HUMAN RIGHTS

1.
Introduction

The constitution of India is considered as the longest written constitution of any sovereign nation in
the world. At its birth, it had 395 articles in 22 parts and 8 Schedules and it currently has a Preamble,
0as the Republic Day every year. The importance of the Constitution was given effect after 67 years
and later on, it was amended 101 times also.

What are Fundamental Rights and DPSP?

Fundamental rights and DPSP as cherished in the Constitution of India together comprises the
human rights of an individual. The Constitution expresses fundamental rights as an idea which
appeared in India in 1928 itself. The Motilal Committee Report of 1928 clearly shows inalienable
rights derived from the Bill of Rights enshrined in the American Constitution to be givenFundamental
rights are also known as Inherent rights because they are inherent to every person by birth. These
are the rights which provide an individual with some basic rights for the purpose of survival. No
discrimination is made on the basis of religion, caste, race etc. and if any person feels so that his
fundamental rights are being infringed then he can surely approach to court for the violation of his
rights.

There are six fundamental right mentioned under the Constitution of India

Right to equality

Right to freedom

Right to freedom of religion

Right against exploitation

Cultural and educational rights

Rights to constitutional remedies

Right to Equality

Freedom Law is supreme in nature and everyone is equal before the law and equal treatment should
be given to everyone. No discrimination should be done on the basis of race, caste, creed or gender.
An equal amount of opportunity should be given to every individual in the field of employment.
Abolition of untouchability and titles.
Right to Freedom

Every individual has the right to freedom to form an association, peacefully assemble, to travel or
move freely reside and settle at any location and to go or opt for any profession throughout the
territory of India. Right to education, life, liberty and dignity also fall under this right, protection in
respect of arrest and detention and conviction of an offence.

to the individual. These rights were preserved in Part III of the Indian Constitution. of India.

Right against Exploitation

Prohibition of Child labour and Human trafficking and forced labour is a result of this right.

Right to Freedom of religion

This right provides us with the freedom to follow any religion without any question mark and
freedom to attend any religious ceremony at a religious institution or education centre and pay tax
for the promotion of religion. Nobody can force any individual who is not interested in paying any
kind of tax for religious purposes.

Cultural and educational Right

It provides protection to different languages and varieties of culture present in India. It also protects
the rights and culture of minorities. Establishing educational institutions and primary education to
every child below the age of 14 years comes under this head.

Rights to seek Constitutional remedies

An individual has the right to move in any court of law if they feel fundamental rights are being
violated. Our constitution consists of 5 writs. Here writs mean the “Order of court”. If only
fundamental rights are violated then the individual can directly approach to Supreme Court of India.
The writs are explained below:

Habeas corpus

Mandamus

Prohibition

Certiorari

Quo warranto
Habeas Corpus

It simply means to ‘Produce the body’. This writ is issued to produce a person who has been
detained and to present him before the court to release if such detention is illegal.

Mandamus

This means ‘We Command’. It is an order given by the Superior Court to the Inferior Court to
perform a public duty.

Prohibition

It is basically known as Stay order which prohibits from doing certain actions by the authority where
it has no jurisdiction to deal with the case.

Certiorari

This means ‘to be Certified’. This order can be issued by the Supreme Court for quashing the order
which is already passed by any inferior court, tribunal or authority.

Quo – warranto

It signifies by what authority? It is a writ issued to restrain a person from holding a public office to
which he is not entitled.

DPSP

The concept of DPSP emerged from Article 45 of the Irish Constitution. DPSP imposes a duty upon
the state not only to protect and acknowledge the Fundamental right of the individual but also to
achieve Social-economic goals. DPSP was summarizing in Part IV of the Indian Constitution of India.

Certain guidelines are present for the state authority to work upon them for the protection of
society. It mostly focuses on welfare and improvement of society altogether. As fundamental rights
are enforceable in a court of law, DPSP cannot be enforced for making any rules, policy or guidelines.

Some of the examples of DPSP are:

Right to education

Maternity benefit

Uniform Civil code

Providing proper nutrition food

Providing adequate means of livelihood

However, it is already a controversial topic in the Constitution about the relationship of Fundamental
rights and DPSP, as there would be conflict in the interest of individual at a micro level and benefit of
the community at a macro level.

The central part of this controversy is the question person should have primacy in the case of conflict
between Chapter III and IV of the Constitution of India.

Relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSP

Constitution of India is a Grundnorm all the law which are made must conform to the constitution of
India.

The difference between DPSP and FR are:

Fundamental Rights DPSP

Limited scope. Scope of DPSP is limitless.

Protect the rights of the individual and work at a micro level. Protect the rights of a citizen and

Work at a macro level.

If anybody feels that his rights are being violated can DPSP are not enforceable

Approach the court of law. By law .

For better understanding about the conflict between DPSP and Fundamental Rights lets study some
of the important case laws and then we can decide what happens when a conflict arises between
both of them.

The first case we are going to study is about Golak Nath vs the State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1976 SCR (2)
762. Firstly, we will see what the Supreme Court has said and then we will discuss what the
parliamentary action was taken. In this case, S.C. said Fundamental rights cannot be diluted,
abridged, diminished, finish or taken away and then in response to it by bringing Amendment Act of
the Constitution and inserted Article 31 (C) in part III now what does Article 31 (C) say:

By making a law under Article 39 (B) which talk about material resources of community and Article
39 (C) discuss the operation for an economic system. They say that if any law is framed with effect to
DPSP and if it violates Article 14, 19 and 21 then the law should not declare constitution as void
merely on this ground.

In Champak Dorairajan vs. the State of Madras , the Supreme Court held that DPSP cannot override
the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India i.e. the Fundamental Rights. Now DPSP has to
run subsidiary to the Fundamental rights and have to confirm them and this was very important
judgement the parliament responded by amending various fundamental rights which were coming in
conflict with DPSP.

So, now we will move to our next Case Kerala Education Bill where the Doctrine of Harmonious
Construction was introduced by the Supreme Court.

Now, what is the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction? It says that you need to constitute the
provision of the constitution in such a way that fundamental rights and DPSP go hand in hand so this
was there to avoid the situation of conflict while enforcing DPSP and Fundamental rights. So you
should construe each and every provision of the constitution is such a way so they work
harmoniously.

