Directive Principles of State Policy vs Fundamental Rights: Harmonisation or Conflict

Abstract

The Indian Constitution embodies a unique equilibrium between individual liberty and collective welfare through its Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV). While Fundamental Rights are enforceable and ensure civil and political freedoms, Directive Principles articulate the socio-economic goals of governance. The tension between enforceable rights and non-enforceable principles has shaped constitutional jurisprudence since independence. Landmark judgments, including Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973)[1] and Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980),[2] established that Parts III and IV are complementary and form the basic structure of the Constitution. This article critically analyses the evolution of the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, examining judicial interpretations, constitutional amendments, and contemporary relevance. It concludes that harmony between liberty and social justice remains central to India’s constitutional philosophy.

Keywords: Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, Indian Constitution, Judicial Interpretation, Basic Structure Doctrine.

I. Introduction

The Constitution of India is a living document that reconciles liberty with social justice. This foundational tension between individual rights and collective welfare manifests most prominently in the relationship between Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III and the Directive Principles of State Policy outlined in Part IV.

II. Fundamental Rights: Constitutional Framework and Judicial Expansion

Part III (Articles 12–35) of the Constitution enshrines Fundamental Rights that are justiciable and form the cornerstone of individual liberty in India.

III. Directive Principles of State Policy: Constitutional Philosophy and Scope

Part IV (Articles 36–51) sets out the Directive Principles, which represent the socio-economic aspirations of the framers and guide legislative and executive action toward building a welfare state.

IV. Judicial Conflict and the Move Toward Harmonisation

In State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan (1951),[3] the Supreme Court struck down caste-based reservations, prioritizing Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles and establishing an initial hierarchy that would later evolve.

V. Areas of Continuing Tension

Despite the harmonisation doctrine, conflicts persist in practice, particularly in areas where individual property rights intersect with state obligations to pursue distributive justice.

VI. Comparative Constitutional Insights

Ireland: The Indian framers borrowed the DPSP model from Article 45 of the 1937 Irish Constitution, though the implementation and judicial treatment have diverged significantly in both jurisdictions.

VII. Contemporary Relevance

Directive Principles continue to influence legislation such as MGNREGA, RTE, and NFSA, demonstrating their ongoing vitality in shaping India’s legislative landscape.

VIII. Conclusion

The evolution of Indian constitutional law reflects a journey from conflict to harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. This harmonisation represents not a compromise but a sophisticated constitutional synthesis that recognizes the interdependence of liberty and social justice in building a democratic, egalitarian society.

Bibliography

[1] Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
[2] Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625.
[3] State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan (1951) SCR 525.
[4] Golaknath v State of Punjab (1967) 2 SCR 762.
[5] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 2 SCR 621.
[6] Francis Coralie Mullin v Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608.
[7] Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217.
[8] M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395.
[9] Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom (2001) 1 SA 46 (CC).
[10] M.K. Ranjitsinh v Union of India (2023) SCC OnLine SC 452.