DPSP AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS CONTROVERSY

 

The Indian constitution is a unique document that lays down the fundamental principle and values that governs the state one of the critical features of Indian constitution is fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy covered under article 12-35 of part iii and article 35-51 of part iv in Indian constitution.

DPSP AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: STRIKING A BALANCE

Fundamental rights are the rights which gives guarantee to the rights and freedom of people and citizen that ensures personal liberty and dignity subject to some restriction. On the contrary the DPSP’s are the guidelines which must be followed by the lawmakers while formulating the law. This novel feature was adopted from Irish constitution which is copied from the Spain.

Difference Between Fundamental Rights and directive principles of the state policies

1. Constitutional Provision:
   DPSP is covered under Part IV of the Indian Constitution, while FR is covered under Part III.
2. Nature of Provision:
   DPSP sets guidelines and principles for the government to follow in making laws and policies, while FR prescribes fundamental rights and liabilities of citizens.
3. Instrument of Institution:
   DPSP is an instrument for the institution of the government, while FR places limitations upon state actions.
4. Enforcement:
   DPSP is not enforceable by the courts, while FR is enforceable by the courts.
5. Type of Provision:
   DPSP consists of positive commands, while FR consists of negative liabilities.

Relationship between the fundamental rights and DPSP’s

The relationship between the two has be well interpretated by the following case laws which are as follows:

Champakam Dorairajan Vs State of Madras
In the instant case madras government passed an order which fixed quotas for admission to engineering and medical colleges under article 15(4). The order was challenged on the grounds of 15(1) of which government replied that the order was passed under article 46. However, the court held that the DPSP are subsidiary to the fundamental rights because the latter are enforceable and the directive principles cannot override the fundamental rights and held order was invalid.

Re Kerala Education Bill
The Re Kerala Education Bill case was about a law that required all private schools to be taken over by the government. Some schools challenged the law, saying it violated their right to run their own schools.
The court said that Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) cannot override fundamental rights, but the court can use both principles to interpret the law. The court said that when interpreting the law, it should try to find a way to balance both DPSPs and fundamental rights as much as possible.

Golak Nath vs State of Punjab
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend the fundamental rights of citizens. The petitioner challenged the validity of the Constitution (17th Amendment) Act, 1964, which sought to take away the right to property as a fundamental right. The Court held that the amending power of Parliament under Article 368 did not extend to the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. However, after this case, the government introduced the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments in 1971, which added Article 31C to the Constitution. Article 31C provided that any law made to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) would not be void on the ground of inconsistency with the fundamental rights.

Keshavananda Bharti Vs State of Kerala
This case is famous for introducing the concept of the "basic structure" of the Constitution. The petitioner, a spiritual leader, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which imposed a ceiling on landholdings. The Supreme Court held that the DPSPs are an integral part of the Constitution and must be given due importance. The Court further held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was not unlimited and could not be used to violate the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes fundamental rights. The Court held that Article 31C, which had been introduced after the Golak Nath case, was unconstitutional. However, after this case, the government introduced the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976, which widened the scope of Article 31C to include not only laws made to implement the DPSPs but also laws made for securing the "socialist" objectives of the Constitution.

Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980):
In this case, the Supreme Court attempted to strike a balance between fundamental rights and DPSPs. The petitioner challenged certain provisions of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, which had curtailed the power of judicial review and had given wider powers to the Parliament to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that fundamental rights and DPSPs are both integral parts of the Constitution and that one cannot be considered superior to the other. The Court held that any law made to implement the DPSPs must not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes fundamental rights. The Court also held that the power of judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by the Parliament. The Court struck down the offending provisions of the 42nd Amendment, thereby upholding the supremacy of the Constitution.

Current scenario

The sequence of who will prevail first is as follows-

1. Fundamental rights, except for the 14th and 19th.

2. Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) under article 39(b) and (c).

3. Other fundamental rights.

4. Other DPSP.

Conclusion
The controversy surrounding DPSP and fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution has been resolved by balancing both principles.

References

I.C. Golak Nath And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 27 February, 1967 (indiankanoon.org)
Kesavananda Bharati ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973 (indiankanoon.org)
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 1980 (indiankanoon.org)
https://blog.ipleaders.in/difference-between-fundamental-rights-and-directive-principles
https://www.legalbites.in/directive-principles-and-fundamental-rights
In Re: The Kerala Education Bill, ... vs Unknown on 22 May, 1958 (indiankanoon.org)
Difference between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy & Their Comparisons (byjus.com)
Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India - Wikipedia
Home - Canva