Download - Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
1/26
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW
UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA
RELATION BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE
PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-I
(Mr. A. NAGESWARA RAO)
SUBMITTED BY:
SHUBHAM RAJ
ROLL !"#$##"
SEMESTER- V
1
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
2/26
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I feel highly elated to work on the “R%&'*+ %%%+ F+/'0%+'& R123 '+/ Dr%45%
Pr+46&%3 *7 S'% P*&489 under the guidance of the faculty of C*+3*+'& L', Mr. A.
N'1%3'r' R'*. I am very grateful to him for his exemplary guidance.
I have tried my best to pave the way for bringing more luminosity to this topic. Doing
the project was an experience where the knowledge was my best takeaway.
I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finishing this project
within the limited time.
Once again, thanks to all who helped me in completing this project work.
hanking you
S22'0 R'.
2
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
3/26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE P'1% +0%r
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT "!
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF CASES
ABSTRACT
";
"<
"=
#. AIMS OF THE STUDY ">
!. SIGNIFICANCE ? BENEFITS ">
$. SCOPE OF THE STUDY ">
;. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ">
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
4/26
!I" !ll India "eporter
!rt. !rticle
!rts. !rticles
#tc. #tcetra
Id. Ibid
$% $upreme %ourt
$%% $upreme %ourt %ases
v. &ersus
&ol. &olume
www 'orld 'ide 'eb
4
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
5/26
LIST OF CASES
$tate of (adras v. %hampakam Dorairajan, !I" )*+) $% -
anif /ureshi v. $tate of 0ihar !I" )*+1 $% 23)
(umbai 4angar $abha v. !bdulbhai, !I" )*2- $% )5++
In re 4erala #ducation 0ill, !I" )*+1 $% *+-6 )*+* $%" **+.
Orient weaving mills v 7.O.I., !I" )*13 $% *1
$tate of 0ombay v. 8. 9. 0alsara !I" )*+) $% 3:
0ijoy cotton (ills v. $tate of !jmer, !I" )*++ $% 33
%handra 0havan 0oarding and ;odging, 0angalore v. $tate of (ysore, !I" )*2: $% :5 at
:+:6 olak 9ath v. $tate of ?unjab, !I" )*-2 $% )-53
4esavananda 0harti v. $tate of 4erala, !I" )*23 $% )5-) at )-5)6
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
6/26
%hameli $ingh v. state of 7ttar ?radesh, !I" )**- $% ):+)6
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
7/26
ABSTRACT
Both the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles were of common origin and both
of these had common objective. These have been enshrined in our Constitution to implement
the ideals achieve the goals enshrined in the preamble and to establish the welfare state. The
Fundamental Rights have been enshrined in part III from !rticles "# to $% and Directive
Principles of state polic& in part I' from !rticle $( to %".
!lthough these two appear in the Constitution as distinct entities it was the !ssembl& that
separated these) the leaders of the freedom struggle had drawn no distinction between the
positive and negative obligations of the state. Both t&pes of rights had developed as a
common demand products of national and social revolutions of their almost inseparable
intertwining and of the character of Indian polit& itself.
7
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
8/26
#. AIMS OF THE STUDY
Over the course of this project, the researcher aims to find out the actual relationship between
8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples of $tate ?olicy. he researcher endeavors to
find out why are the 8undamental "ights given more preference whereas, the Directive
?rinciples are not even enforceable at law, with the help of pre decided case laws.
!. SIGNIFICANCE ? BENEFITS
!fter going through this research work, one will be able to understand the relation between
the 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples of $tate ?olicy, why 8undamental "ights are
preferred over Directive ?rinciples and why are the Directive ?rinciples not enforceable at
law. !lso, the readers will get through the landmark judgments related to the topic.
$. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
he research work is limited only to the provisions of 8undamental "ights and the Directive
?rinciples of $tate ?olicy.
;. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
he methodology that will be used by the researcher is nonAempirical. he researcher would
rely primarily on secondary sources of data in the form of books, articles, journals, reports
and Internet resources. he researcher would follow a descriptive style throughout the project
while the analytical style would also be used wherever reBuired. he arvard 0luebook
%itation >uide will be followed.
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
9/26
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 8 J. N. PANDEY: In the Indian %onstitution a
successful attempt has been made to bring about a synthesis between the concepts of
individual freedom and social justice. It is for the reason that the attainment of social
economic and political along with the liberty and eBuality of the citiens is enshrined in the
preamble as the objective of the constitution.
INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BY M. P. JAIN: It is an authoritative and
comprehensive study on the constitution of India. he book critically examines the salient
features of this most uniBue of constitutions. he book provides the relevant facts of
important cases and a summary of the law laid down in them, have been given in the body of
the text so as to enable the readers to better understand the subject. he book provides the
complete text of crucial documents on the historical development of the Indian %onstitution.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY V N SHUKLA: he book includes the %onstitutional
!mendments and $upreme %ourt decisions on issues as eBuality and affirmative action
education womenEs right and principles of constitutionalism and judicial review.
"=. INTRODUCTION
“$ince the seventeenth century, if not earlier, human thinking has been veering round
to the theory that man has certain essential, basic, natural and inalienable rights or freedoms and it is the function of the state, in order that human liberty may be
preserved, human personality developed. !nd an effective social and democratic life
prompted, to recognie these rights and freedoms and allow them a free playF)
0oth, the 8undamental "ights and the Directive ?rinciples of $tate ?olicy, have a common
grounding. In fact both these set of rights owe their origin to the freedom struggle waged by
the Indians against the 0ritish "egime to protect Indian culture, ?hilosophy and system. he
0ritish system caused disintegration of all kinds of Indian system, society and economy. his
state of affairs led to the thinking in the minds of the Indians that the socio ‐economic
conditions of the people cannot be improved unless there is change in >overnment and its
!dministrative set up. It led the public to realie that the solution lies in ?olitical freedom and
Indianisation of 9ational set up. ence, to fulfill the pledges and commitments, hopes and
aspirations of pre‐independence era, and “to implement the ideals and achieve the goals
enshrined in the preamble to our constitution and to establish a welfare state, 8undamental
1( ? @!I9, I 9DI!9 %O9$I7IO9!; ;!', p. 1*2
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
10/26
"ights and the Directive ?rinciples of state policy have been provided for in the constitution
he 8undamental "ights have been enshrined in part III from !rticles ) to 3+ and Directive
?rinciples of state policy in part I&, from !rticle 3- to +).F3
0efore going to the relationship between the 8undamental "ights and the Directive ?rinciples
let us discuss about the two in briefG5
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: 8undamental "ights have been incorporated in the ?artA III of
the %onstitution. hese are the necessary conseBuences of the declaration in the preamble to
the constitution that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a
sovereign democratic republic and to secure to all its citiens justice, social and economic,
and political6 liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship6 eBuality of status and
opportunity.+ ! person can claim 8undamental "ights against the state subject to the state
imposing some permissible restrictions in the interest of social control. he ground for
imposing these restrictions on 8undamental "ights is expressly mentioned in the %onstitution
itself and, therefore, these rights can be abridged only to the extent laid down. -
he 8undamental "ights in Indian %onstitution have been grouped under seven heads as
followsG
i. "ight to *+ualit& comprising !rticles )5A)1.
ii. "ight to Freedom comprising !rticles )*A which guarantee several freedoms.
iii. "ight against *,ploitation consists of !rticles 3 and 5.
iv. "ight to Freedom of Religion is guaranteed under !rticles +A1.
v. %ultural and #ducational rights are guaranteed by !rticles * and 3:.
vi. "ight to Propert& which was guaranteed under !rticle 3) is now very much diluted.
2Dr. >okulesh $harma, !n #valuation of "elationship between 8undamental "ights and Directive
?rinciples 7nder %onstitution, available at httpGHHdrgokuleshsharma.comHpdfH!9
:#&!;7!IO9O8:"#;!IO9A$I?:0#'##9:879D!(#9!;$
:"I>$.pdf last visited $eptember , :)+.
