INTRODUCTION:

The Constitution of a country, it is said, embodies and expresses the goals and aspirations
of the people depending upon the history of that society. It contains certain core political
values and beliefs which cannot be tinkered with by transient public opinion. The Indian
Constitution reflects the best in our past, is responsive to the needs and aspirations of the
present and is resilient to cope with the demands of the future. The values of the
Constitution are reflected in the Preamble and in Parts III and IV. The Preamble has been
spoken of as the guiding light and the Directive Principles of State Policy as the Book of
Interpretation. The ideal is to achieve the goals in Part IV while protecting the rights in
Part III. The Constitution provides for stability without stagnation and growth without
destruction of essential values.

“The Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties
are sections of the Constitution of India that prescribe the fundamental obligations of the
State to its citizens and the Duties of the citizens to the State. These sections comprise a
Constitutional bill of rights for government policymaking and the behavior and conduct
of citizens.”

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:

“The Fundamental Rights is defined as the basic human rights of all citizens”. These
rights, defined in Part III of the Constitution, apply irrespective of race, place of birth,
religion, caste, creed or gender. They are enforceable by the courts, subject to specific
restrictions. The Fundamental Rights, embodied in Part III of the Constitution, guarantee
civil rights to all Indian citizens, and prevent the State from encroaching on individual
liberty while simultaneously placing upon it an obligation to protect the citizens' rights
from encroachment by society.

Fundamental rights are rights without which a human being cannot survive in a dignified
manner in a civilized society. Fundamental rights are known as “basic rights” or
“justiciable rights”. The word ‘justiciable’ means that the citizens can seek the assistance
of the courts for the enforcement of their Fundamental rights. The Fundamental rights are
not absolute. In other words, certain restrictions can be placed on them in the interest of
security of the State, public order, friendly relations with foreign States, to prevent
defamation, contempt of courts, incitement to an offense and to maintain decency or
morality.
The Fundamental rights except for Article 21 and 22 can be suspended during emergency
under Article 359 of the Constitution by the President of India. They are also called
“individual rights or negative rights” and impose negative obligations on the State not to
encroach on individual liberty.
These rights are largely enforceable against the State, which as per the wide definition
provided in Article 12, includes not only the legislative and executive wings of the federal
and state governments, but also local administrative authorities and other agencies and
institutions which discharge public functions or are of a governmental character.
However, there are certain rights – such as those in Articles 15, 17, 18, 23, 24 – that are
also available against private individuals. Further, certain Fundamental Rights – including
those under Articles 14, 20, 21, 25 – apply to persons of any nationality upon Indian soil,
while others – such as those under Articles 15, 16, 19, 30 – are applicable only to citizens
of India.

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY ( DPSP):

The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines for the framing of laws by the
government. These provisions, set out in Part IV of the Constitution, are not enforceable
by the courts, but the principles on which they are based are fundamental guidelines for
governance that the State is expected to apply in framing and passing laws.”

To implement the ideals and to achieve the goals enshrined in the Preamble and to
establish Welfare State, Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State policy
have been provided for in the Constitution. Part III, which contains Articles 12 to 35,
deals with Fundamental Rights, while Part-IV, which contains Articles 36 to 51, deals
with Directive Principles of state policy. Part IV of the Constitution, the Directive
Principles of State Policy is taken from the Constitution of the Irish Republic.

Directive Principles are non-justiciable, there is no legal or judicial remedy for violation
thereof. The sanction is political, namely, the next election. Directive Principles are
fundamental in the governance of the country. Art 37 mandates that the State shall apply
them in making laws. ‘Fundamental’ in Art 37 also means basic or essential, but it is used
in the normative sense of setting before the State goals which it should try to reach.
Fundamental Rights are backed by legal sanction. Directive Principles are left to the sense
of duty of those charged with governance of the country.
The real importance of Directive Principles is that they contain positive obligations of the
State towards its citizens. These are not insignificant; if fulfilled, the pattern of society
will change. They are revolutionary and yet to be achieved in a constitutional manner.

The Directive Principles are categorized under three heads namely:

(1) Social and economic charter: In social and economic charter, Art 38 (1) provides for
social justice and Arts 39 (d) Equal pay for equal work.

