"Constitutionally reconciling the Fundamental Rights with the Directive Principles of State Policy has led to frequent amendments of the Constitution and judicial interventions." Comment. (UPSC CSE Mains 2021 - Political Science and International Relations, Paper 1)
-
- Directive Principles of State Policies (DPSP) are positive as they require the State to do certain things while Fundamental rights (FR) are negative as they impose limitations on the working of the state.
- The conflict between the DPSPs and Fundamental Rights seems not to be a novice situation. The character though may be similar but points of conflicts even today in the contemporary times rests at the following points:
- Justiciability of the Fundamental Rights and the Non- Justiciable character of the DPSP.
- Moral Obligation and duty casted upon the state to implement the Directive Principles as per Article 37 has also raised a serious point of contravention since the inception of the Constitution and Part III and Part IV.
Conflicts Between Fundamental Rights and DPSP: Associated Cases
- Champakam Dorairajan v the State of Madras (1951):In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would
-
- It declared that the Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights.
- It also held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliament by enacting constitutional amendment acts.
- Golaknath v the State of Punjab (1967):In this case, the Supreme Court declared that Fundamental Rights could not be amended by the Parliament even for implementation of Directive Principles.
-
- It was contradictory to its own judgement in the ‘Shankari Parsad case’.
- Kesavananda Bharati v the State of Kerala (1973):In this case, the Supreme Court overruled its Golak Nath (1967) verdict and declared that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but it cannot alter its “Basic Structure”.
-
- Thus, the Right to Property (Article 31) was eliminated from the list of Fundamental Rights.
- Minerva Mills v the Union of India (1980):In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but it cannot change the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
The doctrine of Harmonious construction as a new technique of interpretation was inducted and innovated by the Supreme Court in the case of Quareshi Mohd. v. State of Bihar where the court stated that the Constitution has to be construed harmoniously, the Directive Principles must be implemented in such a way that it does not take away or encroach upon the fundamental rights of citizens. The courts should adopt the principles of harmonious construction and attempt to give effect to both Part III and Part IV of the Constitution.
Next
previous
Latest News
EDITORIALS & ARTICLES
General Studies