Relation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy

Article 38-51

Introduction:

The Directive Principles of state policy (D.P.S.P.) contained in Part IV of

the constitution sets out the main objectives to be taken up by the states in the
governance of the country. This novel features is borrowed from the Irish
constitution.

The idea of welfare state envisaged by our constitution can only be achieved
if the states endeavour to implement them with a high sense of moral duty.

Long back it was thought that the state is mainly concerned with the
maintenance of law and order and the protection of life, liberty and property of the
subject. Such a restrictive role of the state is no longer a valid concept.

Today we are living in the era of welfare state which has to promote the
prosperity and well being of he people. The S.A.S.P. lays down certain economic
and social policies to be pursued by the various governments in India, they impose
certain obligations on the state to take positive action in certain directions in order
to promote the welfare of the purpose and achieve economic democracy.

Underlying object of Directive Principles of State Policy:

The D.P.S.P. are the ideas which the union and state governments must keep
in mind while they lay down certain, social, economic and political principles,
suitable to peculiar conditions prevailing in India.

In the words of G.N.Joshi, they constitute a very comprehensive political,

social and economic programme for a modern democratic state.

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar aptly describes the objective of a welfare state in the

following words,

“Our constitution lays down what is called as parliamentary democracy we

mean one man, one vote.” We also means that every government shall be on the
unvil, both in its daily affairs and also at the end of a certain period when the
voters and the electorate will be given an opportunity to assess the work done by
the government.

The reason why we have established in the constitution a political

democracy is because we do not want to install by any means whatsoever a
perpetual dictatorship of any particular body of people. While we have established
political democracy, it is also desire that, we should lay down our ideas economic
democracy. We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to
come and capture power. The constitution also wishes to lay down an ideas before
those who would be forming the government. That ideal of economic democracy,
whereby, so far as I am concerned, I understand to mean one man one vote. The
question is, have we got any fixed idea as to how we should bring about economic
democracy? There are various ways in which people believe that economic
democracy can be brought about; there are those who believe in individualism as
the best form of economic democracy; there are those who believe in having a
socialistic state as the best form of Economic democracy; there are those who
believe in having a socialistic state as the best form of Economic democracy; there
are those who believe in the communistic idea as the most perfect form of
democracy.

Now, having regard to the fact that there are various ways by which
economic democracy may be brought about, we have deliberately introduced in the
language that we have used, in D.P.S.P., something which is not flexible or rigid.
We have left enough room for the people of different ways of thinking, with regard
to the reaching of economic democracy to strike on their own way, to persuade the
electorates that it is the best way of reaching economic democracy, the fullest
opportunity to act in the way in which they want to act.

So, Article 38-51 lays down the instrument of instructions to be followed by

the state in establishing a welfare state.

True, D.P.S.P. are not enforceable in a court of law but it is certainly

enforceable by the people. The day from which Part IV was introduced in to the
constitution from the very day a conflict between Part III and Part IV has started.
Now, the conflict is between the individuals and the state.
 To make D.P.S.P. to be enforced by the state, the people should be well
aware o the directive principles and have the capacity to question the peoples
representatives at the time of election demanding how many directives they have
introduced in their tenure of office. If the people are not responded properly by the
people representatives, then they have an effective weapon in their hand, that is,
right to adult franchise and remove them from their office. It is only then it is
possible to get the directives enforced and establish a welfare state. Right to vote is
more valuable weapon then any other remedy.

Relation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State

Policy:

The Directive Principles differ from that if Fundamental Rights in this

respect, that of Fundamental Rights in this respect, that while Fundamental Rights
are enforceable or justifiable in a court of law.

The relation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State

Policy can be well discussed with the help of certain important case laws decided
by the Supreme Court of India.

Case Study:

According to Article 37, Directive Principles of State Policy though they are
Fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be duty of the state to
apply these principles in making laws, but they are expressly made non-justifiable
on the other hand Fundamental Rights are enforceable on the courts of law either
under Article 32 or 226 of the constitution and if the law passed by the state is
unconstitutional courts are bound to declare the law as well as null and void.

