Write a critical essay on Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

Question: Write a critical essay on the Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.[BJS 1986]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Write a critical essay on the Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.]

Answer

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in the Part III and Part IV of the Constitution of India respectively together comprise the human rights of an individual.

Part III deals with Fundamental Rights without which a human being cannot survive in a dignified manner in a civilized society. Fundamental rights are known as “basic rights”. They are also called individual rights or negative rights” and impose negative obligations on the state not to encroach on individual liberty.

Part IV deals with Directive Principles of State Policy. They are positive rights and impose positive obligations on the state to not only acknowledge the Fundamental Rights of an individual but also to achieve certain socio-economic goals.

Regarding the constitutional relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, the primary distinction between the two relates to their enforceability in the court of law. Part III; Fundamental rights of the Constitution are enforceable against the state but Article 37 expressly provided that Part IV; directive principles are not enforceable in a court.

In the landmark judgment of State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam [[1951] SCR 525], Justice Das stated that directive principles were expressly made unenforceable by Article 37 and therefore could not override the fundamental rights found in Part III, which were enforceable pursuant to Article 32. The court opined that fundamental rights were sacrosanct and could not be curtailed by Directive Principles and asserted that the directive principles although important in their own respect were required to adhere to the Fundamental Rights and in the case of conflict Part III would prevail over Part IV.

However, in later decisions, the courts were of the view that Directive principles and fundamental rights cannot be isolated because there is an interrelation between the two. And to achieve the balance between the two, the court needs to resort to harmonious construction The Supreme Court in the State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas [(1976) 2 SCC 310], ruled that the Directive Principles and Fundamental rights should be construed in harmony with each other and every attempt should be made by the court to resolve any apparent inconsistency between them.

The Fundamental right represents civil and political rights and the directive principles embody social and economic rights. Merely because the directive principles are non-justiciable by the judicial process does not mean that they are of subordinate importance. Therefore, it is the duty of the state to achieve the right amount of balance in the wider interests of the public. The Supreme Court ruled this position in R. Coelho v. State of T.N. [(1999) 7 SCC 580] SC and said that it is the responsibility of the government to adopt a middle path between individual liberty (Fundamental Rights) and public good (Directive Principles).

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
3. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-II
4. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-X