Now as per this doctrine the court held that if no inherent power is present then no conflict will arise
but if any conflict comes in force just because the court is trying to interpret a particular law so they
should attempt to give effect to both as far as possible.

So to connect them together by doing something without doing any kind of amendment. After all
the efforts to make everything look balanced if any interpretation is done then the court has to
implement Fundamental rights over DPSP.

In the case of Kesavananda Bharathi, 1973 Supreme Court held that Parliament can amend any part
of the Constitution but without destroying the basic structure of the constitution. Now, the second
clause of Article 31 (C), as we have read earlier, was declared unconstitutional and void because that
was against the basic structure. However, the first clause of Article 31 (C) was said to be valid. In
response, the parliament brought the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 and extended the scope of the
above provisions of Article 31 (C).

Now in the case of Pathumma vs. the State of Kerala, 1978, the Supreme Court emphasised on the
purpose of DPSP that is to fix some social- economic goals. The constitution aims at bringing about a
combination between DPSP and Fundamental rights which is reflected in several other cases as well.

In Minerva Mills Case, the Court held that the law under Article 31 (C) would be protected only if it is
made to implement the directive in Article 39 (b) and (c) and not in any other DPSP. Earlier
protection was given to all the DPSP but after this case, it becomes restrictions and was declared
that if protection is given to all DPSP it will be declared as void and unconstitutional in nature.

In State of Kerala vs. N.M.Thomas, 1976, the Supreme Court said that Fundamental rights and DPSP
should be built in such a way to be with each other and every effort should be taken by the court to
resolve the dispute between them.

In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985, the Supreme Court has submitted that DPSP
are fundamental in the governance of the country so equal importance should be given to meaning
and concept of fundamental rights

In Dalmia Cement vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court said that Fundamental rights and DPSP are
supplementary and complementary to each other and the preamble to the constitution which gives
an introduction, fundamental rights, DPSP are conscience of the Constitution.

In Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India, 2008, the Supreme Court said that no difference can be
made between the 2 sets of rights. Fundamental rights deal with Civil and political rights whereas
DPSP deals with social and economic rights. DPSP are not enforceable in a court of law doesn’t mean
it is subordinate.

So basically, in all these cases, what they are trying to explain is that Fundamental rights and DPSP
go together. Neither of them is supreme to each other.

Government has done several acts for the implementation purpose like panchayat were established
by 73rd amendment, Nagar Palika under Article 41, compulsory education to every child who is
 below the age of 14 years and it was made Fundamental rights, to protect monuments of national
importance now this right was converted into a law that is Ancient and Historical Monuments and
Archaeological sites and remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951.

Conclusion

It can be concluded by saying that the basic feature of the constitution is to maintain harmony
between fundamental rights and DPSP. They are complementary and supplementary to each other.
The theme of fundamental rights must be made in light to DPSP.

2.

Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Fundamental Rights (Part – III)  
 Directive Principles of State Policy (Part – IV)
 Significance of the Directive Principles
 Conflict between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights
 Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.
 Doctrine of Harmonious Construction and relevant case laws
 Conclusion

Introduction
The Fundamental Rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution starting
from Article 12 to Article 35 and it is believed that the framers of the
Constitution in this regard have rightly derived their inspiration from the
Constitution of the United States i.e. Bill of Rights. The rights thereby enshrined
in Part III of the Constitution encompasses in itself an elongated and
comprehensive list of Justiciable Fundamental Rights that can be enforced by the
ordinary courts of the country. These Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of
our Constitution are much more extensive and elaborative than any other
country of the world even more elaborative from where it has been borrowed
(USA). 

On the other hand of this article, we will explore that the Directive Principles of
State Policy or the (herein referred to as DPSP) are encompassed in Part IV of
the Constitution of India from Article 35-51. It is evident at this very stage, that
the makers of the Constitution of India in respect to Part IV have derived and
borrowed the idea and the concept of having the Directive Principles from
Section 45 of the Irish Constitution of 1937 which in turn have copied it from the
Spanish Constitution. These Directive Principles of the State Policy or “Novel
Features” as termed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar symbolizes and directs the state (As
defined in Article 12 of the Constitution) with ideals and recommendations that
should be kept in mind while framing policies and enacting laws. But unlike the
former stands unjustifiable in nature. 

Both the Directive Principles along the Fundamental Rights comprise the
philosophy of the Constitution.

Now, we will discuss in this part of the article the Part III and Part IV of the
Constitution much more elaboratively: 

Fundamental Rights (Part – III)  

As discussed earlier in this article, These Justiciable Rights are enshrined in Part
III of the Constitution of India (Article 12 to Article 35) and are called and
named “Fundamental” because of two significant reasons:

 Firstly, these rights are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution

of the Country which is the fundamental law of the land.

 Secondly, they become fundamental in the sense that they are most
essential for the all-round material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual
development of an Individual.
Initially and Originally there were about seven fundamental rights but after the
abolition of Zamindari Act 1950, there number reduced to about six which are as
follows:

1. Right to equality (Article 14-18) which entails in itself that

everyone stands equal before the law and equal treatment should be
given to everyone thereby implying a complete prohibition of
discrimination founded on the grounds of race, caste, creed, or
gender. 

2. Right to Freedom (Article 19-22): Each individual has the right to

freedom to form an association, to peacefully assemble, to practice
any profession, and carry on any trade, occupation, or business. 
Contains one of the most significant right i.e. Right to Life and Liberty
(Article 21). protection and rights to an accused in respect to arrest
and detention for conviction of any offense under the penal code of the
country.

3. Right against Exploitation (Article 23 and 24): This Article entails

in themselves important and rights such as the prohibition of Child
Labor or Forced Labor and Human trafficking. 
 4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25- Article 28): This specific
right in the Constitution is of utmost importance in a country like India
where there is a huge diversity of religion, this right provides the
citizens with the freedom to follow and practice any religion and most
importantly grants freedom of conscience to an Individual. The rights
under this head also specifically provide a clause concerning paying
taxes for religious purposes.

