Facts about directive principles of state policy (Brief Notes)
- 1. FACTS ABOUT DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY 1. A new Directive Principe Of State Policy under Article-38 was added by the 46th Amendment Act of 1978, which requires the state to minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities. 2. The 86th Amendment Act of 2002, changed the subject matter of Article-45 and made elementary education a Fundamental Rights under Article-21A. The amended directive requires the state to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of 6 years. 3. A new Directive Principle Of State Policy under Article-43B was added by the 97th Amendment Act of 2011 relating to co- operative societies. It requires the state to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control, and professional management of co-operative societies. 4. The Indian Constitution under Article-37 makes it clear that the Directive Principle of State Policy are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. CRITICISM OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE OF STATE POLICY: The following reasons are responsible for the criticism of the Directive Principle Of State Policy. 1. It has a legal force. 2. It is illogically arranged. 3. It is conservative. 4. It may produce constitutional conflict between the center and the state. WHAT IS THE CONFLICT BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLE OF STATE POLICY: With the help of four court cases given below, we can understand the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of State Policy.
- 2. Champakam Dorairajan case (1951) The Supreme court ruled that in any case of conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle Of State Policy, the provision of the former would prevail. Directive Principle Of State Policy was regarded to run as a subsidiary to Fundamental Rights. Supreme Court also ruled that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights through the constitutional amendment act it implements Directive Principle Of State Policy. RESULT: Parliament made the 1st Amendment Act (1951)the 4th Amendment Act (1955) and the 7th Amendment Act (1964) to implement some of the directives. Golaknath case (1967): Supreme Court ruled the parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights to implement the Directive Principle of State Policy. RESULT: Parliament enacted by the 24th Amendment Act 1971, declaring that it has the power to abridge or take any of the Fundamental Right by enacting Constitutional Amendment Acts. 25th Amendment Act inserted a new Article-31 C containing two provisions: • No law which seeks to implement the socialist directive principle specified in Article-39 (b) and (c) shall be void on the ground of contravention of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article-14 (Equality before the law and equal protection of laws). Article-19 ( Protection of six rights in respect of speech, assembly, movement, etc.) or Article-31 (Right to Property). • No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy. Kesavananda Bharati case (1973): Supreme Court ruled out the second provision of Article-31 C added by the 25th Amendment Act, during the Golaknath Case of 1967. It termed the provision 'Unconstitutional'. However, it held the first provision of Article-31 C. Constitutional and valid. RESULT: Through the 42nd Amendment Act, parliament extended the scope of the 1st provision of Article-31 C. It accorded the position of legal primary and supremacy to the Directive Principle of
- 3. State Policy over the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article- 14,19,& 31. Minerva Mills case (1980): Supreme Court held that extension of Article-31 C made by the 42nd Amendment Act unconstitutional and invalid. It made the Directive Principle Of State Policy subordinate to Fundamental Rights. Supreme Court held that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. Supreme Court rulings following the case were: • Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy constitute the core of the commitment to social revolution. • The harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of State Policy is an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution. • The goals set out by the Directive Principles Of State Policy have to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided by the Fundamental Rights. CONCLUSION: Today, Fundamental Rights enjoy supremacy over the Directive Principle Of State Policy. Yet, Directive Principles can be implemented. The parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights for implementing the Directive Principles, so long as the amendment does not damage or destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.