Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW.
2017-2018
BASICS OF LEGISLATION

FINAL DRAFT ON-

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VS DPSP

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY-

DR.SHASHANK SHEKHAR VISHAL KUMAR ARYA,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ROLL NO.163,
DR.RMLNLU, LUCKNOW. SEC. B SEMESTER I
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my teacher and mentor, DR. SHASHANK
SHEKHAR for his able guidance and help; Vice Chancellor, Prof. (Dr.) Gurdip Singh and Dean
(Academics),Prof. C.M. Jariwala for their encouragement and Enthusiasm. My seniors for
sharing their valuable tips and my classmates for their constant support.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS

1.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

2.INTRODUCTION

3.OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

4.SCOPE OF THE STUDY

5.RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

6.FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE

POLICY: ABOUT

7. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DPSP: THE RELATIONSHIP

8.PURPOSE OF INSERTION OF PART III AND PART IV

9.TUSSLE BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND JUDICIARY

10.FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE

POLICY: CONFLICTING OR COMPLIMENTARY

11.CONCLUSIONS

12.REFERENCES ................................................................................................
..................

INTRODUCTION
The justiciability of Fundamental Rights and non-justiciability of Directive Principles on the one
hand and the moral obligation of State to implement Directive Principles (Article 37) on the
other hand have led to a conflict between the two since the commencement of the Constitution.
In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict
between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. It
declared that the Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the
Fundamental Rights.
But, it also held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliament by enacting
constitutional amendments acts. As a result, the Parliament made the First Amendment Act
(1951), the Fourth Amendment Act and the Seventeenth Amendment Act to implement some of
the Directives. The above situation underwent a major change in 1967 following the Supreme
Court's judgement in the Golaknath case (1967).
Whenever conflicts arise between fundamental rights and directive principles, fundamental rights
prevail over the directive principles because, in terms of Arts. 32 and 226, fundamental rights are
enforceable by the courts. If a law is in conflict with a fundamental right, it is declared void by
the Supreme Court. But no law can be declared void on the ground that it is violative of a
directive principle. In 1951, in Champakam Dorairajan vs. the state of Madras, the Supreme
Court held “The chapter on Fundamental Rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by
any legislative or executive act. The Directive Principles of State Policy have to conform and are
subsidiary to the chapter on Fundamental Rights.”

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

 To analyze and understand the concepts of Fundamental rights and DPSPs individually.

 To find out the relationship between the two concepts of Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles of State Policy.
 To study the tussle of the legislature and Judiciary regarding both the concepts
 To study in brief some important court judgments which lead to the current situation of the
Fundamental Rights and DPSPs
 To critically evaluate if Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are conflicting or complementary.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

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

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology adopted is descriptive analytical. Through my project I aim to
describe and analyze the relationship that exists between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs and
also discuss the whole development procedure which was followed to reach to the proper
conclusion over Fundamental rights and DPSPs' applicability and ambit. The sources of data in
the project include - books, websites, discussions on the topic with the subject teacher, seniours
and friends.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF

STATE POLICY: ABOUT
The Fundamental Rights in Indian constitution acts as a guarantee that all Indian citizens can and
will live their lives in peace as long as they live in Indian democracy. They include individual
rights common to most liberal democracies, such as equality before the law, freedom of speech
and expression, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, freedom of religion, and the right
to constitutional remedies for the protection of civil right.
An important feature of the constitution is the Directive Principles of State Policy. Although the
Directive Principles are asserted to be "fundamental in the governance of the country," they are
not legally enforceable. Instead, they are guidelines for creating a social order characterized by
social, economic, and political justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity as enunciated in the
constitution's preamble.
1
The Forty-second Amendment, which came into force in January 1977, attempted to raise the
status of the Directive Principles by stating that no law implementing any of the Directive
Principles could be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated any of the
Fundamental Rights. The amendment simultaneously stated that laws prohibiting "antinational
activities” or the formation of “antinational associations” could not be invalidated because they
infringed on any of the Fundamental Rights. It added a new section to the constitution on
"Fundamental Duties" that enjoined citizens "to promote harmony and the spirit of common
brotherhood among all the people of India, transcending religious, linguistic and regional or
sectional diversities." However, the amendment reflected a new emphasis in governing circles on
order and discipline to counteract what some leaders had come to perceive as the excessively
freewheeling style of Indian democracy. After the March 1977 general election ended the control
of the Congress (Congress (R) from 1969) over the executive and legislature for the first time
since independence in 1947, the new Janata - dominated Parliament passed the Forty-third
Amendment (1977) and Forty-fourth Amendment (1978). These amendments revoked the Forty-
second Amendment's provision that Directive Principles take precedence over Fundamental
Rights and also curbed Parliament's power to legislate against "antinational activities."

