Relationship and Conflict between FR and DPSPs

⚖️ Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles — A Comparison

Aspect	Fundamental Rights (Part III)	Directive Principles (Part IV)
1. Nature	Negative – prohibit State from doing certain things.	Positive – require the State to do certain things.
2. Enforceability	Justiciable – enforceable by courts.	Non-justiciable – not enforceable by courts.
3. Objective	Establish political democracy.	Establish social and economic democracy.
4. Sanction	Legal sanction.	Moral and political sanction.
5. Focus	Individual welfare – personal rights.	Community welfare – collective good.
6. Implementation	Automatically enforceable.	Need legislative action.
7. Role of Courts	Can strike down laws violating rights.	Can uphold laws promoting directives.

👉 In short:

• Fundamental Rights = “What the State must not do.”
• Directive Principles = “What the State should do.”

Both are complementary, not contradictory — together they complete the vision of the Preamble.

⚔️ Conflict Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

This conflict began right from 1951, just one year after the Constitution came into force, and continued for three decades until the Supreme Court finally settled it in 1980.

Let’s understand this step by step — almost like a courtroom drama unfolding across years.

1️⃣ The Beginning — Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)

This was the first major clash between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.

• The State of Madras had reserved seats in educational institutions for different communities — to promote social justice (inspired by Article 46, a Directive Principle).
• A woman named Champakam Dorairajan, belonging to a forward community, challenged this — saying it violated her Fundamental Right to equality (Article 15).

The Supreme Court held:

Fundamental Rights are superior to Directive Principles.
In case of conflict, Fundamental Rights prevail.

The Court said that DPSPs must conform to Fundamental Rights and act as subordinate to them.

👉 But the Court also added that Parliament can amend the Constitution to give effect to these principles.

So, Parliament responded by passing:

• 1st Amendment (1951) – restrictions on right to equality for backward classes (reservations).
• 4th Amendment (1955) and 17th Amendment (1964) – land reforms laws were protected to implement socialist directives.

2️⃣ The Turning Point — Golaknath Case (1967)

The Supreme Court took a very rigid view here. It ruled that:

Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights at all.

They are “sacrosanct and transcendental.”
Even constitutional amendments could not curtail them.

👉 This meant that Directive Principles could never override or limit Fundamental Rights.

This created a deadlock — Parliament’s hands were tied.
It could no longer pass land reform or welfare laws that affected property or economic rights.

3️⃣ Parliament’s Response — The 24th and 25th Amendments (1971)

Feeling restricted by the Court, Parliament struck back with two powerful amendments:

• 24th Amendment (1971):
  Declared that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• 25th Amendment (1971):
  Inserted Article 31C, which had two parts:
  1. First part:
     Any law implementing Article 39(b) and (c) (related to equitable distribution of resources and preventing concentration of wealth)
     cannot be challenged for violating Articles 14, 19, or 31.
  2. Second part:
     Any law containing a declaration that it implements these policies
     cannot be questioned in court at all.

👉 In short — Parliament tried to shield socialist legislation from judicial review.

4️⃣ The Historic Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

Now comes the most famous case in Indian constitutional history.

The Supreme Court upheld the first part of Article 31C — saying yes, such laws can override Articles 14, 19, and 31 if they truly implement Article 39(b) or (c).

But it struck down the second part — because it removed judicial review, and that violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

👉 So the Court declared:

“Judicial review is part of the basic structure — Parliament cannot destroy it.”

5️⃣ The 42nd Amendment (1976) — Emergency Era Expansion

During the Emergency, the Indira Gandhi government tried again to strengthen the DPSPs.
The 42nd Amendment expanded Article 31C to protect all Directive Principles (not just 39(b) and (c)) from challenge under Articles 14, 19, and 31.

👉 In other words, DPSPs were made superior to Fundamental Rights.

6️⃣ The Minerva Mills Case (1980) — The Final Verdict

The Supreme Court struck back.
In the Minerva Mills case (1980), it declared that this expansion (by 42nd Amendment) was unconstitutional.

The Court beautifully said:

“The Constitution is founded on the bedrock of balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
They are like two wheels of a chariot — one no less important than the other.
Giving absolute primacy to one would destroy the harmony of the Constitution.”

So, the 42nd Amendment’s expansion was struck down, but the original Article 31C (protecting only 39(b) and (c)) remained valid.

Also, by that time, Article 31 (Right to Property) had been removed by the 44th Amendment (1978).

🏛️ Present Constitutional Position

Let’s summarise the final position clearly:

1. Fundamental Rights generally prevail over Directive Principles.
2. However, Articles 39(b) and (c) (socialist directives) have limited precedence — laws implementing them cannot be struck down for violating Articles 14 or 19.
3. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights to implement DPSPs —
   but not in a way that destroys the Basic Structure (as held in Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills).

So, the present philosophy is one of balance and harmony, not of supremacy or subordination.

🌺 In Essence

Period	Judicial View	Effect on Relationship
1951 – Champakam Dorairajan	FR > DPSP	Fundamental Rights prevail
1967 – Golaknath	FR cannot be amended	DPSPs weakened
1973 – Kesavananda Bharati	Basic Structure Doctrine	Balance introduced
1976 – 42nd Amendment	DPSP > FR (temporary)	Primacy given to DPSPs
1980 – Minerva Mills	Balance reaffirmed	Both are complementary

✅ Final Takeaway:

“Fundamental Rights are the means, and Directive Principles are the ends.
Rights give us freedom; Directives give us purpose.
One without the other is incomplete — together they form the moral and constitutional conscience of India.”