Relation Between DPSPs and Fundamental Rights

The Indian Constitution is a comprehensive framework that enshrines its citizens’ rights, principles and aspirations. At its core, it strikes a delicate balance between safeguarding individual liberties and promoting the collective welfare of society. 

This intricate balance is reflected in the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) – two essential pillars that guide the governance and progress of the nation.

What are Fundamental Rights?

Fundamental rights, often called “basic rights,” are essential for human beings to live with dignity in a civilised society. They are also known as negative or individual rights because they impose limitations on the state to prevent encroachment on individual liberty. These rights are justifiable, allowing individuals to seek legal recourse if their rights are violated.

In the Indian Constitution, fundamental rights are outlined in Part III, specifically from Article 12 to Article 35. There were seven fundamental rights originally, but the Right to Property was repealed after the abolition of the zamindari Act. The six remaining fundamental rights are as follows:

• Right to equality (Article 14-18)
• Right to freedom (Article 19-22)
• Right to freedom of religion (Article 23-24)
• Right against exploitation (Article 25-28)
• Cultural and educational rights (Article 29-30)
• Right to constitutional remedies (Article 31-32)

Directive Principles of State Policy

Part IV of the constitution focuses on the Directive Principles of State Policy, which are regarded as positive rights since they place affirmative responsibilities on the state. 

Although non-justiciable, these principles are important guidelines for the legislature in formulating policies. The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) aid the state in achieving its socio-economic objectives. DPSPs in the Indian Constitution draw inspiration from Section 45 of the Irish Constitution of Ireland.

Articles 36-51 of the Indian Constitution encompass the DPSP. Some of these principles are currently subjects of debate in Parliament. Examples of DPSPs include:

• Right to work
• Uniform Civil Code
• Right to education
• Maternity benefits

Difference between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy

Case Laws on the Relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSP

To better understand the conflict between Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Fundamental Rights, let’s examine some important case laws that shed light on the matter. By studying these cases, we can determine what happens when a conflict arises between DPSP and Fundamental Rights.

In the case of Golak Nath vs the State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1976 S.C.R. (2) 762), the Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights cannot be diluted, abridged, diminished or taken away. In response, the Parliament introduced an Amendment Act and inserted Article 31(C) in Part III of the Constitution. Article 31(C) states that if a law is framed in line with DPSP and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 (Fundamental Rights), the law should not be declared void on these grounds alone.

In the case of Champak Dorairajan vs the State of Madras, the Supreme Court ruled that DPSP cannot override the provisions of Part III of the Constitution, which includes Fundamental Rights. DPSP must operate subsidiary to Fundamental Rights and should not contradict them. This judgment was crucial, and in response, the Parliament amended various fundamental rights conflicting with DPSP.

Moving on to the case of the Kerala Education Bill, the Supreme Court introduced the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction. This doctrine emphasises that constitutional provisions should be interpreted to allow Fundamental Rights and DPSP to work harmoniously, avoiding conflicts between them. 

The court held that if there is no inherent conflict, both should be given effect. However, if a conflict arises due to the interpretation of a particular law, the court should strive to harmonise both as much as possible.

Now, what is the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction? 

According to the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, the Constitution’s provisions should be interpreted and constituted to allow Fundamental Rights and DPSP to work in harmony, avoiding conflicts between them. The court aims to construe each provision of the Constitution so they can function together seamlessly.

The court held that no conflict will arise if there is no inherent conflict. However, suppose a conflict arises due to the court’s interpretation of a particular law. In that case, the court should make efforts to give effect to both Fundamental Rights and DPSP as much as possible.

The objective is to connect Fundamental Rights and DPSP without requiring any amendments. If conflicts persist despite attempts to maintain balance, the court must prioritise the implementation of Fundamental Rights over DPSP.

In the case of Kesavananda Bharathi in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution. Still, it should not destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. As mentioned earlier, the second clause of Article 31(C) was declared unconstitutional and void as it went against the basic structure. However, the first clause of Article 31(C) was deemed valid. In response, the Parliament enacted the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976, expanding the scope of Article 31(C) provisions.

In the case of Pathumma vs the State of Kerala in 1978, the Supreme Court emphasised the purpose of DPSP, which is to achieve certain social-economic goals. The Constitution aims to strike a balance and create a combination between DPSP and Fundamental Rights, a principle reflected in several other cases.

In the Minerva Mills Case, the court held that the law under Article 31(C) would be protected only if it is enacted to implement the directive in Article 39(b) and (c) and not for any other Directive Principle. Previously, protection was given to all Directive Principles, but after this case, such protection was restricted. It was declared that protecting all Directive Principles would render them void and unconstitutional.

In the State of Kerala vs N.M. Thomas (1976), the Supreme Court emphasised that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles should be construed to allow them to coexist. The court stated that every effort should be made to resolve their disputes.

In the case of Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of Directive Principles in the country’s governance, emphasising that equal importance should be given to the meaning and concept of Fundamental Rights.

In Dalmia Cement vs Union of India, the Supreme Court stated that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are supplementary and complementary. It also emphasised that the preamble to the Constitution, which provides an introduction to the Constitution, encompasses both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as the conscience of the Constitution.

In Ashok Kumar Thakur vs Union of India (2008), the Supreme Court clarified that no distinction should be made between the two sets of rights. Fundamental Rights are civil and political rights, while Directive Principles deal with social and economic rights. The fact that Directive Principles are not enforceable in a court of law does not imply that they are subordinate.

Overall, these cases highlight the interconnectedness of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Neither is considered supreme over the other.

The government has undertaken various acts to implement these principles, such as establishing Panchayats through the 73rd Amendment, creating Nagar Palikas under Article 41 and including compulsory education for children below the age of 14 as a Fundamental Right. Additionally, the government has enacted laws, such as the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951, to protect monuments of national significance.

What is the Relationship Between Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights?

The relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) can be described as follows:

Complementary Nature

Fundamental Rights and DPSP are considered complementary to each other. While Fundamental Rights focus on individual rights and liberties, DPSP emphasises the goals and principles the state should strive to achieve in the social and economic spheres. Both sets of provisions aim to secure a just and equitable society.

Non-Justiciability of DPSP

Unlike Fundamental Rights, which are justiciable and can be enforced in courts, DPSPs are non-justiciable. This means that individuals cannot directly approach courts for their enforcement. However, DPSP provides guiding principles to the state in formulating policies and legislation.

Harmony and Harmonious Construction

The courts have emphasised the need for harmony between Fundamental Rights and DPSP. The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction guides the interpretation of constitutional provisions in a way that avoids conflicts between the two sets of rights and seeks to give effect to both as far as possible.

Subordination of DPSP

While Fundamental Rights enjoy higher legal protection, DPSPs are considered subordinate to Fundamental Rights. In a conflict between the two, the courts generally prioritise the protection of Fundamental Rights.

State Obligation

DPSP impose positive obligations on the state to promote social justice, welfare and equitable distribution of resources. The state is expected to take steps to implement DPSP over time, subject to its available resources and other considerations.

Progressive Realisation

DPSP are principles and goals that are gradually realised over time. The state is expected to make reasonable efforts to progressively fulfil these principles, considering its financial capacity and socio-economic conditions.

Conclusion

While Fundamental Rights confer individual rights and freedoms, DPSP provides a roadmap for the state to ensure social and economic justice, promote the welfare of the people and create a just society. The relationship between the two involves balancing and harmonising their objectives to achieve a balanced constitutional framework.