Home Constitutional law Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy

Constitutional law

Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy

July 23, 2024

50224

This article is written by Shreya Tripathi and has been updated by Kruti Brahmbhatt. This article deals with the relationship between Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy, with reference to various landmark judgements. It includes the differences and conflicts between them. The most important part of this article is to understand how the judiciary, over a period of time, has developed a different approach, from strict interpretation to building a harmonious construction between them, aiming to maintain a balance.

Table of Contents

Introduction

India has the lengthiest written Constitution in the world, which initially included 395 Articles in 22 parts along with 8 schedules. Currently, the Constitution of India consists of a Preamble and 25 Parts, with 12 Schedules, 3 appendices, 106 amendments and 448 articles. The Constitution came into force on 26 January 1950. This day is celebrated as Republic Day.

Fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (hereinafter referred to as DPSP) provided under the Indian Constitution safeguard the basic human rights and welfare of an individual. As per the Motilal Committee Report, 1928, Fundamental rights were derived from the Bill of Rights provided under the American Constitution for its individuals.

The fundamental rights and DPSPs, along with the Preamble, form the trinity of the Indian Constitution. Through the fundamental rights and directive principles, the Constitution strives to ensure the principles of equality, justice, good governance and welfare, and human rights. The major aspect of this Constitutional framework is to maintain harmony and balance between them.

Fundamental Rights

These rights were preserved in Part III of the Indian Constitution. Fundamental rights are termed as inherent rights. These rights are inherent to all individuals by birth. They are the basic rights required for the survival of an individual. Fundamental rights ensure that there is no discrimination based on caste, class, race, religion, etc. If any person feels that their fundamental rights are violated, they can approach Constitutional courts to get them enforced.

The main essence of fundamental rights is to guarantee basic freedoms to the citizens. It maintains a free and just society. It protects minorities against discriminating treatments and practices. It ensures the dignity of each and every individual in the country, regardless of the person’s background. Fundamental rights of the people are found under Article 12 to Article 35 of the Indian Constitution. These are divided under various heads-

Right to equality
Right to freedom
Right to freedom of religion
Right against exploitation
Cultural and educational rights
Right to constitutional remedies

Right to equality (Article 14 to 18 of the Indian Constitution)

The right to equality is of supreme nature, ensuring equality before the law and equal treatment of everybody in the territory of India. This right protects against any sort of discrimination on the basis of race, creed, gender, etc. Every individual is entitled to receive equal opportunities in every field of employment. Further, these rights, in order to maintain equality, abolished untouchability and titles.

Article 14 to Article 18 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equal treatment, as well as equality before law. It covers the following:

Article 14: Equality before law

The State is prohibited from denying equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws in India. This provision aims to secure all citizens or non-citizens with equal status and opportunity, as mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution. This right is considered to be a basic feature of the Constitution, as per the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court held that the right to equality is a basic feature of the Constitution and any action which treats equal individuals unequally or unequal individuals equally shall be considered as a breach of this basic structure.

Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth

As per Article 15(1), the State is prohibited from discriminating against any citizen on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

Article 15(2) provides that no citizen shall be denied access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, places of public entertainment, use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads, and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of general public, on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

Article 15(3) goes on to add that nothing mentioned in the above provisions can prevent the State from making special provisions for women and children.

Article 15(4) provides that nothing mentioned in the above provisions can prevent the State from making special provisions for advancing socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Tribes and the Scheduled Castes.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Anuj Garg vs. Hotel Association of India (2007), struck down a law that prohibited women from working as bartenders. The Court stated that the law was based on stereotypes and violated Article 15.

Article 16: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

All citizens of the country are guaranteed equal opportunities for employment. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. However, as per clause 4, this does not prevent the State from making laws for reservation.

In the case of A.P. Public Service Commission vs. Baloji Badhavath (2009), the Supreme Court stated that provisions contained in Article 15 and Article 16 are merely enabling provisions. No citizen of India can claim reservation as a matter of right, and accordingly, no writ of mandamus can be issued.

