principles

3.5 Enforcement of Directive Principles – Role of Judiciary

4. Relationship between part III and part IV of the Indian

In Inre Kerala Education bill20

In Chandrabhavan and Kesavananda Bharati21 cases inaugurated a new era of integrationist

In Minerva Mills Limited v/s Union of India22

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v/s Union of India23

It is necessary to look into interrelationship between specific directive principles and

Kesavananda Bharti v/s State of Kerala24

Minerva Mills Ltd v/s UOI25

In Air India statutory Corporation v/s United Labor Union

5. Distinction between fundamental rights and directive principles of state

Fundamental Rights27 Directive principles of State Policy28