In State of Madras v/s Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 228)

In this case, it was held that in case of conflict between Fundamental Right
and Directive Principles of State Policy the Fundamental Right would prevail. The
court observed, that Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct and not liable to be
abridged by legislative or executive act or orders, except to the extent provided in
the appropriate Article in Part III. The Directive Principles of State Policy have to
confirm and to run subsidiary to Fundamental Rights.
 In State of Bihar v/s Kameshwar (AIR 1952 SC 352), the court relieved
on Article 39 in deciding that a certain Zamindari Abolition Act had been passed
for a public purpose within the meaning of Article 31. The court observed that the
Directive Principle of State Policy passed with a good will prevail over that of
Fundamental Right.

In Re-Ketala Education Bill (AIR 1957 SC 956), the Supreme Court

observed that though the Directive Principles of State Policy cannot over ride the
Fundamental Rights, nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of
Fundamental Rights the court may not entirely ignore the Directive Principle of
State Policy, but should adopt the principles of harmonious constitution and should
attempt to give effect to both as much as possible.

In Mohammed Quarsho v/s State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731, the court
observed, “Likewise a state law which prohibits slaughter of cows and calves and
other cattle capable of work has been upheld because it was meant to give effect to
Article 48 of the constitution.

Again in orient wearing Mills v/s Union of India AIR 1983 SC 98 Article
44 has been referred to in upholding validity of the exercise Rules empowering the
Central Government to grant exemption from payment of duty to small cooperative
societies of weaves producing cotton fabrics on powerlooms. While Part III
contains negative injunctions to the state not to do various things, Part IV contains
positive commands to the state to promote what may be called a social and welfare
state.

In Minerva Mills v/s Union of India, the 42nd Amendment was challenged as
the Amendment permitted to promote Directive Principles of State Policy over
Fundamental Rights by certain provisions of the Amendment. The court struck
down and observed Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy
are like two faces of the same coin and they should go hand in hand. One cannot
claim superiority over that of the other. Both are necessary in the governance of the
country and to establish a welfare state.

Thus, it is noticeable that though the court gave less importance to Directive
Principles of State Policy but in later decisions the court has taken the view that
there is no conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State
Policy and they supplement each other in aiming at the same goal in bringing about
a social revolution and the establishment of a welfare state, which, is envisaged in
the preamble.

In view of this the courts have the responsibility to interpret the provisions
of the constitution in such a way so as to ensure the implementation of the
Directive Principles of State Policy and to harmonize the social objectives
underlying the directives with the individual rights. This is the mandate of the
constitution not the legislature and executive only but to the courts as well.

(Rajan Dwiredi v/s Union of India AIR 1983 SC 624)

The Directive Principles of State Policy are not enforceable in a court of

law, yet there principles have been declared to be Fundamental in the governance
of the country (Article 37). It is the duty of the state to apply these principles in
making laws. If any Government ignores them they will certainly have to answer
for them before the electorate at the time of Election. The directives are not merely
intended to be merely moral precepts, and was made clear by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
when he said.

“If any Government ignores them, they will certainly have to answer them
before the electorate.”

Conclusion:

It is, therefore, not correct to criticise that there directives are meaningless. It
is wrong to say that there is no certain behind them. In this age of democracy vigil
out public opinion is the real force behind an institution which stands for the
benefit of the individual. The Government in a parliamentary system is under a
constant fire of criticism. The actions of the Government are subject to scrutiny by
the masses and distinguished leaders of different parties. If the Government
pursues a policy in accordance with the constitution people will tolerate, otherwise
they will out then embodied in the constitution, the Government is bound to
implement them. There may be no legal force behind them but the high tribunal
public opinion- stand behind them. No Government can ignore these directives, id
it is not keen to doom its future, for all time to come.
 Granville Austin, has described Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles of State Policy as the “Conscience of Indian Constitution.”