3/7##9%J ?#"#I"!, InterArelation 0etween 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples of $tate
?olicy, p. 3 available at httpGHHwww.grkarelawlibrary.yolasite.comHresourcesH;;(A%onstA)A
/ueency.pdf last visited $eptember , :)+
4-upra note
5-upra note ) at *:)
6-upra note ) at )2
10
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
11/26
vii. "ight to Constitutional Remedies is secured by !rticles 3A3+.2
DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES: hese have been incorporated in the ?art I& of the
%onstitution6 the idea of incorporating the Directive ?rinciples into our %onstitution has been
borrowed for the Irish %onstitution. hese are of the positive aspect against the state and have
been held to supplement the 8undamental "ights in achieving welfare state.1 he Directive
?rinciples are the ideals which the 7nion and the $tate governments must keep in mind while
they formulate policy or pass a law. hey lay down certain social and economic programme
for modern democratic state.* he Directive ?rinciples are categorised into three following
groupsG
!llahabad, :)+=
10 %entral Inland 'ater ransport %orporation v. 0rojo 9ath >anguli,
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
12/26
endeavour to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and
professional management of %oAoperative $ocieties. )3 !nd, !rticle 51A! reBuires the state to
protect and improve the forest and wildlife.)5
>. COMMON ROOTS BUT DIFFERENT BRANCHES
!lthough 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples appear in the %onstitution as distinct
entities, it was the !ssembly that separate them6 the leaders of the freedom struggle had
drawn no distinction between the positive and negative obligations of the states. 0oth typesof rights had developed as a common demand, products of national and social revolutions, of
their almost inseparable intertwining and of the character of Indian polity itself. he Directive
?rinciples, though fundamental in the governance of the country, are not enforceable by any
court in terms of the express provisions of !rticle 32 of the %onstitution, while 8undamental
"ights are enforceable by the $upreme %ourt and the igh %ourt in terms of the express
provisions of !rticle 3 and - of the %onstitution. his does not, however, mean or imply
any dichotomy between the two. Its social aspect can, however, be amended only by
legislation to carry out the objectives of the Directive ?rinciples of state policy.)+
Directive ?rinciples are in the nature of instruments of instructions to the government of the
day to do something positive. hey are not justiciable or enforceable in courts. On the other
hand, the 8undamental "ights are enforceable in the courts under !rts 3 and - of the
constitution and hence are justiciable.)-
13 Id at 5++
14 Id
15 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples, lawteacher.net, available at
httpGHHwww.lawteacher.netHfreeAlawAessaysHadministrativeAlawHfundamentalArightsAandAdirectiveA
principlesAadministrativeAlawAessay.php last visitedA $ept. +, :)+.
16 " !90I" $I9>, %O9$I7IO9!; ;!', p. 33
12
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
13/26
During the proclamation of emergency the operation of the 8undamental "ights
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
14/26
8undamental rights are enforceable by the courts as per the !rticle 3 and the court are bound
to declare void any law that is inconsistent with the fundamental rights whereas, the directive
principles are not so enforceable by the courts nor can the courts declare as void any law
which otherwise is valid on the grounds that it violates the Directive ?rinciples. !ccording to
!rticle 32 the Directive ?rinciples, though they are fundamental in the governance of country
and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making law, but they are
expressly made nonAjusticiable.
he Buestion of relationship between the Directive ?rinciples and the 8undamental "ights has
caused some difficulty, and the judicial attitude has undergone transformation on this
Buestion over time. 'hat if a law enacted to enforce a Directive ?rinciple infringes a
8undamental "ightC On this Buestion, the judicial view has veered round from
irreconcilability to integration between the 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples and
in some of the more recent cases, to giving primacy to the Directive ?rinciples. Initially, the
courts adopted a strict and literal legal position in this respect. he $upreme %ourt adopting
the literal interpretative approach to !rt. 32 ruled that a Directive ?rinciple could not override
a 8undamental "ight, and that in case of conflict between the two, the 8undamental "ight
would prevail over the Directive ?rinciple.:
his point was settled by the $upreme %ourt in -tate of /adras v. Champa0am Dorairajan,)
where governments order in conflict with !rt. *
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
15/26
appropriate writs, orders or directions under article 3. he chapter on 8undamental "ights is
sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any legislative or executive act or order, except to
the extent provided in the appropriate article in part III. he Directive ?rinciples of state
policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the chapter on 8undamental "ights.F
In course of time, a perceptible change came over the judicial attitude on this Buestion. he
$upreme %ourtEs view as regards the interplay of Directive ?rinciples and 8undamental
"ights underwent a change. he $upreme %ourt started giving a good deal of value to the
Directive ?rinciples from a legal point of view and started arguing for harmoniing the twoA
the 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples.
he $upreme %ourt came to adopt the view that although Directive ?rinciples, as such, were
legally nonAenforceable, nevertheless, while interpreting a statute, the courts could look for
light to the “lode starF of the Directive ?rinciples. “'here two judicial choices are available,
the construction in conformity with the social philosophyF of the Directive ?rinciples has
preference. he courts therefore could interpret a statute so as to implement Directive
?rinciples instead of reducing them to mere theoretical ideas. his is on the assumptions that
the law makers are not completely unmindful or obvious of the Directive ?rinciples.
