Directive Principles of State policy is not law enforcement right. Rather, it is a directive to the state. However, when a state tries to implement the directive principle of State policy, the conflict rises between the fundamental rights of citizens and the directive principle of state policies. A conflict between fundamental rights and directive principles of State policy can also be referred to as a conflict between an individual and a state. When parliament focused on asserting the state’s supremacy with directive principles of state policies outshining the fundamental rights, the supreme court of India stood with the rights of individuals. It marked appropriate judgements like the Champa Dorairajan case (1951).

 

The Fundamental rights as per Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution States 6 fundamental rights that are stated below

  • The right to Individual freedom
  • The right to Individual equality
  • The right to Individual freedom of religion
  • Right of Individual cultural and educational qualification
  • Right to Individual constitutional remedies
  • Right against Individual exploitation

 

Fundamental rights constitute part 3 of the Indian Constitution, also referred to as the Magna Carta of the constitution of India. The basic definition of fundamental rights is their justiciable nature that allows individuals to get judicial help whenever they face a violation of fundamental rights. This concept of judicial help initiated a series of court cases just after Indian Independence. This article will provide a detailed guide on the conflict between fundamental rights and directive principles.

The court judgements

There were three cases, namely

  • Champakam Dorairajan case, (1951)
  • Golaknath case (1967)
  • Kesanvananda Bharati case (1973)

 

Let us understand and discuss detailed highlights of court judgements in the cases mentioned above and relatively compare preceded with a discussion on the present status.

 

Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)

The name of Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951) is associated with the first amendment in the constitution of India. It is a landmark decision that solved a conflict between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policies. This case resulted in the first major judgement on reservations in republic India. The state High court of Madras pulled up a judgement that brought down a government order passed in 1927 that provided a caste-based reservation in government colleges and jobs. The supreme court provided its judgement that reservation in such cases is a violation of article 29 in the constitution of India. The court further ordered that the directive principles of State policy will run as a subsidiary to individual fundamental rights. In addition to that, article 37 was made unenforceable by a court. This information was a brief on the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951). Now that you have understood the conflict between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policies with the help of the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), let us move on to brief information on the Golaknath case (1967).

 

Golaknath Case (1967)

The court ordered that fundamental rights cannot be diluted or abridged through any method by the state. Parliament brought the 25th amendment Act in the Indian Constitution as a result and reaction to this court verdict. This eventually resulted in Article 31C in part 3 of the Indian Constitution. There were two provisions that Article 31 C holds. These two provisions are given below:

  • Any law that violates Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31 while giving effect to directive principles of State policies in Article 39 (b) and Article 39 ( c) should not be declared unconstitutional.
  • One cannot question any law that declares the effect of directive principles of State policies.

Kesavananda Bharati Case ( 1973)

The amendments made in the Golaknath case (1967) were challenged in the Keshavananda Bharati case (1973). 

The court passed a verdict that gave parliament the right to amend any part of the constitution but refrain from destroying the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. However, the Supreme Court upheld the first provision of Article 31C and stated that parliament could not take out the power of judicial review by the court.

In reaction to this verdict, Parliament brought the 42 Amendment act of the Indian Constitution in 1976.

 

Present Precedence Order 

The present Precedence order in case of a conflict between fundamental rights and directive principles of State policy is given below.

  • Fundamental rights except Article 14 and 19
  • Directive Principles of State Policy 39(b) and 39(c) 
  • Fundamental rights in Articles 14 and 19
  • Directive principles of state policies except for Articles 39 (b) and 39 (c )

Conclusion

The debate and conflict between state policies’ fundamental rights and directive principles go way back to Indian Independence. Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951) was the first amendment bringer to the Indian Constitution. Several cases lodged in the supreme court and high courts of India led to several amendments in the Indian Constitution. We have provided an in-depth analysis of these amendments with a discussion on these cases in this article.