Discuss the relations between fundamental rights and directive principles . In case of conflict between the two which is more important
Answers
Answered by
2
When there is a conflict between Fundamental Rights(FR) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), which should prevail? FR? or DPSP?
The answer is not as simple as one would think. There are some important Supreme Court judgements regarding this. We shall see them in detail.
When there is a conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, which should prevail?
DPSPs are not enforceable by law, but just directives to the state. But when the state tries to implement a DPSP, there can be a conflict between the Fundamental Rights of citizens and DPSP.

In that sense, the conflict between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) can also be seen as the conflict between the individual and the state.
While Parliament often tried to assert the supremacy of the state and DPSPs over Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of the individual as enshrined in the Constitution, by giving appropriate judgments.
UPSC Prelims 2019 Test Series - Enroll Now and Get 40% OFF!
Let us study the highlights of a series of court judgments like Champakam Dorairajan Case (1952), Golak Nath Case (1967), Kesavanath Bharathi Case (1973), Minerva Mill Case (1980) etc and see the present status.
Case 1: Kerala Education Bill (1957): Doctrine of Harmonious Construction :
Supreme Court in the Re Kerala Education Bill(1957) had propounded the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction to avoid a situation of conflict while enforcing DPSPs and the Fundamental Rights. As per this doctrine, the court held that there is no inherent conflict between FRs and DPSPs and the courts while interpreting a law should attempt to give effect to both as far as possible i. e. should try to harmonize the two as far as possible.
The court further said that where two interpretation of the law is possible, and one interpretation validates the law while other interpretation makes the law unconstitutional and void, then the first interpretation which validates the law should be adopted. But if only one interpretation is possible which leads to conflict between DPSPs and FRs, the court has no option but to implement FRs in preference to DPSPs.
The answer is not as simple as one would think. There are some important Supreme Court judgements regarding this. We shall see them in detail.
When there is a conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, which should prevail?
DPSPs are not enforceable by law, but just directives to the state. But when the state tries to implement a DPSP, there can be a conflict between the Fundamental Rights of citizens and DPSP.

In that sense, the conflict between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) can also be seen as the conflict between the individual and the state.
While Parliament often tried to assert the supremacy of the state and DPSPs over Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of the individual as enshrined in the Constitution, by giving appropriate judgments.
UPSC Prelims 2019 Test Series - Enroll Now and Get 40% OFF!
Let us study the highlights of a series of court judgments like Champakam Dorairajan Case (1952), Golak Nath Case (1967), Kesavanath Bharathi Case (1973), Minerva Mill Case (1980) etc and see the present status.
Case 1: Kerala Education Bill (1957): Doctrine of Harmonious Construction :
Supreme Court in the Re Kerala Education Bill(1957) had propounded the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction to avoid a situation of conflict while enforcing DPSPs and the Fundamental Rights. As per this doctrine, the court held that there is no inherent conflict between FRs and DPSPs and the courts while interpreting a law should attempt to give effect to both as far as possible i. e. should try to harmonize the two as far as possible.
The court further said that where two interpretation of the law is possible, and one interpretation validates the law while other interpretation makes the law unconstitutional and void, then the first interpretation which validates the law should be adopted. But if only one interpretation is possible which leads to conflict between DPSPs and FRs, the court has no option but to implement FRs in preference to DPSPs.
Answered by
0
Answer:
Fundamental Rights are justifiable and enforceable rights while directive principles are non -justifiable and cannot override fundamental rights. Fundamental rights provide political rights whereas social and economic rights are provided through DPSP.
Similar questions