24 Fundamental Rights v. Directive Principles of State Policy

Dr. K Sita Manikyam

epgp books

 

 

AIMS OF THE CHAPTER

  • To understand the way in which fundamental rights and directive principles are related to each other.
  • To be able to appreciate the role of the judiciary in strengthening fundamental rights and directive principles.

1. INTRODUCTION

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in the Constitution of India collectively embrace the human rights of an individual. The plan of Constitutionally personified basic rights emerged in India in 1928 itself. The Motilal Nehru Committee Report of 1928 clearly envisaged inalienable rights derived from the Bill of Rights enshrined in the American Constitution to be accorded to the individual. These undeniable rights are conserved in Part III of the Indian Constitution. The theory of Directive Principles provided in the Constitution was motivated by and based on Article 45 of the Irish Constitution. The Directive Principles obligate a duty upon the state not only to acknowledge the Fundamental Rights of an individual but also to achieve certain socio- economic goals. Directive Principles were enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution. Toward implementing the ideals and to achieve the goals enshrined in the preamble as well as to establish a welfare state, fundamental rights and the directive principles of state policy have been provided in the Constitution. The perception of social justice, which is enshrined in the preamble of our Constitution contains the target of the people of India. These provisions have been enshrined in various provisions of Part III & IV of the Constitution mutually having a common grounding. In fact, together these sets of rights owe their basis for the freedom struggle waged by the Indians against the British Regime to defend Indian culture, values, and association.

The major purpose of the British rule in India was largely about exploitation of the country and its integrity. It caused breakdown of all kinds of Indian structure, civilization, and wealth. This state of interactions led to the thoughts in the minds of the Indians that those socioeconomic circumstances of the people cannot be enhanced unless there is a revolution in the Government and its Administrative setup. It led the community to comprehend that answer lies in the Political freedom of the nation. To accomplish the pledges and commitments, hopes and aspirations of pre‐independence age the foundation prepared apparent provisions for fundamental rights and directive principles of a state policy.

2. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Fundamental rights are definite rights without which a human being cannot endure in a noble manner in an enlightened society. Fundamental rights are known as “basic rights or permissible rights”. They are also called as personal rights or negative rights” and inflict negative obligations on the state not to infringe on individual independence. Article 12 to 35 of the Constitution provides for various kinds of fundamental rights as stated below:

  • Definition of state (Article 12)
  • Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights (Article13) Right to equality (Article 14-18)
  • Right to freedom (Article 19-21)
  • Safeguardagainst Arbitrary arrest (Article 22)
  • Right against Exploitation (Article 23 &24)
  • Freedom of religion (Article 25-28)
  • Cultural and educational rights (Article. 29 &30)
  • Saving of certain laws (Article 31-A, 31-Band 31-C) and
  • Right to Constitutional remedies (Article 32-35)

3. DIRECTIVEPRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

Part-IV of the Constitution deals with “directive principles of state policy”. They are affirmative rights and compel positive obligations on the state. The directive principles are categorized below three heads namely

  1. Social and economic charter
  2. Social security charter and
  3. Community welfare charter

Within the social and economic charter, Article 38 (1) provide for social justice and Article 39 (d) Equal pay for equal work. Under the social security Charter, Article 43 provides for worker participation in the management of the factories. Article 45 insist on free and compulsory education to all children up to the age 14 years and Article 39A as inserted by the 42nd Amendment provide for equivalent justice and free legal aid. In community welfare charter, Article 44 envisages “uniform civil code and Article 48A (inserted by the 42ndAmendment Act, 1976) deals with “protection and improvement of forests and wildlife.”

4. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

Part III and IV of the Indian Constitution were formerly described by CJ. Chandrachud to be “the conscience of the Constitution. Minerva Mills’s v Union of India. Though, there has perennially been a debate adjacent to the Constitutional correlation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, as there would be a clash linking the interest of an individual at the micro phase and the community’s benefit at a macro phase. The innermost part of this controversy is the query pertaining to which component of the Constitution would cover dominance in the case of anargument between Article III and IV.

4.1. General difference

The Directive Principles of State Policy vary from the Fundamental Rights in the subsequent respects, although both intend to ensure contentment among common people.

