Conflict Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy: Key Judicial Cases and the Uniform Civil Code

The conflict between Fundamental Rights (FR) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in the Indian Constitution highlights the balance between individual liberties and societal welfare. While FRs are legally enforceable and protect individual freedoms, DPSPs, though not enforceable, aim to guide the government in promoting social, economic, and political welfare. Various judicial cases have addressed this conflict, illustrating its impact on India’s legal and social landscape.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in the Indian Constitution: Conflicts and Resolutions

Key Differences: The differences between the Fundamental Rights (FR) and the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in the Indian Constitution are as follows:

Judicial Cases Related To DPSP

• • Persistent Conflict Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: The conflict between the justiciability of Fundamental Rights and the non-justiciability of Directive Principles, along with the moral obligation of the State to implement Directive Principles as outlined in Article 37, has been a persistent issue since the inception of the Constitution.

• Understanding the Conflict Through Key Cases: The conflict can be understood through various cases like.

Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)

• Precedence of Fundamental Rights Over Directive Principles: In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court determined that in the event of a conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, the former would take precedence. 
  • This decision reaffirmed the paramount importance of individual liberties while balancing the broader societal objectives outlined in the Directive Principles.
• Directive Principles Must Harmonize with Fundamental Rights: Directive Principles must align with and operate in harmony with Fundamental Rights, serving as a supportive framework. 
  • This ruling reinforces the foundational significance of individual freedoms, emphasizing their precedence in the legal landscape.
• Amendment of Fundamental Rights by Constitutional Acts: The Supreme Court‘s ruling established that Fundamental Rights could be amended by Parliament through constitutional amendment acts. 
  • This decision highlighted the dynamic nature of the legal framework, allowing for necessary modifications while upholding the essence of individual liberties. 

Golaknath Case (1967)

• Impact on Fundamental Rights: The verdict of the Champakam Dorairajan Case underwent a significant change when the Supreme Court in the Golaknath Case unequivocally stated that Fundamental Rights could not be amended by Parliament, even with the intent of implementing Directive Principles. 
• Reinforcement of Individual Liberties: This landmark decision reinforced the inviolability of individual liberties, ensuring their safeguarding against any legislative amendments. 

25th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971) 

• Introduction of Article 31C: The 25th Amendment Act introduced a new Article 31C, containing two provisions:
  • Protection of Socialistic Directive Principles from Judicial Review: According to this provision, laws aimed at implementing the socialistic Directive Principles outlined in Article 39(b) and (c) will not be deemed void for contravening Fundamental Rights like equality before the law (Article 14), protection of rights related to speech, assembly, and movement (Article 19), or the right to property (Article 31). 
    • This legal safeguard ensures that initiatives geared towards promoting social justice and economic equality are not hindered by legal challenges, fostering a conducive environment for progressive policies to thrive.
  • Safeguard for Policy Implementation: Any law declaring the implementation of a specific policy will not be subject to questioning in any court if it fails to realise that policy fully. 
    • This legal principle serves to provide a stable environment for policy implementation, ensuring that legislative efforts are not hampered by legal challenges and allowing the government to focus on the effective execution of important policies for the benefit of society.

Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

• Invalidation of the Second Provision of Article 31C: In this landmark case, the Supreme Court declared the second provision of Article 31C, added by the 25th Amendment Act, as ‘Unconstitutional’. 
  • However, it upheld the first provision of Article 31C as constitutional and valid. 
• Protection of Socialistic Directive Principles: Hence,  laws aimed at implementing the socialistic Directive Principles outlined in Article 39(b) and (c) will not be deemed void for contravening Fundamental Rights like equality before the law (Article 14), protection of rights related to speech, assembly, and movement (Article 19), or the right to property (Article 31).

42nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1976)

• Expansion of Article 31C : Through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, Parliament significantly expanded the scope of the first provision of Article 31C. 
• Primacy to Directive Principles Over Fundamental Rights: This amendment granted legal primacy and supremacy to all the Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19, and 31 and not just Article 39 (b) and (c). 
• Impact on Socio Economic Justice and Policy: The amendment marked a pivotal moment in the nation’s legal framework, ensuring that socioeconomic justice and inclusive policies took precedence in shaping India’s future.

Minerva Mills Case (1980)

• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court deemed the extension of Article 31C, introduced by the 42nd Amendment Act, unconstitutional and invalid. 
• Balance Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: The Court emphasised that the Indian Constitution thrives on a delicate equilibrium between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. 
• Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights Alignment: The court held that the objectives outlined in the Directive Principles must be attained without compromising the avenues afforded by Fundamental Rights. 

Current Status of Relationship between FR and DPSP

Precedence of Fundamental Rights: The current scenario upholds the precedence of Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles in the Indian Constitution. 

• However, this does not imply that Directive Principles cannot be put into practice. 
• Parliamentary Authority: The Parliament has the authority to make amendments to Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and Article 19  in order to facilitate the implementation of Directive Principles under Article 39(b), Article 39(c).

Conclusion

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) guide the government toward social justice and economic prosperity, despite not being legally enforceable. 

• Their influence is profound, representing the nation’s aspirations and ideals. The ongoing debate between upholding Fundamental Rights and implementing DPSPs reflects the dynamic nature of India’s constitutional framework. 
• Striking a balance between these principles remains crucial for fostering an equitable and just society.

DOWNLOAD PDF