Relationship Between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs (Champakam Dorairajan, Golaknath, Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills Cases)

At a Glance

• What it is The conflict between justiciable Fundamental Rights and non-justiciable Directive Principles, and how the Supreme Court and Parliament resolved it
• Cases Champakam Dorairajan (1951), Golak Nath (1967), Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Minerva Mills (1980)
• Amendments 1st, 4th, 17th, 24th, 25th, 42nd and 44th
• Present position Fundamental Rights have supremacy, but harmony between the two is part of the basic structure
• Exam link UPSC Prelims, Polity: Directive Principles

Where Does It Fit?

This is the last topic of the category on Directive Principles. Because Fundamental Rights are justiciable and Directive Principles are not, yet Article 37 makes the latter a moral obligation, a conflict arose from the start. The relationship was worked out through four landmark cases.

Champakam Dorairajan (1951): Rights Prevail

In the State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan case (1951) the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. It declared that the Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights. But it also held that Fundamental Rights could be amended by Parliament by constitutional amendment acts. As a result Parliament made the First Amendment Act (1951), the Fourth Amendment Act (1955) and the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964) to implement some of the Directives.

Golak Nath (1967) and Parliament’s Response

The situation changed in 1967 with the Golak Nath case. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights, which are sacrosanct, so the rights cannot be amended to implement the Directive Principles. Parliament reacted with the 24th Amendment Act (1971), declaring that it could abridge or take away any Fundamental Right, and the 25th Amendment Act (1971), which inserted Article 31C. Article 31C said that no law seeking to implement the socialistic directives in Article 39(b) or (c) shall be void for contravening Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31, and that no law with a declaration of giving effect to such policy could be questioned in court.

Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and the 42nd Amendment

In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) the Supreme Court declared the second provision of Article 31C (no judicial review of the declaration) unconstitutional, because judicial review is a basic feature, and held the first provision valid. Later the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) extended the protection of Article 31C to any law implementing any of the Directive Principles and not merely Article 39(b) and (c). This gave the Directive Principles legal primacy over the Fundamental Rights in Articles 14, 19 and 31.

Minerva Mills (1980): Harmony and Balance

The Supreme Court declared this extension invalid in the Minerva Mills case (1980). The Directive Principles were thus once again made subordinate to the Fundamental Rights, though the rights in Articles 14 and 19 were accepted as subordinate to the directives in Article 39(b) and (c). Article 31 was omitted by the 44th Amendment Act (1978). The Court held that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles: they are like two wheels of a chariot, one no less than the other. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution, and this harmony and balance is an essential feature of the basic structure. The goals of the Directive Principles have to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided by the Fundamental Rights.

The Present Position

The present position is that the Fundamental Rights enjoy supremacy over the Directive Principles. This does not mean the directives cannot be implemented. Parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights to implement the Directive Principles, so long as the amendment does not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.

Why Is This Topic Important?

• Case-chain question The order of cases and amendments is a standard question
• Link to Article 31C The two parts of Article 31C are asked often
• Basic structure Harmony between rights and directives is an element of basic structure

What Came Next?

The next category covers the Fundamental Duties, beginning with their origin in the 42nd Amendment Act and the Swaran Singh Committee.

Key People and Terms

• Subsidiary Subordinate to the Fundamental Rights, as held in Champakam Dorairajan
• Article 31C Saves laws implementing certain directives from challenge under Articles 14 and 19
• Harmony and balance The Minerva Mills principle on rights and directives
• Sacrosanct Inviolable; the word used in Golak Nath for the rights
• Basic structure Features of the Constitution that cannot be amended away

Exam Corner

Mains Angle

Questions on this topic usually ask how the conflict between rights and directives was resolved. Use these points to add depth.

• Early supremacy Champakam Dorairajan put rights above directives
• Parliament’s attempts The 24th, 25th and 42nd Amendments tried to give directives primacy
• Judicial balance Minerva Mills required harmony and balance
• Present rule Rights have supremacy, but amendment for directives is allowed within the basic structure