  • Fundamental Rights are destined for the citizen while Directive Principles of State Policy are predestined for the State. In supplementary words, Fundamental Rights are personal and meant for individual people while Directive Principles of State Policy are socialistic in character and desire to create equality and justice in the society.
  • Fundamental Rights are enforceable within the courts. Personage can move to the court looking for legal assistance if Fundamental Rights are usurped by compelling. Lying on the other hand Directive Principles of State Policy are not enforceable and no one can go to the courts to induce the State for their appropriate execution.
  • Further, courts are rebound to state as void (with few exceptions) any law that is conflicting with any of the Fundamental Rights, On the other hand, for Directive Principles the magistrates cannot proclaim as void any law which inconsistency with any of the Directive Principles.
  • Fundamental Rights are involuntarily enforced. While Directive Principles, on the other hand, require legislation or policy intervention for their appropriate execution as extensive as there is no law in carrying away the policy laid in the Directive Principles.
  • Fundamental Rights look forward to establishing political democracy while directive principles seek out to establish social and economic democracy. In other words, Fundamental Rights are political in nature. These rights warranty Some democratic rights to the inhabitant. On the other hand, Directive Principles are economic in character and desire to ensure thesocial and economic security of the people.
  • The Fundamental Rights are claims of the society familiar by the state. They are adenunciation of acertain power to the government., Therefore, negative in nature. On the contrary, almost all Directive Principles are positive in character as they are like positive commands that the government at all levels must go over to contribute to the establishment of social democratic and economic system in India.
  • During the allegation of emergency, the function of the Fundamental rights (except Article. 20and21) can be suspended, but no such requirements are required to be made about the Directive Principle of State Policy. Article32 (2) prohibit the state to create any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by Part III of the Constitution, but no such categorical restriction on the power of the state regarding the Directive Principle of State policy is made.
  • Fundamental Rights are not absolute and society is subject to coherent limitations. On the other hand, Directive Principles have no subject matter to any Constitutional limitations. Based on thepolitical determination the government may or may not put into practice.
  • Within conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, the previous get primacy in the court. Every legislation prepared to execute Directive Principles of State Policy is meant to study by the court to decide whether it is impulsive of the Fundamental Rights, mainly Article 14 and Article 19.
  • Fundamental Rights are further precise and tangible while Directive Principles are a universal nature and are of wider impact. Despite so many differences, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are closely connected to each other. Both concepts constitute an indispensable part of the Constitution and are fundamental for theproper development of our country.

Although directive principles are non-justifiable, this does not imply that their implementation has been left at the will and mercy of the state. Directive principles are part of the Constitution, and the judiciary is under obligation to maintain the supremacy of the same. The supreme court of India has resorted to provisions relating to the directive principles while delivering its verdict is several cases.

4.2. Difference in Judiciary perspective

The primary distinction between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as visualized by the drafters of the Constitution was with regards to the question of enforceability. Part III of the Constitution was enforceable against the state, but Article 37 expressly if Part IV was not enforceable in a court. Earlier Supreme Court decisions recognized thesupreme value of Fundamental Rights based on this aforesaid Constitutional place and condition. In the landmark judgment of State of Madras v Srimathi Champakam subsequently led to the 1stConstitutional Amendment, Justice Das declared that directive principle were specifically ended unenforceable by Article 37 and consequently could not supersede the fundamental rights found in Part III, which was enforceable pursuant to Article 32. The court opined that fundamental rights were sanctified and may not be condensed by Directive Principles and asserted that the directive principles, even though significant in their own esteem were requisite to hold on to the Fundamental Rights and in the case of conflict Part III would succeed over Part IV. This observation of the apex court was reaffirmed in consequent landmark decisions such as Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v State of Bihar and inre Kerala Education Bill. These decisions of the apex court were aquestion too much criticism due to the excess magnitude endorsed to Fundamental Rights ensuing in the complete neglect of the principles that promoted socioeconomic alteration and improvement. The legislature was dissatisfied with the judiciary’s version and understood that it was opposed to what the framers of the Constitution assumed.