Article 17: Abolition of untouchability

This provision absolutely abolishes the practice of untouchability. The term “untouchability” mentioned here is not limited to its literal or grammatical sense but refers to the practice which was prevalent in the country in the past. There is no precise definition for the term “untouchability” in the Constitution or in the Act.

Article 18: Abolition of titles

Titles other than those given with respect to the military or academics are abolished. The national awards like Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, etc., which are awarded by the Government of India, are not “titles” within the meaning of Article 18. This was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Raghavan vs. Union of India (1996).

Right to freedom (Article 19 to 22 of the Indian Constitution)

The right to freedom under the Constitution provides freedom to form associations, gather peacefully without arms, live, move, settle, or travel to any location, and allows the choice of profession to every individual in the territory of India. Additionally, the freedom to be educated and to live life with liberty and dignity is also enshrined under this part of the Constitution. Further, it provides the freedom from arrest, detention and conviction for an offence.

These rights are given under Article 19 to Article 22 of the Indian Constitution, as stated below:

Article 19: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech

This provision protects certain essential rights such as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble peacefully, form associations or unions, move freely, reside, settle and practise any profession or business in any part of Indian territory. All of these freedoms are given under Article 19, subject to reasonable restrictions. These rights are extremely important for a democratic country.

In case any law is found to violate the fundamental rights given under this provision, it shall be declared invalid unless it is enacted under the purview of reasonable restrictions. These reasonable restrictions are imposed under Article 19(2) to Article 19(6) on the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) to (g).

However, in the case of Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962), the Supreme Court made it clear that any restrictions under Article 19(2) to 19(6) on any right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) to (g), can be imposed only by a law. A mere administrative direction or departmental instruction which has no statutory force cannot impose them.

Article 20: Protection in respect of conviction for offences

This protects individuals from being convicted for offences, except in situations of a violation of the law in force. It safeguards individuals against retrospective criminal legislation, double jeopardy and self-incrimination.

This provision ensures that no person is punished for an act that was not an offence at the time it was committed. Additionally, a person cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once, and no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself.

In the case of Mohan lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2015), which deals with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Supreme Court stated that Article 20 only prohibits conviction and punishment under an ex post facto law. It does not prevent the trial or prosecution itself. Further, if a trial follows a procedure different from the one that existed when the offence occurred, it does not violate Article 20 and cannot be held as unconstitutional.

Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty

This provision ensures that no person is deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This is one of the most important rights provided under the Constitution. The term “life” also includes the right to live with dignity and the right to livelihood.

Over the period of time, the court has expanded the scope of this Article. In the landmark judgement of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty is not limited to mere animal existence but also includes the right to live with dignity. The Court stated that the procedure established by law should be fair, just and reasonable.

Article 22: Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

This Article provides protection against arrest and detention under certain cases and applies to citizens as well as non-citizens. As per this provision, no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds for arrest. The arrested person has the right to consult legal practitioners. There are two exceptions to Article 22- being an enemy/alien during wartime or being arrested or detained for preventive detention.

Right against exploitation (Article 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution)

The rights against child labour, forced labour and human trafficking are provided under this. The term human trafficking is commonly known as slavery, buying or selling of human beings as if they are chattels. The popular targets for such acts are women and children. Such practices of trafficking are abolished under the right against exploitation. The specific Articles which provide the right against exploitation are:

Article 23: Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour

It abolishes the three major antisocial practices, which are begging, trafficking in human beings and forced labour. It terms such acts as punishable offences under the law. This does not prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes. However, this should be done without any discrimination.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Deena vs. Union of India (1983), held that if a prisoner is forced to work without any payment, it would be considered a violation of Article 23.

Article 24: Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc.,

This prohibits the employment of children below the age of 14 years in any factory, mine or any work that is hazardous in nature. It aims to protect the welfare and rights of children by prohibiting employment in hazardous occupations.

Right to freedom of religion (Article 25 to 29 of the Indian Constitution)

India, being a secular country, does not enforce any one religion but allows its citizens to follow the religion they wish to. This right allows us to follow any religion of our choice without any doubt or interference. Absolute freedom is provided under this right to attend any religious ceremonies at any religious institution or educational centre. It also allows the promotion of religion, making it tax-free. Such taxes can be paid voluntarily, but nobody can impose any tax on an individual who has no interest in paying any kind of tax for religious purposes.

Article 25 to Article 28 of the Constitution provides the right to freedom of religion and conscience. They are as follows:

Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.

This freedom is subject to public order, health and morality. The restrictions imposed on religious gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic are an example of the restrictions which may be imposed in the interest of the health and safety of people. Under this Article, the State is vested with the power to make laws regarding framing regulations or imposing restrictions on any matter relating to financial, economic, political or other secular activities which are associated with any religious practices.

Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs

This provides the freedom to manage religious affairs, which includes forming and maintaining religious or charitable institutions, managing their own affairs, and rights over the transactions relating to property and administering them according to the law.

Article 27: Freedom as to payment of taxes for the promotion of any particular religion

It provides freedom from payment of taxes, which would be utilised for either promotion or maintenance, or both, of any religious denomination.

Article 28: Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions

This ensures that no religious instructions are allowed in State-funded educational institutions. However, wherein the institutions are established under any religious trust or endowment, then regardless of the fact that it is State-administered, religious instructions can be imparted in such institutions. In the case of state-recognized institutions or those that receive aid from the state, consent from the state is required.

Cultural and educational rights (Article 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution)

The different languages and varieties of culture present in India are protected under this right. Additionally, it also provides rights for the protection of the cultures of minorities. The establishment of educational institutions and the right to primary education are also covered under this.

The cultural and educational rights of the various cultural, religious and linguistic minorities in India are protected under Article 29 and Article 30 of the Indian Constitution:

Article 29: Protection of interests of minorities

This provision seeks to protect the interests of minorities in the territory of India by providing them the right to conserve their distinct language, script or culture. Additionally, no citizen shall be denied admission to any educational institution maintained or funded by the State on the basis of race, religion, caste or language.

Article 30: Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions

Under this, minorities’ right to establish and administer educational institutions on the basis of religion or language is protected.

In the case of Usha Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra (2004), the Marathi language was imposed in schools run by linguistic minorities, which was challenged before the court. The court relied on the “three-language formula” and held that Article 29 and Article 30 are difficult to interpret in a way that would provide a right to avoid learning a regional language. Hence, it is not practical to agree with the proposition that the people living in a certain State cannot be asked to learn the local language.

Rights to seek constitutional remedies (Article 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution)

The rights are not effective if no remedies are provided against its violations. The right to seek constitutional remedies provides relief with respect to the violation of the fundamental rights of individuals or citizens. Under Article 13 of the Constitution, any law which is inconsistent with a fundamental right is held to be void. Any citizen whose fundamental rights have been violated can seek remedy under Article 32 from the Supreme Court of India or under Article 226 from the State High Courts.

Article 32 of the Constitution provides remedies for the enforcement of fundamental rights. It lays down 5 writs. Writs refer to the “order of court”. In cases wherein only the fundamental rights are violated, an individual can directly approach the Supreme Court of India. They are the following:

Habeas corpus
Mandamus
Prohibition
Certiorari
Quo warranto

Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)

The concept of fundamental rights in India, restricts the government from doing such acts which might violate the fundamental rights of the citizens. On the other hand, the States have an obligation to apply the provisions of the DPSPs while making laws. As the name suggests, they are directive principles that are to be incorporated into policies. DPSPs are termed as “index of public purpose”. Any act or provisions made in accordance with these principles are considered to be law for a public purpose, which indicates that it is for the overall welfare of the citizens.

