Question

Explain the controversay pertaining to fundamental rights and directive principal of state policy???

Answer 1

Fundamental rights restrain the government to do certain things while Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) exhort the government to do certain things. Fundamental rights mainly protect the rights of individuals While directive principles ensure the wellbeing of the entire society. However at times when government intends to implement DPSP, it can come in conflict with the Fundamental Rights of the citizens. Hence keeping in mind that societal needs that are greater than the individual interests, the government amended the Constitution to give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy. This led to a strong legal battle. The Government claimed that rights can be abridged for giving effect to the Directive Principles. On the other hand, the court held the view that the Fundamental Rights are so sacred and important that they can't be limited for the purpose of implementing Directive principles. This related to the amendment of the Constitution. The government was saying that Parliament can amend nay part of the Constitution while the court was saying that Parliament can't make amendment that violates that Fundamental Rights. This controversy was settled by an important decision of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharti case. In this case, the court that there are certain basic features of the Constitution and these can't be amended by the Parliament. In the 42nd Amendment Act of the Constitution (1976), Primacy was given to the DPSP over the Fundamental Rights.