(2) Social security charter: In social security Charter, Art 43 provides for workers
participation in management of factories. Arts 45 insist on free and compulsory education
to all children up to the age 14 years and Arts 39-A as inserted by the 42nd Amendment
provides for equal justice and free legal aid.
(3) Community welfare charter: In the community welfare charter, Arts 44 envisages
“uniform civil code and Art 48-A (inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976) deals
with “protection and improvement of forests and wildlife.”
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DPSP AND Fundamental Rights:

There is no antithesis between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. They
are meant to supplement one another. Granville Austin in his book “Cornerstone of a
Nation” (Indian Constitution) has described the Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles as the conscience of our Constitution. The Directive Principles prescribed the
goals to be attained and the Fundamental rights lay down the means by which the goal is
to be achieved. While the DPSP mainly deals with social and economic rights,
Fundamental rights are mainly political and civil rights. So both are important

Both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are an integral part of the Constitution
which aims at bringing about a synthesis between Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles by giving to the former a pride of place and to the latter a place of permanence.
Together they form the core and constitute the true conscience of the Constitution.’
Together they form a charter of social and economic democracy in India and represent the
basic principles which aim at the creation of a welfare State.

In the Constitution of India, the rights have been divided mainly into two heads (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. While
Part III commands the State not to violate the Fundamental Rights, Part IV mandates the
State to apply the Directive Principles in making laws.
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. Part III and
Part IV taken together can be safely described as containing the philosophy of the
Constitution. This philosophy can be described as the philosophy of the social service
state.

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.5 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 basic to them all social economic and political justice for all men.
Guarantees of political and civil rights minus social and economic rights are incomplete
and insufficient to satisfy the spirit of man. The social and economic rights are primary
while the civil and political rights are higher. If the former constitutes the foundation of
the building the latter provides the elevation, 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 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. Directive principles are in the nature of
instruments of instructions to the government of the day to do something positive. They
are not justiciable or enforceable in courts. As mentioned above, according to Article 37,
the Directive Principle, though fundamental in the governance of the country, they are
expressly made non-justiciable. On the other hand, the fundamental rights are enforceable
in the courts under Arts 32 and 226 of the constitution and hence are Justiciable. In other
words, courts are bound to declare as void any law that is inconsistent with the
fundamental rights. The Directive Principles are not so enforceable by the courts nor can
the courts declare as void any law which is otherwise valid on the ground that contravenes
any of the Directives
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DPSP and Fundamental Rights:

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. 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 rights while
Directive Principles embody social and economic rights. Both are clearly part of the
broad spectrum of human rights.”
JUDICIAL STAND ON DPSP AND Fundamental Rights:
The question of relationship between Directive Principles of state policy and the
Fundamental Rights has been the subject matter of controversy since commencement of
the Constitution. Soon after the commencement of the Constitution, the Indian Supreme
Court was called upon to pronounce its view on the Constitutional relationship between
the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. The judicial attitude has undergone
transformation on this question over time. What if a law enacted to enforce a Directive
principle infringes a Fundamental right? On this question, the judicial view has veered
round from irreconcilability to integration between the Fundamental rights and Directive
Principles.

Although Directive Principles are non-justiciable, this does not imply that their
implementation has been left at the will and mercy of the state. Directive principles are
part of the constitution, and the judiciary is under obligation to maintain the supremacy of
the same. The Supreme Court of India has resorted to provisions relating to the Directive
Principles while delivering its verdict is several cases.

The relation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles came into the lime
light because the former was made expressly justiciable and the later was made expressly
non-justiciable. As stated above, the Fundamental rights were made enforceable whereas
the Directive principles were made non-justiciable by the Constitution. This difference in
the nature of Fundamental rights and Directive principles resulted into conflict between
them. The questions which arose due to this were:
1) Are Directive Principles inferior to Fundamental Rights?
2) Are Directives fundamental parts of Indian Constitution?
3) Are Directive Principles of equal importance of Fundamental Rights?

1) The first important case in which these questions were raised was in State of
Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, in which the Supreme Court observed as
follows: “The Directive Principles of the state policy, which by Art. 37 are
expressly made unenforceable by a court that cannot override the provisions found
in part III (fundamental rights) which, notwithstanding other provisions, are
expressly made enforceable by appropriate writs, orders or directions under article
32. The chapter on fundamental rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged
by any legislative or executive act or order, except to the extent provided in the
appropriate article in part III. The Directive Principles of state policy have to
conform to and run as subsidiary to the chapter on Fundamental rights.” The
Supreme Court adopted the literal interpretive approach of Art.37 and ruled that a
Directive Principle could not override a Fundamental right and that in case of
conflict between the two, the Fundamental right would prevail over the Directive
Principle.

2) Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. The State of Bihar ([1959] S.C.R. 629) : The Bihar
Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act ,955, put a total ban on the
 slaughter of all categories of animals of the species of bovine cattle. The U. P.
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, put a total ban on the slaughter of cows
and her progeny which included bulls, bullocks, heifers and calves. The C. P. and
Berar Animal Preservation Act, 1949, placed a total ban on the slaughter of cows,
male or female calves of cow, bulls, bullocks, and heifers and the slaughter of
buffaloes (male or female, adults or calves) was permitted only under a certificate
granted by the proper authorities.

These three Acts were enacted in pursuance of the directive principles of State
policy contained in Art. 48 Of the Constitution. The petitioners, who were engaged
in the butcher's trade and its subsidiary undertakings, challenged the constitutional
validity of the three Acts on the grounds that they infringed their funda- mental
rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 25 of the Constitution. The
respondents contended that the impugned Acts were
constitutional and valid as they were made in consonance with the directive
principles of Art- 48 which were superior to the fundamental rights.

The SC held that , “ The directive principles cannot over-ride this categorical
restriction imposed on the legislative power of the State. A harmonious
interpretation has to be placed upon the Constitution and so interpreted it means
that the State should certainly implement the directive principles but it must do so
in such a way that its laws do not take away or abridge the fundamental rights, for
otherwise the protecting provisions of Chapter III will be '' a mere rope of sand ".
As this Court has said in the State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan (1) ,
"The directive principles of State policy have to conform to and run as a subsidiary
to the Chapter on Fundamental Rights”.

3) In Re: Kerala Education Bill: The directive principles contained in Art. 45 which
requires the State to endeavor to provide, within a period of ten years from the
commencement of the Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all
children until they complete the age of fourteen years. There is, on the one hand,
the minority rights under Art. 30(1) to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice and the duty of the Government to promote education,
there is, on the other side, the obligation of the State under Art. 45 to endeavor to
introduce free and compulsory education. We have to reconcile between these two
conflicting interests and to give effect to both if that is possible and bring about a
synthesis between the two. “The directive principles cannot ignore or override the
fundamental rights but must, as we have said, subserve the fundamental rights”

To implement the directive principles alluded to above the Kerala Legislative

Assembly has passed the said Bill in exercise of the legislative power conferred
 upon it by Arts. 245 and 246 of the Constitution read with entry 11 of List II in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The court held that, “although this
legislation may have been undertaken by the State of Kerala in discharge of the
obligation imposed on it by the directive principles enshrined in Part IV of the
Constitution, it must, nevertheless, subserve and not over-ride the fundamental
rights conferred by the provisions of the Articles contained in Part III of the
Constitution”. "The directive principles of State policy have to conform to and run
as subsidiary to the Chapter on Fundamental Rights". Nevertheless, in determining
the scope and ambit of the fundamental rights relied on by or on behalf of any
person or body the court may not entirely ignore these directive principles of State
policy laid down in Part IV of the Constitution but should adopt the principle of
harmonious construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as
possible”. It is contended that the directive principles laid down in Part IV cannot
override the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution

4) In Unni Krishnan v State of A.P. the Supreme Court has reiterated the same
principle that ‘the Fundamental rights and Directive principles are supplementary
and complementary to each other and the provisions in Part III should be
interpreted having regard to the preamble and Directive Principles of the State
Policy.”

5) In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court emphasized that the
Fundamental rights and Directive principles formed an “integrated scheme” which
was elastic enough to respond to the changing needs of the society.

