Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Since the Indian Constitution’s creation, it has been difficult to reconcile Fundamental Rights with the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). Discuss using the pertinent case law as a guide. (Answer in 150 words)
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in the Indian Constitution concern itself with social and economic issues and are usually defined in terms of positive rights demanding action by the state, as opposed to the negative individual rights that are included in the Fundamental Rights part of the Constitution. Constitutionally reconciling the Fundamental Rights (FRs) with DPSPs, has been a tough task faced by every government since 1950. This can be seen through frequent amendments of the Constitution in Parliament, and frequent interventions by the judiciary:
At present, the position is that Fundamental Rights enjoy supremacy over the Directive Principles but the Parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights for implementing the Directive Principles, so long as it conforms to the basic structure of the Constitution.
From its birth, the Indian Constitution has been facing a tug-of-war between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), trying to balance both. FRs are justiciable and enforceable by the courts; whereas DPSP guidelines represent non-justiciable principles of state policy, mostly aimed at social and economic democracy.
Key Case Laws:
In short, the judiciary has evolved a balanced approach to reconcile FRs and DPSPs so that both work in harmony with each other rather than against each other and hence a holistic understanding of the Indian Constitution.
Indeed, Indian constitutional law has made the difficult task of reconciling fundamental rights with directive principles of state policy (DPSPs) very difficult. While the DPSPs in Part IV of the Constitution are non-justiciable principles intended to ensure social and economic justice, the Fundamental Rights, which are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, are subject to court action and enforcement.
In a landmark decision in Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that DPSPs superseded Fundamental Rights in the event of a dispute. The enforcement of Fundamental Rights was highlighted in this ruling over the aspirational DPSPs.
The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, on the other hand, caused a paradigm shift in constitutional law. The Supreme Court established the concept of the “basic structure” of the document, stating that certain essential elements of the Constitution, such as the Fundamental Rights, are unchangeable through amendment. This case also highlighted the need to work towards harmonising DPSPs and Fundamental Rights, even though they cannot supersede one another.
This equilibrium was further supported by the Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) case. The Court ruled that the fundamental framework of the Constitution requires harmony and balance between the two, and thus struck down amendments that attempted to give DPSPs precedence over Fundamental Rights.
In the end, the Supreme Court demonstrated a sophisticated approach where both sets of principles were harmonised to achieve social justice when it affirmed reservations in government posts (a DPSP) as not violating the equality clause (a Fundamental Right) in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).
To put it simply, the judiciary has always worked to find a middle ground between protecting fundamental rights and gradually achieving the objectives outlined in the DPSPs.
Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) lay down the framework for regulating the relationship between the citizen and the state. Fundamental Rights are the most basic rights which the Constitution guarantees to its people by making them justiciable, while DPSPs (which are non-justiciable) act as a guide for law and policy formulation by the government.
The question of reconciling the two arises in the context of several amendments made by the Parliament to override the fundamental rights and the consequent judicial review by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the present position in law is that both, Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, must be harmoniously construed. No question arises about one prevailing over the other.
Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) lay down the framework for regulating the relationship between the citizen and the state. Fundamental Rights are the most basic rights which the Constitution guarantees to its people by making them justiciable, while DPSPs (which are non-justiciable) act as a guide for law and policy formulation by the government.
The question of reconciling the two arises in the context of several amendments made by the Parliament to override the fundamental rights and the consequent judicial review by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the present position in law is that both, Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, must be harmoniously construed. No question arises about one prevailing over the other.