Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles of State Policy: A Legal Analysis

When it comes to the Indian Constitution, the question of whether Fundamental Rights (FR) or Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are superior often arises. The Indian Constitution presents a unique framework where both sets of rights coexist, each serving distinct purposes. Nevertheless, in cases of conflict between these two, the nature of their existence and application make the DPSPs mutable and the FRs sacrosanct.

The Nature and Purpose of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy

Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) were introduced to guide the government in the formulation of various policies aimed at achieving specific goals such as economic and social justice. These principles, while not enforceable by law, act as a moral compass for the state. However, Fundamental Rights (FR), on the other hand, are negative and prohibitive in nature, ensuring citizens' basic freedoms and preventing the state from infringing upon these rights.

It is crucial to note that the relationship between FR and DPSP is symbiotic. However, when a conflict arises, the FRs are given precedence, ensuring that the core values of liberty, equality, and justice are not compromised.

A Legal Framework for Resolving Conflicts

A restriction placed on any Fundamental Right aimed at securing Directive Principles will be held as reasonable and hence within the legal power or authority, subject to two limitations: first, that it does not run in clear conflict with the Fundamental Right, and secondly, that it has been enacted within the legislative competence of the enacting legislature under Part XI, Chapter I of the Constitution. This legal framework ensures a balance between the state's efforts to achieve certain social goals and the protection of individual rights.

Legal Precedent from the Supreme Court

The decision in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat Ors. is a pivotal example of how the judiciary approaches conflicts between FR and DPSP. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

The court should guard zealously Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizens of the society but at the same time strike a balance between the Fundamental Rights and the larger interests of the society. But when such right clashes with the larger interest of the country it must yield to the latter. Therefore, wherever any enactment is made for the advancement of Directive Principles and it runs counter to the Fundamental Rights, an attempt should be made to harmonize the same if it promotes larger public interest.

This ruling underscores the fact that while DPSPs are essential for the welfare of the society, they must not infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Fundamental Rights are considered more sacrosanct than Directive Principles of State Policy in case of any conflict between the two. While DPSPs serve as a guideline for the state's conduct, FRs protect the individual's rights and freedoms, ensuring a balance between social welfare and individual liberties.

For further information on legal matters and to access legal services, you may visit our website, Legalseva, which is part of the Digital India programme. Our team is dedicated to making legal services more cost-effective, high-quality, and accessible to Indians.

Additional Resources

For more detailed legal analysis and updates, visit: Legalseva