6) In Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, HEGDE and MUKHERJI, JJ.,

observed:“The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles constitute the
“conscience of the constitution” there is no antithesis between the fundamental
rights and directive principles and one supplements the other.” SHELAT and
GROVER, J J. observed in their judgment : “….both parts III (Fundamental
Rights) and IV (Directive Principle) have to be balanced and a harmonized then
alone the dignity of the individual can be achieved they were meant to supplement
each other...,

7) In a 2008 case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur v Union of India BALAKRISHNA, CJI

said that no distinction can be made between the two sets of rights. The
Fundamental right represents the civil and political rights and the Directive
principles embody social and economic rights. Merely because the Directive
Principles are nonjusticiable by the judicial process does not mean that they are of
subordinate importance.
8) Minerva Mills v. Union of India 1980 : The issue of the relationship between the
Fundamental rights and Directive Principles again became a matter of contention
by addition of Article 31-C in the Constitution by the Constitution 25th
Amendment, 1971. The object of the amendment as stated on the object clause of
the Bill was that this was enacted to get over the difficulties placed in the way of
giving effect to the Directive principle of State Policy. Article 31-C contained two
parts. The first part of the Article provides that “no law which is intended to give
effect to the directive principles contained in Article 39 (b) and (c) shall be deemed
to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any
of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19.”

The second part of Article 31-C provided that “no law containing a declaration that
it is for giving effect to such policy can be called in question on the ground that it
does not in fact give effect to such policy” (invalid). The validity of the first
part of Article 31-C was upheld in the Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala
(Fundamental Rights) case, but the second part of this Article, which barred the
judicial scrutiny on such laws, was struck down as unconstitutional. The
Parliament by virtue of 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 again amended the Article
31-C in order to further widen its scope so as to cover all Directive principles. To
this end, the amendment substituted the words “all or any of the principles laid
down in Part IV '' for the words “the principles specified in clause (b) or (c) of
Article 39” in Article 31-C of the Constitution. Therefore, whereas the 25th
amendment gave primacy of Directive principles contained in Article 39 (b) and
(c) over the Fundamental rights in Article 19, 19 or 31, the 42nd amendment gave
precedence to all the Directive principles over the Fundamental rights guaranteed
in Article 14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution.

In order to settle this issue, the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India,
22 by 4 to 1 majority struck down Article 31-C as amended by 42nd amendment as
unconstitutional on the ground that it destroys the “basic features' ' of the
Constitution. The Court held that Article 31-C was beyond the amending power of
the Parliament and was void since it destroyed the basic features of the
Constitution by a total exclusion of challenge to any law on the ground that it was
inconsistent with or took away or abridged any of rights conferred by Article 14 or
19 of the Constitution.

The majority in this case observed that the Constitution is founded on the bed rock
of the balance between Part III and Part IV. To give absolute primacy to one over
the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution which is the essential feature
of the basic structure. The goals set out in Part IV have to be achieved without the
 abrogation of the means provided for by Part III. To destroy the guarantees given
by the Part III in order to achieve the goals of Part IV is plainly to subvert the
Constitution.

But in Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat, Coking Coal Ltd, the Supreme Court,
speaking through Justice Chinnappa Reddy expressed doubt on the validity of its
decision in the Minerva Mills Case. A five judges bench held that the question
regarding the validity of section IV of the 42nd amendment was not directly at
issue and therefore determination of that question was uncalled for and obeiter,
since the validity of Article 31C as originally introduced in the Constitution is
upheld in Keshvanand Bharti Case. It should lead to the conclusion that Article.
31C as amended by 42nd amendment is also valid. The extension of Constitutional
immunity to the other Directive Principles does not destroy the basic structure of
the Constitution. The court held that whenever Article 39(b) & (c) comes Article14
goes out.

9) The confusion created by the above judgment has been removed by the decision of
the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu Kavur Bai, 1984 a five-judge
Bench of the Court held that although the Directive principles are not enforceable
yet the Court should make a real attempt at harmonizing and reconciling the
Directive principles and the Fundamental rights and any collision between the two
should be avoided as far as possible. The reason why the founding fathers of our
Constitution did not advisely make these principles enforceable was, the court said,
perhaps due to the vital consideration of giving government sufficient latitude to
implement these principles from time to time according to the capacity, situation
and circumstances that may arise.

10)The New Dimension: Directive Principles Given The Status Of Fundamental

Rights In Randhir Singh v, Union of India,1984 ‘equal pay for equal work’ as
contained in Article 39 (d) has been held to be a Fundamental right and therefore,
enforceable by the Courts.