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DPSP: THE RELATIONSHIP

1
Kumar Gaurav, 'Relationship Between Fundamental Rights And Dpsps' (Academia.edu, 2017)
<http://www.academia.edu/7698766/Relationship_between_Fundamental_Rights_and_DPSPs> accessed 25
October 2017.
The important question is where there is a conflict between the fundamental rights and directive
principles, which should prevail? The Fundamental Rights are the rights of the individual citizens
guaranteed by the Constitution. The directive principles lay down various tenets of a welfare state.
The conflict arises when the State needs to implement a directive principle and it infringes/ abridges
the fundamental rights of the citizens. The chapters on the fundamental rights & DPSP were added in
order of part III and part IV of the constitution.
The Fundamental rights are justifiable and guaranteed by the constitution. The Directive principles
were directives to the state and government machinery. But they are not enforceable, by the law.

PURPOSE OF INSERTION OF PART III AND PART IV

The framers of the Indian constitution were aware that there were other constitutions which had
given expression to certain ideals as the goal towards which the country should strive and which
had defined the principles considered fundamental to the governance of the country. They were
aware of the event that had culminated in the charter of United Nations.
Universal declaration of Human rights had been adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations, for India was a signatory to it. It contained a basic and fundamental rights appertaining
to all men. These rights were born of the philosophical speculation of the Greek and Roman
stoics and nurture by the jurists of ancient Rome. These rights had found expression in a limited
form in the accords of 1188 entered into between King Alfonso IX and the Cortes of Leon, the
Magna Carta of 1215 and the guarantees which King Andrew II of Hungary was forced to give
by his Golden bull of 1822.2 The French National Assembly also included the “Declaration of
the Rights of Man and of the Citizen”. The first ten amendments to the constitution of the United
States of America contained certain rights akin to Human rights. Constitution of Eire, Japan also
contained similar rights and Directive principles. Section 8 of the article 1 of the U.S constitution
contained a Welfare clause empowering the federal Government to enact laws for the overall
general welfare of the people. U.S.A, the U.K and Germany had passed social welfare
legislation. The framers of the Indian constitution, therefore, headed the constitution of India
with a preamble which declared India’s goal and inserted parts III and IV in the constitution.

TUSSLE BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND JUDICIARY

The question of relationship between the Directive Principles and the Fundamental rights has
caused some difficulty, and the judicial attitude has undergone transformation on this question
over time.

2
Kumar Gaurav, 'Relationship Between Fundamental Rights And Dpsps' (Academia.edu, 2017)
<http://www.academia.edu/7698766/Relationship_between_Fundamental_Rights_and_DPSPs> accessed 25
October 2017.
Initially, the courts adopted a strict and literal legal position in this respect. The Supreme Court
adopting the literal interpretative approach to Art. 37 ruled that a Directive Principle could not
override a Fundamental right, and that in case of conflict between the two, the Fundamental right
would prevail over the Directive Principle.

Champakam Dorairajan case(1951)3

The Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, stated—-

1. The Directive Principles should conform, and run as subsidiary, to the Fundamental rights.
2. “The Directive Principles of the state policy, which by Art. 37 are expressly made
unenforceable by a court cannot override the provisions found in part III which, notwithstanding
other provisions, are expressly made enforceable by appropriate writs, orders or directions under
article 32.
3. The chapter on fundamental rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any
legislative or executive act or order, except to the extent provided in the appropriate article in
part III.
4. The Directive Principles of state policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the chapter
on Fundamental rights.”

