1. Introduction #
The Indian Constitution seeks to harmonize Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) as complementary instruments of governance.
-
Fundamental Rights (FRs) → Ensure political democracy and protect individual liberty.
-
Directive Principles (DPSPs) → Aim to achieve social and economic democracy through welfare legislation.
“Parts III and IV are like two wheels of a chariot — one cannot function without the other.”
— Justice Chandrachud, Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
2. Constitutional Position #
-
Fundamental Rights — Justiciable, enforceable by courts (Articles 32 & 226).
-
Directive Principles — Non-justiciable (Article 37), but “fundamental in the governance of the country.”
The Constitution thus balances individual freedom with collective welfare.
3. Early Judicial Approach — Conflict Model #
Initially, the Supreme Court adopted a narrow and literal approach, treating FRs and DPSPs as distinct and conflicting.
Case 1: State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951 AIR SC 226) #
Facts: Communal reservation in educational institutions challenged under Article 29(2).
Held:
-
DPSPs cannot override Fundamental Rights.
-
If a law violates Fundamental Rights, it is void — even if it seeks to implement a Directive Principle.
🡪 Led to First Constitutional Amendment (1951) — introducing Article 15(4) to enable reservation for backward classes.
📘 Judicial View: Fundamental Rights supreme, DPSPs subordinate.
4. Transition Period — Towards Harmony #
Courts began to realize that both Parts serve complementary purposes.
Case 2: Re Kerala Education Bill (1958 SCR 995) #
Held:
DPSPs are fundamental in governance and cannot be ignored; the State must harmonize them with Fundamental Rights as far as possible.
5. Modern Judicial Approach — Harmonious Construction #
After 1971, the judiciary moved towards reconciliation and balance between FRs and DPSPs.
Case 3: Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967 AIR SC 1643) #
Facts: Validity of constitutional amendments curtailing Fundamental Rights.
Held:
-
Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights to give effect to DPSPs.
-
FRs are “transcendental and inviolable.”
🡪 Led to 24th Amendment (1971) restoring Parliament’s power to amend FRs.
Case 4: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973 AIR SC 1461) #
Facts: Challenge to constitutional amendments imposing land reforms under DPSPs.
Held:
-
Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, to implement DPSPs,
-
BUT cannot destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
-
Harmony between Parts III and IV forms part of the Basic Structure doctrine.
“The object of Fundamental Rights is to foster individual freedom; that of Directive Principles is to ensure social good. Both are supplementary and not antagonistic.”
Case 5: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980 AIR SC 1789) #
Facts: Challenge to Sections of the 42nd Amendment giving primacy to DPSPs over FRs.
Held:
-
Declared those sections unconstitutional.
-
FRs and DPSPs are complementary, not subordinate.
-
The balance between Parts III and IV is part of the Basic Structure.
“To destroy Fundamental Rights to achieve Directive Principles is to subvert the Constitution; to ignore Directive Principles is to deny its philosophy.”
Case 6: State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas (1976 AIR SC 490) #
Held:
The Court read equality provisions (Art. 14–16) in light of DPSPs (Art. 38, 46), paving way for substantive equality and positive discrimination.
6. Judicial Trend — Integration Model #
From the 1980s onwards, courts have fused DPSPs into Fundamental Rights through liberal interpretation, especially under Article 21.
| Directive Principle | Converted into Enforceable Right (via Article) | Leading Case |
|---|---|---|
| Right to livelihood (Art. 39(a)) | Article 21 | Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp. (1985) |
| Equal pay for equal work (Art. 39(d)) | Article 14 | Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) |
| Free legal aid (Art. 39A) | Article 21 | Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) |
| Health & nutrition (Art. 47) | Article 21 | Consumer Education & Research Centre v. UOI (1995) |
| Education for children (Art. 45) | Article 21-A | Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. (1993) |
| Environment protection (Art. 48A) | Article 21 | M.C. Mehta v. UOI (1987) |
7. Legislative Reconciliation #
Parliament has periodically enacted laws to translate DPSPs into enforceable rights without violating FRs, e.g.:
| DPSP | Implementing Legislation |
|---|---|
| Art. 39(b)–(c): Distribution of resources | Land Reform Acts, MRTP Act |
| Art. 39A: Free legal aid | Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 |
| Art. 41–42: Work and maternity benefits | MGNREGA, Maternity Benefit Act |
| Art. 45: Free education | Right to Education Act, 2009 |
| Art. 47: Health & nutrition | National Food Security Act, 2013 |
8. Comparative Analysis: FRs vs. DPSPs #
| Aspect | Fundamental Rights (Part III) | Directive Principles (Part IV) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Negative obligations (restrain State) | Positive obligations (guide State action) |
| Enforceability | Justiciable | Non-justiciable |
| Objective | Individual freedom | Collective welfare |
| Type of Democracy | Political democracy | Social & economic democracy |
| Sanction | Judicial remedy (Articles 32 & 226) | Political sanction (through elections, accountability) |
| Judicial Trend | Expansive, includes socio-economic rights | Increasingly read into enforceable rights |
| Interrelation | Harmonious, complementary | Supplementary and interpretative to FRs |
9. Present Constitutional Position #
-
FRs and DPSPs are equally important — both constitute the conscience of the Constitution.
-
Courts follow the principle of harmonious construction, giving mutual reinforcement to both.
-
Implementing DPSPs is a constitutional duty of the State under Article 37.
-
The Basic Structure doctrine ensures neither can destroy the other.
10. Conclusion #
The relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles has evolved from conflict to cooperation.
Today, they are viewed as complementary pillars of the same constitutional edifice — ensuring freedom with social justice.
“The goal of the Indian Constitution is not to choose between liberty and equality, but to harmonize them through the joint operation of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.”
— Justice Bhagwati, Minerva Mills (1980)
