JOIN TELEGRAM FOR FREE MATERIAL: @Edzorblaw www.edzorblaw.

com
Question:

What are the provisions of the Constitution which are

meant for protecting the laws giving effect to the
directive principles from being challenged as violative of
the fundamental rights?

[WBJS 1995]

JOIN TELEGRAM FOR FREE MATERIAL: @Edzorblaw www.edzorblaw.com

Answer

Introduction

Relation between Fundamental rights and DPSP

Basis Fundamental Rights DPSP

Scope  Scope of

 Limited scope. DPSP is

limitless.

Level of  Protect the

 Protect the rights
Protection rights of a
of the individual
citizen and
and work at a
work at a
micro level.
macro level.

Enforceability  If anybody feels  DPSP are not

that his rights are enforceable

being violated can by law.

JOIN TELEGRAM FOR FREE MATERIAL: @Edzorblaw www.edzorblaw.com

 approach the
court of law.

Provisions affecting the relation of DPSP and

Fundamental Rights.

Insertion of Article 31C:

 The Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1971 added

this article.
 It was added in order to give protection to laws
enacted forgive in effect to the directive principles
contained in Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution.

Article 31C:

 The law which is passed to give effect to the directive

principles provided under in Article 39 (b) and (c),
should not be void on the ground that it is
inconsistent with or takes away any of the rights
provided under Articles 14 or 19.

JOIN TELEGRAM FOR FREE MATERIAL: @Edzorblaw www.edzorblaw.com

DPSP as non-violative on the ground of inconsistency

Effect of 42nd Amendment on Article 31C:

 The scope of Article 31C was extended to cover

all directive principles.

Keshvanand Bharti Vs State of Kerala

AIR 1973 SC 1461
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the
new Article 31C of the Constitution.

 However, it declared the second part i.e., “the law

containing a declaration that it is for giving effect
to such policy cannot be called in question in any
court on the ground that it does not give effect to
such policy.”of Article 31C as unconstitutional.

 Thus, the Amendment provided that – a law

which is enacted for giving effect to all or any of
the directive principles laid down in Part V,

JOIN TELEGRAM FOR FREE MATERIAL: @Edzorblaw www.edzorblaw.com

 cannot be challenged as violative on the ground
that –
 It was inconsistent with or takes away or
abridges any of the rights provided by
Article 14 or 19 of the Constitution.
 Also, the law which contains a declaration that it
is for giving effect to such policy cannot be called
in question in any court on the ground that it
does not give effect to such policy.

JOIN TELEGRAM FOR FREE MATERIAL: @Edzorblaw www.edzorblaw.com

Striking Down of Article 31C

In Minerva Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India,

AIR 1980 SC 1789

Held: The Supreme Court struck down Article 31C as

amended by the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act,
1978 on the ground that –

 It destroys the basic structure of the

Constitution as
 It disturbs the basic harmony between
fundamental rights and the directive principles

JOIN TELEGRAM FOR FREE MATERIAL: @Edzorblaw www.edzorblaw.com

Re-validation of Article 31C

Waman Rao Vs Union of India

AIR 1980 SC 273

Held: the Supreme Court held that Article 31C as it

stood before the 42nd Amendment is valid as it gives
effect to specific objectives as laid down in Article 39(b)
and (c) of the Constitution.

Conclusion

In Minerva Mills case, it was held that there must be

balance and harmony between Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles of State Policy.

Thus, after this judgement the position is that there is no

conflict between the fundamental rights and the directive
principles.

JOIN TELEGRAM FOR FREE MATERIAL: @Edzorblaw www.edzorblaw.com

JOIN TELEGRAM FOR FREE MATERIAL: @Edzorblaw www.edzorblaw.com