DOCTRINE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

The Supreme Court started giving a good deal of value to the Directive
principles from a legal point of view and started arguing for harmonizing the
two the Fundamental rights and Directive Principles.
 “Where two judicial choices are available, the construction in conformity with the social
philosophy” of the Directive Principles has preference. The courts therefore could interpret a
s.tatute so as to implement Directive Principles instead of reducing them to mere theoretical
ideas. This is on the assumptions that the law makers are not completely unmindful or obvious of
the Directive Principles.
 Further the courts also adopted the view that in determining the scope and ambit of
Fundamental rights, the Directive Principles should not be completely ignored and that the courts
should adopt the principles of harmonious construction and attempt to give effect to both as far
as possible
Kerela Education Bill, 1958

In re Kerala Education Bill, SC observed -

3
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226)
1. while affirming the primacy of fundamental rights over the directive principles, qualified the same
by pleading for a harmonious interpretation of the two.

2. that “nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of the Fundamental rights relied upon by or
on behalf of any person or body, the court may not entirely ignore these Directive Principles of state
policy laid down in part IV of the constitution but should adopt the principle of harmonious
construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as possible.”
Without, therefore, making the directive principles justifiable as such, the courts began to
implement the values underlying these principles to the extent possible. The Supreme Court began
to assert that there is “no conflict on the whole” between the fundamental rights and the directive
principles. ‘They are complementary and supplementary to each other.”

Golak Nath v. State of Punjab( 1967)4

The Supreme Court there emphasized that the fundamental rights and directive principles formed
an “integrated scheme” which was elastic enough to respond to the changing needs of the
society.

Kesavanand Bharti v State of Ke rala( 1973)5

SC observed:
1. “the fundamental rights and directive principles constitute the “conscience of the constitution”
there is no antithesis between the fundamental rights and directive principles and one
supplements the other.”
2. “both parts III (fundamental rights) and IV (directive principle) have to be balanced and a
harmonized.

State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas( 1976)6

4
Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762)
5
Kesavananad bharti v state of Kerala((1973) 4 SCC 225)
6
State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas(1976 AIR 490, 1976 SCR (1) 906)
The Supreme Court said that the Directive Principles and Fundamental rights should be construed in
harmony with each other and every attempt should be made by the court to resolve any apparent
in consistency between them.

Pathumma v. State of Kerala(1978)7

The Supreme Court has emphasized that the purpose of the directive principles is to fix certain
socio-economic goals for immediate attainment by bringing about a non-violent social
revolution. The constitution aims at bringing about synthesis between Fundamental rights and
the Directive principles.

Minerva Mills v UOI(1980)8

SC observed-
1. that the fundamental rights “are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end.”
The end is specified in the directive principles.
2. Fundamental rights and directive principles together “constitute the core of commitment to
social revolution and they, together, are the conscience of the constitution.” The Indian
constitution is founded on the bedrock of “balance” between the two.
3. “To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the constitution.
This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an essential
feature of the basic structure of the constitution.”
4. the goals set out in directive principles are to be achieved without abrogating the fundamental
rights.
5. “It is in this sense” that fundamental rights and directive principles “together constitute the
core of our constitution and combine to form its conscience. Anything that destroys the balance
between the two parts will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of our
constitution.”

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp.(1985)9

7
Pathumma v. State of Kerala(1978) AIR 771, 1978 SCR (2) 537
8
Minerva Mills v UOI(1980), SC1789
9
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp.(1985) SCC (3) 545
The Supreme Court has argued in Olga Tellis that since the directive principles are fundamental
in the governance of the country they must, therefore, be regarded as equally fundamental to
the understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of fundamental rights.

Unnikrishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh(1993)10

SC said:
1. that the fundamental rights and directive principles are supplementary and complimentary to
each other, and not exclusionary of each other, and
2. that the fundamental rights are but a means to achieve the goal indicate in the directive
principles, that “fundamental rights must be construed in the light of the directive principles.”