8urther the courts also adopted the view that in determining the scope and ambit of 8undamental "ights, the Directive ?rinciples should not be completely ignored and that the
courts should adopt the principles of harmonious construction and attempt to give effect to
both as far as possible. 8or example, as early as )*+1, in 1erala *ducation Bill ,3 D!$, %.@.,
while affirming the primacy of 8undamental "ights over the Directive ?rinciples, Bualified
the same by pleading for a harmonious interpretation of the two. e observed “nevertheless,
in determining the scope and ambit of the 8undamental "ights relied upon by or on behalf of
any person or body, the court may not entirely ignore these Directive ?rinciples of state
policy laid down in part I& of the constitution but should adopt the principle of harmonious
construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as possible.F5
22 (umbai 4angar $abha v. !bdulbhai, !I" )*2- $% )5++
23 In re 4erala #ducation 0ill, !I" )*+1 $% *+-6 )*+* $%" **+.
24 !I" )*+1 $% at *--A-26 )*+* $%" **+.
15
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
16/26
'ithout, therefore, making the Directive ?rinciples justifiable as such, the courts began to
implement the values underlying these principles to the extent possible. he $upreme %ourt
began to assert that there is “no conflict on the wholeF between the 8undamental "ights and
the Directive ?rinciples. Khey are complementary and supplementary to each other.F+
$ince then, the judicial attitude has become more positive and affirmative towards Directive
?rinciples, and both 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples have come to be regarded
as coAeBual. here is in effect a judicial tendency to interpret 8undamental "ights in the light
of, and so as to promote, the values underlying Directive ?rinciples.
his aspect of the Directive ?rinciples was stressed upon by the $upreme %ourt in 2ola0
3ath.- he $upreme %ourt there emphasied that the 8undamental "ights and Directive
?rinciples formed an “integrated schemeF which was elastic enough to respond to the
changing needs of the society.
In /d. 4anif 5ureshi v. -tate of Bihar #6 the petitioner claimed that the sacrifice of cows on
the occasion of 0akrid was an essential part of his religion and therefore the state law
forbidding the slaughter of cows was violative of his right to practice religion, the court
rejected his argument and held that a state law that prohibits the slaughter of cows and other
cattle capable of work has been upheld because it was meant to give effect to article 51 of the
%onstitution $upreme %ourt held that enactment of prohibition of cow slaughter !ct
In 7rient weaving mills v 8.7.I.#9 exemption was granted for excise duty in small scale
industries. his was challenged on the grounds that the exemption was given only to the
small scale industries and not others. he $upreme %ourt held that !rticle 53 applies because
for the development of rural areas and also because it is the duty of government to promote
small scale industries.
!ccording to >rain &ille !ustin, the fundamental rights and the directive principles are the
conscience of our constitution.
25 %handra 0havan 0oarding and ;odging, 0angalore v. $tate of (ysore, !I" )*2: $% :5 at
:+:6 olak 9ath v. $tate of ?unjab, !I" )*-2 $% )-53
27 !I" )*+1 $% 23)
28 !I" )*13 $% *1
16
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
17/26
In 1esavananda Bharti v. -tate of 1erala#: #>D# and (74#"@I,@@., observedG
“he 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples constitute the “conscience of the
constitutionF there is no antithesis between the 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples
and one supplements the other.F
$#;! and >"O", @@., observed in their judgment G
“0oth parts III
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
18/26
the %onstitution. It was held that the fixation of wages for labourers did not violate freedom
of trade under the !rt. )* goes out.
his amendment considerably enhanced the importance of D?$?s. he object of the
amendment stated in the object was that, this was enacted to get over difficulties placed in the
way of giving effect to the D?$?s.