Directive Principles of State Policy were adopted from Article 45 of the Irish Constitution. They obligate the State with the duty to achieve socio-economic and welfare, along with protecting and acknowledging the fundamental rights of an individual. DPSP are found under Part IV of the Indian Constitution. Examples of DPSP are enabling education, maternity benefits, uniform civil code, maintaining nutrition standards, providing a standard of living, etc.

Article 36 to Article 51, under Part Ⅳ of the Indian Constitution, deals with the DPSPs. Their main objective is to create a welfare state. Article 36 defines “State” in the same way as that under Part III. For a further understanding of the same, click here.

Article 37 provides that the principles contained in Part Ⅳ shall not be enforceable by any court. However, they shall be considered fundamental in the governance of the country, and it also imposes a duty on the State to apply these principles when formulating laws.

The following are the highlights of the DPSPs:

Socio-Economic Welfare

Article 38: State to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people

It is the duty of the State to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people. Herein, the term “social order” includes providing social, political and economic justice to all its citizens. It also includes minimising inequalities in terms of income, facilities, opportunities, status, etc.

Article 39: Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State

It lays down certain principles which are to be followed by the State. Every citizen, whether man or woman, has the right to an adequate means of livelihood. The ownership and control of the people over any resources of the community must be distributed in a way that would serve the common good.

Social Security

Article 41: Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases

The directive principles impose an obligation on the state to make provisions that ensure the right to work, education, and public assistance. The State may make these provisions while keeping in mind its economic capacity and development.

Article 42: Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief

Provisions must be made that ensure just and humane conditions for work and maternity relief.

Article 43: Living wage, etc., for workers

The State shall secure a living wage, a decent standard of living, and social and cultural opportunities for workers. This provision ensures that the workers are given fair wages and have a decent standard of life. This is an important article that ensures workers’ safety in industries.

Article 45: Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of fourteen years

Children below the age of 14 years have the right to early childhood care and education.

Article 46: Promotion of education and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections

The protection of SCs, STs and other weaker sections from exploitation is secured. This principle promotes the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of society. The State must make provisions which protect these sections of society from all exploitative practices.

Article 47: Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living, and to improve public health

This lays down the duty of the State to raise the levels of nutrition and the standard of living of the people and to improve public health.

Community Welfare

Article 44: Uniform civil code for the citizens

It deals with the uniform civil code for the citizens, which means establishing uniform civil laws throughout the territory of India. This gives effect to national integration by bringing all the diverse communities, religions and customs under a uniform civil code.

Article 48: Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry

The State shall be obligated to organise agriculture and animal husbandry, as well as take steps to protect and preserve animal breeds, cattle, etc.

Article 40: Organisation of village panchayats

The State shall organise village panchayats and provide the required powers and authorities necessary for self-governance.

Article 50: Separation of judiciary from the executive

The State is required to take all necessary steps to keep the Judiciary separate from the Executive.

Article 51: Promotion of international peace and security

The State is obligated to promote international peace and security, maintain just and honourable relations between nations, abide by international laws and treaties and seek settlement for disputes through arbitration.

Relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy

The relationship between fundamental rights and DPSPs has faced several conflicts with respect to various matters that needed judicial intervention. The Judiciary’s approach over the past few years regarding these matters has undergone numerous changes. This raises the question of what would happen if any law enforces DPSPs but infringes on the fundamental rights of a citizen. The Judiciary’s interpretation and its approach towards this conflict has been an interesting one to look into. Let us understand every aspect of the relationship between fundamental rights and DPSPs.

Difference between fundamental rights and DPSPs

Despite the fact that both the fundamental rights and DPSPs aim to protect the welfare of the State and the rights of the citizens, there are several differences between them in various aspects. It is important to understand the same.

Objective

Fundamental Rights: India being a diverse country, has different religions, cultures, languages, and customs. The main objective behind the concept of fundamental rights is to ensure security and equal treatment to all the citizens of the country, regardless of the culture or race they belong to. It aims to safeguard the rights of minorities, protect religious freedom and provide equal opportunities to citizens.

