The Motilal Committee Report of clearly envisaged inalienable rights derived from the Bill of Rights enshrined in the American Constitution to be accorded to the individual. The central part of this controversy is the question pertaining to which part of the Constituion would have primacy in the case of conflict between Parts III and IV. In this brief paper, an attempt is made to ascertain and comprehend the constitutional relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles. The author seeks to map out three different perspectives of the judiciary and the legislature with regards to the 1 V.
The Motilal Committee Report of clearly envisaged inalienable rights derived from the Bill of Rights enshrined in the American Constitution to be accorded to the individual. Chandrachud to be the conscience of the Constitution.
The result is that the whole purpose behind the Constitution which was meant to be a dynamic Constitution leading to a certain goal step by step, is somewhat hampered and hindered by the static element being emphasized a little more than the dynamic element.
The state argued that it was obligated to provide for minimum wages in accordance with the Directive Principles.
The court held that the provisions of the Constitution were created to facilitate progress, as intended by the Preamble and it would be fallacious to assume that the Constitution provided only for rights and no duties. Furthermore, it was stated that although Part III encompasses Fundamental Rights, Part IV was essential in the governance of the country and were therefore supplementary to each other.
Although these judgments were more dynamic in comparison to the previous approach that the apex court had extended, it still did not satisfy the ideals of the legislature. Reading these provisions independently would be impossible, as that would render them incomplete and thereby inaccessible. However, this was not settled as law yet and there was another hiccup in the subsequent judgments.
In Sanjeev Coke Mfg. The court thus upheld the Coking Coal Mines Nationalization Act, by granting greater importance to Directive Principles than Fundamental Rights in accordance with Article 31C that provided for the same.
It was stated that the purpose of the two distinct chapters was to grant the Government enough latitude and flexibility to implement the principles depending on the time and circumstances.
It can therefore be construed to be well settled that a harmonious interpretation of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is quintessential in ensuring social welfare and the apex court is promoting the same view after much deliberation.
The courts off late have played a proactive role in facilitating socio-economic development at a macro level which requires compromise on a micro level. AIR SC May 18, · “the fundamental rights and directive principles constitute the “conscience of the constitution” there is no antithesis between the fundamental rights and directive principles and one supplements the other.” “both parts III (fundamental rights) and IV (directive principle) have to be balanced and a harmonized.
State of Kerala v. If the court finds that a law in question seeks to give effect to a fundamental duty, it may consider such law to be reasonable in relation to Article 14(equality before law) or Article 19 (six freedoms) and thus save such law from unconstitutionality.
But, as of now Article 39(b) and 39(c) can take precedence over Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 14 and Article A survey of historical development in relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are as follows.
Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India The Preamble of the Constitution of India – India declaring itself as a country. The Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties are sections of the Constitution of India that prescribe the fundamental obligations of the states to its citizens and the duties and the rights of the citizens to the .
Relation between DPSP AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
Submitted To timberdesignmag.com Nair. [School of Law] Submitted By Soumik Purkayastha & Shubham Pratap Singh Rathore Semester III Batch 2 Roll No- & Sap id & BBA LLB(timberdesignmag.com) Submitted On- 15th November, UPES _____ [Email address] RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DPSP AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
Sep 17, · Therefore, the Fundamental Rights, justiciable in nature, are merged in Part III and the Directive Principles, non-justiciable in .