Interrelation between Directive Principle Of state Policy and Fundamental Right- which shall prevail if there is a conflict between FR and DPSPs?
what is the relation between fundamental right and directive principle of state policy and if there is conflict between both which shall prevail?
Prince Raj Yadav
In India, there is a reciprocal relationship between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights. While the Fundamental Rights give people the assurances they need to defend their rights, the Directive Principles set forth the objectives of the Indian state. These values create a framework that protects the Indian people's ambitions, both individually and collectively. Enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, the Fundamental Rights protect fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, equality, life, liberty, and religion. Part IV's Directive Principles set forth the state's objectives, which include protecting worker rights, preserving natural resources, and promoting social and economic fairness.
Now the question is if there is conflict between the Fundamental Right and Directive Principle State Policy which shall prevail?
This issue came up before the supreme court for the first time in case of-
Champakam Dorairajan v the State of Madras (1951)
Fact-
In this case State of Madras made a law which providde the reservation of seats in medical and engineering colleges and the reservation was based upon caste and religion.
Now, this law was challenged on the grounds of violation of article 14 and article 15.
Article 14- Ensure the equality while,
Article 15- Prohibit the state from discriminate on the ground of religion, race, caste etc.
-> Basic contention- order of Madras government violates the fundamental right.
->Contention of Madras government was that-
This order is to enforce the article 46 states that an endeavouring to uplift the weaker section (Scheduled caste, Scheduled Tribe, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes)
Court held that-
That in case of conflict between fundamental right and directive principle of state policy, Fundamental right shall prevail, the reason behind thid is that fundamental right are enforceable under article 32 and 226 whereas, according to article 37, directive principle of state policy is not enforceable.
# This judgement became the reason for 1st constitution amendment in 1951 by which article 15(4) was added, which enforces the state to give the reservation to SC, ST and SEBC.
2nd development in 1967 in the judgement of:
I. C Golaknath & Ors v. State of Punjab & Anrs.1967 SCR (2) 762
In this case court held that no amendment can take place which affect the fundamental right. It means Fundamental Right shall prevail.
3rd development
Issue came up in year 1971 in which parliament brought 25th constitution amendment by which article 31C was added in the constitution.
- According to article 31C- It was provided that parliament can make a law to enforce the directive principle which is provided in article 39(b) and 39(c) ( this directive ensures socialist pattern not the capitalist pattern), such law would not violate the article 14, article 19 and article 31.
Such law which is to enforce 39(b) & 39(c) cannot be challenged in any court under ground of violation of article 14, 19 and 31.
4th development
25th constitution amendment was challenged in the case of:-
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
In this case supreme court declared the article 31C as partially constitutuional and partially unconstitutional.
-> The power of parliament to make the law was valid for the enforcement of article 39(b) and 39(c), it is constitutional.
But the second part which restrict the court from judicial review was declared unconstitutional because judicial review was declared as basic structure and this provision want to take it away.
5th development
Parliament again amend the artcle 31C by 42nd constitution amendment in 1976 and added that parliament may make a law not only for the enforcement of article 39(b) and 39(c) but also to all directive priciples from article 36 to 51 and such law shall prevail over the fundamental right.
6th development
This amendment (25th C.A) was declared unconstitutional in the year 1980 in case of
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
In this case court held that there cannot be a question of supremacy both are (FR and DPSP) supplementary too each other. There are the two side of the point-
- One is the means- FR
- Other is a end (objective)- DPSP
-> This approach of the court is called harmonius construction which means every provision of the constitution shall be given equal important none is supreme or one is inferior and each and every provision has to be given the due weightage.
After the judgement of Minerva Mills case, even the court has started to convert the directive principle into fundamental right.
Case laws in which DPSP changes to FR
- Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978) and Hussainara Khatoon ansd Others v. home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (1980) in both cases free legal aid is directive principles but it is changed as fundamental right.
- In case of Unnikrishnan v. state of Andhra (1993), right to education convert to FR.
- In case of Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. union of India ' equal pay for equal work' as fundamental right.
So at the last we conclude that the main aim of constitution to maintain harmony between fundamental right and directive principle of state policy. In above point we saw that both fundamental right as well as directive principles of state policy are supplementary and complementary to each other. For a society to be fair and just, both are required.
