Constitutional Clash: Balancing Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights.

Abstract

The interaction between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in India presents a dynamic tension between individual liberties and state objectives. While DPSPs serve as guidelines for state governance without being legally enforceable, conflicts may arise when the state seeks to implement them, potentially infringing on citizens' Fundamental Rights. This tension reflects the broader conflict between the individual and the state, with Parliament often emphasizing the supremacy of DPSPs, while the judiciary upholds the primacy of Fundamental Rights. This article explores the distinction between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, which serve as directives for the central and state governments in policy formulation, aiming to foster a just society. While Fundamental Rights are constitutionally guaranteed and justiciable, DPSPs aspire to achieve societal welfare and economic democracy. As conflicts between these two principles emerge, the judiciary plays a crucial role in adjudicating their relative importance, as evidenced by landmark judgments and recent case law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Key Words: Article, Constitutional, Democracy, DPSP, Fundamental Rights.

 

INTRODUCTION

The Directive Principles of State Policy set forth the humanitarian precepts that were and are the aims of the Indian social revolution

Fundamental rights and DPSP serve as both the liberties of citizens and directives provided to the State to protect individual rights. Fundamental rights function as a protective barrier against unjust state actions, while DPSP serves as guiding principles to ensure that the state aligns with the visionary goals of our founding leaders, thereby strengthening the nation's foundation. Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), and Fundamental Duties constitute vital components of the Indian Constitution, enshrined in Parts III, IV, and IV-A, respectively. These provisions were meticulously crafted by the Constituent Assembly of India between 1947 and 1949, embodying essential rights, guiding principles for governance, and moral obligations for citizens. Part IV has been referred to as the socio-economic Magna Carta of the Indian Constitution. Fundamental Rights, safeguarded under Articles 14, 19, and 21 among others, are intrinsic to human dignity and equality. They shield citizens from arbitrary state actions and are enforceable by the judiciary, symbolizing the cornerstone of democratic governance. Conversely, DPSP offers a roadmap for state governance, focusing on socio-economic welfare and fostering a just society. Though not legally enforceable, they serve as guiding principles for lawmaking and policy formulation. Additionally, Fundamental Duties and Basic Responsibilities underline the moral obligations of citizens towards nation-building. While they promote patriotism and national unity, they are non-justiciable and operate in the realm of civic responsibility rather than legal enforcement. The interplay between Fundamental Rights and DPSP often comes to the forefront when laws purportedly clash with individual liberties. The constitutional amendment in 1971, through Article 31-C, exemplifies the attempt to reconcile this conflict by granting primacy to DPSP over certain Fundamental Rights. This delicate balance underscores the dynamic relationship between individual liberties and societal welfare, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

 

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution (Articles 12-35), are pivotal for ensuring justice, equality, and dignity for all citizens. Although not absolute, they empower individuals with legal protections against arbitrary state actions, allowing them to seek recourse through the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court under Article 32. The genesis of Fundamental Rights can be traced back to various historical antecedents. Concepts such as Freedom of Speech, Right to Privacy, and others were first articulated in the Swaraj Bill of 1895. Influences from documents like the England Bill of Rights (1689) and the United States Bill of Rights (1791) also played a crucial role in shaping the idea of fundamental rights globally.

The necessity for Fundamental Rights in India was underscored by the oppressive measures enacted by the British colonial administration, notably the Rowlatt Act of 1919. These acts of injustice fueled the demand for constitutional safeguards to protect citizens' liberties and prevent abuses of power. The Nehru Commission of 1928 further advocated for the inclusion of fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution, drawing inspiration from Ireland's Directive Policy. Subsequently, during the drafting of the Constitution, chaired by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, fundamental rights were meticulously incorporated into the final drafts, ensuring their central place in India's constitutional framework. Under Part III of the Constitution, several specific rights are delineated to safeguard various aspects of individual freedoms:

1. Right to Equality (Articles 14-18): Ensures equality before the law and prohibits discrimination based on caste, creed, religion, sex, or place of birth.
2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22): Guarantees essential freedoms such as freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, and profession.
3. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24): Prohibits human trafficking, forced labor, and employment of children in hazardous occupations.
4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28): Protects the freedom of individuals and religious groups to practice, profess, and propagate their religion.
5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30): Safeguards interests of linguistic and religious minorities, allowing them to preserve and promote their distinct cultural identity.
6. The Right to Constitutional Remedies (Articles 32-35): Enables citizens to seek legal redress in court if their Fundamental Rights are infringed upon.

These rights collectively form the cornerstone of India's democratic ethos, ensuring that every citizen is treated with dignity, fairness, and equality under the law.

