📘 Relations Between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights
🔹 1. Background: The Two Pillars of the Constitution
The Indian Constitution contains two important parts that represent two sides of the same coin:
-
Part III – Fundamental Rights (Articles 12–35)
➤ These ensure political democracy and protect individual liberty.
➤ They are justiciable, meaning they can be enforced by courts. -
Part IV – Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36–51)
➤ These aim to establish social and economic democracy.
➤ They are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced in courts.
👉 Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described the relation between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles (DPSPs) beautifully:
“The Directive Principles are like an instrument of instruction to the future governments; Fundamental Rights are the rights of the people against every government.”
Thus, the Constitution aims to balance individual freedom (FRs) with social justice (DPSPs).
🔹 Initial Conflict Between FRs and DPSPs
In practice, both FRs and DPSPs may sometimes conflict with each other.
Example:
-
If the government passes a law to redistribute land to achieve equality (Article 39(b)), it might violate the right to property (Article 19(1)(f), now repealed).
So, the core question since Independence was:
➡️ If there is a conflict, which one will prevail — Fundamental Rights or Directive Principles?
🔹 2. State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
🔸 Issue / Background:
-
The State of Madras issued a Communal G.O. (Government Order) reserving seats in educational institutions for different communities (e.g., Brahmins, Non-Brahmins, Muslims, etc.) to promote social justice.
-
This was done based on Article 46 (DPSP) – promotion of educational and economic interests of weaker sections.
-
A student named Champakam Dorairajan challenged this order saying it violated her Fundamental Right to equality (Article 15).
🔸 Supreme Court Judgment:
-
The Court held that Fundamental Rights prevail over DPSPs.
-
The Madras Communal G.O. was unconstitutional.
-
DPSPs are subordinate to Fundamental Rights.
🔸 Impact:
The Supreme Court in State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan (1951) said the Madras Government’s communal reservation order was unconstitutional because it violated Article 29(2) (no discrimination in educational institutions).
-
This meant — the State cannot reserve seats based only on caste or religion under existing provisions.
-
But — this created a big social and political issue, because backward classes lost their chance for reservation in education and jobs.
-
So, the Government of India reacted quickly and brought the First Constitutional Amendment (1951).
-
This amendment added Article 15(4) — which gave the State power to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), SCs, and STs.
👉 This marked the first clash between FRs and DPSPs.
🔹 3. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab (1967)
🔸 Issue / Background:
-
The Punjab Government passed a law under land reforms to impose landholding ceilings and distribute surplus land to landless farmers.
-
These laws were made to achieve DPSPs of economic justice (Article 39(b) & (c)).
The Punjab government had taken away some land from the Golaknath family under land reform laws, to implement DPSPs (socialist principles).
-
The family & other landlords challenged it, saying it violated their Fundamental Right to property (Article 19(1)(f)).
- Parliament had earlier amended the Constitution several times to protect such land reform laws under the Ninth Schedule.
🔸 Supreme Court Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Golaknath and gave a historic judgment:
-
Parliament cannot amend or take away Fundamental Rights.
-
Fundamental Rights were declared “sacrosanct and immutable” (untouchable).
-
DPSPs, though important, cannot override FRs.
-
-
This decision froze Parliament’s power to make social reform laws that affected FRs (like land reforms, nationalization, etc.).
👉 Impact: This created a deadlock between Parliament and Judiciary — Parliament couldn’t pass laws implementing DPSPs if they conflicted with FRs
Parliament responded with the 24th Amendment Act (1971).
🔹 4. 24th Amendment Act (1971)
🔸Here’s what happened 👇
-
After the Golaknath case, the Government felt Parliament’s powers were too restricted.
-
To overcome that judgment, the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 was passed.
-
It made two key changes:
-
Gave Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
-
Made it mandatory for the President to give assent to Constitutional Amendment Bills.
-
👉 Impact: Restored Parliament’s amending power — meaning Parliament could again make changes in FRs for implementing DPSPs or social reforms.
🔹 5. 25th Amendment Act (1971)
🔸 Here’s what happened 👇
-
Parliament wanted to give more strength to socialist DPSPs, especially Article 39(b) and 39(c) (distribution of resources and avoiding concentration of wealth).
-
So, the 25th Amendment added Article 31C, which said:
-
Any law made to implement Article 39(b) or (c) cannot be struck down for violating Article 14 (equality), 19 (freedom), or 31 (property).
-
Such laws cannot be questioned in court, even if someone says they don’t actually serve Article 39(b) or (c).
