Class 11 School Polity: Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are two pillars of the Indian Constitution, each serving distinct yet complementary roles in shaping the country’s governance.

While Fundamental Rights safeguard individual liberties, DPSP guide the government towards socio-economic justice and welfare for all citizens.

Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are often viewed as complementary aspects of the Indian Constitution. While Fundamental Rights restrict the government from certain actions, Directive Principles encourage the government to undertake certain measures for the welfare of society as a whole.

Fundamental Rights primarily safeguard the rights of individuals, whereas Directive Principles aim at ensuring the well-being of society at large. However, conflicts can arise when the implementation of Directive Principles infringes upon the Fundamental Rights of citizens.

An example of such conflict arose during the government’s efforts to abolish the zamindari system, which faced opposition on the grounds of violating the right to property. Despite this opposition, the government amended the Constitution to prioritize the Directive Principles over individual interests. This sparked a legal battle, with the executive and judiciary holding differing views. The government argued that rights could be curtailed to uphold Directive Principles, while the court maintained that Fundamental Rights were sacrosanct and could not be limited even for the implementation of Directive Principles.

The contentious issue of the right to property played a significant role in this debate. Initially recognized as a Fundamental Right, the right to property underwent amendments over time, culminating in its removal from the list of Fundamental Rights through the 44th amendment in 1978. This change in status had implications for the nature and extent of the right to property.

However, the debate over constitutional amendments and their limits was settled through the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that certain basic features of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, are beyond the scope of parliamentary amendment. This decision laid the foundation for understanding the Constitution as a living document, a concept explored further in subsequent chapters.

Protecting Individual Rights vs. Ensuring Societal Well-being

Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, act as safeguards against government overreach, ensuring that individuals enjoy freedoms such as the right to equality, freedom of speech, and right to life and personal liberty.

On the other hand, DPSP, outlined in Part IV, lay down principles for the state to promote social justice, economic equality, and overall welfare of society.

Conflict Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

In some instances, the implementation of DPSP may conflict with individual Fundamental Rights. For example, when the government aimed to abolish the zamindari system, it faced opposition citing violation of the right to property.

This conflict underscores the challenge of balancing societal welfare with individual rights.

Legal Battles and Constitutional Amendments

The clash between Fundamental Rights and DPSP led to complex legal battles and debates between the executive and the judiciary. While the government argued that rights could be curtailed to implement DPSP, the courts upheld the sanctity of Fundamental Rights.

This disagreement reached a critical juncture with the Kesavananda Bharati case, where the Supreme Court affirmed that certain core principles of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, are inviolable and cannot be amended by Parliament.

Settling the Controversy

The Kesavananda Bharati case marked a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional history, clarifying the limits of parliamentary power in amending the Constitution.

The court’s ruling reaffirmed the supremacy of Fundamental Rights and ensured their protection from arbitrary amendments.

Implications for Constitutional Governance

The relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSP highlights the intricate balance between individual liberties and societal welfare in a democratic framework. While Fundamental Rights provide essential safeguards against state tyranny, DPSP guide the government’s responsibility towards creating a just and equitable society.

The resolution of conflicts between these two pillars reflects the resilience and adaptability of India’s constitutional democracy.

Conclusion

In essence, the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles underscores the complex interplay between individual freedoms and collective welfare in a democratic society.

While conflicts may arise, the Indian Constitution, through legal battles and landmark judgments, has established a framework that upholds the primacy of Fundamental Rights while striving to achieve the broader goals of socio-economic justice and inclusive development outlined in the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles- FAQs

What are Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy?

Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantees that protect individual liberties, such as the right to equality, freedom of speech, and right to life. Directive Principles of State Policy, on the other hand, are guidelines for the government to promote social justice, economic equality, and overall welfare of society.

How do Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles differ?

Fundamental Rights focus on protecting individual freedoms from government interference, while Directive Principles emphasize the government’s responsibility to ensure societal well-being through policies promoting social and economic justice.

Can Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles conflict with each other?

Yes, there can be instances where the implementation of Directive Principles may infringe upon Fundamental Rights, leading to conflicts. For example, measures aimed at socio-economic welfare may clash with individual property rights.

How are conflicts between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles resolved?

Conflicts between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are often addressed through legal battles and constitutional interpretations. The judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring that both pillars of the Constitution are upheld while striking a balance between individual rights and societal welfare.

What is the significance of the Kesavananda Bharati case in relation to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles?

The Kesavananda Bharati case was a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court affirmed the supremacy of Fundamental Rights and established limits on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. This case underscored the importance of upholding Fundamental Rights while considering the implementation of Directive Principles.