Understanding the Constitutional Debate
The relationship between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) of the Indian Constitution has been a subject of significant constitutional debate and judicial interpretation.
While Fundamental Rights are justiciable guarantees protecting individual liberties against state action, DPSPs are non-justiciable socio-economic goals that the State is expected to strive for.
This inherent difference led to conflicts, particularly when laws implementing DPSPs were perceived to infringe upon FRs. The judiciary's stance has evolved from initially holding FRs as absolutely superior, through parliamentary attempts to give primacy to DPSPs, to the current position emphasizing harmonious construction and the Basic Structure doctrine, where both are seen as complementary and essential for holistic constitutional governance.
Key Takeaway: From Conflict to Harmony
The journey of FRs and DPSPs is a testament to the Indian Constitution's adaptability, balancing individual freedoms with collective societal well-being.
The Evolving Judicial Stance: A Timeline
7.5.1: Initial Judicial View: FRs superior to DPSPs.
In the early years of the Republic, the judiciary tended to give primacy to the justiciable Fundamental Rights over the non-justiciable Directive Principles when a conflict arose.
State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
- Context: Caste-based reservation challenged (Art 15(1), 29(2) vs. DPSP Art 46).
- Ruling: SC held DPSPs cannot override FRs; DPSPs subsidiary. If conflict, FRs prevail. Declared communal G.O. void.
- Consequence: Led to the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, adding Art 15(4) to enable reservations for backward classes.
7.5.2: Attempts to give Primacy to DPSPs over certain FRs.
The Champakam Dorairajan ruling hindered socio-economic reforms, prompting legislative attempts to assert DPSP primacy.
Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab (1967)
- Context: Challenges to land reform laws.
- Ruling: SC held FRs are sacrosanct; Parliament cannot amend FRs to abridge them, even for DPSPs. Constitutional amendment is a 'law' under Art 13(2).
- Impact: Severely restricted Parliament's power.
24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971
- Purpose: To overcome Golak Nath.
- Provisions: Amended Art 13(4) & 368 to explicitly affirm Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including FRs, and that Art 13 wouldn't apply.
25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971
- Purpose: To give specific DPSPs precedence.
- Provision (Art 31C - Original): Protected laws implementing Art 39(b) & 39(c) from challenge under Art 14, 19, or 31. Also included a non-justiciable declaration clause.
7.5.3: Doctrine of Basic Structure and Harmonious Construction.
The constitutional validity of the 24th and 25th Amendments was challenged in this landmark case.
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
- Ruling: Overruled Golak Nath, upheld 24th Am. & first part of Art 31C. Struck down the second part of Art 31C (declaration clause) as it violated judicial review.
- Doctrine: Propounded the Doctrine of Basic Structure – Parliament's amending power is not unlimited; cannot alter the 'basic structure'.
- Key Observation: Harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs is an essential feature of the basic structure.
7.5.4: Further Expansion and Contraction of DPSP Primacy.
The push and pull continued with subsequent amendments and judicial responses.
42nd Amendment (1976)
- Purpose: Expanded scope of Art 31C to give primacy to ALL DPSPs over Art 14, 19, 31 (during Emergency).
Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980)
- Ruling: SC struck down the extension of Art 31C by the 42nd Amendment as violating Basic Structure.
- Reaffirmation: Emphasized that FRs and DPSPs are "two wheels of a chariot" and need harmonious construction. The Constitution is founded on the bedrock of balance.
- Impact: Restored Art 31C to its pre-42nd Amendment position (protecting only laws for Art 39(b) & (c)).
7.5.5: Current Position: Balance and Harmony.
- FRs & DPSPs: FRs enjoy supremacy in direct conflict (due to justiciability), but DPSPs are fundamental in governance. Courts seek harmonious construction.
- Parliament's Power: Parliament can amend FRs to implement DPSPs, provided it doesn't damage or destroy the Basic Structure (which includes FR-DPSP harmony).
- Art 31C's Scope: Laws giving effect to Art 39(b) and 39(c) are protected from challenge under Art 14 and 19. Judicial review of the 'nexus' remains.
- Conclusion: Both are essential for achieving the constitutional goal of a just and egalitarian society. DPSPs set goals, FRs provide means and safeguards.
Analytical Insights: The Deeper Relationship
"Two Wheels of a Chariot" Analogy
This analogy from the Minerva Mills case aptly describes the ideal relationship. Both FRs (political and civil rights) and DPSPs (socio-economic goals) are essential for the progress of the nation. One cannot be fully realized without the other. Political democracy (FRs) is incomplete without social and economic democracy (DPSPs), and vice-versa, emphasizing their complementary nature.
