Briefly state the stages through which the present position of the Directive Principles vis-à-vis the Fundamental Rights has emerged.(250 words)

Remember this order – CKGKM (CracKing ias General Knowledge is Must)

    As FR’s are justifiable while DPSPs are non-justifiable there has been continuous conflict between FRs and DPSPs since the commencement of the constitution.  As and when the conflicts arise, the SC has interpreted variously in various cases as mentioned below:

  1. Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)

DPSPs are subsidiary to the FRs.  But it also held that the FRs could be amended by the parliament by enacting constitutional amendment acts.

  1. Kerala Education bill Case 1957

Doctrine of PHC (principle of Harmonious construction) was propounded. It was held that there is no inherent conflict between the two and in case of two Conflicting interpretations, the one giving validity to Law giving effect to FRs will be upheld over the one Invalidating it.(i.e) DPSPs cannot override FRs.

  1. Golaknath Case (1967)

FRs cannot be amended for the implementation of the DPSPs. Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the FRs.  The Parliament reacted to this by enacting the following amendments

  • 24th Amendment act (1971) – Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any of the FRs by enacting constitutional amendment acts.
  • 25th Amendment act (1971)
    • Inserted a new Article 31C. It curtailed the FR to property.
    • It provided that any law made to give effect to the DPSPs contained in Article 39(b) or (c) cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 19.
    • No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
  1. Keshavanand Bharti case (1973)

Judicial review is basic feature of the constitution and hence the above (ii) provision is invalid, whereas the above (i) provision is constitutionally valid.

42nd amendment act (1976) – It accorded the position of legal primacy and supremacy to the DPSPs over the FRs conferred by Article 14 and 19.

44th amendment act (1978) – Art 31 – Right to property was abolished.

  1. Minerva Mills case (1980)

DPSPs were once again made subordinate to the FRs.  But the FRs conferred by Article 14 and 19 were accepted as subordinate to the DPSPs specified in Article 39 (b) or (c).

In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the SC held that “the Indian Constitution is founded on the bed rock of the balance between FRs and DPSPs.  They together constitute the core of commitment to social revolution.

The present position is that the FRs enjoy supremacy over the DPs.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email