Fundamental Rights vs DPSP
Notes
Basis | Fundamental Rights (Part III) | DPSP (Part IV) |
|---|---|---|
Source | US Bill of Rights | Irish Constitution |
Nature | Negative: restrict State action | Positive: direct the State to act |
Enforceability | Justiciable | Non-justiciable (Art. 37) |
Objective | Political democracy | Social and economic democracy |
Beneficiary | Individual | Community and society |
Legislation needed | No, automatically enforceable | Yes, require legislation |
Suspension | Can be suspended in Emergency (except Art. 20, 21) | Cannot be suspended |
Court action | Courts can strike down laws violating them | Courts cannot strike down laws for violating DPSPs |
Conflict between FR and DPSP: evolution
- State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan (1951): FRs prevail; DPSPs are subsidiary. Led to the 1st Amendment.
- Golaknath (1967): Parliament cannot amend FRs to implement DPSPs.
- 24th and 25th Amendments (1971): Parliament can amend FRs; Art. 31C inserted, shielding laws made to give effect to Art. 39(b) and (c) from challenge under Art. 14, 19 and 31.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973): upheld the first part of Art. 31C but struck down the clause barring judicial review; laid down the basic structure doctrine.
- 42nd Amendment (1976): extended Art. 31C to all DPSPs (Part IV).
- Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980): struck down the extension of Art. 31C to all DPSPs and the bar on judicial review. Held that the Constitution rests on a balance and harmony between Part III and Part IV, which is part of the basic structure; FRs and DPSPs are the "two wheels of a chariot".
- Unni Krishnan (1993): read the right to education into Art. 21 with Art. 41 and 45.
Current position: FRs and DPSPs are complementary; DPSPs cannot override FRs, but laws giving effect to Art. 39(b) and (c) are protected by Art. 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda and Minerva Mills, subject to judicial review). Courts use DPSPs to interpret FRs, as in the expansion of Art. 21.
Examples of DPSP giving rise to rights: Art. 45, 41 and 39(f) led to Art. 21A; Art. 47 supports the right to health.
Key Points
- FR: justiciable and negative; DPSP: non-justiciable and positive.
- Champakam Dorairajan (1951): FR over DPSP.
- Art. 31C: 25th Amendment (Art. 39(b),(c)); 42nd Amendment extended to all DPSPs, struck down in Minerva Mills (1980).
- Harmony between Part III and IV is a basic structure feature.
- Courts use DPSPs to read content into FRs.
MCQs
Q1. The Supreme Court held that harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs is part of the basic structure in:
(a) Golaknath
(b) Minerva Mills
(c) Champakam Dorairajan
(d) Kesavananda Bharati
Ans: (b). 1980.
Q2. Which Amendment extended the scope of Art. 31C to all Directive Principles?
(a) 24th
(b) 25th
(c) 42nd
(d) 44th
Ans: (c). Struck down in Minerva Mills.
Q3. In which case did the Court hold that Fundamental Rights prevail over Directive Principles?
(a) State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan
(b) Sajjan Singh
(c) Shankari Prasad
(d) Berubari
Ans: (a). 1951.