In the case of People’s Union for Civil liberties vs. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court stated that the object behind fundamental rights is to place the citizens at centre stage and hold the State accountable.

DPSP: The directive principles provide certain directions to the State in India regarding how, in what manner and for what reason they may exercise their power. The objective behind DPSPs is to guide the State in policy making and to establish India as a welfare state. The DPSPs ensure that the laws protect social, economic and political justice. Equal opportunities in terms of work, wealth, health and education must be provided to all citizens.

Enforceability

Fundamental Rights: Fundamental rights are enforceable in the courts of law. Under Article 32 of the Constitution, the remedy against the violation of fundamental rights in itself is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs or orders against any violation of these rights. The aggrieved person may either, under Article 226, approach the High Court or, under Article 32, approach the Supreme Court in case his/her fundamental right is violated.

In the case of Hindi Hitrashak Samiti vs. Union of India (1990), the Supreme Court has laid emphasis on Article 32. The jurisdiction conferred to the Supreme Court under the said Article is an integral part of the Indian Constitution, but violation of fundamental rights is essential for seeking enforcement of them by the Supreme Court. For the establishment of violation of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court may take into consideration any direct and inevitable consequences of the action, which is sought to be remedied.

DPSP: DPSPs are not enforceable in any court of law. It is a duty casted upon the State to implement it while making policies. Article 37 of the Constitution states that the provisions of DPSP shall not be enforceable but are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the State. This means that if any law made by the State violates the principles of DPSP, it cannot be termed void.

In the case of Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India (2008), it was stated that since DPSPs are not enforceable in the courts of law, it does not mean that they are inferior. DPSPs stand for civil and political rights, whereas fundamental rights stand for social and economic rights.

Other key differences

Sr. No.	Point of Difference	Fundamental Rights	Directive Principles of State Policy
	Origin	They are inspired by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States.	These principles are adopted from the Irish Constitution.
	Scope	They are applicable to all citizens and non-citizens of India. At a micro level, it protects the rights of the individuals. However, its scope is limited.	These are applicable to the State and the agencies governed by the State that make laws. It has limitless scope, protecting the rights of citizens, and it works at the macro level, aiming to achieve a welfare State.
4	Nature	They introduce an egalitarian society and ensure basic human rights to each citizen.	These principles seek to achieve a welfare state.
	Legal Provisions	These rights are provided under Article 12 to Article 35 of the Indian Constitution.	These principles are provided under Article 36 to Article 51 of the Indian Constitution.
	Duty of State	Fundamental rights refrain the State from taking prejudicial action against individuals and, thus, impose a negative duty on the State.	These principles obligate the State to take positive actions.
	Punishment	Violation of Fundamental Rights is punishable.	Violation of Directive Principles is not punishable.
	Justiciability	If any act or law violates the fundamental rights of a citizen, it can be declared void, invalid or unconstitutional.	If any act or law violates the directive principles, it still cannot be termed void or unconstitutional.
	Suspension during Emergency	Except for Article 20 and Article 21, all other fundamental rights are suspended during the emergency.	These are never suspended.

Conflict between fundamental rights and DPSP

The relationship between fundamental rights and DPSP is a controversial topic. At a macro level, this conflict works for the benefit of the community. However, at a micro level, it benefits the individuals. The Judiciary plays an important role in resolving conflicts between DPSP and fundamental rights. Mentioned below are a set of cases wherein the Judiciary has closely analysed the conflict.

The State of Madras vs. Champak Dorairajan(1951)

In this case, Smt. Champak Dorairajan, a Brahim woman from Madras, was denied admission to a medical college despite having enough grades. The denial was based on a Communal GO (Government Order) issued by the State government. The division of seats was based on the basis of religion, race and caste. The High Court of Madras decided in favour of the woman because there were fewer seats available in her category. This case was further appealed in the Supreme Court.