DPSPs as a Tool to Interpret FRs
The Supreme Court often uses DPSPs to inform the meaning and scope of FRs, particularly Article 21 (Right to Life). For instance, the right to education (original DPSP Art 45) was read into Article 21 before Article 21A was added. Similarly, rights to clean environment (Art 48A), health (Art 47), and livelihood (Art 39a) have been linked to Art 21, demonstrating constructive harmonization.
Judicial Balancing Act
The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in navigating the complex relationship, moving from strict legalism (FRs prevail) to emphasizing harmony and integration. The Basic Structure doctrine became the ultimate tool to ensure that attempts to give absolute primacy to DPSPs did not lead to the abrogation of essential freedoms, thus preserving constitutionalism.
Continuing Relevance of the Debate
While the legal position is now relatively settled, the underlying tension between individual rights and socio-economic goals continues to surface in policy debates (e.g., land acquisition vs. livelihood rights; economic reforms vs. social safety nets). The principles evolved through this constitutional journey remain relevant for contemporary governance, ensuring a dynamic interpretation of the Constitution.
Contemporary Applications & Debates
Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Debate
This is a prime example of a DPSP (Art 44) interacting with FRs (Art 14, 15 - equality; Art 25-28 - freedom of religion; Art 29 - cultural rights). Discussions on UCC involve how to implement this DPSP while respecting the FRs of various communities. The judiciary has often urged the government to consider UCC, but the path to implementation involves balancing these constitutional principles.
Socio-Economic Welfare Schemes
Government policies aimed at fulfilling DPSPs (e.g., related to health, nutrition, employment, housing) are often assessed for their impact on FRs (e.g., whether they are implemented in a non-discriminatory manner, or if any conditions attached violate liberty). Courts continue to refer to the principle of harmonious construction in judgments dealing with socio-economic issues, often linking DPSPs (like Art 48A - environmental protection) to the Right to Life (Art 21 - FR).
UPSC PYQs & Practice
Prelims MCQs
Which of the following is/are true regarding the relationship between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) in India?
- FRs are justiciable while DPSPs are non-justiciable.
- In case of a direct conflict, DPSPs will always prevail over FRs.
- The Supreme Court has held that harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs is a basic feature of the Constitution.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 1 and 3 only
- (c) 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
View Answer & Explanation
Answer: (b)
Hint/Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect; FRs generally prevail, though Art 31C provides limited exception for Art 39(b)&(c). Statement 3 is correct (Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills).
The judgment in the Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980) case is significant because it:
- (a) Upheld Parliament's unlimited power to amend Fundamental Rights.
- (b) Declared that Directive Principles of State Policy are superior to Fundamental Rights.
- (c) Struck down the expansion of Article 31C by the 42nd Amendment and reaffirmed the harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs as a basic feature.
- (d) Introduced the concept of 'creamy layer' in reservations.
View Answer & Explanation
Answer: (c)
Hint/Explanation: Minerva Mills struck down the provision of 42nd Amendment that gave primacy to all DPSPs over FRs (Art 14, 19), holding that the balance between FRs and DPSPs is part of the basic structure. (d) is related to Indra Sawhney case.
Article 31C of the Constitution of India, in its present form, gives primacy to Directive Principles under Article 39(b) and 39(c) over which of the following Fundamental Rights?
- (a) Article 14 and Article 21
- (b) Article 19 and Article 21
- (c) Article 14 and Article 19
- (d) Article 20 and Article 21
View Answer & Explanation
Answer: (c)
Hint/Explanation: Article 31C, as it stands today after judicial interpretations, protects laws implementing Article 39(b) and 39(c) from challenge on grounds of violating Article 14 (Equality) and Article 19 (Six Freedoms). (Article 31, originally included, was deleted as an FR).
Mains Questions
"The Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights are supplementary and complementary to each other." Comment on the statement, tracing the judicial approach to their relationship.
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: State the complementary nature.
- Initial View (Conflict & FR Supremacy): Champakam Dorairajan.
- Legislative Attempts for DPSP Primacy & Judicial Response: Golak Nath, 24th/25th Amendments, Article 31C.
- Era of Harmonious Construction & Basic Structure: Kesavananda Bharati (harmony and balance as basic feature, upheld first part of 31C), Minerva Mills (struck down expansion of 31C, "Two wheels of a chariot").