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY (DPSP)

Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) constitute a set of guidelines outlined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution, spanning Articles 36 to 51. Originating from the Irish Constitution and influenced by the Irish National Movement, particularly the Irish Home Rule Movement, DPSPs serve as a blueprint for governance, aiming to ensure social justice, economic welfare, and international harmony. Apart from the Directives contained in Part IV, certain other directive principles have also been laid down for achieving the Preambular goals. While not legally enforceable like Fundamental Rights, DPSPs hold significant importance in shaping legislative and policy frameworks, directing the state towards the establishment of a just and equitable society. Under Part IV of the Constitution, specified DPSP as positive rights which can be inferred by state.

1. Socialistic Principles (Articles 38-47):

• Article 38: Directs the State to promote the welfare of the people by securing social, economic, and political justice. It emphasizes reducing income inequality, status imbalance, and other social disparities to establish a just social order.
• Article 39: Encompasses several provisions aimed at securing adequate means of livelihood for citizens, ensuring equal pay for equal work, preventing concentration of wealth, and promoting equal justice and free legal aid.
• Article 41: Advocates for the Right to Work, Right to Education, and Right to Public Assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, and sickness, emphasizing the State's responsibility towards ensuring employment opportunities and social security.
• Article 42: Highlights the State's obligation to provide just and humane working conditions for workers, including maternity relief and other welfare measures.
• Article 43: Emphasizes the State's duty to secure a living wage, decent standard of life, and social and cultural opportunities for workers, aiming to improve their socio-economic conditions.
• Article 47: Focuses on raising nutrition levels and improving public health, directing the State to implement policies to prevent the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs, which are detrimental to health.

2. Gandhian Principles (Articles 40-46):

• Article 40: Advocates for the establishment of village panchayats as units of self-government to ensure local administration and decentralized governance.
• Article 43: Stresses the promotion of cottage industries in rural areas to enhance economic sustainability and self-reliance, aligning with Gandhian principles of economic decentralization.
• Article 46: Focuses on promoting the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other weaker sections of society, aiming to eliminate social injustices and disparities.

3. Liberal Intellectual Principles (Articles 44-51):

• Article 44: Advocates for a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India, aiming to promote national integration and gender equality by ensuring uniform laws governing personal matters such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance.
• Article 45: Emphasizes the State's obligation to provide early childhood care and education to children up to the age of fourteen years, recognizing education as a fundamental right and essential for holistic development.
• Article 48: Highlights State's duty to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on scientific lines ensuring sustainable agricultural practices improve quality of livestock.
• Article 49: Advocates for the protection of monuments, places, and objects of historic and artistic importance to preserve the cultural heritage of the nation.
• Article 50: Stresses the separation of the judiciary from the executive to ensure the independence of the judiciary and uphold the rule of law.
• Article 51: Aims to promote international peace and security, urging the State to foster harmonious relations between nations, settle disputes through arbitration, and adhere to international treaties and agreements.

Unraveling The Historical Tug-Of-War: The Enduring Conflict Between Directive Principles Of State Policy And Fundamental Rights

The constitutional journey of India since the First Amendment of 1951 has been marked by a nuanced interplay between Fundamental Rights (FR) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), reflecting the intricate tapestry of governance in a diverse democracy. This ongoing clash has seen a series of legislative amendments and judicial pronouncements aimed at striking a delicate equilibrium between individual liberties and societal welfare objectives.

The First Amendment of 1951 addressed a plethora of issues, including freedom of speech, Zamindari land acquisition, and state monopoly on trade. It bestowed upon the state the authority to enact special provisions for the advancement of socially and economically backward classes. Additionally, it introduced Article 31A and 31B, along with the creation of the Ninth Schedule, aimed at shielding land reform laws from potential Fundamental Rights challenges. Subsequent judicial interpretations have added layers of complexity to this constitutional discourse. The Champakam Dorairajan Case (1952) set the precedent by establishing the primacy of Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles while allowing for amendments to Fundamental Rights to accommodate Directive Principles. This seminal judgment laid the foundation for the judiciary's role in reconciling conflicting constitutional provisions. The Fourth Amendment of 1955 expanded state powers, particularly in matters of land acquisition and trade nationalization. Concurrently, The Kerala Education Bill (1957) introduced the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, emphasizing the need to harmonize conflicts between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. This doctrine encouraged courts to interpret laws in a manner that reconciled both sets of principles whenever feasible.

The Golak Nath Case (1967) marked a watershed moment by affirming the inviolability of Fundamental Rights. It declared that Fundamental Rights could not be curtailed or diluted, challenging the legislative prerogative to amend them for the realization of Directive Principles. In response, the 24th Amendment Act of 1971 introduced Article 31C, seeking to empower Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights to give effect to Directive Principles.

