INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

ABSTRACT

This comprehensive analysis delves into the intricate relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) within the Indian Constitution. It explores their origins, nature, and the nuanced interplay that shapes their application in governance. The paper examines key case laws that have significantly influenced the interpretation and enforcement of these constitutional principles, highlighting the judiciary’s pivotal role in balancing individual liberties with societal welfare.

The analysis explores the historical context of these concepts, tracing their evolution and development within the Indian constitutional framework. It examines the challenges and complexities arising from the potential conflicts between individual rights and state-directed policies. The paper also discusses the role of the judiciary in resolving these conflicts through the doctrine of harmonious construction, ensuring that both Fundamental Rights and DPSP are given effect to as far as possible.

By examining the interplay between these two fundamental components of the Indian Constitution, the paper sheds light on the delicate balance that underpins India’s democratic governance. It underscores the importance of maintaining this equilibrium for the continued progress and development of the nation, ensuring that both individual liberties and societal welfare are upheld.

KEYWORDS

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, Indian Constitution, Judicial Review, Harmonious Construction, Individual Liberties, Societal Welfare, Case Law Analysis, Democratic Governance, Social Justice, Equality, Equality before the law, Freedom of speech, right to education, right to work, Welfare state

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Constitution, the world’s lengthiest written legal document, serves as the backbone of the nation’s democratic and secular fabric. Initially comprising 395 articles, 22 parts, and 8 schedules, it now encompasses a preamble, 25 parts, 12 schedules, 3 appendices, 106 amendments, and 448 articles. This monumental document took effect on January 26, 1950, a day now celebrated as Republic Day.

The Constitution safeguards the fundamental rights and welfare of its citizens, with inspiration drawn from the American Bill of Rights. Together with the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), these rights form the trinity of the Indian Constitution, ensuring principles of equality, justice, good governance, welfare, and human rights.

The Constitution is not as rigid as the American one or as flexible as the British one, striking a delicate balance between individual liberties and societal welfare. This balance is reflected in the relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSP, the two guiding pillars of India’s governance and progress.

The Constitution was drafted by a committee chaired by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, after a process spanning 166 days over nearly three years. It incorporates features from the British, Irish, Swiss, French, Canadian, and American Constitutions, demonstrating its comprehensive and adaptive nature. As of January 2020, 104 amendments have been made, highlighting its ability to evolve with changing times.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Fundamental rights, often referred to as “inherent” or “basic” rights, are the essential liberties that every individual is entitled to from birth. These rights, which are crucial for human survival and dignity, are safeguarded in Part III of the Indian Constitution, specifically from Article 12 to Article 35[1].

These rights serve as the bulwark against any form of discrimination based on religion, caste, race, etc., and are integral to maintaining a free and just society. They ensure the protection of minorities from discriminatory practices and uphold the dignity of every individual, irrespective of their background.

In case of any perceived violation of these rights, individuals have the right to seek legal redressal from the Constitutional courts. These rights are justiciable, meaning that they are enforceable by the courts, thus offering individuals a legal recourse if their fundamental rights are infringed upon.

The Indian Constitution enshrines these rights in Part III, Articles 12 to 35[2], often hailed as the Magna Carta of India. Initially, there were seven fundamental rights, but the Right to Property was repealed after the Abolition of the Zamindari Act. The remaining six are:

1. Right to Equality (Articles 14-18[3]): This guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. It ensures equal opportunity in public employment, abolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice. It also calls for the abolition of all titles except military and academic.

2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22[4]): This protects six rights – freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession. It also safeguards against excessive and arbitrary punishment, protects life and personal liberty, mandates free and compulsory education for children aged six to fourteen, and provides protection against arrest and detention.

3. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24[5]): This prohibits human trafficking, forced labour, and the employment of children under 14 in hazardous activities like mining, construction, or railways.

4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28[6]): This assures freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice, propagate, and profess religion. It also provides freedom from taxation for the promotion of a particular religion and freedom regarding attendance at religious instruction or worship in certain educational institutions.