As per the respondent, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14, Article 15, Article 16 and Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India had been violated. This brings up the question of whether the provisions of DPSP under Article 46 override the fundamental right under Article 29 (2).

The Supreme Court held that DPSP cannot override the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India, i.e. the fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held the Communal GO to be a clear violation of the fundamental rights under Article 29(2). It was declared to be void under Article 13 of the Constitution of India. The court, in this matter, completely rejected the idea that the DPSPs can override the provision of Article 29(2). The court ruled that the fundamental rights would be reduced to ‘a mere rope of sand’ if they were to be overridden by the directive principles. It was held that because Article 37 expressly states that directive principles can’t be enforced by a Court, it cannot override the fundamental rights. Additionally, the court observed that the directive principles must run subsidiary to the fundamental rights.

Hence, a literal approach was taken by the court in this case. Later, the Supreme Court’s interpretation regarding the relationship between the fundamental rights and directive principles changed.

Golak Nath vs. The State of Punjab, 1967

This is a landmark case on fundamental rights. In this case, the petitioners had challenged the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953 (herein referred to as PSLTA) and the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. The PSLTA was challenged on the ground that it violates the fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(f), depriving them of the right to property. The Seventeenth Amendment Act was challenged because it brought an amendment to Article 31A. The question was whether the parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part Ⅲ of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court held that Fundamental rights cannot be diluted, abridged, diminished, finished or even taken away. This had been reverted by the Amendment Act, which inserted Article 31C, which is mentioned under Part Ⅲ of the Constitution now, which states that any law made under Article 39(b) of the Constitution which states about the material resources of the community and Article 39(c) which talks about the operations for an economy. Additionally, in a case where any law is framed under the provision of DPSP, and if such a law violates Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21, then the court should not declare it to be void merely on this ground.

Re: Kerala Education Bill (1957)

The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, was presented by the Education Minister of Kerala and was kept as a reserved bill by the Governor of Kerala for consideration by the President. The Kerala Education Bill infringed certain fundamental rights regarding the rights of minorities, which are guaranteed under Article 29 and Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. The Bill was presented before the Supreme Court by the President, as per Article 143 (power of the President to consult the Supreme Court).

In this case, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the clauses provided in the Bill violated Article 14, Article 30(1) and Article 226 of the Constitution. Chief Justice Das, observed the court should adopt the view that directive principles cannot be completely ignored while determining the scope and ambit of fundamental rights. Further, the courts must adopt the principle of harmonious construction.

Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)

In this case, the petitioner had challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 wherein the State Government was entitled to acquire some property which belonged to the petitioner. The remedy available under Article 32 of the Constitution was sought against the violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 25, Article 26, Article 14, Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 (Compulsory acquisition of property. Now repealed, through 44th Amendment, 1978.) During the pendency of this suit, the government had passed another Act, which was, the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971.

The validity of the 24th, 25th and 29th Constitution (Amendment) Act was challenged before the Court. The Supreme Court held that any part of the Constitution can be amended without destroying the basic structure of the Constitution. The court stated that there is no inconsistency between the directive principles and the fundamental rights, in fact they supplement each other. Hence, the courts could apply harmonious construction which advances the object of the Constitution.

The Court declared that the second clause under Article 31C was unconstitutional and void. The Court decided that it was against the doctrine of basic structure. However, the first clause was held to be valid. In order to neutralise this, the Government brought in the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, which extended the scope of Article 31C.

Pathumma vs. The State of Kerala (1978)

In this case, the appellants had appealed the constitutional validity of Section 20 of the Kerala Agriculturists’ Debt Relief Act, 1970, which enabled the debtors to recover their debts by selling the property in execution of a debt liquidation decree. The issues before the Court were whether Section 20 of the Act falls within the power of the State legislature and whether Section 20 violates the fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 19.

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 20. The provision was held to be reasonable and in the public interest. The Court highlighted the objective of the directive principles. It stated that by introducing a combination of both of these, the Constitution aims to fulfil the social-economic goals of the country. A similar concept is observed in several other cases as well.

