when the Directive Principles are not enforceable by law courts, why have they been
What happens in case of any conflict between the Directive Principles and Fundamental
Rights? Give reason to support your answer.
Name any one measure taken by the Government towards implementation of the Directive
Principles of State Policy
What are known as Directive Principles of State Policy?
In which part of the Constitution are Directive Principles incorporated?
Name one important source of Directive Principles
incorporated in the Constitution?
Answers
Answer:
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 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.
Case 2: Champakam Dorairajan Case (1952)
Court Verdict: All Fundamental Rights are superior over DPSP.
Parliament Reaction: The parliament responded by amending and modifying various FRs which were coming in conflict with DPSPs.
Case 3: Golak Nath Case (1967)
Court Verdict: Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged or diluted.
Parliament Reaction: The parliament responded again by bringing the 25th Amendment Act of the constitution which inserted Article 31C in Part III. Article 31 C contained two provisions:in the Constitution, by giving appropriate judgments.ClearIAS » Indian Polity Notes » Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles: What if there is a conflict?
Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles: What if there is a conflict?