Relation Between DPSPs and Fundamental Rights
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights (FRs) in detail with relevant case law.
1. Introduction
The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights (FRs) are two core features of the Indian Constitution designed to secure social justice and democracy.
Fundamental Rights (FRs): Enforceable rights guaranteed to individuals to protect liberty, equality, and freedom (Part III of the Constitution).
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs): Guidelines to the government for establishing a just and equitable society (Part IV of the Constitution).
Key Difference:
FRs are justiciable – enforceable in courts.
DPSPs are non-justiciable – not enforceable in courts but fundamental in governance.
2. Objective of DPSPs
Promote social and economic democracy.
Reduce inequalities of income, status, and opportunity.
Provide guidelines for welfare-oriented legislation.
Examples: Article 39(a) (equal pay), Article 41 (right to work), Article 47 (health & nutrition).
3. Objective of Fundamental Rights
Protect individual freedoms.
Prevent state excesses and discrimination.
Examples: Right to Equality (Articles 14–18), Right to Freedom (Articles 19–22), Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32).
4. Relation Between DPSPs and Fundamental Rights
4.1 Conflict Between FRs and DPSPs
Sometimes laws made to implement DPSPs restrict certain FRs.
Example: Land reform laws for redistribution of land may limit the right to property (FR under Article 31 before its repeal).
Courts have reconciled these conflicts through interpretation.
4.2 Harmonious Construction
The Constitution aims to harmonize FRs and DPSPs rather than letting one override the other.
Article 37: DPSPs are fundamental in governance and must be applied in making laws.
Article 31C: If a law is made to implement certain DPSPs, it cannot be challenged on the ground of violating FRs (originally Article 31, now amended post 44th amendment).
5. Key Case Laws Illustrating the Relation
Case 1: State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) SCR 525
Facts: A caste-based reservation in educational institutions was challenged as violating the right to equality (Article 15).
Principle: Court emphasized that FRs prevail over DPSPs if there is a direct conflict.
Significance: Early example showing potential tension between FRs and DPSPs.
Case 2: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
Facts: Fundamental rights and directive principles were challenged under constitutional amendments.
Principle: Supreme Court introduced the “Harmony Principle” – FRs and DPSPs must be interpreted in a complementary manner.
Significance: Neither FRs nor DPSPs override the other; laws should seek balance and reconciliation.
Case 3: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625
Facts: Amendments gave primacy to DPSPs over FRs.
Principle: Supreme Court held that the harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs is a part of the basic structure.
Significance: Neither FRs nor DPSPs can be used to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
Case 4: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) 2 SCC 159
Principle: Laws made to implement DPSPs cannot wholly override FRs, reaffirming balance and reasonableness in interpretation.
6. Principles Evolved by Courts
Primacy of FRs in direct conflict – If an FR is directly violated by a law, courts may strike it down (Champakam Dorairajan).
Harmonious interpretation – Law should attempt to satisfy both FRs and DPSPs (Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills).
DPSPs as guiding principles – State must consider them in policy-making and legislation.
Basic structure doctrine – FRs and DPSPs together form the core of the Constitution; neither can destroy it.
7. Conclusion
DPSPs and FRs are complementary: FRs protect individual rights, while DPSPs aim to promote social and economic justice.
Conflict resolution: Courts use harmonious construction, basic structure doctrine, and reasonableness test to balance them.
Practical implication: Laws should aim to achieve social welfare without infringing fundamental freedoms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments