The relationship between Fundamental Rights (FR) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) within the Indian Constitution is intricate, characterized by their complementary nature and occasional conflicts. Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, guarantee individual liberties and are legally enforceable. Conversely, DPSPs, found in Part IV, serve as guidelines for the government in formulating policies and laws to achieve social and economic justice, though they are non-justiciable.
Complementary Nature
FRs and DPSPs are considered complementary, with FRs focusing on individual rights and DPSPs emphasizing the state's goals in achieving social and economic equity. Both aim to establish a just and equitable society. The Preamble to the Constitution encompasses both as the conscience of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has also adopted the view of the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles being complementary to each other, each supplementing the other's role in aiming at the same goal of establishing a welfare state by means of social revolution.
Non-Justiciability of DPSPs
Unlike FRs, DPSPs are non-justiciable, meaning individuals cannot directly seek their enforcement through the courts. However, Article 37 states that the DPSPs are fundamental to the governance of the country, imposing an obligation on the State to apply them in matters of legislation.
Harmony and Harmonious Construction
The courts have emphasized the need for harmony between FRs and DPSPs, advocating the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction to interpret constitutional provisions in a way that avoids conflicts and gives effect to both sets of rights as much as possible. The Supreme Court has emphasized that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles should be construed to allow them to coexist and that every effort should be made to resolve their disputes.
Subordination of DPSPs
While efforts are made to harmonize FRs and DPSPs, FRs generally have higher legal protection. In case of conflict, courts typically prioritize the protection of FRs
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Several landmark cases have shaped the understanding of the relationship between FRs and DPSPs:
Champak Dorairajan vs. the State of Madras: The Supreme Court ruled that DPSP cannot override Fundamental Rights.
Golak Nath vs. the State of Punjab: The Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights cannot be diluted or taken away. In response, Article 31(C) was added, stating that laws made to implement DPSPs in Article 39(b)-(c) would not be invalid even if they contravene Articles 14, 19, and 21[3].
State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas: The Supreme Court emphasized that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles should be construed to allow them to coexist.
Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation: The Supreme Court highlighted the significance of Directive Principles in the country’s governance, emphasising that equal importance should be given to the meaning and concept of Fundamental Rights.
Dalmia Cement vs. Union of India: The Supreme Court stated that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are supplementary and complementary.
Ashok Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India: The Supreme Court clarified that no distinction should be made between the two sets of rights and the fact that Directive Principles are not enforceable in a court of law does not imply that they are subordinate.
State Obligations and Progressive Realization
DPSPs impose obligations on the state to promote social justice, welfare, and equitable distribution of resources. The state is expected to implement DPSPs progressively, considering its financial capacity and socio-economic conditions. The government has undertaken various acts to implement these principles, such as establishing Panchayats through the 73rd Amendment, creating Nagar Palikas under Article 41 and including compulsory education for children below the age of 14 as a Fundamental Right.
Conclusion
The interplay between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy is a dynamic aspect of India's constitutional framework. While FRs protect individual liberties, DPSPs guide the state in its pursuit of social and economic justice. Courts play a crucial role in maintaining a balance between these two sets of principles, ensuring that they work in harmony to establish a welfare state.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment