CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

AND NEW CHALLENGES

PROJECT
TOPIC: RELATION BETWEEN
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND
DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

SUBMITTED TO:
DR. AMRITPAL KAUR SUBMITTED BY:
AYUSHI BANSAL
ROLL NO.1894
LLM (2 ND SEM)
EVENING
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

If words are considered as a symbol of token and appreciation then let words
play their heralding role of expressing my sincerest gratitude and thanks.
First of all I express my sincere gratitude to almighty for bestowing upon me
favours and keeping me in high spirits.
I am highly thankful to my Director Prof. Rattan Singh and madam Dr.
Amritpal Kaur for their complete support. This project could not have been
completed without the inputs and the words of advice from my teacher for
which I shall always remain grateful to her.
I am highly thankful to all people directly related and the students for being
cooperative, without whom my project would not have been proven meaningful.
Thanking everyone……………

AYUSHI BANSAL

2
 Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 4-10

CONCEPT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS....................................................................8-9
CONCEPT OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES……………………………………………………………...9-10
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES.11-18
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES ….…11
SUPREMACY OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OVER DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES….......12-14
HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION……………………………………………………………….14-15
SUPREMACY OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE………………………………………………… 16-18
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………………………19-20

3
 INTRODUCTION

The Constitution of India is not the free gift of the British Parliament, the
representative body of colonial rulers. It is the end product of the research and
deliberation by a body of eminent devoted representatives of the people. They
prepared it after ransacking all the known Constitutions of the world and
selecting the best out of them keeping in view the aims and aspirations of
freedom fighters.

Throughout the freedom struggle, the demand for Fundamental Rights was in
forefront. The country was unanimous that we should include all human,
political, civil, economic, cultural and social rights. The Fundamental Rights
envisaged by the Indian National Congress were ultimately divided into two: (i)
Political and Civil Rights; and (ii) Social and Economic Rights. The former are
termed Fundamental Rights and the latter are called Directive Principles of State
Policy. This division was adopted from Irish Constitution. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and parts III and IV of the Constitution of India
have much in common.

The Universal Declaration was adopted on December 10, 1948. Within a year,
the Constitution of India was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November
26, 1949. Some Human Rights figure in Part III as Fundamental Rights and some
others in Part IV as Directive Principles of State Policy. While Part III commands

4
the State not to violate the Fundamental Rights, Part IV mandates the State to
apply the Directive Principles in making laws. Article 32 and 226 provide for the
enforcement of Fundamental Rights by Courts. However, Article 37 says that the
provisions contained in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court but the
principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of
the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making
laws.

It is interesting to note that although Fundamental Rights and Directive

Principles appear in the Constitution as distinct entities, there was no such
demarcation made between them during the period prior to the framing of the
Constitution.

“The Directive Principle and the Fundamental Rights mainly proceed on the
basis of human rights.” Together, they are intended to carry out the objective set
out in the Preamble of the Constitution and to establish an egalitarian social order
informed with political, social and economic justice and ensuring dignity of the
individual not only to a few privileged persons but to the entire people of the
country including the have-nots and the handicapped, the lowliest and the lost.

In the words of Justice Bhagwati, “It is not possible to fit Fundamental Rights
and Directive Principles in two distinct and strictly defined categories, but it may
be stated broadly that Fundamental Rights represent civil and political right

5
 while Directive Principles embody social and economic rights. Both are clearly
part of the board spectrum of human rights”.

The provisions of Part III and Part IV considered in the light of the preamble
emphasize the need to improve the social and economic conditions of the people
and to attempt that task with the maximum permissible individual freedom
guaranteed in the citizens.1

The theme of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is to create socio-

economic conditions where there will be distributive justice for all. The
fundamental rights protect individual liberty, socioeconomic structure of the
society. Directive Principles are the embodiment of the ideas and aspirations of
the people of India and constitute the goals towards which the people expect the
state to march for their attainment.2

The Constitution of India proclaims in its preamble, amongst other things these
most important Constitutional goals of the nation which are Justice-Social,
economic and political Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
Equality of status and of opportunity. The same Constitution does not only
elucidate and explains these goals in Part III and Part IV but also adopts a twofold
strategy for their realisation. Thus Part III embodies and sanctifies the goals of

1 Gajendragadkar P.B., The Constitution of India : Its Philosophy and Basic Postulates (1970) p.14

2 Markandam K.C.; Op.cit Chapter III p.13

6
Liberty and Equality by enumerating and guaranteeing certain individual
freedom. These freedoms are made justiciable and thus enforceable against state
encroachments. Part IV which lay down the Constitutional Ideal of Justice
enjoins the state to translate the ideal into reality by necessary legislation.
However, this obligation is made expressly unenforceable. Part III of the
Constitution lays down the path to achieve the goal laid down in Part IV of the
Constitution.

The concept of Human rights as envisaged in the Indian Constitution essentially

has Political, social and economic connotation. It is founded on the bedrock of
equality of all men, freedom and liberty of all men and social, economic and
political justice for all men.

The Directive Principles of the State Policy set out the goal of the new Social
and Economic order which the Constitution expects us to reconstruct. The
judiciary has drawn guidance and inspiration from the Directive Principles in
interpreting and enforcing Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court has
expanded the ambit and reach of Directive Principles and thus made the largest
contribution to the development of Human Rights jurisprudence through judicial
activism.

Further, the relationship between fundamental rights and the directive principles
can be established by understanding their concepts more clearly as have been
discussed below;

7
CONCEPT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

An individual to lead a life requires some rights. Rights have been described as
those claims of an individual that are necessary for the development of oneself
and recognized by society or state. Some of rights that are recognized by the state
and enshrined in the constitution are called fundamental rights. Fundamental
rights are those rights of an individual that are enforceable through courts of law.

Part III of the constitution of India, titled as “fundamental right” secures to the
people of India, certain basic, natural and inalienable rights. These rights have
been declared essential rights in order that “human liberty may be preserved,
Human personality developed and an effective social and democratic life
promoted”.

Bhagwati. J in the case of Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India held that these
fundamental rights represent and basic value cherished by the people of this
country since the Vedic times and they are calculated to protect the dignity of
the individual and create conditions in which every human being can develop his
personality to the fullest extent. They weave a “pattern of guarantees on the basic
structure of human rights”, and impose negative obligations on the state not to
encroach on individual liberty in its various dimensions.

The aim behind having a declaration of fundamental rights is to make inviolable

certain elementary rights appertaining to the individual and to keep them

8
unaffected by the shifting majorities in the legislatures. It is to preserve certain
basic human rights against interference of the state.

The fundamental rights that are provided in the constitution can be divided into
six categories as follows:
1.Right to Equality (Articles 14 to 18)
2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22)
3. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24)
4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)
5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)
6. Rights to constitutional remedies.

CONCEPT OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

Directive principles of state policy are included in part IV (article 35 – 51) of the
Indian constitution. Indian constitution is one among few constitution of the
world that has incorporated such provisions as a part of the main body of the
constitution. The constitution makers were inspired to include directive
principles of state policy in the constitution by the constitution of Ireland.

It sets forth the ideals and objectives to be achieved by the state for setting up
India into a social welfare state which aims at common good and to secure to all
its citizens social, political and economic justice; whereby all members can reach
minimum standard of economic security, civilized living capacity to secure
social status and culture to keep good health.

9
One of main objectives of the constitution makers in including such a provision
in the constitution was to lay down certain principles for the guidance of the
governments. While formulating their policies the Governments are expected to
act according to these principles.

The Directive Principles contain the social, economic, cultural and educational
objectives of the state. These provide a motivation for a peaceful political
revolution. These also provide a programme for social reconstruction and
economic upliftment of the people of India.

Broadly speaking, there are three types of Directive Principles:

(1) Economic or Socialistic Principles
(2) Gandhian Principles
(3) Liberal – Intellectual Principles
It is thus social and economic justice which is required to be achieved by the
incorporation of the Directive Principles of State Policy. These must be regarded

as the objectives of national activity and it must be the endeavor of every State
as well as Union, to give effect to them.

10
 Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

The directive principles differs from fundamental rights in certain respects:

DIFFERENCE:
(1) The directives are non-justiciable i.e. can’t be enforced by the court; whereas
fundamental rights are justiciable i.e. can be enforced by the courts.
(2) The directives are instruments of instructions to the government, they contain
positive command to the state to promote a social and welfare state. The
fundamental rights are limitations upon the state actions, they contain negative
injunctions to the state not to do various things.
(3) Unlike fundamental rights, the directives are required to be implemented by
legislation.
(4) The courts cannot declare as void any law which is otherwise valid on the
ground that it contravenes any of the directives. On the other hand, the courts are
bound to declare as void any law that is inconsistent with fundamental rights.

Parts III and IV of the Indian Constitution were once described by CJ.
Chandrachud to be “the conscience of the Constitution.”3 However, there has
perennially been a controversy surrounding the constitutional relationship
between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, as there would be a
conflict between the interest of an individual at the micro level and the
community’s benefit at a macro level.

