Interrelation between FRs & DPSPs

Introduction of DPSP
 FR and DPSPs have common origin. Nehru report of 1928 which contained a Swaraj
Constitution of India incorporated some FRs. These include rights such as right to
elementary education.
 Sapru report of 1945 divided these rights into 2 categories – justiciable and non-
justiciable.
 Sir BN Rau, Constitutional Advisor to Constituent Assembly advised individual rights
should be divided into 2 categories – enforceable by court and not so enforceable (these
to be acted as moral precepts for state). Draft committee accepted it. Thus incorporated.
 Ireland model – DPSP as social policy for state guidance but not cognizable by court.
Part IV Articles 36-51 – DPSPs
Article 37 lays down that it is the duty of the State to apply these Directives in making laws.
Significance
In determining Constitutional validity of a legislation, they are given precedence over
Fundamental rights. They are relevant to consider what are reasonable restrictions under Article
19. (Art. 19 provides for right to freedom, which are subjected to certain restrictions, thus DPSP
are taken into consideration whether the restrictions imposed by the State are reasonable or not)

Relation between Directive principles and fundamental rights

1. Directive principles are non-justiciable where is fundamental rights are justiciable and
enforced by the court.
2. Directive principles are instrument of instructions to the government where is
fundamental rights are limitations upon the state actions.
3. Directive principles contains positive commands to the state and fundamental rights
contain negative injunctions to the state not to do various things.
4. Directive principles are required to be implemented by legislation where the fundamental
rights are self-executed in nature
5. Directive principle sets the guideline for achieving socialist goals through democratic
methods while the fundamental rights guarantee some basic rights to the individual
leading cases on the relationship between fundamental Rights and Directive principles
1. state of Madras vs champakam dorairajan (1951 SC) - held that the Directive
Principles cannot override the fundamental rights. the directives have to conform and to
run as subsidiary to the fundamental rights.
 2. In Re Kerala education bill 1957 SC, the court observed that the Directive Principles
cannot override the fundamental rights nevertheless in determining the scope and ambit
of rights the court may not entirely ignore the directives. But should adopt the principles
of harmonious construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as possible.

3. 25th amendment 1971 considerably enhanced the importance of directives. Article 31C
added by it, provided that a law for implementing directives contained in Article 39 (b)
and (c) could not be struck down on the ground that it contravened rights conferred by
Article 14, 19 or 31.

4. In Keshav Nanda Bharati vs Union of India 1973 Supreme Court the court observed
that the fundamental rights and Directive principles are meant to supplement one another.
it can well be said that the directive prescribed the goal to be attained and fundamental
rights laid down the means by which that goal is to be achieved. Both are equally
fundamental though directives are not directly enforceable by Court.

5. 42nd amendment 1976 widen the scope of Article 31C so as to cover all Directive
principles. Thus, it gave precedence to all the directives over fundamental rights - Article
14, 19 or 31.

6. In Minerva Mills vs Union of India 1980 SC the Court struck down Article 31C as
amended by 42nd amendment as unconstitutional on the ground that it destroys the “basic
features” of the constitution. the majority observed that the constitution is founded on the
Bedrock of the balance between Part III and IV. to give absolute primacy to one over the
another is to disturb the harmony of the constitution which is the essential features of the
basic structure. the goals set out in Part IV have to be achieved without the abrogation
of the means provided for by Part III.
the court held that the unamended article 31C is valid as it does not destroy the basic features of
constitution. Article 39 (b) and (c) are vital for the Welfare of people and do not violate Article
14 and 19. other Directive Principles could not override fundamental rights.
7. in state of Tamil Nadu versus Abu kavur bai 1984 Supreme Court, 5 judge bench held
that all the directives are not enforceable yet the court should make a real attempt at
harmonizing and reconciling the directives and the right and any collision between the
two should be avoided as far as possible. the reason why the founding fathers of our
constitution did not make these principles enforceable was, the court said perhaps, due to
the vital consideration of giving the government sufficient latitude to implement these
principles from time to time according to capacity, situation and circumstances that may
arise.

8. In Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka 1992 SC the two-judge bench of Supreme Court
held that every citizen has a right to education under the constitution. the framers of the
Constitution made it obligatory for state to provide education for its citizens. the court
 further observed that state is under a constitutional mandate to provide education at all
levels and the established educational institutions at all levels.

9. In Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh 1993 5 judge bench by 3- 2 majority held

that admission to all the recognised private educational institutions particularly Medical
and Engineering shall be based on merit but 50% of seats in all education colleges be
filled by candidates prepared to pay a higher fee. every citizen has the right to free
education until he completes the age of 14 years. thereafter his right to education is
subject to the limits of economic capacity and development of the state.

10. in TMA Pai Foundation versus state of Karnataka 2003 the constitution bench of
Supreme Court overruled the Unnikrishnan case partly. it was held that the scheme which
was related to admission and the fixing of fee were not correct and to that extend they
were overruled.

conclusion
There is no conflict or disharmony between Directive principles and fundamental rights because
they supplement each other in aiming at the same goal of bringing about a social Revolution and
establishment of a welfare state. as described by Granville Austin, the fundamental rights and
Directive Principles are the “conscience of our constitution”.
the objective of both is securing social, economic and political justice and dignity and welfare of
the individual. Both are on same level. in case of an apparent conflict, it is for the court to
resolve it in exercise of its power of Judicial review.