Minerva Mills Case vs. Union of India (1980)

In this case, the 42nd Amendment Act,1976, Article 31C and Article 368 (power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure thereafter) of the Constitution were challenged. These amendments intended to neutralise the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973).

Amendment of Article 31C prescribed that the court cannot strike down any legislative act which gives effect to the DPSP and cannot hold it to be unconstitutional on the basis that it violates fundamental rights. The question of law in this case was whether amendments to Article 31C and Article 368 are constitutional and whether DPSPs can be preferred over the fundamental rights.

The Court imposed some restrictions on the protection given to the directive principles. It held that Article 31C shall only be protected if it is to implement the directive principles under Article 39(b) and Article 39(c). The Supreme Court had imposed such restrictions after this case and declared that giving protection to DPSP shall be termed as void and unconstitutional.

The Court clearly applied the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction and made an attempt to balance the fundamental rights and DPSPs. Herein, the Supreme Court introduced the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, which states that the provisions of Part Ⅲ and Part Ⅳ of the Constitution must go hand in hand. This shall avoid a situation of conflict that arises while enforcing DPSPs and fundamental rights. Hence, the provisions of the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner that would ensure harmonious working. Further, it was stated that, in case no inherent power is present, no conflict shall arise, but wherein the conflict arises because of the court’s interpretation, then in such a situation, the court must attempt to give effect to both the provisions of the Constitution. The connection between them must be established in such a manner that no amendments are required. However, if, even after considering this approach, the conflict is unresolved, the fundamental rights must be implemented.

State of Kerala vs. N.M.Thomas (1975)

In this case, Rule 13-AA of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, was in contention. These rules exempted the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from passing tests for promotions. It was challenged on the basis that it violated Article 16(4), and Article 335 (claims of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes to services and posts) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court held that such exemption from qualification affects the efficiency of administration and violates both Article 16(4) and Article 335. The Court again emphasised that all efforts should be made to ensure that fundamental rights and DPSPs are built in a way that all the conflicts between them are resolved.

Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)

According to Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, the Maharashtra Government and corporation decided to forcibly remove all pavement and slums from the city of Bombay. This case challenged the same under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, on the grounds of violation of Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21. There were some major issues raised before the courts regarding fundamental rights- whether the right to life, included the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and whether estoppel can be claimed against the violation of fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Bombay Municipality Act is not unreasonable and no one has the right to encroachment. The Supreme Court held that DPSPs are fundamental in the governance of the country and hence, it should be given importance equal to that of the meaning and concept of fundamental rights.

Dalmia Cement vs. Union of India (1996)

In this case, the Supreme Court said that Fundamental rights and DPSPs are supplementary and complementary to each other. Fundamental rights and DPSPs are the conscience of the Constitution. The Supreme Court emphasised that the commitment of the Constitution to the social revolution, through rule of law, depends on the supplementary and complementary relationship between fundamental rights and the directive principles.

Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India (2008)

In this case, the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 was challenged, claiming that it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The validity of Article 15(5) of the Indian Constitution was also challenged. The extension of reservation to 27% was the point of contention. There was a conflict between Article 15 and Article 46 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court held that the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act was valid. It can be applied to the state-maintained institutions and educational institutions. It stated that Article 15 and Article 46 cannot be said to be different. Herein, the fundamental rights deal with the civil and political rights and the DPSP relates to the social and economic rights.

The above-mentioned cases explain that fundamental rights and DPSPs are complementary. None of them is superior to the other.

Critical analysis

The Judiciary has played a crucial role in balancing the importance of both fundamental rights and directive principles. In Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), Hegde and Mukherjea, JJ observed, “The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles constitute the conscience of the constitution. There is no antithesis between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Each one supplements the other.”