11)Likewise, in Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot vs State Of Maharashtra,1978 it

has been held that the ‘legal aid’ and ‘speedy trial’ are also Fundamental rights
under Article 21 available to all prisoners and can be enforced.

12)In Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union v. Union of India 1991, the Supreme
Court has enforced the provisions of Article 39 (d) by giving the Directive
principles the status of Fundamental rights. In this case the workers sought the writ
 petition of mandamus directing the Union of India to pay equal scale in parity with
other employees performing similar works. The court held “equal pay for equal
work” is not expressly declared as a Fundamental right but in view of the Directive
principles of State policy as contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution, equal
pay for equal work has assumed the status of Fundamental right in service
jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in the Article
14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. The Court made it
clear that under the above circumstances ‘it is trite that the concept of equality
implies and requires equal treatment of those who are situated equally’ and issue
of appropriate direction in the interest of justice.

13)In M.R.F. Ltd v. Inspector of Kerala,1991 the Supreme Court heavily relied upon
the provision of Article 43 to uphold the validity of Kerala Industrial
Establishment (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 and held that the Act is
a social legislation to give effect to the Directive principles contained in the Article
43 of the Constitution

14)CONCLUSION: Thus, although in the earlier decisions the Court paid less regard
to the Directive Principles on the ground that they are not justifiable like the
Fundamental rights but in its later decisions the Court has taken a view that there is
no conflict between the Directive principles and the Fundamental rights as they
are complementary and supplementary to each other in aiming at the same goal
bringing about the social revolution and the establishment of a Welfare State which
is envisaged in the Preamble. The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
constitute the “conscience of the constitution.” There is no antithesis between the
Fundamental rights and Directive principles and one supplements the other.
Directive Principles and Fundamental rights should be construed in harmony with
each other and every attempt should be made by the court to resolve any apparent
inconsistency between them. Both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle
have to be balanced and harmonized then alone the dignity of the individual can be
achieved. The judicial view regarding the relationship between Fundamental rights
and Directive Principles has veered round from irreconcilability to integration.

FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES : ARTICLE 51A:

Among the democratic constitutions of the world there is no specific mention of the duties
and obligations of the citizens. We find certain duties of the citizens in Japanese
Constitution. Similarly, in Britain, Canada and Australia, the right and duties of the
citizens are governed largely by Common law and Judicial decisions. The French
Constitution makes only a passing reference of duties of the citizens. The American
Constitution provides for Fundamental rights but does not refer to the duties of citizen.
However, the Constitution of Socialist countries lay great emphasis on the citizen’s duties.
For example, the Soviet Constitution contained a comprehensive Chapter on the citizen’s
duties.

In the Indian Constitution, the Fundamental Duties are mentioned in Part IV-A. This part
consists of only one Article 51-A that was added to the Constitution by 42nd Amendment
Act, 1976. The Fundamental Duties of citizens were added upon the recommendations of
the Swaran Singh Committee. he Fundamental Duties that were incorporated in the
Constitution by 42nd Amendment are statutory duties and shall be enforceable by law.
The obligation provided under these duties can be penalised by the law if any citizen fails
to fulfil them. The Supreme Court through its various judgments has said the Fundamental
rights are equally important like Fundamental rights. Though Article 51-A does not cast
any Fundamental duty on the State but the fact remains that the duty of every citizen is the
collective duty of the State.

“The Fundamental Duties are defined as the moral obligations of all citizens to help
promote a spirit of patriotism and to uphold the unity of India. These duties are set out in
Part IV–A of the Constitution. Like the Directive Principles, they are not legally
enforceable.” Fundamental Duties which require a citizen in an organized society to
perform certain functions towards his/her community, is also crucial for the smooth
functioning of our organized living. Rights and Duties are correlative. The Fundamental
Duties are, therefore, intended to serve a constant reminder to every citizen that while the
Constitution specifically conferred on them certain Fundamental rights, it also requires
citizens to observe norms of democratic conduct and democratic behavior. Fundamental
Duties were increased to eleven by the 86th Amendment in 2002 adding new clause (k) to
the Article 51-A.

Citizens are morally obligated by the Constitution to perform these duties. However, like
the Directive Principles, these are non-justifiable, without any legal sanction in case of
their violation or non-compliance. There is reference to such duties in international
instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 51-A brings the Indian Constitution
into conformity with these treaties.