Question

How are Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles related in the Indian Constitution?

• A. They have no relation; they operate independently.
• B. Fundamental Rights are subservient to Directive Principles
• C. Directive Principles are subservient to Fundamental Rights.
• D. They are complementary and should be read together.

Answer 1

Answer:

D. They are complementary and should be read together.

Interrelationship between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV)

• Complementary Nature: Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Indian Constitution are complementary and supplementary to each other. Together, they represent the core commitment to a social revolution and have been referred to as the 'Conscience of the Constitution'.
• Distinction in Justiciability:
  • Fundamental Rights (Part III): These are justiciable, meaning citizens can directly approach the Supreme Court (Article 32) or High Courts (Article 226) for their enforcement in case of violation. They primarily aim to establish political democracy.
  • Directive Principles (Part IV): As per Article 37, these are non-justiciable. However, they are declared fundamental in the governance of the country, and it is the duty of the State to apply them while making laws. They aim to establish social and economic democracy (a welfare state).
• Judicial Evolution of the Relationship:
  • State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): The Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights are superior to DPSPs. In case of conflict, Fundamental Rights would prevail, and DPSPs must run as subsidiary to Part III.
  • Doctrine of Harmonious Construction: Developed through cases like the Kerala Education Bill Case (1957). The Supreme Court ruled that courts should interpret both Part III and Part IV harmoniously to avoid any direct conflict, ensuring they are read together.
  • Golaknath Case (1967): The Supreme Court declared that Parliament cannot amend or abridge Fundamental Rights to implement the Directive Principles.
  • Minerva Mills Case (1980): The landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Indian Constitution is built on the bedrock of the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. They were likened to 'two wheels of a chariot', and giving absolute primacy to one over the other would destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Current Constitutional Position:
  • Fundamental Rights generally enjoy supremacy over the Directive Principles, but they must be interpreted in harmony with each other.
  • Under Article 31C, laws enacted to give effect to the Directive Principles contained in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) cannot be declared void on the ground that they violate the Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and Article 19.
  • Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights to implement any DPSP, provided such an amendment does not violate the Basic Structure Doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973).