3 Minerva Mills v Union of India [1980] 2 SCC 591.

11
 Central part of this controversy is the question pertaining to which part of the
Constitution would have primacy in the case of conflict between Parts III and
part IV. This question has all along been the central point of controversy between
parliament and Supreme Court resulting not only in the enactment of some of the
significant Constitutional amendments but also in the pronouncement of some of
the important judicial decisions. Earlier Supreme Court decisions attributed
paramount importance to Fundamental Rights based on this aforementioned
Constitutional position and provision.

Supremacy of Fundamental Rights over Directive principle

In the landmark judgment of State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan,4 A
government order of the Madras government divided seats in colleges on the
basis of religion and caste. This was repugnant to article 29(2). But it was argued
that the government order could be supported on the basis of article 46 of the
constitution which makes the state responsible for promoting the education
interests of the weaker sections of people. The Supreme Court held that the
fundamental rights under Article 29(2) are above the Directive principle under
article 46. So the government order was struck down. It was held that in case of
any conflict between part III and part IV, the part III would prevail. These
observations of the court were based on the literal interpretation of the provision
of article 37 which declares the directive principle not justifiable. This view of

4 AIR 1951 SC 226

12
 the apex court was reaffirmed in subsequent landmark decisions such as Mohd.
Hanif Quareshi v State of Bihar.5
These decisions of the apex court were subject to much criticism due to the
excess importance endorsed to Fundamental Rights resulting in the complete
neglect of principles that promoted socio-economic change and development.
The legislature was disappointed with the judiciary’s interpretation and believed
that it was contradictory to what the framers of the Constitution believed. Pandit
Nehru in his speeches in relation to the 1st and 4th Constitutional Amendments
expressly stated his disappointment. He stated, “There is difficulty when the
Courts of the Land have to consider these matters and lay more stress on the
Fundamental Rights than on the Directive Principles. The result is that the whole
purpose behind the Constitution which was meant to be a dynamic Constitution
leading to a certain goal step by step, is somewhat hampered and hindered by the
static element being emphasized a little more than the dynamic element.” 6

It is therefore evident that the legislature believed that Fundamental Rights were
to assist the Directive Principles and not vice-versa.7

This subsequently led to a transformation in the interpretation of the

relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles to be more
inclusive and harmonious.

5
AIR 1958 SC 731
6 Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XII-XIII, Part II at 8820-22, May 16, 1951.
7
I.P. Massey, Nehru’s Constitutional Vision (1st, Deep & Deep Publications, 1991) 54

13
 A remarkable change had come over in the judicial attitude on the question of
inter-relationship.

Harmonious Construction
In re Kerala Education Bill,8 The Supreme Court observed “though the
directive principles cannot override the fundamental rights, nevertheless, in
determining the scope and ambit of fundamental rights the court could not
entirely ignore the directive principle but should adopt the principle of
harmonious construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as
possible.

The Supreme Court began to assert that there is “no conflict on the whole”
between the fundamental rights and the directive principles. They are
complementary and supplementary to each other.

In Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging Bangalore v State of Mysore,9 the

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was challenged for conferring unrestricted,
unfettered and arbitrary power on the state in determining the minimum wages.
The state argued that it was obligated to provide for minimum wages in
accordance with the Directive Principles. The court held that the provisions of
the Constitution were created to facilitate progress, as intended by the Preamble

8
AIR 1958 SC 956
9
AIR [1969] 3 SCC 84

14
 and it would be fallacious to assume that the Constitution provided only for rights
and no duties.

Furthermore, it was stated that although Part III encompasses Fundamental

Rights, Part IV was essential in the governance of the country and were therefore
supplementary to each other.

This view was reaffirmed in Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerala10 where it

was held that the directive principles were in harmony with the country’s aims
and objectives and the fundamental rights could be amended to meet the needs
of the hour implying that Parts III and IV needed to be harmoniously construed.
Although these judgments were more dynamic in comparison to the previous
approach that the apex court had extended, it still did not satisfy the ideals of the
legislature. It could easily be speculated that the 42nd Amendment in 1976 was
to accord primacy to the Directive Principles over the Fundamental Rights. The
purpose of the amendment was to make the Directive Principles comprehensive
and accord them precedence over the fundamental rights “which have been
allowed to be relied upon to frustrate socio-economic reforms for the
implementing of Directive Principles”.11

This resulted in the resurgence of the debate on the relationship between

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

10
AIR 1973 SC 1461
11
The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act 1976, Statement of Objects and Reasons,p- 3.