he article 3) % was again amended in 5 nd amendment )*2-. his amendment further
widened the scope of article 3) % so as to cover all the D?$?s. 8or this purpose, the
amendment substituted the words, “!ll or any principles laid down in part I&F for words “the
principles specified clause
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
19/26
he 8undamental "ights “are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end.F he end
is specified in Directive ?rinciples. On the other hand, the goals set out in Directive
?rinciples are to be achieved without abrogating the 8undamental "ights. “It is in this senseF
that 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples “together constitute the core of our
constitution and combine to form its conscience. !nything that destroys the balance between
the two parts will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of our
constitution.F
In -anjeev Co0e /anufacturing Co. v. Bharat Coo0ing Coal ?td .31 the $% expressed doubt on
th validity of its decision in (inerva (ills %ase. 0ut it has not overruled expressly by the $%
in this case and hence the judgment of $% in (inerva (ills case is valid.
In -tate of Tamil 3adu v. ? !bu 1avur Bai ,3* while upholding the validity of the state law,
enacted for nationaliing transport service in the state on the ground that it was enacted for
implementing the D?$?s contained in !ticle 3*
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
20/26
civil and political rights and the Directive ?rinciples embody social and economic rights.
(erely because the Directive ?rinciples are nonAjusticiable by the judicial process does not
mean that they are of subordinate importance.
he Directive ?rinciples and 8undamental "ights are not now regarded as exclusionary of
each other. hey are regarded as supplementary and complementary to each other. In course
of time, the judicial attitude has veered from irreconcilability to integration of the
8undamental "ights and the Directive ?rinciples. he Directive ?rinciples which have been
declared to be “fundamentalF in the governance of the country cannot be isolated from
8undamental "ights. he Directive ?rinciples have got to be read into the 8undamental
"ights. !n example of such relationship is furnished by the “right to educationF.
he $upreme %ourt has argued in 7lga Tellis># that since the Directive ?rinciples are
fundamental in the governance of the country they must, therefore, be regarded as eBually
fundamental to the understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of
8undamental "ights.
In Dalmia Cement>$ the $upreme %ourt has emphasied that the core of the commitment of
the constitution to the social revolution through rule of law lies in effectuation of the
8undamental "ights and directory principles as supplementary and complimentary to eachother. he preamble to the constitution, 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciplesAthe
trinityAare the conscience of the constitution.
It has now become a judicial strategy to read 8undamental "ights along with Directive
?rinciples with a view to define the scope and ambit of the former. 0y and large this
assimilative strategy has resulted in broadening, and giving greater depth and dimension to,
and even creating more rights for the people over and above the expressly stated,
8undamental "ights. !t the same time, the values underlying the Directive ?rinciples have
also become enforceable by riding on the back of the 8undamental "ights. On the whole, a
survey of the caseAlaw shows that the courts have used Directive ?rinciples not to restrict, but
rather to expand, the ambit of the 8undamental "ights.
42 Olga ellis v. 0ombay (unicipal %orpn., !I" )*1- $% )*56
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
21/26
he theme that “8undamental "ights are but a means to achieve the goal indicated in the
Directive ?rinciplesF and the 8undamental "ights must be construed in the light of the
Directive ?rinciplesF has been advocated by the $upreme %ourt time and again.
hus, the integrative approach towards 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples, or that
“8undamental "ights must be construed in the light of the directive principleF has been
advocated by the $upreme %ourt time and again.
hus, the integrative approach towards 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples, 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 8undamental "ights along with Directive ?rinciples with a
view to define the scope and the ambit of the former. (ostly, Directive ?rinciples have been
used to broaden, and to give depth to some 8undamental "ights and to imply some more
rights there from for the people over and above what are expressly stated in the 8undamental
"ights. hat biggest beneficiary of this approach has been !rt ). 0y reading !rt. ) with the
Directive ?rinciples, the $upreme %ourt has derived there from a bundle of rights. o name a
few of theseG
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
22/26
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
23/26
the 8undamental "ights contained in !rts. )5, )* and 3). he $upreme %ourt held the
!mendment valid in the 1esavananda case%". he court emphasied that there is no
disharmony between the Directive ?rinciples and the 8undamental "ights as they supplement
each other in aiming at the same goal of bringing about a social revolution and the
establishment of a welfare state, which is envisaged in the preamble. he courts therefore
have a responsibility to so interpreting the constitution as to ensure implementation of the
Directive ?rinciples and to harmonie the social objectives underlying therein with individual
rights. @7$I%# (!#' went farthest in attributing to the directive principle, a
significant place in the constitutional scheme. !ccording to himG
In building up a just social order it is sometimes imperative that the 8undamental "ights
should be subordinate to Directive ?rinciples. #conomic goals have an uncontestable claim
for priority over ideological ones on the ground that excellence comes only after existence. It
is only if men exist that there can be 8undamental "ights.F
e thus came to the conclusions, as regards art. 3)%, that “if parliament, in its capacity as an
amending body, decides to amend the constitution in such a way as to take away or abridge a
8undamental "ight to give priority value to the moral claims embodied in part I& of the
constitution
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
24/26
“by enacting 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples which are negative and positive,
obligations of then states, the constituent assembly made it the responsibility of the
government to adopt a middle path between individual liberty and public good. 8undamental
"ights and Directive ?rinciples have to be balanced. he balanced can be tilted in favour of
the public good. he balance, however, cannot be overturned by completely overriding
individual liberty. his balance is an essential feature of the constitution.F
On the whole, a survey of the case law shows that the courts have used Directive ?rinciples
not so much to restrict 8undamental "ights as to expand their scope and content.