5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30[7]): This protects the interests of minorities, allowing them to conserve their script, culture, or language. It also prohibits denial of admission into state-aided educational institutions based on caste, language, religion, or race, and allows minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

6. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Articles 32-35[8]): This fundamental right empowers citizens to seek legal redressal for the violation of their fundamental rights. It authorizes the Parliament and the high courts to issue writs for the enforcement of these rights.

In essence, these fundamental rights are the pillars of a democratic society, safeguarding individual liberties, and ensuring a life of dignity and respect for all citizens.

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY (DPSP)

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) serve as the guiding star for the Indian government, illuminating the path towards socio-economic welfare and fundamental rights protection for its citizens. DPSPs act as the compass for the state, guiding it to create laws and policies that promote public welfare. These principles, often referred to as the “index of public purpose,” are enshrined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution[9], drawing inspiration from Article 45 of the Irish Constitution[10].

The DPSPs are the government’s commitment to its citizens, a pledge to uphold their fundamental rights and prevent any violation. They are not merely suggestions but directives for the state, which it is obligated to incorporate into its policies and laws. While these principles are not enforceable by a court of law, they are critical in shaping the governance of the country.

DPSPs cover a wide array of societal aspects, including education, maternity benefits, uniform civil code, and maintaining nutrition standards. They are the state’s promise to provide a standard of living that promotes the overall welfare of its citizens.

Articles 36 to 51 in Part IV of the Indian Constitution[11] outline the DPSPs, aiming to create a welfare state. Article 37, in particular, underscores the state’s duty to apply these principles when formulating laws, emphasizing their fundamental role in governance.

Key highlights of the DPSPs include:

Socio-Economic Welfare: Articles 38 and 39[12] mandate the state to secure a social order promoting the welfare of the people, ensuring social, political, and economic justice for all citizens, and minimizing inequalities.

Social Security: Articles 41 to 43[13] impose an obligation on the state to provide the right to work, education, and public assistance, ensure just and humane conditions for work and maternity relief, and secure a living wage and a decent standard of life for workers.

Childhood Care and Education: Article 45[14] guarantees the right to early childhood care and education for children below the age of 14 years.

Protection of Weaker Sections: Article 46[15] safeguards the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other weaker sections from exploitation.

Public Health: Article 47[16] delineates the state’s duty to raise the levels of nutrition and the standard of living of the people and to improve public health.

Community Welfare: Articles 44, 48, 40, 50, and 51[17] outline the state’s responsibilities towards establishing a uniform civil code, organizing agriculture and animal husbandry, empowering village panchayats, separating the judiciary from the executive, and promoting international peace and security.

Although the DPSPs are non-justiciable, they are vital in guiding the legislature in policy formulation. They serve as the state’s roadmap to achieving its socio-economic objectives, ensuring that the welfare of the citizens remains at the forefront of its governance.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The intricate interplay between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) serves as the backbone of a democratic society. These two elements are complementary, each adding a unique dimension to the societal framework. Fundamental Rights safeguard individual liberties, while DPSP outlines the societal and economic objectives that the State aspires to achieve. Together, they form the blueprint for a just and equitable society.

However, the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and DPSP differs. Fundamental Rights are justiciable, allowing individuals to seek legal recourse for their enforcement. On the other hand, DPSP, being non-justiciable, cannot be enforced through courts. Yet, they serve as guiding principles for the State in policy-making and legislation.

The courts underscore the necessity for harmony between Fundamental Rights and DPSP, guided by the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction. This doctrine encourages an interpretation of constitutional provisions that prevents conflicts between the two sets of rights and strives to give effect to both, as far as possible.

Although Fundamental Rights enjoy a higher legal status, DPSP are not to be overlooked. They are subordinate but crucial to Fundamental Rights. In any conflict, courts generally lean towards the protection of Fundamental Rights, but the importance of DPSP in shaping a progressive society is acknowledged.

The DPSP also impose positive obligations on the State. They mandate the promotion of social justice, welfare, and equitable distribution of resources. The State is expected to progressively implement these principles, considering the constraints of its resources and socio-economic conditions.

The relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSP has seen numerous judicial interpretations and changes. This has led to interesting debates, especially when a law enforcing DPSP infringes on Fundamental Rights. This dynamic relationship continues to shape the contours of our democratic society, ensuring a balance between individual liberties and societal goals.

EXPLORING THE CONTRAST BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

The Indian Constitution, a meticulously crafted document, delineates two crucial components that form the backbone of India’s democratic fabric: Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). These two elements, while sharing a common goal of citizen welfare, differ significantly in their nature, application, and enforceability.

Fundamental Rights, borrowed from the U.S. Constitution, are enshrined in Articles 12 to 35 of the Indian Constitution [18]. They serve as the bulwark of individual liberties, safeguarding citizens from any state prejudice. These rights are justiciable; thus, any violation can be challenged in a court of law, making them a form of restriction imposed on the state. However, during a national emergency, these rights can be suspended, with the exception of those guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 [19].

On the other hand, the DPSPs, inspired by the Irish Constitution, are outlined in Articles 36 to 51 [20]. They serve as guiding principles for the government during policy formation, aiming to establish India as a welfare state. Unlike Fundamental Rights, DPSPs are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced by the court, nor can any law violating them be declared unconstitutional. Moreover, these principles remain unaffected, even during a state of emergency.

The Fundamental Rights and DPSPs play distinctive roles in establishing different types of democracy in India. While Fundamental Rights ensure political democracy, DPSPs foster economic and social democracy. The former promotes individual welfare, ensuring equal treatment regardless of race, religion, or culture, thereby placing citizens at the heart of the constitution. On the contrary, the DPSPs focus on community welfare, ensuring social, economic, and political justice for all citizens.

The enforceability of Fundamental Rights is a significant aspect that sets them apart from DPSPs. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution[21] deems the right to constitutional remedies as a fundamental right in itself. Thus, any violation of these rights can be addressed by the Supreme Court or the High Court. However, DPSPs, despite being fundamental to state governance, are not enforceable in a court of law.

In essence, while both Fundamental Rights and DPSPs aim to uphold the welfare of the state and protect citizens’ rights, they differ in their origin, scope, nature, legal provisions, state duties, punishment for violation, justiciability, and suspension during an emergency. Understanding these differences is crucial for comprehending the intricate balance between individual liberties and state responsibilities in the world’s largest democracy.

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

In the dynamic interplay of India’s constitutional framework, the Judiciary has been pivotal in harmonizing the significance of both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. This was eloquently articulated in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)[22], where Justices Hegde and Mukherjea observed, “The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are the lifeblood of the constitution, forming a symbiotic relationship rather than a dichotomy. They are mutually reinforcing.”

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) as complementary facets of constitutional governance. It has vigilantly guarded against the non-enforceability of DPSPs leading to an undue dominance of Fundamental Rights. As exemplified in numerous case laws, the Court has repeatedly emphasized that both the Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are indispensable pillars for the governance of the State, and must not be viewed in isolation. This sentiment was echoed in Javed vs. State of Haryana (2003)[23], where it was asserted that the Fundamental Rights should not be interpreted in isolation, but in conjunction with the Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties.

A myriad of cases have underscored the necessity of interpreting Fundamental Rights in tandem with Directive Principles, thereby propelling the nation towards the realization of the objectives embodied in both. This approach has broadened the scope of Fundamental Rights rather than circumscribing it, enabling the rights encapsulated in the DPSPs to be enforced through the Fundamental Rights. The right to education serves as a prime example of this. The Supreme Court upheld this viewpoint in Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)[24], stating, “Fundamental Rights are the pathway to the goals delineated in the Directive Principles. The interpretation of Fundamental Rights must be illuminated by the Directive Principles”.

In the case of I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)[25], the Supreme Court underscored the imperative of striking a balance between the Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. It posited that it is incumbent on the Government to navigate a middle path, reconciling individual liberty safeguarded by Fundamental Rights with the pursuit of public welfare encapsulated in DPSPs. However, it is paramount that this equilibrium does not compromise individual liberty, the cornerstone of the Constitution.

In conclusion, it is crucial to maintain a harmonious balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, ensuring neither overshadows the other. This equilibrium is vital for the attainment of social, political, and economic welfare of the State.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY: A CASE LAW PERSPECTIVE

The intricate relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Fundamental Rights, two central tenets of India’s Constitution, has often been a subject of legal contention. This exploration delves into key case laws that illuminate the interplay between these constitutional principles, and how they are reconciled when conflicts arise.

