The Indian Constitution is a unique document that embodies the aspirations and values of the people of India. It lays down the framework for the governance and development of the country. Among its various features, two of the most important and distinctive ones are the fundamental rights and the directive principles of state policy . In this article, we will explore the relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy.
Before moving forward, let us understand, what are fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy.
Fundamental rights are the basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to every citizen of India by the Constitution. They include civil and political rights such as equality, liberty, freedom of expression, religion, assembly, etc. They are enforceable by the courts and any law or action that violates them can be declared null and void .
Directive principles of state policy are the guidelines and principles that are given to the state by the Constitution. They include social and economic rights and duties such as welfare, education, health, environment, justice, etc. They are not enforceable by the courts and are left to the discretion and policy of the state .
What is the difference between Fundamental rights and DPSPs?
The basic difference between fundamental rights and directive principles is that fundamental rights are justiciable and directive principles are non-justiciable . This means that fundamental rights can be claimed and protected by the judiciary, while directive principles cannot be enforced by any legal remedy. However, this does not mean that directive principles are less important or irrelevant than fundamental rights. On the contrary, both fundamental rights and directive principles are essential for achieving the goals of the Constitution.
What is the relationship between Fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy?
The main purpose of this article is to explore the relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles and how they have been interpreted and reconciled by the Supreme Court of India. The article will trace the historical background of both fundamental rights and directive principles, discuss their judicial interpretation over time, and suggest some ways to improve their implementation and enforcement in India.
Historical Background
The origins of fundamental rights and directive principles can be traced back to the Indian independence movement and the Constituent Assembly debates. The demand for fundamental rights was raised by various national leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, B.R. Ambedkar, etc. as a means to secure civil liberties and human dignity against colonial oppression . The idea of directive principles was inspired by various social reformers such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, etc. as a means to promote social justice and economic development for all sections of society .
The Constituent Assembly, which was elected in 1946 to draft the Constitution of India, deliberated on both fundamental rights and directive principles extensively. The Assembly was influenced by other constitutional documents such as England’s Bill of Rights (1689), the United States Bill of Rights (1791) and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) for framing fundamental rights . The Assembly also borrowed some ideas from Ireland’s Constitution (1937), which had a separate chapter on directive principles .
The rationale behind incorporating both fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy in the Constitution was to achieve political, economic and social democracy in India. The Constituent Assembly recognized that democracy cannot be sustained without protecting individual rights and freedoms from arbitrary state interference. At the same time, it also realized that democracy cannot be meaningful without ensuring social welfare and economic progress for all citizens. Therefore, it decided to include both fundamental rights and directive principles as complementary and interdependent aspects of the Constitution .
Judicial Interpretation
The relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy has been a contentious issue in Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court of India has evolved its approach towards this relationship over time. The judicial interpretation of fundamental rights and directive principles can be divided into three phases:
The Early Phase: 1950-1967
In this phase, the Supreme Court adopted a strict and narrow view of fundamental rights and gave primacy to them over directive principles. The Court held that fundamental rights are supreme and inviolable, while directive principles of state policy are subordinate and aspirational. The Court also ruled that any law or action that violates or abridges any fundamental right is unconstitutional, regardless of its conformity with any directive principle.
Some landmark cases in this phase are:
- A.K. Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950): The Court upheld the validity of preventive detention laws that curtailed the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
- Champakam Dorairajan vs State of Madras (1951): The Court struck down a state government order that provided for caste-based reservations in educational institutions, as it violated the right to equality under Article 15.
- Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan (1965): The Court upheld the validity of the First and Fourth Constitutional Amendments that curtailed the right to property under Article 19 and Article 31, respectively.
The Middle Phase: 1967-1978
In this phase, the Supreme Court adopted a liberal and broad view of fundamental rights and gave equal importance to them and directive principles. The Court held that fundamental rights and directive principles are not antagonistic but complementary and co-operative. The Court also ruled that any law or action that gives effect to any directive principle is valid, even if it infringes upon any fundamental right, provided that it does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Some landmark cases in this phase are:
- Golaknath vs State of Punjab (1967): The Court held that fundamental rights are immutable and cannot be amended by Parliament under Article 368.
- Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973): The Court overruled Golaknath and held that fundamental rights can be amended by Parliament, subject to the doctrine of basic structure.
- Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975): The Court struck down the 39th Constitutional Amendment that sought to immunize the election of the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny, as it violated the basic structure.
The Recent Phase: 1978-present
In this phase, the Supreme Court adopted a harmonious and balanced view of fundamental rights and directive principles and tried to reconcile them as far as possible. The Court held that fundamental rights and directive principles are interdependent and interrelated. The Court also ruled that any law or action that promotes both fundamental rights and directive principles is constitutional, unless it violates any specific provision or the basic structure of the Constitution.
Some landmark cases in this phase are:
- Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980): The Court struck down the 42nd Constitutional Amendment that gave primacy to directive principles over fundamental rights, as it violated the basic structure.
- Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): The Court held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21, derived from the directive principle under Article 45.
- Nandini Sundar vs State of Chhattisgarh (2011): The Court held that the state-sponsored vigilante groups (Salwa Judum) that violated the rights of tribal people in Chhattisgarh were unconstitutional, as they contravened both fundamental rights and directive principles.
Conclusion
The relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy is one of the most fascinating and complex aspects of Indian constitutional law. Both fundamental rights and directive principles are essential for achieving the goals of the Constitution. They reflect the vision and values of the founding fathers and the aspirations and needs of the present generation. They also provide a framework for balancing individual liberty and social justice in India.
However, there is still a lot of scope for improvement in the implementation and enforcement of both fundamental rights and directive principles in India. Some of the challenges and suggestions are:
- There is a need to strengthen the judicial review mechanism to ensure that both fundamental rights and directive principles are respected and protected by the state.
- There is a need to enhance the public awareness and education about both fundamental rights and directive principles among the citizens.
- There is a need to foster a culture of dialogue and consensus among various stakeholders such as the government, civil society, media, etc. to resolve any conflicts or disputes arising from both fundamental rights and directive principles.
By addressing these challenges and suggestions, India can hope to realize its constitutional vision of securing justice, liberty, equality and fraternity for all its citizens.
Please leave your valuable feedback/suggestions. Share this article with your friends and other aspirants for wider reach.
Follow us on FACEBOOK