However, The Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) imposed limitations on this legislative authority by affirming the doctrine of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. While Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, it could not alter the Constitution's fundamental features. This landmark judgment ushered in a new era of constitutional jurisprudence, emphasizing the safeguarding of core constitutional principles. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 represented another attempt to elevate Directive Principles above Fundamental Rights, broadening the scope of Article 31C to encompass all Directive Principles, not limited to those specified in Article 39(b) and 39(c). However, this extension was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court in The Minerva Mill Case (1980), reiterating the supremacy of Fundamental Rights.

Despite these legal battles, the constitutional dialogue persists. Today, Fundamental Rights retain their primacy, but Parliament retains the authority to amend them for the implementation of Directive Principles, provided the Constitution's basic structure remains intact. Articles such as 39(b) and 39(c) continue to guide state policy, striving to ensure the equitable distribution of resources and prevent the concentration of wealth and means of production to the detriment of the common good. In this ongoing clash between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, the Indian judiciary assumes a pivotal role in interpreting and safeguarding the constitutional principles that underpin the nation's democratic framework. Through meticulous deliberations and landmark judgments, the courts navigate the intricate balance between individual freedoms and societal aspirations, ensuring the continued evolution of India's constitutional democracy.

The present scenario:

In the recent hearings before a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra, taking about the view point of         

 CAN GOVT REDISTRIBUTE PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY?

 Two critical questions are under consideration:

1. Interpretation of "Material Resources of the Community" in Article 39(b): The first question revolves around understanding the term "material resources of the community" as mentioned in Article 39(b) of the Constitution. This term is crucial as it guides legislation aimed at securing and distributing resources for the common good.
2. Immunity of Laws from Fundamental Rights Challenges: The second question focuses on whether laws enacted to fulfill the objectives outlined in Article 39(b) are immune from challenges based on fundamental rights to equality and freedom. This question highlights the conflict between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution.

Historical Context:

1. The tension between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles dates back to the Constitution's inception.
2. Article 13 declared laws violating Fundamental Rights void, while Article 37 stated that Directive Principles were not enforceable in courts but should guide the state in lawmaking.

Judicial Attempts at Clarification:

1. The Supreme Court, notably in Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973), addressed the conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
2. The introduction of Article 31C through the 25th Amendment aimed to shield certain laws from judicial review, sparking further debate on the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

Amendments and Legal Challenges:

1. The 42nd Amendment expanded the scope of Article 31C, extending immunity to laws furthering any Directive Principle.
2. However, in Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court declared parts of the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional, emphasizing the primacy of Fundamental Rights.

Current Dilemma in Property Owners Case:

1. The case raises questions about the validity of laws allowing state intervention in property ownership, particularly concerning dilapidated buildings.
2. The Court must determine whether such laws align with objectives of Article 39(b) while also considering their compatibility with Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 19.

Opportunity for Resolution:

1. Despite previous judgments, there remains ambiguity regarding the constitutionality of Article 31C and its alignment with the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. The Property Owners case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide clarity on the interplay between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, ensuring a balanced interpretation of the Constitution's core principles.

Conclusion:

The ongoing deliberations within the Supreme Court regarding the fate of Article 31C mark a pivotal chapter in India's constitutional narrative. As the learned Bench navigates through the intricate legal labyrinth, grappling with questions of property rights, socio-economic justice, and the delicate interplay between fundamental rights and directive principles, the outcome of this judicial odyssey will reverberate far beyond the confines of the courtroom. Indeed, the verdict rendered in the challenge to Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, holds the potential to redefine the contours of constitutional jurisprudence, serving as a litmus test for the judiciary's steadfast commitment to constitutional values and principles. In the crucible of legal debate, the fate of Article 31C hangs precariously, its significance extending beyond mere legislative intent to embody the very essence of India's constitutional ethos. As the scales of justice tip and the wheels of judicial deliberation turn, the ultimate verdict will not only shape the trajectory of property rights jurisprudence but also cast a luminous spotlight on the enduring quest for justice, equality, and fairness—a quest that lies at the heart of India's constitutional journey.

Unlock the Potential of Legal Expertise with LegalMantra.net - Your Trusted Legal Consultancy Partner”

Article Compiled by:-

Shubham Sharma

(LegalMantra.net Team)

Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this material in spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition In no event the author shall be liable for any direct indirect, special or incidental damage resulting from or arising out of or in connection with the use of this information Many sources have been considered including Newspapers, Journals, Bare Acts, Case Materials , Charted Secretary, Research Papers etc.

Print