The Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy and complementary to each other, but their relationship with one another has been a . Due to difference in the nature of fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy there has been tension in the mutual relationship between Part III and . Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the State Policy is; which of these parts . not out of tune with the Constitutional intent of their relationship, on the.
It is embodied in Articles 14—16, which collectively encompass the general principles of equality before law and non-discrimination,  and Articles 17—18 which collectively encompass further the philosophy of social equality. This right can be enforced against the State as well as private individuals, with regard to free access to places of public entertainment or places of public resort maintained partly or wholly out of State funds.
Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India
This exception has been provided since the classes of people mentioned therein are considered deprived and in need of special protection. It creates exceptions for the implementation of measures of affirmative action for the benefit of any backward class of citizens in order to ensure adequate representation in public service, as well as reservation of an office of any religious institution for a person professing that particular religion.
Thus, Indian aristocratic titles and title of nobility conferred by the British have been abolished. However, awards such as the Bharat Ratna have been held to be valid by the Supreme Court on the ground that they are merely decorations and cannot be used by the recipient as a title.
Article 19 guarantees six freedoms in the nature of civil rights, which are available only to citizens of India.
Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India - Wikipedia
All these freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions that may imposed on them by the State, listed under Article 19 itself. The grounds for imposing these restrictions vary according to the freedom sought to be restricted, and include national security, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, incitement to offences, and defamation. The State is also empowered, in the interests of the general public to nationalise any trade, industry or service to the exclusion of the citizens.
It was argued, especially by Benegal Narsing Rauthat the incorporation of such a clause would hamper social legislation and cause procedural difficulties in maintaining order, and therefore it ought to be excluded from the Constitution altogether.
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy | Political Science
It was stated that Part III and Part IV together comprised of the core of the constitution and any legislation or amendment that destroyed the balance between the two would be in contravention to the basic structure of the Constitution. Chandrachud reasserted that Parts III and IV are complementary to each other and together they constitute the human rights of an individual.
Reading these provisions independently would be impossible, as that would render them incomplete and thereby inaccessible. In Sanjiev Coke Mfg. The court thus upheld the Coking Coal Mines Nationalization Act, by granting greater importance to Directive Principles than Fundamental Rights in accordance with Article 31C that provided for the same.
AIR SC Abu Kavier Bai The court referred to the decision of Constituent Assembly to create two parts for these core constitutional concepts. The directive principles as enshrined in Part IV of the constitution constitute the socio-economic dimension of the Indian democracy which the state is to achieve through appropriate legislation.
No one as such can question the attempts of the state to implement the directive principles. However, the existence of some conflict between some of the fundamental rights and directive principles, at times, makes the attempts controversial. In the past, the Right to Equality, the Right to freedom and the Right to property as contained in Articles 14, 18, 19, 22 and 31 respectively often got involved in a controversy with several laws which were enacted by the state for implementing the Directive principles contained in articles 39 b and 39 c and others.
Article 19 1 g guarantees the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any profession, trade or business but Article 47 calls upon the State to introduce prohibition and to ban cow slaughter.
Fundamental Rights do not include the right to work, education and public assistance but Article 41 of Part IV calls upon the State to make effective provisions for securing these. Article 15 1 prohibits discrimination. These Articles often make the implementation of the Directive Principles under Article 46 difficult which all upon the State to take special care for protecting the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people.
This feature has been a source of conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Indian Constitution on the one hand declares that the Directive Principles of State Policy are not justiciable but on the other hand observes that these will be fundamental in the governance of the country.
It makes a responsibility of the State to implement the Directive Principles through appropriate legislation. In doing so, government often finds itself limited by existence of constitutionally guarded and legally sanctioned fundamental right of the people. Because of these two major reasons, there has been present the problem of relationship between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.
There exists a discernible difference between the perceptions of the Parliament and the Supreme Court over the issue of the relationship between these two vitally important parts of the Constitution. The Parliament, while recognising the importance of Fundamental Rights, has all along been guided by the view that it was the responsibility of the State to implement the Directive Principles.
Without implementing these Principles, the socio-economic dimension of India democracy is bound to remain incomplete and without it the State cannot achieve the objectives set-forth by the Constitution. The Directive Principles of State Policy represent the will of the founding fathers, the demands of the public opinion and the imperative necessity of a democratic policy committed to secure the socialist goals through effective legislation.
The attainment of Directive Principles is a sacred duty of the State. For discharging this responsibility the State can, if need be, amend the rights contained in the chapter of Fundamental Rights. The Parliament has always asserted its right to amend every part of the Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article It has upheld the view that Fundamental Rights can be amended if need be, for implementing the Directive Principles.
By this amendment, the Parliament reasserted that Fundamental Rights are amenable and that Parliament had the power to amend every part of the Constitution in accordance with Article Similarly through the 25th Amendmentthe Parliament gave a serious blow to the right to property and in this matter limited the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Article 31 c was inserted which held that laws made by the Parliament and the State legislatures for implementing the Directive Principles contained in Article 39 b and c could not be held void on the ground that these violated the Fundamental Rights mentioned in Articles 14, 19 and With the 42nd Constitutional Amendmentthe scope of Article 31 c was enlarged and provision was made that all the Directive Principles shall have primacy over the fundamental rights given under Articles 14, 19 and 31 and the laws passed with a view to enforce them shall not be declared void by any court on the ground that they are inconsistent with the fundamental rights given under Article 14, 19 and In this way the Directive Principles secured precedence over the fundamental rights.
Under the 44th Constitutional Amendment, all the Directive Principles continued to enjoy primacy over fundamental rights given under Articles 14, 19 and By this Amendment, the Right to Property was excluded from the list of fundamental rights and Articles 19 1 f and Article 31 connected with this right were deleted.
In the Minerva Mills vs. Indian Union case on May 3,the Supreme Court in one of its historic judgment once again gave precedence to Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles.
Relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs | Kumar Gaurav - hidden-facts.info
The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the section 4 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Acts, which gave primary to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights on the ground that it was ultra-virus to the basic structure of the Constitution. Under section 4, the scope of Article 31 c was enlarged and all the Directive Principles were given precedence over fundamental rights given under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution with this verdict of the Supreme Court, the old position of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment was restored.
Now the government will be able to make and enforce laws only on the directive principles given under Articles 39 b and 39 c.
If for other reasons the government deprives citizens of their fundamental rights, it can be challenged in the court.
Despite these developments, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy are not inimical to each other but are complementary and supplementary to each other.