Constitutional Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in India

Introduction: Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution serves as a comprehensive framework that encapsulates the fundamental rights, principles, and aspirations of its citizens. At its essence, it intricately navigates the process of ensuring the protection of individual liberties and fostering the collective welfare of society.

This delicate balance is shown in how Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) interact. These are two important parts that guide the governance and progress of the nation.

Comparative Analysis of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in India’s Constitutional Landscape

Constitutional Evolution: Balancing Act of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in the First Amendment of 1951

• First Amendment 1951: Issues involved in the cases included freedom of speech, acquisition of the Zamindari land, State monopoly of trade, etc. judicial pronouncement  empowered the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and economically backward classes. 
  • It also provided for the saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates, added Ninth Schedule to protect the land reforms and other laws included in it from judicial review and Art 31A and 31B were inserted.

• Champakam Dorairajan Case (1952): Court asserted that all FRs are superior over DPSP. But, FRs can be amended to give effect to DPSP.
• Fourth Amendment 1955: Amendment made the scale of compensation given in lieu of compulsory acquisition of private property beyond the scrutiny of courts. 
  • It authorized the state to nationalize any trade
  • Amendment included some more Acts in the Ninth Schedule. It extended the scope of Art. 31 A (savings of laws).
• Kerala Education Bill (1957): Supreme Court had propounded the “Doctrine of Harmonious” Construction to avoid a situation of conflict while enforcing DPSPs and the FR. 
• Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964: This act prohibited the acquisition of land under personal cultivation unless the market value of the land was paid as compensation. 
  • It included 44 more Acts in the Ninth Schedule.
• Golak Nath Case (1967): Court asserted that FR cannot be abridged or diluted. FR are sacrosanct and absolute in nature. 
  • Hence FR can not be amended to implement the Directive Principles.
• 24th  Amendment Act 1971: Amendment Act was brought in response to the Golaknath ruling (1967) of the Supreme Court.
  • SC held that the Parliament does not have the power to take away any fundamental rights through amendment to the Constitution.
  • The 25th Amendment Act added a new Article 31C, which included the following two provisions.
    • No law which seeks to implement the socialistic Directive Principles specified in Article 39 (b) and (c) shall be void on the ground of contravention of the FRs conferred by Article 14 and Article 19 or Article 31.
    • No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such a policy shall be questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy.
  • Judgement affirmed the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution including fundamental rights by amending Art. 13 and 368. 
  • Amendment or  law giving effect to such a policy shall  not be questioned in any court. (This second provision was struck down by Judiciary as this would take away power of Judicial Review of court  in Kesavananda Bharati Case)
• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Court asserted that Parliament can amend any part of the constitution, provided it shall  not destroy or damage  basic features of the Constitution.
  • This led to the evolution of the Doctrine of “Basic Structure of the Constitution”.
• 42nd amendment act 1976: It extended the provision of Article 31C by including within its protection any law to implement any of the Directive Principles and not merely those specified in Article 39 (b) and (c).
  • It accorded legal primacy and supremacy to the Directive Principles over the Fundamental Rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31.
• Minerva Mill Case (1980): This extension was declared unconstitutional by the Court.
  • Directive Principles were once again made subordinate to the FRs.
  • But FR conferred by Article 14 and Article 19 were accepted as subordinate to the Directive Principles specified in Article 39 (b) and (c).
  • Article 31 (right to property) was abolished by the 44th Constitutional Amendment.
  • Court asserted that a law made by Parliament under Article 31C would be protected only if it is made to implement directives in Art 39(b) and 39 (c) and not any other DPSPs.
• Present Status: Fundamental Rights enjoy supremacy over the Directive Principles, It does not mean that the Directive Principles cannot be implemented. 
  • The Parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights for implementing the Directive Principles, but amendment or law should not damage or destroy the basic structure of the constitution.

DOWNLOAD PDF