Question: It is fallacious to think that Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are opposed to one another in their ultimate objectives. They are in fact complementary and supplementary to each other and both striving to secure socio-economic welfare by ensuring a social order in which justice and individual liberty are safeguarded. Comment critically. [UPJS 2015] Find the answer… Read More »

Question: It is fallacious to think that Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are opposed to one another in their ultimate objectives. They are in fact complementary and supplementary to each other and both striving to secure socio-economic welfare by ensuring a social order in which justice and individual liberty are safeguarded. Comment critically. [UPJS 2015] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [It is fallacious to think that Directive Principles and...

Question: It is fallacious to think that Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are opposed to one another in their ultimate objectives. They are in fact complementary and supplementary to each other and both striving to secure socio-economic welfare by ensuring a social order in which justice and individual liberty are safeguarded. Comment critically. [UPJS 2015]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [It is fallacious to think that Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are opposed to one another in their ultimate objectives. They are in fact complementary and supplementary to each other and both striving to secure socio-economic welfare by ensuring a social order in which justice and individual liberty are safeguarded. Comment critically.]

Answer

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in the Part III and Part IV of the Constitution of India respectively together comprise the human rights of an individual.

Part III deals with Fundamental Rights without which a human being cannot survive in a dignified manner in a civilized society. Fundamental rights are known as “basic rights”. They are also called individual rights or negative rights” and impose negative obligations on the state not to encroach on individual liberty.

Part IV deals with Directive Principles of State Policy. They are positive rights and impose positive obligations on the state to not only acknowledge the Fundamental Rights of an individual but also to achieve certain socio-economic goals.

The present proposition is from the Judgment given in the Landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala.[ AIR 1978 SC 1461] case. The Supreme Court has held in this case that Parliament can amend any part but without basic structure. Clause 2 of Article 31-C has been declared unconstitutional and void as it was against the basic structure. But the clause 1 has been declared valid. The Parliament has brought the 42nd Amendment Act and extends the scope of provisions of Article 31-C. After the Judgement, the Supreme Court has adopted the view that the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are complementary to each other and they are supplementing the other’s role with the aim of establishing the welfare state by the social means.

Directive principles and fundamental rights cannot be isolated because there is an interrelation between the two. And to achieve the balance between the two, the court needs to resort to harmonious construction The Supreme Court in the State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas [(1976) 2 SCC 310], ruled that the Directive Principles and Fundamental rights should be construed in harmony with each other and every attempt should be made by the court to resolve any apparent inconsistency between them.

The Fundamental right represents civil and political rights and the directive principles embody social and economic rights. Merely because the directive principles are non-justiciable by the judicial process does not mean that they are of subordinate importance. Therefore, it is the duty of the state to achieve the right amount of balance in the wider interests of the public.

The Supreme Court ruled this position in R. Coelho v. the State of T.N. [(1999) 7 SCC 580] SC and said that it is the responsibility of the government to adopt a middle path between individual liberty (Fundamental Rights) and public good (Directive Principles).


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-I
  3. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-II
  4. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Constitutional Law Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-06-03T17:53:14+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story