CONCLUSION
he interArelation doctrine between 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples of state
policy is not only theoretical but also practical and rewarding. 8undamental "ights provide
political freedom to the citiens by protecting them against the excessive stste action while
Directive ?rinciples are to secure social and economic freedom by appropriated action both
are inspiration of reform legislation.+3 he recent trend in this regard, is that though the
Directive ?rinciples are unenforceable, and a $tate cannot be compelled to undertake a
legislation to implement a Directive, the $upreme %ourt has been issuing directions to the
$tate to implement the ?rinciples. ence various aspects of ?art I& are being enforced by thecourts indirectly. oday thus, the Directive ?rinciples no longer remain merely a moral
obligation of the >overnment.+5
In the recent judgments the court has declared many directives as 8undamental "ights and
have enforced them. #Bual pay for eBual work, ?rotection of children from exploitation,
!bolition of child labour in haardous works, 8ree and compulsory education of children
below the age of )5 years
available at httpGHHwww.legalservicesindia.comHarticleHarticleHrelationAbetweenApartAiiiAandApartAivAofA
constitutionAofAindiaAchangingAtrendsA):+1A).html last visited $eptember *, :)3
54 -upra not 3- at -
55 -upra note * at 5-+.
24
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
25/26
to establish harmony between 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples, since
maintenance of harmony between them is a basic feature to the constitution. +-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
). ( ? @!I9, I 9DI!9 %O9$I7IO9!; ;!', p. 1*2 ! D!$ 0!$7, I 9"OD7%IO9 O # %O9$I7IO9 O8 I 9DI!, :th edition,
;exis 9exis 0utter 'orths $wadha, 9agpur.
ARTICLES
). Dr. >okulesh $harma, !n #valuation of "elationship between 8undamental "ights
and Directive ?rinciples 7nder %onstitution, available at
httpGHHdrgokuleshsharma.comHpdfH!9:#&!;7!IO9O8:"#;!IO9A$I?
:0#'##9:879D!(#9!;$:"I>$.pdf last visited $eptember ,
:)+.
. /7##9%J ?#"#I"!, InterArelation 0etween 8undamental "ights and Directive
?rinciples of $tate ?olicy, p. 3 available at
httpGHHwww.grkarelawlibrary.yolasite.comHresourcesH;;(A%onstA)A/ueency.pdf last
visited $eptember , :)+
3. @agadish, "elation 0etween ?art III and ?art I& of the IndiaA %hanging trend
-
8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs
26/26
STATUTES
). he %onstitution of India, )*+:
WEBLIOGRAPHY
). httpGHHwww.lawteacher.netHfreeAlawAessaysHadministrativeAlawHfundamentalArightsA
andAdirectiveAprinciplesAadministrativeAlawAessay.php
. httpGHHdrgokuleshsharma.comHpdfH!9:#&!;7!IO9O8:"#;!IO9$I?
:0#'##9:879D!(#9!;$:"I>$.pdf
3. httpGHHwww.grkarelawlibrary.yolasite.comHresourcesH;;(A%onstA)A/ueency.pdf
4. httpGHHwww.legalservicesindia.comHarticleHarticleHrelationAbetweenApartAiiiAandApartAivA
ofAconstitutionAofAindiaAchangingAtrendsA):+1A).html