5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Article 29 and Article 30):

These rights entailed in Part III provides protection to different
languages and varieties of culture present in India and additionally
protects the rights and culture of minorities, right to minorities to
establish and administer educational Institution, etc.  

6. Right to seek Constitutional remedies: Article 32 as described by

Dr. Ambedkar the heart and soul of the Indian constitution, these
remedies are available to any individual whose fundamental right gest
violated, and these rights enshrined in the Constitution empowers the
Supreme Court of India to issue 5 types of writs.
However, the right to property was deleted from the aforementioned list of
Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, and thereby this
amendment made the Right to property as a Non-Fundamental Constitutional
Right under Article 300-A in Part XII of the Constitution.

Directive Principles of State Policy (Part – IV)

The Directive Principle of State Policy or DPSP as enumerated in Part IV of the
Constitution as discussed formerly in this article are the constitutional directives
or recommendations to the State as far as the cases of Legislative,
administrative and executive matters to keep in mind the ideals therein
mentioned while formulating and enacting laws. The significance of these
directives becomes evident from the fact that these Directive Principles at
numerous instances help the court of law though having non-justiciable in
nature, to determine the constitutional validity of a law. These Directives are
often classified into three broad categories:

 Socialistic Principles – For e.g. Article 38, to promote the welfare of

the people by securing a social order permeated by justice – social,
economic and political and thereby to minimize any types of
inequalities be it income, status and opportunities. 

 Gandhian Principles – These principles characterize the programme

for reconstruction as enunciated by the father of the Nation – Mahatma
Gandhi during the national movement and struggle. For e.g. – Article
40 to organize village panchayats and endow them with necessary
powers and authority to enable them function as units of self –
government.

 Liberal–Intellectual Principles– These DPSPs entail in themselves

some characteristics of the ideology of liberalism. For e.g. – Article 50
 which further imposes an obligation upon the state to separate
judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
The classification of the Directive Principles as above stated in this article is not
expressly present or made by the Constitution but however on the basis of its
content the same has been classified into the three broad categories . 

Significance of the Directive Principles

These Directive Principles despite having been criticized by eminent economists
like K.T. Shah as “ a cheque on bank, payable only when resources of the bank
permit so” for having no legal sanction and being illogically arranged, and even
by former Finance minister T.T. Krishnamachari ( 1956-1958 ) as “ a veritable
dustbin of sentiments” these Directive Principles in the contemporary times
cannot be construed as irrelevant accompaniment. As stated by Justice Chagla,
the former Chief Justice of India these principles if implemented well and fully
carried out, can make our country indeed heaven on earth. The Directive
Principles are auxiliary and can even be considered as subsidiary to the
fundamental rights as they are aimed and intended to fill in the vacuum present
in Part III by providing economic and social rights. They simplify and provide a
kind of stability and permanency in domestic and foreign strategies of the
government or despite the changes that occur from the disposition.

DPSPs provide the citizens of the country a quantitative scale to measure the
performance of the government and provide them with effective feedback on
where it lacks.

Conflict between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights

It becomes pertinent to note at this point even though, both the Directive
Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Rights appear as constitutionally
distinct but when we trace back their historical origin, we find that both had
originated from a common origin. There was no distinction between positive and
negative obligations of the state but it was the constituent assembly that
separated them. We find both the above mentioned Fundamental Right and
Directive Principle as intimate and interlacing part of the Indian Constitution.

The conflict between the DPSPs and Fundamental Rights seems not to be a
novice situation. The character though may be similar but points of conflicts
even today in the contemporary times rests at the following points:

 Justiciability of the Fundamental Rights and the Non- Justiciable

character of the DPSP.

 Moral Obligation and duty casted upon the state to implement the
Directive Principles as per Article 37 has also raised a serious point of
 contravention since the inception of the Constitution and Part III and
Part IV.
In numerous early cases, the Supreme Court ruled out that the Directive
Principles could not supersede a Fundamental Right present in Part III of the
Constitution. However, the position of the same became clear when the Supreme
Court took a view in the case of State of Madras V.  Srimathi Champakam
Dorairajan. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that since Fundamental Rights
are enforceable and Directive Principles are not, so the Fundamental Rights
would prevail over the later and have to run as subsidiary to the Fundamental
Rights. 

However, the situation subsequently changed in 1967 by the Supreme Court

itself in the case of I.C. Golaknath V. State of Punjab whereby the Supreme
Court held that the Fundamental Rights present in Part III of the Constitution are
sacrosanct and thereby cannot be amended for implementation of the Directive
Principles of State Policy.

Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive

Principles of State Policy.

The Relationship between Part III and Part IV is the one that is not a novice
one and was discussed by the Constitutional Advisor Sir B.N. Rau who advocated
the idea that the right of an individual on the basis of their nature can be divided
into: 

 Justiciable Rights 

 Non-justiciable Rights 
The list of Justiciable Rights was engulfed in Part–III while the non-justiciable
one became the member of Part–IV of the Constitution. At times and again these
Directive Principles are used by the Judiciary to determine the constitutional
validity of any legislation when they are found to be in conflict with the
Fundamental Rights or Part–III of the Constitution.  

The first case we are going to discuss in this light is of Sajjan Singh V. State of
Rajasthan of 1964 where the Obiter Dicta laid down by Justice Madhukar
becomes apposite, even the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III were taken
as unalterable, the much-needed dynamism may be according to him achieved
by a proper interpretation of the Fundamental Rights in light of the Directive
Principles. Further, he observed that the Part IV is fundamental in the
governance of the country and the provision relating to Part III must be
interpreted harmoniously with these principles”. As discussed above in the case
of Champakam Dorairajan (Supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that the
Fundamental Rights would be reduced to a “Mere rope of sand” if they were to
be override or superseded by the Directive Principles of State Policy. 
Also, as we discussed earlier in this article while deliberating on the case of I.C.
Golaknath (Supra), Hon’ble Justice Subba Rao of the Apex Court accentuated
that the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy together
form an integrated scheme which is elastic enough to respond to the changing
needs of the society. On a similar note in Bijoya Cotton Mills V. State of West
Bengal, the supreme court has two folded view regarding the same:

 In a case of conflict between the rights of an Individual and a law that

particularly aims at the implementation of socio-economic policies in
furtherance of the Directive Principles, the weight would be accorded
to the latter.