15
 Supremacy of the Directive Principles
It was in 1971 that the first step was taken towards implementation of the
Directive Principles in the form of Article 31 C, which was added to the
Constitution by the 25th Amendment.
Article 31 C, provided that a law for implementing Directives contained in
Art.39(b) and (c) could not be struck down on the ground that it contravened
rights conferred by Articles 14,19 and 31. The Amendment sought to exclude
judicial review and placed directive principles above fundamental rights.
However, this part of the Article which sought to exclude the powers of the
courts to review such a law was fortunately struck-down in the Kesavananda
Bharti case as violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, the power of
judicial review.

42nd Amendment,1976 further widened the scope of Art.31 C so as to cover all

the Directive Principles. Thus, it gave precedence to all the Directives over the
Fundamental Rights – Art.14,19 and 31.
However, this change as incorporated by 42nd Amendment was struck down by
the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case. It has been held that Articles 39(b)
and (c) require the Government to strike a balance between competing claims,
i.e., individual rights and large public interest.

In Minerva Mills Ltd. v Union of India12 the court believed that the harmonious
relation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles was a basic

12
AIR 1980 SC 1789
16
 feature of the Constitution. It was stated that Part III and Part IV together
comprised of the core of the constitution and any legislation or amendment that
destroyed the balance between the two would be in contravention to the basic
structure of the Constitution. Chandrachud CJ. reasserted that Parts III and IV
are complementary to each other and together they constitute the human rights

of an individual. Reading these provisions independently would be impossible,

as that would render them incomplete and thereby inaccessible.

However, this was not settled as law yet and there was another hiccup in the
subsequent judgments. In Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v M/s Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd.13, the Supreme Court held that the part of the Minerva Mills judgment
that dealt with Article 31 C of the Constitution was merely obiter dictum and
therefore not binding. The court thus upheld the Coking Coal Mines
(Nationalization) Act, 1972 by granting greater importance to Directive
Principles than Fundamental Rights in accordance with Article 31C that
provided for the same.

The Sanjeev Coke judgment resulted in a divergence of opinion, which was

ultimately settled in State of Tamil Nadu v L. Abu Kavur Bai.14 The court
referred to the decision of Constituent Assembly to create two parts for these
core constitutional concepts. It was stated that the purpose of the two distinct

13
AIR 1983 SC 239
14
AIR 1984 SC 626
17
 chapters was to grant the Government enough latitude and flexibility to
implement the principles depending on the time and circumstances. The court
therefore considered the Minerva Mills case precedent and recommended a
harmonious construction of the two parts in public interest and to promote social
welfare. This view has been consistently adopted ever since and has been
endorsed in Unni Krishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh15 where the court has
reiterated the same principle that the Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles are supplementary and complementary to each other.

It can therefore be construed to be well settled that a harmonious interpretation

of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is quintessential in ensuring
social welfare and the apex court is promoting the same view after much
deliberation.

15 AIR (1993)1 SCC 645

18
 Conclusion

The inter-relationship doctrine between fundamental rights and directive

principles of state policy is not only theoretical but also practical and
rewarding. Fundamental rights provide for political freedoms to the citizens
by protecting them against excessive state action while directive principles
are to securing social and economic freedom by appropriated action both are
inspiration of reform legislation. The fundamental rights should be
interpreted in the light of directive principles to observe the limits set by
directive principles in the scope of the fundamental rights. For example
article 39, 39-A can be interpreted with article 21 of the constitution and
article 46 can be interpreted with article 29 and article 30 of the constitution.

The judicial attitude has undergone transformation where courts are very
active to uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution thereby
interpreting the provisions of part-IV i.e. Directive Principles of State
Policy. Initially, the courts adopted a strict and literal legal position in
interpreting part-III with part-IV of the constitution which is reflected in
State of Madras V/S Champakam Dorairajan. It was held in case of conflict
between part-III and part –IV the fundamental rights will prevail. In the
course of time, change came over the judicial attitude as the apex court
views the interplay between part-III and part-IV in different manner from
that of Champakam Dorairajan’s case and held that there is good deal of
value for directive principles of state policy from legal point of view and

19
started to have harmonization between the two parts of constitution. In the
recent decisions of the apex and high courts there has been a changing trend
by making a harmonious construction between part-III and part-IV of the
constitution making directive principles of state policy justifiable and
enforceable on par with fundamental rights of the constitution.

Thus, there is no conflict or disharmony between directive principles and

fundamental rights, because they supplement each other in aiming at the
same goal of bringing about a social revolution and establishment of a
welfare state.

20
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Kumar Narender’s, “Constitutional Law Of India”; Allahabad law agency,

Allahabad; 9th edition ,2015
2. Pandey J.N.’s, “Constitutional Law Of India”; Central law agency;2018 edition
3. www.india.gov.in
4. www.indiankanoon.org
5. www.legalbites.in
6. www.legalservicesindia.com
7. www.academia.edu
8. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in

21