-
👉 Impact: This gave primacy to DPSPs (especially socialist ones) over certain FRs, reducing judicial review power..
🔹 6. Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
🔸 Issue / Background:
-
The Kerala Land Reforms Act (aimed at redistributing land) was challenged by a spiritual leader, Kesavananda Bharati, stating it violated his Fundamental Rights to property and religion.
-
This case questioned the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments.
The issue: Can Parliament amend even Fundamental Rights freely?
🔸 Supreme Court Judgment:
The Supreme Court gave a balanced and landmark judgment:
-
Yes, Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution.
-
But, it cannot alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
-
Judicial review is part of this basic structure, so Parliament cannot remove it.
-
The first part of Article 31C (protecting laws under 39(b),(c)) was valid,
but the second part (barring judicial review) was struck down.
-
👉 Impact: Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, which protects both FRs and DPSPs — ensuring balance and harmony between them.
🔸 Impact:
-
Established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
-
Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution became limited but protected.
🔹 7. 42nd Amendment Act (1976)
🔸 Here’s what happened 👇
-
During the Emergency, the Government wanted to give DPSPs total priority.
-
The 42nd Amendment expanded Article 31C protection —
-
Earlier it covered only laws implementing Article 39(b) & (c),
-
Now it covered all DPSPs — meaning any law made to implement any DPSP could not be challenged for violating FRs under Article 14, 19, or 31.
-
👉 Impact: This made DPSPs supreme over FRs, taking away citizens’ right to challenge many laws — effectively silencing judicial review.
🔹 8. Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980)
🔸Here’s what actually happened 👇
-
The Minerva Mills case challenged the 42nd Amendment.
-
The Supreme Court said:
-
The extension of Article 31C to all DPSPs was unconstitutional.
-
Parliament cannot destroy the balance between FRs and DPSPs — that balance is part of the Basic Structure.
-
However, the original Article 31C (protecting laws under 39(b) & (c)) remained valid.
-
-
The Court also said:
-
Giving unlimited power to Parliament destroys democracy.
-
Harmony, not supremacy, is the real goal between FRs and DPSPs.
-
👉 Impact: Re-established the supremacy of Fundamental Rights, but kept a small area (Articles 39(b), 39(c)) where DPSPs can prevail.
🔹 9. 44th Amendment Act (1978)
🔸Here’s what happened 👇
-
The Right to Property (Article 31) was creating many conflicts between FRs and land reforms (DPSPs).
-
So, the 44th Amendment removed Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights.
-
It was instead made a legal right under Article 300A.
👉 Impact: Reduced conflict between social justice laws (DPSPs) and property rights (FRs). Strengthened Parliament’s power to implement welfare policies.
🔹 10. Present Constitutional Position (After Minerva Mills)
Here’s the present position — in simple and clear words 👇
-
Fundamental Rights generally have supremacy over DPSPs.
-
But in special cases (laws implementing Article 39(b) and (c)), DPSPs can override FRs under Article 31C.
-
Parliament can amend FRs to implement DPSPs — but only if it does not destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
-
The Basic Structure includes:
-
Judicial Review
-
Balance between FRs and DPSPs
-
Rule of Law
-
Parliamentary Democracy
-
👉 In short:
Today, there’s no conflict — both are complementary.
FRs ensure individual liberty, DPSPs ensure social justice.
Together they form the core philosophy of the Indian Constitution — achieving a welfare state.
🔹 11. Overall Conclusion
-
The Constitution aims to harmonize individual liberty with the welfare of society.
-
The Judiciary and Parliament have both tried to maintain this balance.
-
Today, both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are seen as complementary, not contradictory.
⚖️ “Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are two wheels of the same chariot — both essential to move India toward social, economic, and political justice.”
🧠 Classroom Summary Table
| Year | Case / Amendment | Issue / Trigger | Court / Amendment Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1951 | Champakam Dorairajan | Communal reservation in education | FRs > DPSPs |
| 1967 | Golaknath | Land reform laws vs property rights | FRs can’t be amended |
| 1971 | 24th Amendment | Restored Parliament’s power | Amendment power clarified |
| 1971 | 25th Amendment | Protect socialist laws | Added Article 31C |
| 1973 | Kesavananda Bharati | Land reforms vs property | Basic Structure doctrine |
| 1976 | 42nd Amendment | Emergency & socialism | Extended 31C to all DPSPs |
| 1980 | Minerva Mills | Nationalization case | Balance restored; FRs prevail |
| 1978 | 44th Amendment | Property conflicts | Right to Property removed |