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v Union of India(2008)

Recently, in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v Union of India SC observed that no distinction can be
made between the two sets of rights.
The Fundamental right represents the civil and political rights and the directive principles
embody social and economic rights.
Merely because the directive principles are non-justiciable by the judicial process does not mean
that they are of subordinate importance.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF

STATE POLICY: CONFLICTING OR COMPLIMENTARY
10
Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh( 1993) AIR 217, 1993 SCR (1) 594, 1993 SCC (1) 645, JT
1993 (1) 474, 1993 SCALE (1)290
Without, therefore, making the directive principles justifiable as such, the courts began to
implement the values underlying these principles to the extent possible. The Supreme Court
began to assert that there is “no conflict on the whole” between the fundamental rights and the
directive principles. ‘They are complementary and supplementary to each other.”

Since then, the judicial attitude has become more positive and affirmative towards directive
principles, and both fundamental rights and directive principles have come to be regarded as co-
equal. There is in effect a judicial tendency to interpret Fundamental rights in the light of, and so
as to promote, the values underlying Directive Principles. This aspect of the directive principles
was stressed upon by the Supreme Court in Golak Nath.11

The Supreme Court there emphasized that the fundamental rights and directive principles formed
an “integrated scheme” which was elastic enough to respond to the changing needs of the
society. In Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, HEGDE and MUKHERJI, JJ 12 observed: “the
fundamental rights and directive principles constitute the “conscience of the constitution” there is
no antithesis between the fundamental rights and directive principles and one supplements the
other.” SHELAT and GROVER, JJ., observed in their judgment: “both parts III (fundamental
rights) and IV (directive principle) have to be balanced and a harmonized then alone the dignity
of the individual can be achieved they were meant to supplement each other.”
13
The Supreme Court said in State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas 14, that the Directive Principles and
Fundamental rights should be construed in harmony with each other and every attempt should be
made by the court to resolve any apparent in consistency between them.

CONCLUSIONS

11

12
AIR 1973 SC 1461 at 1641:(1973) 4 SCC 225
13
Kumar Gaurav, 'Relationship Between Fundamental Rights And Dpsps' (Academia.edu, 2017)
<http://www.academia.edu/7698766/Relationship_between_Fundamental_Rights_and_DPSPs>
accessed 25 October 2017.
14
AIR 1976 SC 490 :(1976) 2 SCC 310
The Directive principles and Fundamental rights are not now regarded as exclusionary of each
other. They are regarded as supplementary and complementary to each other. The directive
principles which have been declared to be “fundamental” in the governance of the country
cannot be isolated from fundamental rights. The directive principles have got to be read into the
fundamental rights. An example of such relationship is furnished by the “right to education”.
By and large this assimilative strategy has resulted in broadening, and giving greater depth and
dimension to, and even creating more rights for the people over and above the expressly stated,
fundamental rights. That biggest beneficiary of this approach has been Art 21.

At the same time, the values underlying the directive principles have also become enforceable by
riding on the back of the fundamental rights. Courts have used directive principles not to restrict,
but rather to expand, the ambit of the fundamental rights.

The theme that “fundamental rights are but a means to achieve the goal indicated in the directive
principles” and the fundamental rights must be construed in the light of the directive principles”
has been advocated by the Supreme Court time and again.
Accordingly, the directive principles are regarded as a dependable index of “public purpose”. If a
law is enacted to implement the socio-economic policy envisaged in the directive principles, then
it must be regarded as one for public purpose. Thus, in State of Bihar v. kameshwar, the supreme
court relied on Art. 39 to decide that the law to abolish zamindari had been enacted for a
“public” purpose within the meaning of Art. 31.

It may be concluded by saying that, one should try to establish harmony between fundamental
rights and Directive Principles, since maintenance of harmony between them is a basic feature to
the constitution.

REFERENCES
1. http://www.facts-about- india.com/fundamental-rights- in-India.php
2.http://www.importantindia.com/2041/fundamental-rights-and-directive-principles-of-state-
policy/
3.http://www.vajiramandravi.in/conflict-between-fundamental-rights-and-directive-
principles.html
4. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2478587
5.http://www.gktoday.in/conflict-between-fundamental-rights-and-directive-principles-of-state-
policy/
6.https://abhijeetgautam.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/inter-relationship-between-fundamental-
rights-and-directive-principles/
7. http://www.iupindia.in/1401/Law%20Review/Evolution_of_the_Relationship.html
8. http://www.grkarelawlibrary.yolasite.com/resources/LLM-Const-1-Queency.pdf