Therefore, it is evident that the legislature thought that Fundamental Rights were to support the Directive Principles and not vice-versa. This consequently led to an alteration in the interpretation of the correlation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles to be further comprehensive and harmonious. In Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging& Bangalore v State of Mysore, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was challenged for conferring unobstructed, unregulated and arbitrary power on the state informative the minimum wages.

The state argued that it was compelled to, recommend for minimum wages in accordance with the Directive Principles. The court held that the provisions of the Constitution were produced to assist progress, as anticipated by the Preamble and it would be fallacious to take for granted that the Constitution provides only for rights and no duties. Furthermore, it was affirmed that even though Part III encompasses Fundamental Rights, Part IV was necessary for the governance of the country and was, therefore, accompanying to each other (Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging Bangalore v State of Mysore (1969 3 SCC 84)).

This view was reaffirmed in Kesavanda Bharati v State of Kerala where it was held that the directive principles were in synchronization with the country’s aims and objectives and the basic rights could be amended to convene the needs of the hour implying that Part III and IV needed to be amicably construed. Although these judgments were more vibrant in comparison to the previous approach that the apex court had comprehensive, it still did not satisfy the ideals of the legislature. It could easily be speculated that the 42nd Amendment in 1976 was to accord primacy to the Directive Principles over the Fundamental Rights.

This resulted in the question of the resurrection on the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. In Minerva Mills Ltd. v Union of India (1980 2 SCC 591), the court alleged that the harmonious relation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles was an essential feature of the Constitution. It was stated that Part III and Part IV together comprise of the foundation of the Constitution and any legislation or amendment that shattered the balance between the two would be an infringement to the basic structure of the Constitution. CJ. Chandrachud reasserted to facilitate that Article III and IV are complementary to each other and together they constitute the human rights of an individual. Reading these provisions separately would be unfeasible, as that would cause to be incomplete and thereby inaccessible. However, this was not established as law yet and there was another interruption in the subsequent judgments. In Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. vs M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.7, the Supreme Court apprehended that the part of the Minerva Mills judgment that dealt with Article 31 C of the Constitution was simply obiter dictum and therefore not requisite. The court thus upheld the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1972 by conceding greater importance to the Directive Principles than Fundamental Rights in accordance with Article 31C that provided for the same. The SanjeevCoke judgment resulted in a divergence of opinion, which was ultimately settled in the State of Tamil Nadu v L. Abu Kavier Bai.

The court referred to the conclusion of a Constituent Assembly to craft two part for these foundation Constitutional concepts. It was declared that the use of the two distinct chapters was to grant the Government adequate autonomy and flexibility to put into practice the principles depending on the time and. The court consequently considered the Minerva Mills case as standard and recommended a harmonious construction of the two parts in civic interest and to endorse social welfare. This view has been constantly adopted ever since and has been sanctioned by Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka and Unni Krishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh. It would be therefore be construed to be well settled that a harmonious interpretation of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is essential in ensuring social benefit and the apex court is promoting the same scrutiny after much consideration.

5. CONCLUSION

Although appearing to be established that there is a requirement for stability and harmony in interpreting Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, this discourse is far from above. It is believed that in the midst` of the advent of judicial activism that, the opinion of the court may alter in due course on occasion. The courts often have played a practical role in facilitating socio-economic improvement at a macro level, which requires cooperation on a micro level. Therefore, considering the benefit of the society at large, the Directive Principles can be used to resolve the extent of public concentration to limit the range of Fundamental Rights.

you can view video on Fundamental Rights v. Directive Principles of State Policy

Reference

  • Dr. Ranbir Singh, Constitutional Law, LexisNexis Butterworth.
  • M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional law (Volume 2) 2003 Lexis Nexis Butterworths.
  • Constitution of India 1950, Article 37; V. N. Shukla, Constitution of India (Eastern Book Co., 2001).
  • I. P. Massey, Nehru’s Constitutional Vision (1st, Deep & Deep Publications, 1991).
  • Bertus De Villiers, Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights: The Indian Experience, (1992) 8 South African Journal on Human Rights, 41.
  • Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XII-XIII, Part II at 8820-22, May 16, 1951.
  • Bertus De Villiers, Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights: The Indian Experience, (1992) 8 South African Journal on Human Rights.
  • V. N. Shukla, Constitution of India (Eastern Book Co., 2001) 23.