 Every Act or Legislation enacted in fulfilment of the Directive Principles

should be construed as the one professing in the public interest or as a
reasonable restriction to Part III of the Constitution. 

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction and relevant case laws

The doctrine of Harmonious construction as a new technique of interpretation
was inducted and innovated by the Supreme Court in the case of Quareshi Mohd.
v. State of Bihar where the court stated that the Constitution has to be
construed harmoniously, the Directive Principles must be implemented in such a
way that it does not take away or encroach upon the fundamental rights of
citizens. The courts should adopt the principles of harmonious construction and
attempt to give effect to both Part III and Part IV of the Constitution.

In Re: Kerala Education Bill case of 1958, Chief Justice S.R. Das held while
affirming the primacy of fundamental rights over the directive principles
“nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of Fundamental Rights relied
upon by or on behalf of any person or body, the court may not entirely ignore
the DPSPs laid down in Part IV of the Constitution but should adopt the principle
of harmonious construction and should attempt to give to both as far as
possible”. 

The Supreme Court then began to proclaim that there exists no conflict between
the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles both stand supplementary and
complementary to each other. The above stand was taken by the Apex Court in
the case of Chandra Bhavan Boarding & Lodging V. State of Mysore. Since then,
the Supreme Court of India in the plethora of cases started to reiterate the point
that the judicial attitude towards both DPSPs and Fundamental Rights is co-
equal.   

In 1973, in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharti V. State of

Kerela – Justice K.S. Hedge duly observed that the Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles constitute the “Conscience of the Constitution.” While Justice
Shelat and Grover observed that both these Parts (III and IV) have to be
balanced and harmonized.
At various instances and in catena of cases the courts have utilized the above-
mentioned Doctrine of Harmonious Constructions while pronouncing judgments
relating to Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. On a similar note, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala V. N.M. Thomas held that both the
Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights should be construed in harmony
with each other and every effort should be made by respective courts to resolve
any apparent inconsistency that exists between them. 

Justice Chandrachud in the landmark case of Minerva Mills V. Union of

India observed “Fundamental Rights are not an end in themselves but are
means to an end”, the aforesaid end is specified in the directive principles. In the
(Paras 56 and 57) of the same judgment, it was also duly held that “harmony
and balance between the fundamental rights and directive principles is an
essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution”.  

From the above one can pellucidly infer that the Fundamental Rights enshrined
in Part III can be considered to be the means to achieve several goals that are
thereby enshrined in Part IV and even at various instances the Fundamental
Rights is interpreted in light of non-justiciable Directive Principles of State
Policy. 

The same becomes pertinent when we look in the case of Bandhu Mukti
Morcha case where the bench headed by Justice P.N. Bhagwati in page 163 of
the same Judgment has expressly mentioned: “The Right to live human
dignity, free from exploitation enshrined under Article 21 derives its life
and breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly
clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Article 41 and 42 ”.

The inextricable and entangles relation between the Part III (Fundamental
Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) that was even
recognized by the Legislature in the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002,
where Right to Education earlier and originally the element of Part IV of the
Constitution was raised to the Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21A of
Part III of the Constitution. 

“These Directive Principles of State Policy are fundamental in the governance of

the country they must be therefore regarded as equally fundamental to
understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of fundamental
rights” – The aforesaid view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case
of Olga Tellis.

Recently, in the case of Charu Khurana V. Union of India of 2015, the Supreme

Court of India again highlighted the importance of their existence (Part III and
Part IV) by observing that “Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles are
the two wheels of the chariot establishing the egalitarian social order.   
Conclusion
In an overview, it becomes apparent or ostensible to note that the view of the
judiciary regarding the relationship between the Fundamental Rights and the
Directive Principles of State Policy is the one that is subjected and have
undergone gradual transformations from the case of 1951 of Srimathi
Champakam Dorairajan where the Supreme Court accorded supremacy to the
Fundamental Rights over the Directive Principles to making the harmony and
balance between the two ( Part III and Part IV) an essential feature of the basic
structure of the Constitution. 

Today, we can manifestly observe that Part III at times have to necessarily be
interpreted in the light of the Directive Principles and the co-dependence and
liaison between the two are increasing day by day. 

Conclusively, it can be clearly inferred from the judgments as mentioned above

that the approach of our judicial system towards the Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles have been an integrative one and time and again, the
judiciary in its judgment has employed the principle of Harmonious Construction.

3.

Relation Between Part III And Part IV Of Constitution Of India

An individual to lead a life requires some rights. Rights have been described as those claims of an
individual that are necessary for the development of his oneself and recognized by society or state.
Some of rights that are recognized by the state and enshrined in the constitution are called
fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are those rights of an individual that are enforceable
through courts of law.

During the national struggle our leaders indicated that in the constitutional set up in the
constitutional set up in the free India people would be granted certain rights. In fact in the various
schemes relation to future constitutional set up, there were references of particular rights that the
people of India should be granted. The common wealth of India bill (1925), the Nehru committee
report, the memorandum of the National trade Union Federation submitted to the joint committee
on Indian constitution reforms (1932–33), the memorandum submitted by M. Venkatarangaiah to
the Sapru committee and the Sapru committee proposals provided for various fundamental rights
that the people of free India should get. The fundamental rights that are provided in the constitution
can be divided into six categories are as follows;

1. Right to Equality (Articles 14 to)

2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22)

3. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24)

4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)

5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)

6. Rights to constitutional remedies.

Directive principles of state policy are included in part IV of the Indian constitution. Indian
constitution is one among few constitution of the world that has incorporated such provisions as a
part of the main body of the constitution. The constitution makers were inspired to include directive
principles of state policy in the constitution by the constitution of Ireland.

One of main objectives of the constitution makers in including such a provision in the constitution
was to lay down certain principles for the guidance of the governments. While formulating their
policies the Governments are expected to according to these principles.

During the freedom struggle of India our national leaders had made promises regarding the
fundamental rights that the citizens of free India should get, these fundamental rights included not
only civil & political rights but also social & economic rights. But when India got Independence the
leaders realized that it would not be possible for them to grant immediately some of the social &
economic tights that they had promised in the past. But at the same time they did not want to go
back on hurdle. They assigned this task to a sub – committee of the constituent assembly. The sub-
committee suggested that the fundamental rights should be divided into two categories. Some rights
could be granted immediately and others may be granted in future, if and when the country was in
position to grant them. This was the genesis of the two parts of the constitution. Part three of the
constitution deals with fundamental rights while part IV relates to directives principles of state
policy.

The Fundamental Rights are defined as the basic human rights of all citizens. These rights, defined
in Part III of the Constitution, apply irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed or
gender. They are enforceable by the courts, subject to specific restrictions.
The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines for the framing of laws by the government.
These provisions, set out in Part IV of the Constitution, are not enforceable by the courts, but the
principles on which they are based are fundamental guidelines for governance that the State is
expected to apply in framing and passing laws.

Purposes for insertion of Part III and IV in the constitution of India

The framers of the Indian constitution were aware that there were other constitutions which had
given expression to certain ideals as the goal towards which the country should strive and which had
defined the principles considered fundamental to the governance of the country. They were aware
of the event that had culminated in the charter of United Nations.

Universal declaration of Human rights had been adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations, for India was a signatory to it. It contained a basic and fundamental rights appertaining to
all men. These rights were born of the philosophical speculation of the Greek and Roman stoics and
nurture by the jurists of ancient Rome. These rights had found expression in a limited form in the
accords of 1188 entered into between King Alfonso IX and the cortes of leon, the Magna Carta of
1215 and the guarantees which King Andrew II of Hungary was forced to give by his Golden bull of
1822. The French National Assembly also included the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen”. The first ten amendments to the constitution of the United States of America contained
certain rights akin to Human rights. Constitution of Eire, Japan also contained similar rights and
Directive principles. Section 8 of the article 1 of the U.S constitution contained a Welfare clause
empowering the federal Government to enact laws for the overall general welfare of the people.
U.S.A, the U.K and Germany had passed social welfare legislation. The framers of the Indian
constitution, therefore, headed the constitution of India with a preamble which declared India’s goal
and inserted parts III and IV in the constitution.

Concept of Fundamental Rights- Their Origin & Development

Part III of the constitution of India, titled as “fundamental right” secures to the people of India,
certain basic, natural and inalienable rights. These rights have been declared essential rights in
order that “human liberty may be preserved, Human personality developed and an effective social
and democratic life promoted”.

Bhagwati. J in the case of Menaka Gandhi v/s Union of India held that these fundamental rights
represent and basic value cherished by the people of this country since the Vedic times and they are
calculated to protect the dignity of the individual and create conditions in which every human being
can develop his personality to the fullest extent. They weave a “pattern of guarantees on the basic
structure of human rights”, and impose negative obligations on the state not to encroach on
individual liberty in its various dimensions.
The aim behind having a declaration of fundamental rights is to make inviolable certain elementary
rights appertaining to the individual and to keep them unaffected by the shifting majorities in the
legislatures. It is to preserve certain basic human rights against interference the state.

Justice Jackson of the U.S. Supreme court in West Virginia State Board of Education v/s Barnet

The very purpose of a bill of rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political
controversy to place them beyond the reach of majorities and official and to establish them as legal
principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to freedom of speech,
a free press, freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted
to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections.

The inclusion of a chapter on fundamental rights in the constitution is in accord with the trend of
modern democratic thought. These rights are basic to a democratic polity. The object is not only, to
ensure the inviolability of certain essential rights against political vicissitudes, but also to impress
upon the people the fact of their having reached a new level of national existence. The guarantee of
certain basic human rights is an indispensable requirement of a free society. The purpose is to
preserve, for the benefit of the people, their fundamental rights against infringement by the
institutions created by the constitution.

The origin of the concept of fundamental rights may be traced to the 13th century England. It was in
1215 that the people of England revolted against King John at Ranneymade and enforced their
demand for reiteration of their claims against the Royal Absolutism. They, for the first time, seceded
in extraction assurances, from the King, for respect of their ancient liberties. The King was made to
acknowledge that there were certain rights of the subject which could not be violated even by a
sovereign in whom all power was legally vested. The Magna Carta, 1215, which evidenced people’s
success, was a written document. It enjoined “respect for the law by the king; for bade denial of or
delayed justice; prohibited unlawful detention and excessive fines.

In 1628, the petition of rights was presented to King Charles I, which was the first step in the transfer
of sovereignty from the King to parliament. It was passed as the bill of rights, 1689, which dealt with
rights and liberties of the British people.

In England the concept of “Rule of Law” forms the very bed-rock of British constitution, “Rule of
Law” explains that an individual in England has the right and freedom to take whatever action he
likes, so long as he does not violate any rule of the ordinary law of the land. The rights of the
individual are secured by the ordinary law there. The proclamations of certain rights of the people,
made from time to time, in the form of charters such as Magna Carta 1215, and the Bill of rights,
1689 are therefore, merely declaratory. These charters are binding on the executive but impose no
limitation on the power of parliament. The protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual in
England therefore, rests not on constitutional guarantees, but on public opinion good sense of the
people, strong common law traditions and the sagacity of parliament itself.

The American adopted the constitution making for securing their bill of rights. The original
constitution framed in 1787 and brought into force in 1789, did not contain any fundamental rights
for Americans. It was met with serious condemnation. Consequently, the first ten amendments were
enacted in 1791, incorporating the fundamental rights. These amendments have been described as
the American “Bill of Rights” the rights are binding on the executive as well as the legislature. The
courts of America therefore are competent to declare, an act of the congress as unconstitutional, on
the ground of violation of any provision of their bill of rights.

Fundamental rights in India

The framers of the Indian constitution followed the American model in adopting and incorporating
the fundaments rights for the people of India. The constitution, not only secures the fundamental
rights, but also, provides a speedy and effective remedy for their enforcement.

In the preamble to the constitution, wherein the people of India solemnly resolved to constitute
India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic and to secure to themselves justice,
liberty, equality and fraternity. They have been said to be the very foundation and the corner-stone
of the democratic way of life ushered in this country by the constitution. These rights have been
declared as sacrosanct, inalienable and inviolable. The minorities regard these rights as the bedrock
of their political existence, while the majorities consider them as guarantee for their way of life. A
significant feature of the Indian Bill of Rights is that the remedy for the enforcement of the
fundamental rights is itself declared a fundamental right and is included in the very chapter on
fundamental rights. An act of the state whether legislative or executive, if inconsistent with a
fundamental rights is declared to be null and void the nullity of such an act does not rest upon
judicial pronouncement but upon the express provision contained in Article 13.

Why guaranteed rights?

The very purpose to withdraw certain subjects from the changing pattern of political controversy, to
place them beyond the reach of a majority in a legislature and officials in the government and to
establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. For, if the danger of personal rule by
despotic rulers has more or less disappeared as a result of representative institutions coming into
their own, that from legislative interference has correspondingly increased because of the high
handed manner in which majorities might manage affairs in legislature. A dominant group of
legislators could pass any discriminatory or unjust legislation and prejudice the interests of
considerable section of the people. This meant in reality the substitution of one kind of tyranny by
another replacement of personal rule of the monarch by the tyranny; of the legislative majority.
One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech and free expression, freedom of worship and
assembly and other fundamental rights are not subjects to be submitted to vote. They should not
depend on the outcome of elections.

When legislatures were prohibited form encroaching upon certain rights through constitutional
safeguards, the protection of these rights was achieved against the arbitrary conduct of both the
executive and the legislature. When and independent judiciary was made the guardian of these
rights was completely and enjoyment of these rights by all irrespective of wealth or social status,
race or religious belief, was fully ensured. Herein lays the importance of fundamental rights. The
United States has led many countries in this respect. Today, the idea of a list of a list of written rights
as an integral part of new constitution has been generally adopted. Even the British do not seriously
contest the wisdom of this arrangement and are prepared to concede is value at least to a limited
extent.

Directive principles of state policy

Part IV article 36-51 of the India constitution says about directive principles of state policy. It sets
forth the ideals and objectives to be achieved by the state for setting up in India a social welfare
state, as distinguished from a mere police state, which aims at social welfare state, as distinguished
from the common good and the secure to al its citizens, justice socio and economic. The inspiration
to include directive principles of state policy is drawn from the constitution of Ireland. The basic aim
of the welfare state is the attainment of the substantial degree of social, economic and political
equalities the assumption by community acting through the state, as its responsibility to provide the
means, whereby all members can reach minimum standard of economic security, civilized living
capacity to secure social status and culture to keep good health.

Object and purpose behind the directive principles

The founding fathers were aware of the drawbacks; the country had been suffering from such as
poverty unemployment, lack of education, social, economic, and political backwardness. They in
order to eradicate these evils, set forth in the very preamble, the ideals and objectives to be
achieved. The intention of the constitution framers was to establish in India a democracy political,
economic and social.

To achieve this cherished goal, the framers were unanimous to secure to the people practically all
the prevailing political social and economic rights. These rights were broadly speaking divided into
two categories.

Political and Civil Rights

Social and Economic Rights

The political and Civil rights which were in opinion, with the reach of the individual were
provisional as fundamental rights and the latter being considered beyond individual’s reach under
the prevailing circumstances, were titled as Directive Principles of State Policy.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar while explaining the object underlying the Directive principles of State Policy
observed

While we have established political democracy, it is also the desire that we should law down as our
ideal, economic democracy. We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to
come and capture power. The constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would
be forming the Government. That is ideal is economic democracy, whereby, so far as I am
concerned, I understand to mean one man one vote. By this it is clear that the main object behind
the Directive Principle sis to achieve the ideal of Economic democracy.

Nature of Directive Principles

In view of the non-enforceability, the directive principles have been described by some critics as
“pious expressions” or “resolution made by the new years day”. To other they appear as an
“instrument of instructions”. These expressions however, betray the ignorance of the critics about
the legal utility of the Directives. Though they are non-enforceable, the directives are the
fundamental principles of governance and all the branches of government. The executive, the
legislature and the judiciary, have to take cognizance of them. In fact, the judiciary has followed the
principle of the harmonious construction between the fundamental rights and the Directive
principles of State policy. Judiciary has also taken the help of the Directives while interpreting the
various provisions of the constitution. While dealing with relationship between the fundamental
rights and the directive principles, Chandrachud, chief Justice of India then, stated in Minerva Mill’s
case, “the Indian constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV to
give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the constitution. This
harmony and balance between fundamental rights and Directive principles is an essential feature of
the basic structure of the constitution.

The executive has also resorted to them while justifying its (executive) actions. For instance, in the
case of Champakam Doriarajan v/s State of Madras, while defending the communal order, of the
Madras government, the plea was taken that it was done to promote the interest of the weaker
sections of the society as per Directive Principle of the State Policy provided in Article 46 of the
constitution of India.

The parliament also referred them while justifying its legislative measure. For instance, in cases of
Shankari Prasad and Golaknath, the government of India pleaded before the Supreme Court while
defending the constitution (First Amendment Act, 1957) and the constitution (Fourth Amendment
Act, 1955 respective that they were enacted to five effects to the directive principles of the state
policy. Now directive principles of the state policy are related to political policies, economic policies
educational and cultural policies and health policies.

Enforcement of Directive Principles – Role of Judiciary

The Directive principles, as has been earlier seen, impose positive delegation on the state. These
directives are address to the state. The term state has been defined by article 36 to have the same
meaning as is given to this term in part III of the constitution relating to the fundamental rights. It
thus means that the term State not only includes the legislature and the executive organs of the
government, but it also include its agencies and instrumentalities.

It follows that the directive principles can be implemented by executive action, so long as these do
not contravene any law. For the same reason, the local authorities or the state instrumentalities
shall have a moral obligation to follow these directives and to act in consonance with these
directives. Since the term, state includes judiciary also; the courts or the statutory tribunals would be
equally under a duty to give effect to the directives.

Relation between part III and part IV of the Indian constitution

The genesis and objectives underlying part III and part IV have common desideratum in responding
to the social consciousness rest with the constitution making force. Which fundamental rights focus
on interests of personality, the Directives principles look on to the welfare of society. Judicial
remedies for fundamental rights and non justice able of directive principles are the deliberate
strategies of the constitution. The dichotomy between part III and part IV and the supremacy of
former over the latter a theory based on formalistic and too textual an interpretation in Champakam
Dorairajan did not last for long time.

A government order of the Madras government divided seats in colleges on the basis of religion and
caste. This was repugnant to article 29(2). But it was argued that the government order could be
supported on the basis of article 46 of the constitution which makes the state responsible for
promoting the education interests of the weaker sections of people. The Supreme Court held that
the fundamental rights under Article 29(2) over the Directive principle under article 46. So the
government order was struck down. It was held that in case of any conflict between part III and part
IV, the part III would prevail. These observations of the court were based on the literal interpretation
of the provision of article 37 which declares the directive principle not justifiable.

A remarkable change had come over in the judicial attitude on the question of inter relationship.
In Inre Kerala Education bill

The Supreme Court observed “though the directive principles can not override the fundamental
rights, nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of fundamental rights the court could not
entirely ignore the directive principle but should adopt the principle of harmonious construction and
should attempt to give effect to both as much as possible.

The Supreme Court began to assert that there is “no conflict on the whole” between the
fundamental rights and the directive principles. They are complementary and supplementary to each
other.

In Chandrabhavan and Kesavananda Bharati cases inaugurated a new era of integrationist approach
which could emphasis the under pinning of interrelated value of part III and part IV, Kesavananda
Bharati’s case stood for penetration of the notion of distributive justice under Article 39(b) and (c)
into the property relations by upholding the constitutionality of Article 31c. the legislative
contributions through agrarian and economic reforms, labor welfare and other social justice statutes
have by focusing on social welfare, ultimately enhanced the worth of fundamental rights. Judicial
review, by removing unreasonable provisions monitored this process. In practice, the
interconnections of rights are more sensitized when the government takes the directive principles of
state policy seriously.

In Minerva Mills Limited v/s Union of India

The court observed that the constitution was founded on the bed-rock of balance between part III
and part IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other was to disturb the harmony of the
constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and the directive principles is
an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution. Both the fundamental and directive
principles of the state policy are embodying the philosophy of our constitution, the philosophy of
justice social economic and political. They are the two wheels of the chariot as an aid to make social
and economic democracy a truism.

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v/s Union of India

The approach of sticking to strict legalism in the implementation of laws enforcing directive
principles, which in turn promote fundamental rights, has increased the role of directive principles in
the inter-relationship doctrine.
The integrative approach towards fundamental rights and directive principles or that the both
should be interpreted and read together has now come to hold the field. It has now become a
judicial strategy to read fundamental rights along with Directive principles with a view to define the
scope and the ambit of the former. Mostly, directive principles have been used to broaden and to
give depth to some fundamental rights and to imply some more rights therein for the people over
and what are expressly stated in the fundamental rights.

By reading article 21 with the directive principles, the Supreme Court has expanded the horizon of
article 21 and derived there from different rights of the citizen. Some of them are;

Right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution free water, air and environments. The court has
derived this right by reading article 21 with article 48A.

Right to health has been recognized as fundamental rights of the workers under article 21. Article 23
and 24 deal with right against exploitation. Those articles reflect the principles of article 39c. the
directive principles that the tender age of children and not abused and the children are given
opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity
and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material
abandonment are supported by the post Maneka jurisprudence of rights of children under article 21
and 24. In Asad and Salal Hydro project cases, the Supreme Court applied article 24 along with article
21 to prohibit child labor being influence by the above directive principles.

Right to education under article 21A is to be understood with reference to directive principles
contained in article 41 and 45.

It is necessary to look into interrelationship between specific directive principles and fundamental
rights in active practice. The central theme of directive principles is human development with
distributive justice, aims at upward movement of the entire social system by making more people
better off without making others worse off. The interrelationship between the two results in greater
freedom and autonomy to all people, reduction of disparity in access to resources and opportunities
and sustainability of environment. Although directives principles is a policy, because of its
importance to human rights values, its elevation to principle has taken place through the inter-
relationship, at least in core areas.

I. Directive Principles of state policy, which are related to distributive justice, molded the property
relations by influencing the inter-relationship doctrine both directly strive for promoting justice,
social, economic and political, in the social order. According to article 39(b) and (c), the state shall
direct its policy towards equitable distribution of the material resources of the community, and non-
concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. Article 38(2) directs
state to minimize inequalities in income and status amongst individuals and groups of people
residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. The protection of agrarian reform
legislations under Article 31(4) and (6) was a manifestation of achieving these goals in property
relations. The post Kameshwar Singh development of incorporating articles 31A and 31B into the
constitution was for promoting the policy of distributive justice. This meant the philosophy
underlying article 39b and (c) in the sphere of property relations became established after the
incorporation of article 31c. This provision immunizes the laws providing for implementation of
Directive principles enshrined in Article 39(b) and (c) from any challenges based on articles 14, 19
and 31.

It was in 1971 that the first step was taken to provide supremacy for directive principles in the form
of article 31c which was added to the constitution by the constitution twenty fifth amendments Act,
1971

The effect of the insertion of articles 31c was to provide supremacy for directive principles contained
in articles and 39(c) over fundamental rights contained in articles 14, 19 and 31. It enhanced the
utility of directive principles which had stood the testimony of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda
Bharti v/s State of Kerala

The Court observed: In building up a just and social order it is sometimes imperative that the
fundamental rights shared be subordinated to directive principles, economic goals have no
uncontestable claims for priority over ideological ones on the ground that excellence comes only
after existence. It is only if men exist that there can be fundamental rights.

To further widen the scope of the Directive principles, the constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976,
amended article 31c for providing supremacy for all the directive principles. The effect of
amendment was to give overriding effect to directive principles and to make them immune from
being declared as violative of the rights guaranteed by articles 14, 19 & 31.

However, the change incorporated by 42nd Amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in
Minerva Mills Ltd v/s UOI

The Court thus restored Article 31c to its original State as inserted by Twenty fifth amendments,
1971.

It thus follows that the Directive principles contained articles 39(b) and 39(c) shall have supremacy
on the fundamental rights contained in articles 14 & 19.
II. The inter-relationship doctrine is very much influenced by article 39A providing for equal justice
and free legal aid the justice delivery system. According to article 39A. The state shall secure that the
operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity and shall in particular
provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way to ensure that
opportunities for securing or other disabilities. The role of this provision was pivotal in removing the
impediment of poverty in one’s access to grievance redressed system

In M.H Hoskot Hussainara Khatoon in number of public interest litigation cases, this provision was
relied upon to bring the principle of equality into effect in the system of access to justice.

In M.H. Hoskot the court held that “free legal assistance at state cost is a fundamental right of
person accused of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or personally liberty and his
fundamental rights is implicit in the requirement of reasonable fair and just procedure prescribed by
article 21.

III. The directive principles that the state shall strive to secure its citizens right to an adequate means
of livelihood and make effective provision for securing rights to work article 41 provided a basis for
the supreme court in olga tellis to locate right to livelihood in right to life under article 21, at least
the circumstance of deprivation of that right. The post Maneka approach of just a fair and
reasonable procedure become a handy instrument in this regard similarly various positive rights of
life like right to food, health, environment and education were evolved by emphasizing on the
relevant directive principles of state policy. It is important to note that the language of these
provisions hinted the limitation of the scope of the positive rights also. This enabled a pragmatic
approach with regard to positive rights.

IV. The directive principle that “tender age of children are not abused” and article 39(f) could give
impetus to and also get supported by the post Maneka jurisprudence of rights of children under
articles 21 and 24. In Asiad construction and Salal hydro project cases the Supreme Court applied
Article 24 in collaboration with article 21 to prohibit child labor being partly influenced by the above
directive principles. In Lakshmikanth Pandey a case concerning transnational adoption to conform to
article 14, and 21 The PIL cases relating to rights of children under custodial detention also reflect
similar approach.

V. The directive principles of “Equal pay for equal work” and “participation of workers in
management” were received through right to equality under article 14 into part III in Randhir Singh
v/s UOI and national textile workers Union v/s P.R. Ramakrishna cases, and in turn assisted freedom
of occupation under article 19(1) or right to livelihood under Article 21. In consumer education and
research centre v/s UOI by reading article 21 with articles 39(c), 41, 43 and 48A K. Ramaswamy J held
for the court, “The health and strength of the worker is an integral facet of right to life”.

VI. The directive principles relating to uniform civil code has to potentiality of using the
interrelationship doctrine for its implementation. Application of articles 14, 19, 21 in examining the
constitutionality rights or right to maintenance has shown the permeability of these noble principles
into personal laws will be compelled to conform to these standards, and hence uniform of
constitutional spirit will persuade for uniform standards. In John Vallmattam v/s UOI where section
118 of Indian success Act 1925 which discriminated between religious communities in the matter of
allowing death bed bequests was struck down as violative of articles 14, 15, 16 and 26. The Supreme
Court emphasized the need to effectuate the policy of uniform civil code.

VII. Articles 46 of DPSP provides a guidance for affirmative actions under articles 15(4) and 16(4) and
a pointer for resonant the tension between formal and substantive equality by laying emphasis on
infusing of strength and ability to compete, through education and training to the weaker sections.

VIII. The directives principles that the state shall Endeavour to foster respect for international law
and treaty obligations articles 51 has a great potentiality of absorbing the international principle
relating to guarantee of human rights , and thus influence the inter-relationship doctrine.

In Air India statutory Corporation v/s United Labor Union, it has been held that the directive
principles in the constitution are forerunners of the UNO convention on right to development as
inalienable human rights and every person and all people are entitled to participate in contribute to
and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development in which all human rights,
fundamental freedoms would be fully realized. These principles are embedded as integral part of the
constitution in the directive principles. Therefore, the directive principles now stand elevated to
inalienable fundamental human rights.

Distinction between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy

1.Fundamental Rights

2.Directive principles of State Policy

1.Fundamental rights are enforceable through courts of law. (justice able)

2.Directive principles of State policy are not enforceable (non-justice able)

1.Fundamental rights prohibit the state from doing certain things.

2.Directives are affirmative instruction to the State to do certain things.

1.Civil and political rights are predominant in fundamental rights.

2.Economic and social rights are predominant in the directive principle

1.Contravention of any fundamental rights can be rescinded by the court.

2.The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the directive
principles.

1.Courts can strike down an act of Government violative of any fundamental right and can enforce
the right against the Government.

2.Directives do no confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature.

Conclusion

The inter-relationship doctrine between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy is
not only theoretical but also practical and rewarding. Fundamental rights provide for political
freedoms to the citizens by protecting them against excessive state action while directive principles
are to securing social and economic freedom by appropriated action both are inspiration of reform
legislation. The fundamental rights should be interpreted in the light of directive principles to
observe the limits set by directive principles in the scope of the fundamental rights. For example
article 39, 39-A can be interpreted with article 21 of the constitution and article 46 can be
interpreted with article 29 and 30 of the constitution.
The judicial attitude has undergone transformation where courts are very active to uphold the
fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution thereby interpreting the provisions of part-IV i.e.
Directive Principles of State Policy. Initially, the courts adopted a strict and literal legal position in
interpreting part-III with part-IV of the constitution which is reflected in State of Madras V/S
Champakam Dorairajan. It was held in case of conflict between part-III and part –IV the fundamental
rights will prevail. In the course of time, change came over the judicial attitude as the apex court
views the interplay between part-III and part-IV in different manner from that of Champakam
Dorairajan’s case and held that there is good deal of value for directive principles of state policy from
legal point of view and started to have harmonize between the two parts of constitution. The author
has made an attempt to show core area of interaction part-III and Part-IV in the above paragraphs of
this article.In the recent decisions of the apex and high courts there has been a changing trend by
making a harmonious construction between part-III and part-IV of the constitution making directive
principles of state policy justifiable and enforceable on par with fundamental rights of the
constitution.s