In the pivotal case of The State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)[26], Smt. Champakam Dorairajan, a Brahmin woman from Madras, was denied admission to a medical college despite meeting the requisite academic criteria. The refusal was based on a communal Government Order (GO) issued by the State government, which allocated seats based on religion, race, and caste. The High Court of Madras sided with Dorairajan, citing the scarcity of seats in her category. The case was subsequently escalated to the Supreme Court, where it was argued that the GO had violated the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 16, and 29(2) of the Indian Constitution[27]. The crux of the case rested on whether the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) under Article 46[28] could supersede the fundamental right under Article 29(2)[29]. The Supreme Court ruled that the DPSP could not override the fundamental rights, rendering the GO a violation of Article 29(2)[30] and consequently void under Article 13 [31]. This ruling upheld the primacy of fundamental rights over directive principles, a stance that the Supreme Court would later revise.

In the landmark case of Golak Nath vs. The State of Punjab (1967)[32], the petitioners challenged the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953 (PSLTA), and the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. The PSLTA was challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(f)[33], while the Seventeenth Amendment Act was contested due to an amendment to Article 31A[34]. The Supreme Court asserted the inviolability of fundamental rights, a position later modified by the Amendment Act, which introduced Article 31C to Part III of the Constitution[35].

In the case of Re: Kerala Education Bill (1957)[36], the Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the proposed bill violated Articles 14, 30(1), and 226 of the Constitution[37]. The court opined that directive principles could not be entirely disregarded when interpreting the scope of fundamental rights, thereby endorsing the principle of harmonious construction.

The case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)[38] further tested the interaction between fundamental rights and directive principles. The petitioner contested the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which enabled the State Government to acquire his property. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitution (Amendment) Act[39], asserting that the Constitution could be amended without undermining its basic structure. The court further reinforced the principle of harmonious construction, stating that directive principles and fundamental rights complemented each other. However, the second clause of Article 31C [40] was deemed unconstitutional and void, prompting the Government to extend the scope of Article 31C through the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976[41].

In the case of Pathumma vs the State of Kerala (1978)[42], the Supreme Court underscored the purpose of DPSP, which is to attain specific socio-economic objectives. The Constitution aims to strike a balance and create a synergy between DPSP and Fundamental Rights, a principle echoed in several other cases.

The Minerva Mills v. Union of India 1980 AIR 1789[43]reinforced that the law under Article 31(C)[44] would be protected only if it is enacted to implement the directive in Article 39(b) and (c)[45] and not for any other Directive Principle. This ruling restricted the previously broad protection given to all Directive Principles.

In other landmark cases like State of Kerala vs N.M. Thomas (1976)[46], Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)[47], and Dalmia Cement vs Union of India[48], the Supreme Court emphasized the need for Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles to coexist, and their equal importance in the governance of the country.

The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur vs Union of India (2008)[49]clarified that no distinction should be made between the two sets of rights. The non-enforceability of Directive Principles does not detract from their status as fundamental policy objectives.

In conclusion, these cases illustrate the symbiotic relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Neither is considered supreme over the other. The government has undertaken various acts to implement these principles, such as establishing Panchayats through the 73rd Amendment, creating Nagar Palikas under Article 41[50], including compulsory education for children below the age of 14 as a Fundamental Right, and enacting laws to protect monuments of national significance.

CONCLUSION

In essence, the interplay between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy is a cornerstone of constitutional law and governance in democratic societies. These two distinct yet intertwined concepts work in tandem to foster social justice and to build a fair and equitable society.

Fundamental rights, enshrined and protected by the Constitution, are integral to the dignity and welfare of every citizen. They serve as legal safeguards, providing individuals with a means to seek redress in the event of any infringement.

Conversely, directive principles of state policy are non-enforceable guidelines that steer the State in crafting policies and laws aimed at enhancing societal welfare and fostering a just society. They serve as a compass for the Government during its decision-making process.

