Constitutional Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in India

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 ensuring the protection of individual liberties and fostering the collective welfare of society.

This delicate balance finds expression in the interplay between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), constituting two fundamental pillars that steer the governance and advancement of the nation.

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

Fundamental Rights	DPSPs
FR borrowed from constitution of USA	DPSPs borrowed from the constitution of Ireland.
Covered in Part III spanning Art. 12 – 35	Covered in Part IV spanning Art. 36 – 51
Justiciable i.e. legally enforceable by the courts of law.	Non-justiciable i.e. not legally enforceable by the courts of law.
Negative connotation– Prohibit the state from doing certain things.	Positive connotation – Enables the state to do certain things.
Entails establishing political democracy in the country.	Entails establishing social and economic democracy in the country.
Driving force – Legal sanctions.	Driving force – Moral and political sanctions.
Focus – Welfare of the individual; personal and individualistic in spirit.	Focus – Welfare of the community; societarian and socialistic in spirit.
Automatically enforced– Legislation not required for enforcement. (Exception-Art.17)	Legislation required for enforcement of provisions.
Violation of FR could amount to invalidation of any law by Judiciary. Such law becomes null and void.	Violation of any of the Directive Principles does not amount to invalidation of such law. Moreover, the judiciary can uphold the validity of a law on the ground that it was enacted to give effect to a directive.

Also Read: Government of India Acts: Charting the Development of Indian Autonomy

Similarities Between Fundamental Rights and DPSP: Common Threads

Both are borrowed features of the constitution.
Both are directed to achieve inclusive and equitable growth of the nation.
Both are backed by broader constitutional provisions.
Both are critical for strengthening democratic setup in India.
Both acts as guiding light for the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of act or order.
The genesis and objectives underlying part III and part IV have common desideratum in responding to the social consciousness rest with the constitution making force.

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 the judicial review, Art 31A and 31B were inserted.

Role of Ninth Schedule in Safeguarding Land Reforms from Fundamental Rights Challenges

Article 31B, and, correspondingly, the Ninth Schedule, was inserted by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 as a measure to protect land reform laws from potential challenges on the touchstone of Fundamental Rights.

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 inserted a new Article 31C which contained the following two
  - 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.

Article 39(b): The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing, that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub serve the common good.
Article 39(c): The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing, that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.

Also Read: NRC, NPR, & CENSUS OF INDIA: UNDERSTANDING POPULATION AND IDENTITY

Article 31A: It protects five categories of laws from being challenged and invalidated on the ground of contravention of the fundamental rights conferred by Article 14 and Article 19. It includes:
The acquisition by the State of any estate or of any fundamental rights
The taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period.
The amalgamation of two or more corporations
Extinguishment or modification of FRs of directors or shareholders of corporations
Extinguishment or modification of mining leases.
It was inserted by the First Constitutional Amendment Act. It also provides the guaranteed right to compensation in case of acquisition or requisition of the private property by the state.
Article 31B: It protects the acts and regulations included in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged and invalidated on the ground of contravention of any of the fundamental rights.
- It is also inserted by the First Constitutional Amendment Act.
Article 31C: It contained 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 Fundamental Rights 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. (This provision was struck down by the Court)
- It was inserted by the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act.