- How they are Complementary: FRs (political democracy) need socio-economic underpinning (DPSPs). DPSPs guide state action for better enjoyment of FRs. Judiciary using DPSPs to interpret and expand FRs (especially Art 21).
- Conclusion: Judiciary moved from conflict to harmony; both essential for a just and egalitarian society.
Discuss the evolution of the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Has a clear balance been achieved?
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: FRs as justiciable, DPSPs non-justiciable, leading to debate on primacy.
- Phase 1: FR Supremacy: Champakam Dorairajan.
- Phase 2: Parliamentary Assertion for DPSP Primacy & Judicial Resistance: Golak Nath, 24th, 25th Amendments.
- Phase 3: Emergence of Basic Structure & Harmonious Construction (Kesavananda Bharati): Parliament can amend FRs for DPSPs, but not damage basic structure. Harmony between FRs and DPSPs as basic feature. Article 31C (partially upheld).
- Phase 4: Reaffirmation of Balance (Minerva Mills): Struck down attempt to give absolute primacy to all DPSPs. "Two wheels of a chariot."
- Current Status: Generally, FRs have direct enforceability. DPSPs guide. Courts harmonize. Article 31C (for 39b,c) is an exception.
- Has a clear balance been achieved? Largely yes, in legal terms. The "harmony and balance" principle is the accepted norm. However, political debates continue (e.g., UCC). Judicial activism blurs lines by giving DPSP-like content to FRs.
- Conclusion: Through a dynamic process, a functional balance has been achieved, where both are considered vital.
"The Basic Structure doctrine has played a pivotal role in defining the limits of parliamentary power to subordinate Fundamental Rights to Directive Principles." Critically evaluate this statement.
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Define Basic Structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati).
- Context of FR-DPSP Conflict: Legislative attempts to give DPSPs primacy (e.g., Art 31C expansion by 42nd Am.).
- Role of Basic Structure Doctrine: Kesavananda Bharati (established that harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs is a basic feature, limiting amendment power). Minerva Mills (directly applied Basic Structure to strike down 42nd Amendment's expansion of Article 31C).
- How it Defines Limits: Prevents Parliament from making FRs completely subservient, safeguards individual liberties, maintains judicial review.
- Critical Evaluation: Strengths (safeguards democratic values, protects FRs, constitutionalism). Criticisms (undemocratic, vague).
- Conclusion: Pivotal role by ensuring core protections of FRs are not destroyed while pursuing DPSPs.
Test Your Knowledge
Original MCQs
Which of the following Supreme Court cases first explicitly stated that the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy is an essential feature of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution?
- (a) State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan
- (b) Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab
- (c) Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
- (d) Minerva Mills vs. Union of India
View Answer & Explanation
Answer: (d)
Explanation: While Kesavananda Bharati introduced the Basic Structure doctrine and discussed the importance of both FRs and DPSPs, the Minerva Mills case explicitly held that the "harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution" when striking down the expansion of Article 31C. Kesavananda did state that the Constitution is erected on the twin pillars of FRs & DPSPs. However, Minerva Mills gave a very direct and forceful articulation of this specific point in relation to DPSP primacy being unconstitutional due to this balance being a basic feature.
The current constitutional position regarding the relationship between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) in India is best described as:
- (a) DPSPs are absolutely superior to FRs, and laws implementing DPSPs cannot be challenged.
- (b) FRs are absolutely superior to DPSPs, and DPSPs have no legal significance.
- (c) FRs and DPSPs are to be harmoniously construed, with FRs generally having primacy but Parliament can amend FRs for DPSPs without destroying the Basic Structure.
- (d) All DPSPs have primacy over Articles 14 and 19 of the Fundamental Rights.
View Answer & Explanation
Answer: (c)
Explanation: (a) is incorrect (Minerva Mills). (b) is incorrect (Art 37 says DPSPs fundamental in governance). (d) is incorrect (Minerva Mills struck down this expansion of Art 31C; only laws for Art 39b,c have such protection). (c) accurately reflects the current position of harmonious construction, general FR primacy due to justiciability, and amendability of FRs subject to Basic Structure.
Original Descriptive Questions
1. "The story of the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in India is a story of judicial endeavor to find a balance that serves both individual liberty and social good." Trace this judicial endeavor through landmark cases and analyze the current equilibrium.
Think about the phases of judicial interpretation and how they shaped the current balance.
2. Critically evaluate the impact of Article 31C on the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. Has it effectively resolved the conflict or created new complexities?
Consider its original intent, judicial modifications, and its current, limited scope.