The relationship between these two concepts lies in their mutual goal of establishing a just and equitable society. Fundamental rights offer legal shields against rights violations, while directive principles steer the State towards the broader goal of societal justice. Moreover, these two concepts are not only interconnected but also interdependent. The judiciary plays a pivotal role in this relationship by interpreting and upholding fundamental rights while also considering the directive principles.

In conclusion, the symbiotic relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy is instrumental in shaping a just and equitable society. While fundamental rights safeguard individual liberties, directive principles guide the State in promoting social welfare and justice. Their interplay forms the backbone of a balanced legal framework that upholds democratic principles and human rights.

REFERENCES

Austin, Granville, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford University Press 1999) https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780195649598.001.0001/isbn-9780195649598 accessed [22nd Sept 2024].

Legislative Department, The Constitution of India https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/ accessed [22^nd Sept 2024].
ipleaders, ‘DPSP and Fundamental Rights’ (2021) https://blog.ipleaders.in/dpsp-and-fundamental-rights/ accessed [23^rd Sept 2024].
Law Bhoomi, ‘Relation Between DPSPs and Fundamental Rights’ (2021) https://lawbhoomi.com/relation-bet accessed [24th Sept 2024]
Legal Service India, Analysing Inter-relationship of Fundamental Right and DPSP, Legal Service India, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10646-analysing-inter-relationship-of-fundamental-right-and-dpsp accessed [25th sept 2024]

[1] Legislative Department, The Constitution of India Available at: https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/

[2] Articles 12 to 35 of the Constitution of India

[3] Articles 14-18 of the Constitution of India

[4] Articles 19-22 of the Constitution of India

[5] Articles 23-24 of the Constitution of India

[6] Articles 25-28 of the Constitution of India

[7] Articles 29-30 of the Constitution of India

[8] Articles 32-35 of the Constitution of India

[9] Part IV of the Indian Constitution

[10] Wikipedia, ‘Constitution of Ireland’ (2024) Wikipedia Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ireland

[11] Legislative Department, The Constitution of India Available at: https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/

[12] Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India

[13] Articles 41 to 43 of the Constitution of India

[14] Article 45 of the Constitution of India

[15] Article 46 of the Constitution of India

[16] Article 47 of the Constitution of India

[17] Articles 44, 48, 40, 50, and 51 of the Constitution of India

[18] Articles 12 to 35 of the Indian Constitution

[19] Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India

[20] Articles 36 to 51 of the Constitution of India

[21] Article 32 of the Indian Constitution

[22] Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) [online]. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/kbharatikerala/

[23] Javed vs. State of Haryana (2003) [online]. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/javed-v-state-of-haryana-2003-case-analysis/

[24] Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) [online]. Available at: https://testbook.com/landmark-judgements/unnikrishnan-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh

[25] I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) [online]. Available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/ir-coelho-case/

[26] The State of Madras vs. Champak Dorairajan (1951) [online]. Available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/state-of-madras-vs-champakam-dorairajan/

[27] Articles 14, 15, 16, and 29(2) of the Indian Constitution

[28] Article 46 of the Constitution of India

[29] Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India

[30] Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India

[31] Article 13 of the Constitution of India

[32] Golak Nath vs. The State of Punjab (1967) [online]. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120358/

[33] Article 14 and Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India

[34] Article 31A of the Constitution of India

[35] Article 31C to Part III of the Constitution of India

[36] Re: Kerala Education Bill (1957) [online]. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161666/

[37] Articles 14, 30(1), and 226 of the Constitution of India

[38] Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) [online]. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/kbharatikerala/

[39] 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitution (Amendment) Act

[40] Article 31C of the Constitution of India

[41] Article 31C; the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976.

[42] Pathumma vs the State of Kerala (1978) [online]. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1959928/

[43] Minerva Mills v. Union of India [online]. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/

[44] Article 31C of the Constitution of India

[45] Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India

[46] State of Kerala vs N.M. Thomas (1976) [online]. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/state-of-kerala-vs-n-m-thomas-1976/

[47] Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) [online]. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/709776/

[48] Dalmia Cement vs Union of India [online]. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55448084/

[49] Ashok Kumar Thakur vs Union of India (2008) [online]. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/ashoka-kumar-thakur-v-uoi-excessive-delegation/

[50] Article 41 of the Constitution of India

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.