The relationship between the Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution) and the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP; Part IV of the Constitution) has always been one of the focal points of constitutional debates in India. Both are integral to the Constitution, serving complementary purposes. Fundamental Rights protect individual liberties, while Directive Principles aim to establish social and economic democracy. However, their relationship can be intricate, and at times, conflicting.
Nature and Focus:
1. Fundamental Rights are primarily negative obligations, in the sense that they largely prevent the State from doing certain things that might infringe upon individual freedoms. They are enforceable by the courts.
2. Directive Principles, on the other hand, are positive obligations – they guide the State on what it should strive to achieve. They are non-enforceable by the courts but are considered fundamental in the governance of the country.
Inter-relationship and Conflicts:
1. In the early years after the adoption of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held the view that where Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights clashed, the latter would prevail. The court maintained a position of primacy for Fundamental Rights.
2. This perspective began to change in the 1970s, especially during and after the Emergency. The Supreme Court started recognizing a harmonious relationship between the two and observed that the Directive Principles have to be implemented to achieve the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution. Thus, in case of a conflict, the court leaned towards balancing the two, rather than outrightly allowing one to overshadow the other.
3. Constitutional amendments also played a role in shaping this relationship. The 42nd Amendment in 1976 stated that in the event of a conflict between the Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights, the former would take precedence. However, the 44th Amendment in 1978 somewhat reversed this by stating that the right to property (which was a contentious issue and a primary reason for many conflicts between Fundamental Rights and DPSP) was no longer a fundamental right but a legal right.
Harmonious Construction:
Over the years, the Supreme Court has adopted the doctrine of "harmonious construction". The essence of this doctrine is that the Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights should be interpreted in such a way as to uphold the sanctity of both and avoid any direct conflict.
Concluding Thought:
Both the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles emanate from the same document and are hence complementary to each other. Fundamental Rights seek to establish political democracy, while the Directive Principles aim for social and economic democracy. Over the years, the balance between the two has shifted based on societal needs, judicial interpretations, and legislative amendments. The goal has always been to achieve a just society where individual rights are respected while collective societal welfare is pursued.