Indeed, the Supreme Court has considered the fundamental rights and the DPSPs to be complementary to each other. It has ensured that the non-enforceability of DPSPs should not result in fundamental rights overriding them. As the mentioned case laws indicate, the Court has made it amply clear on various occasions that the directive principles and the fundamental rights should be considered as “fundamental” for the governance of the State, and none of them should be isolated. It is indicated in the case of Javed vs. State of Haryana, (2003) that the fundamental rights must not be read in isolation but along with the directive principles and fundamental duties.

There are a plethora of cases that have laid out how fundamental rights must be read along with directive principles, which has eventually helped the country to strive towards the aim of achieving the objectives of both the fundamental rights and directive principles. This has expanded the ambit of fundamental rights rather than restricting it. It has made the rights enshrined under the DPSPs to be enforceable through the fundamental rights. The best example of this is the right to education. The Supreme Court has advocated the same in the case of Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)– “Fundamental Rights are but a means to achieve the goal indicated in the Directive Principles. Fundamental Rights must be constructed in the light of the Directive Principles”.

The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of balance between the fundamental rights and DPSPs in the case of I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), stating that it is the responsibility of the Government to adopt a middle ground, balancing individual liberty under fundamental rights and attaining public good under DPSPs. However, it is to be noted that the balance must not overturn individual liberty, which is the essential feature of the Constitution.

Hence, the fundamental rights and the directive principles are to be balanced in a manner that enables both of them to coexist harmoniously and prevent them from overriding each other. This is extremely important to achieve the social, political and economic welfare of the State.

Conclusion

The basic feature of the Constitution is to maintain harmony between fundamental rights and DPSP. Despite the different objectives and approaches of the two, they are supplementary and complementary to each other. Fundamental rights provide and secure basic human rights to the citizens, whereas DPSPs aim to provide the guidelines required by the State to implement legislations and policies which best serve the welfare of the State and the public. Both of them are equally important to ensure a just and equitable society. To maintain a good balance between them is to ensure that the individuals have access to rights and liberties and that the State can achieve the desired goals.

Frequently Asked Questions(FAQs)

Why are the directive principles not enforceable?

The directive principles are constitutional and moral obligations upon the State and not a legal one. If the country makes DPSPs enforceable, it may face a major financial crisis. The enforcement of all the DPSPs might create major governance issues for the State. However, the State can make laws on the basis of the directive principles, which can be held enforceable in the courts of law.

Are DPSPs at par with fundamental rights?

The DPSPs and the fundamental rights are complementary to each other. It cannot be said that DPSPs are at par with the fundamental rights, due to the major differences of justiciability, enforcement in the courts, and the objectives. However, they both play a crucial role in the development of the State.

Are all human rights fundamental rights?

No. Human rights refers to all the rights regarding human beings, irrespective of their caste, class, religion, or citizenship. Fundamental rights are specifically considered to be fundamental by a particular country. For instance, human rights may include the right to freedom of religion, but a country like France may not consider it to be a fundamental right. All fundamental rights are human rights, but all human rights are not fundamental rights.

Can a law be declared unconstitutional if it violates DPSP but upholds fundamental rights?

In the Indian Constitution, in cases wherein the law violates a DPSP but upholds fundamental rights, it cannot be declared unconstitutional. The reason behind this is that while fundamental rights are justiciable and enforceable, DPSPs are not. There has been a series of judgements which termed such laws which violate fundamental rights as void and unconstitutional, but no law can be declared unconstitutional or void because it violates DPSPs.

What is the doctrine of harmonious construction?

The doctrine of harmonious construction means the interpretation of two legal principles in a way that would ensure they do not override each other. Their interpretation must be done in a manner that promotes harmony between the two. Fundamental rights and DPSPs have different rules on enforceability as well as justiciability. Hence, they face conflicts in terms of various aspects, wherein one may override the other. In such a case, the doctrine of harmonious construction is applied. This shall be the responsibility of the State and the courts of law wherein the question regarding individual liberties and public good arises. Hence, the doctrine of harmonious construction is crucial.

Reference

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity