The conflicts between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in India's Constitution have been pivotal in shaping the legal landscape and the balance of power between individual rights and societal welfare. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting these conflicts through landmark cases, while amendments have sought to bridge the gap between these two pillars of Indian democracy.
Champakam Dorairajan v the State of Madras (1951)
This case marked an early clash between Fundamental Rights and DPSP. Champakam Dorairajan challenged Madras' order, which reserved seats in medical colleges for various communities. The Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights, being justiciable, hold precedence over DPSP, which are not enforceable in a court of law. This decision highlighted the need for a delicate balance between individual liberties and societal goals.
Golaknath v the State of Punjab (1967)
In Golaknath v the State of Punjab, the Supreme Court took a strong stance by declaring that Fundamental Rights are beyond the reach of Parliament for amendments aimed at implementing DPSP. This case emphasized the supremacy of Fundamental Rights and the limited scope of legislative interference in their protection.
Kesavananda Bharati v the State of Kerala (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharati case marked a significant shift in the judiciary's approach. Overruling Golaknath, the Supreme Court held that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its "Basic Structure," which includes Fundamental Rights. This decision introduced the concept of constitutional supremacy, ensuring the protection of core principles while allowing for constitutional evolution.
Minerva Mills v the Union of India (1980)
In Minerva Mills v the Union of India, the Supreme Court reiterated the limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. While affirming the ability to amend, it emphasized that the "Basic Structure" must remain intact. This case solidified the notion that while flexibility exists for constitutional amendments, certain foundational principles remain inviolable.
Associated Acts and Amendments
The enactment of laws and constitutional amendments has played a crucial role in implementing DPSP while upholding Fundamental Rights:
- 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002): This amendment introduced Article 21-A, guaranteeing free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 years. It reflected the commitment to DPSP while aligning with the right to education as a Fundamental Right.
- Prevention of Atrocities Act (1989): Aimed at protecting scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, this act underscores the state's duty to safeguard vulnerable communities, balancing societal welfare with individual rights.
- Minimum Wages Act (1948) and Equal Remuneration Act (1976): These laws address economic justice by ensuring fair wages and equal pay for equal work, aligning with both DPSP and Fundamental Rights related to labor rights and equality.
- 73rd and 74th Amendments (1991 & 1992): Granting constitutional status to Panchayati Raj institutions, these amendments empower local self-government, bridging the gap between governance at the grassroots level and constitutional principles.
- Legal Aid and Judicial Reforms: Measures such as compulsory legal aid for the impoverished accused and the separation of the judiciary from the executive demonstrate efforts to uphold Fundamental Rights while promoting social justice.
- Foreign Policy Considerations: DPSP's influence extends to India's foreign policy, emphasizing peace, disarmament, and global cooperation, showcasing a harmonization between national interest and international principles.
Conclusion
The conflicts between Fundamental Rights and DPSP have been navigated through legal interpretations, landmark cases, and legislative measures. While Fundamental Rights ensure individual freedoms, DPSP guide state action towards societal welfare. The evolution of constitutional principles, as seen in legal cases and amendments, reflects India's commitment to a balanced approach that upholds both individual rights and collective progress
