Scribd
Upload
48 views

FR and DPSP

Fundamental right and DPSP

Uploaded by

Kunal kashyap
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
48 views

FR and DPSP

Fundamental right and DPSP

Uploaded by

Kunal kashyap
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Fundamental rights are embodied in part III of Indian constitution which provides civil rights to

citizens and prevents state’s authority to prevail upon individials’s liberty. It also imposes some
obligations on state to safeguard the rights of citizens. Originally there were 7 fundamental
rights, but, right to property was removed by 42nd amendment. Fundamental rights are justifiable
and enforceable.

The Directive Principles of State Policy, embodied in Part IV of the Constitution, are directions
given to the state to guide the establishment of an economic and social democracy, as proposed
by the Preamble. Directive principles are non-justifiable in nature. Article 37 proposes that DPSP
are not enforceable in any court of law but it acts as a basis for governance and imposes an
obligation on government to apply DPSP in appropriate situations. It acts a check on the system
and also acts as a measure for performance of government and judiciary.

Since DPSPs are not enforceable, whenever state tries to implement DPSP, there is always a
conflict between state and the individual. Implementation of a DPSP often overrides the
fundamental rights of individual and again this violation they go to judiciary. Judiciary gives
appropriate judgments considering both fundamental rights and DPSP and maintains a balance
between both.

We can understands how judiciary makes a balance between FR and DPSP by highlighting
important decisions of courts and some legislations in cases regarding conflict between FR and
DPSP

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction


Supreme Court in Kerla Education Bill (1957) introduced Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
which preferred to avoid a conflict between FR and DPSP. The court said that there is no
inherent conflict between FR and DPSP and courts should try to consider both of them and
should always maintain a balance between two.

The court further said that if there are two interpretation of law possible, one of which makes the
law valid and other one makes it void and unconstitutional. In this situation the interpretation
which makes the law valid is adopted. But if there is only one interpretation of law which creates
a conflict between FR and DPSP, FR should be allowed to override the DPSP.

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan


Facts:- province of madras issued an order which fixed the seats for particular communities
wi8th regard to engineering and medical colleges. Students had the fundamentl right to get
education but state had a obligation to apply the DPSP which provided upliftment of every
community.
Issues and articles involved;-The conflicts was mainly between article 16(2) and article 46.
Article 16(2) says that No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent,
place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect
or, any employment or office under the State. And article 46 says that Promotion of
educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
weaker sections The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic
interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of
exploitation.

Article 29(2) says that No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution
maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, language or any of them. And aricle 13(2) says that The State shall not make any law
which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in
contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. Soit was
claimed that considering article 29(2) and article 13(2), the communal reservation of seats
is unconstitutional.

Verdict:-the court held that FR are sacrosanct and DPSP must conform to the FR.article 37
says that DPSP are not enforceable by court and so Fundamental Rights were given
superiority over DPSP.

Golaknath case
Thr court in its verdicts declared that FR cannot be abridged or dillued but parliament
resoponded by amending some parts of constitution. It brought the 25 th amendment act of the
constitution and inserted 31C in part III which says a. If a law is made to give effect to DPSPs in
Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) and in the process, the law violates Article 14, Article 19 or
Article 31, then the law should not be declared as unconstitutional and void merely on this
ground.Any such law which contains the declaration that it is to give effect to DPSPs in Article
39(b) and Article(c) shall not be questioned in a court of law.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy