CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - II

ASSIGNMENT - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DPSPs & FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

SUBMITTED TO:

Ms. SHIVANGI SHARMA

SUBMITTED BY:

SHIVALI VARSHNEY

BBA.LL.B (II Year)

1813856

Fundamental rights are the rights which are essential for intellectual, moral & spiritual development of
individuals and in the Indian constitution. They are defined in Part III & are enforceable in courts.
Initially Indian Constitution had seven fundamental rights but later on right to property was abolished &
at present, there are only six fundamental rights namely, right to equality (Article 14-18), Right to
freedom (Article 19-22), Right against exploitation (Article 23-24), Right to freedom of religion (Article
25-28), cultural & educational rights (Article 29-30), Right to Constitutional remedies (Article 32).

Directive Principles of State of Policy (DPSP) are ideals which are meant to be kept in mind by the state
when it formulates policies & enact laws. They are defined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution & are not
enforceable in court. DPSPs are fundamentals in governance of the country & shall be considered dutiful
by the state while making laws. They provide guidelines to central & state government in India to be kept
in mind while framing laws & policies & mentioned in Part IV of the constitution. DPSPs only provide a
yardstick for measuring success or failure of the government.

Directive Principles in the Indian Constitution are:

 States to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people (Article 38)
 Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State (Article 39)
 Equal justice & free legal aid (Article 39-A)
 Organization of village panchayat (Article 40)
 Right to work, to education & to public assistance in certain cases (Article 41)
 Provision for just & humane conditions of work & maternity relief (Article 42)
 Living wages etc. for workers (Article 44)
 Participation of workers in management of industries (Article 43- A)
 Uniform Civil Code (Article 44)
 Provision for free & compulsory education of children (Article 45)
 Promotion of educational & economic interest of SC, ST & other worker sections (Article 46)
 Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition & standard of living & to improve public health
(Article 47)
 Organization of agriculture & animal husbandry (Article 48)
 Protection & improvement of environment & safeguarding of forests & wildlife (Article 48-A)
 Protection of monuments & places & objects of national importance (Article 49)
 Separation of judiciary from executive (Article 50)
 Promotion of international peace & security (Article 51)

Distinguish between fundamental rights & directive principles:

Fundamental Rights Directive Principles

1. These are negative as they prohibit the state from
doing certain things.
2. They are justifiable that is, they are legally
enforceable by the courts in case of their violation.
3. They aim at establishing political democracy in
the country.
4. These have legal sanctions.
5. They promote the welfare of the individual.
6. They do not require any legislation of their
1. These are positive as they require the state to do
certain things.
2. These are non-justifiable, i.e., they are not legally
enforceable by the courts for their violation.
3. They aim at establishing social & economic
democracy in the country.
4. These have moral & political sanctions.
5. They promote the welfare of the community.
6. They require legislation for implementation.
 implementation. They are automatically
enforced.
7. The courts are bound to declare a law violative
of any of the fundamental rights as
unconstitutional & invalid.
They are not automatically enforced.
7. The courts cannot declare a law violative of any
directive principles as unconstitutional & invalid.

The Directive principles differ from fundamental rights in the respect that while fundamental rights are
justifiable, directive principles are non-justifiable. According to Article 37, the directive principles,
though they are fundamental in the governance of the country, and it shall be the duty of the state to apply
these principles in making law, but they are expressly made non-justifiable. On the other hand,
fundamental rights are enforceable by the courts (Article 32) and the courts are bound to declare as void
any law, which is inconsistent with the fundamental rights. The DPSP are not so enforceable by the
courts nor can the courts declare as void any law which is otherwise valid on the ground that the
contraveners any of the directives.

In the case of State of Madras v. Champakan Dorairajan (1951), the Supreme Court observed that “the
directive principles of the state which by Article 37 are expressly made unenforceable by Courts override
the provisions found in part IV which, notwithstanding other provisions, are expressly made enforceable
by appropriate writs, orders or directions under Article 32.” In this case it was held that in case of any
conflict between the fundamental rights & directive principles, the fundamental rights would prevail.

In case of Re Kerala Education Bill (1957); the Supreme Court observed that though the directive
principles cannot override the fundamental rights nevertheless in determining the scope & ambit of
fundamental rights. The court may not entirely ignore the directive principles but should adopt “the
principles of harmonious construction & should attempt to give effect to both as much as possible.”

In Keshavananda Bharti v. state of Kerala (1973); the Supreme Court has said that fundamental rights &
directive principles aim at the same goal of bringing about a social revelations & establishment of a
welfare state & they can be interpreted & applied together. They are supplementary & complimentary to
each other. It can be said that directive principles prescribed the goal to be attained & the fundamental
rights lay down the means by which that goal is to be achieved. Article 31-C & directive principles –
Article 31-C was added by the Constitution 25th Amendment Act, 1971. The amendment has enhanced the
importance of directive principles. The object of the amendment as stated in objects clause of the Bill was
that this was enacted to get over the difficulties placed in the way of giving effect to the directive
principles of state policy. 25 th Amendment gave primacy of the directive principles contained in Article
39(b) & (c) over the fundamental right in Article 14, 19 or 31. Further, Article 31-C again got amended
by the 42nd amendment Act, 1972 which gave precedence to all the directive principles over the
fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 14, 19 or 31.

In Minerva mills v. Union of India (1980); the supreme court by 4:1 majority struck down Article 31-C 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 bed rock of the balance
between Part III & IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the
constitution which is essential feature of basic structure.
In the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P (1986); it was established that fundamental rights must be
constructed in the light of the directive principles and complementary to each other and fundamental
rights are means to achieve the goal indicated in Part IV of the Indian Constitution.

Conclusively, there is no conflict between directive principles & fundamental rights because they
supplement each other in aiming the same goal of welfare state, the present position is that fundamental
rights enjoy the supremacy over the directive principles but the parliament can amend the fundamental
rights for implementing directive principles directive principles, so long as the amendment does not
damage the basic structure of Indian Constitution.