Relation Between Part III And Part IV Of Constitution Of India-Changing Trends
An individual to lead a life requires some rights. Rights have been described as those claims of an individual that are necessary for the development of his oneself and recognized by society or state. Some of rights that are recognized by the state and enshrined in the constitution are called fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are those rights of an individual that are enforceable through courts of law.
During the national struggle our leaders indicated that in the constitutional set up in the constitutional set up in the free India people would be granted certain rights. In fact in the various schemes relation to future constitutional set up, there were references of particular rights that the people of India should be granted. The common wealth of India bill (1925), the Nehru committee report, the memorandum of the National trade Union Federation submitted to the joint committee on Indian constitution reforms (1932–33), the memorandum submitted by M. Venkatarangaiah to the Sapru committee and the Sapru committee proposals provided for various fundamental rights that the people of free India should get. The fundamental rights that are provided in the constitution can be divided into six categories are as follows;
1. Right to Equality (Articles 14 to)
2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22)
3. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24)
4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)
5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)
6. Rights to constitutional remedies.
Directive principles of state policy are included in part IV of the Indian constitution. Indian constitution is one among few constitution of the world that has incorporated such provisions as a part of the main body of the constitution. The constitution makers were inspired to include directive principles of state policy in the constitution by the constitution of Ireland.
One of main objectives of the constitution makers in including such a provision in the constitution was to lay down certain principles for the guidance of the governments. While formulating their policies the Governments are expected to according to these principles.
During the freedom struggle of India our national leaders had made promises regarding the fundamental rights that the citizens of free India should get, these fundamental rights included not only civil & political rights but also social & economic rights. But when India got Independence the leaders realized that it would not be possible for them to grant immediately some of the social & economic tights that they had promised in the past. But at the same time they did not want to go back on hurdle. They assigned this task to a sub – committee of the constituent assembly. The sub-committee suggested that the fundamental rights should be divided into two categories. Some rights could be granted immediately and others may be granted in future, if and when the country was in position to grant them. This was the genesis of the two parts of the constitution. Part three of the constitution deals with fundamental rights while part IV relates to directives principles of state policy.
The Fundamental Rights are defined as the basic human rights of all citizens. These rights, defined in Part III of the Constitution, apply irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed or gender. They are enforceable by the courts, subject to specific restrictions.
The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines for the framing of laws by the government. These provisions, set out in Part IV of the Constitution, are not enforceable by the courts, but the principles on which they are based are fundamental guidelines for governance that the State is expected to apply in framing and passing laws.
Purposes for insertion of Part III and IV in the constitution of India
The framers of the Indian constitution were aware that there were other constitutions which had given expression to certain ideals as the goal towards which the country should strive and which had defined the principles considered fundamental to the governance of the country. They were aware of the event that had culminated in the charter of United Nations.
Universal declaration of Human rights had been adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, for India was a signatory to it. It contained a basic and fundamental rights appertaining to all men. These rights were born of the philosophical speculation of the Greek and Roman stoics and nurture by the jurists of ancient Rome. These rights had found expression in a limited form in the accords of 1188 entered into between King Alfonso IX and the cortes of leon, the Magna Carta of 1215 and the guarantees which King Andrew II of Hungary was forced to give by his Golden bull of 1822. The French National Assembly also included the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen”. The first ten amendments to the constitution of the United States of America contained certain rights akin to Human rights. Constitution of Eire, Japan also contained similar rights and Directive principles. Section 8 of the article 1 of the U.S constitution contained a Welfare clause empowering the federal Government to enact laws for the overall general welfare of the people. U.S.A, the U.K and Germany had passed social welfare legislation. The framers of the Indian constitution, therefore, headed the constitution of India with a preamble which declared India’s goal and inserted parts III and IV in the constitution.
Concept of Fundamental Rights- Their Origin & Development
Part III of the constitution of India, titled as “fundamental right” secures to the people of India, certain basic, natural and inalienable rights. These rights have been declared essential rights in order that “human liberty may be preserved, Human personality developed and an effective social and democratic life promoted”.
Bhagwati. J in the case of Menaka Gandhi v/s Union of India held that these fundamental rights represent and basic value cherished by the people of this country since the Vedic times and they are calculated to protect the dignity of the individual and create conditions in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent. They weave a “pattern of guarantees on the basic structure of human rights”, and impose negative obligations on the state not to encroach on individual liberty in its various dimensions.
The aim behind having a declaration of fundamental rights is to make inviolable certain elementary rights appertaining to the individual and to keep them unaffected by the shifting majorities in the legislatures. It is to preserve certain basic human rights against interference the state.
Justice Jackson of the U.S. Supreme court in West Virginia State Board of Education v/s Barnet
The very purpose of a bill of rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy to place them beyond the reach of majorities and official and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections.
The inclusion of a chapter on fundamental rights in the constitution is in accord with the trend of modern democratic thought. These rights are basic to a democratic polity. The object is not only, to ensure the inviolability of certain essential rights against political vicissitudes, but also to impress upon the people the fact of their having reached a new level of national existence. The guarantee of certain basic human rights is an indispensable requirement of a free society. The purpose is to preserve, for the benefit of the people, their fundamental rights against infringement by the institutions created by the constitution.
The origin of the concept of fundamental rights may be traced to the 13th century England. It was in 1215 that the people of England revolted against King John at Ranneymade and enforced their demand for reiteration of their claims against the Royal Absolutism. They, for the first time, seceded in extraction assurances, from the King, for respect of their ancient liberties. The King was made to acknowledge that there were certain rights of the subject which could not be violated even by a sovereign in whom all power was legally vested. The Magna Carta, 1215, which evidenced people’s success, was a written document. It enjoined “respect for the law by the king; for bade denial of or delayed justice; prohibited unlawful detention and excessive fines.
In 1628, the petition of rights was presented to King Charles I, which was the first step in the transfer of sovereignty from the King to parliament. It was passed as the bill of rights, 1689, which dealt with rights and liberties of the British people.
In England the concept of “Rule of Law” forms the very bed-rock of British constitution, “Rule of Law” explains that an individual in England has the right and freedom to take whatever action he likes, so long as he does not violate any rule of the ordinary law of the land. The rights of the individual are secured by the ordinary law there. The proclamations of certain rights of the people, made from time to time, in the form of charters such as Magna Carta 1215, and the Bill of rights, 1689 are therefore, merely declaratory. These charters are binding on the executive but impose no limitation on the power of parliament. The protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual in England therefore, rests not on constitutional guarantees, but on public opinion good sense of the people, strong common law traditions and the sagacity of parliament itself.
The American adopted the constitution making for securing their bill of rights. The original constitution framed in 1787 and brought into force in 1789, did not contain any fundamental rights for Americans. It was met with serious condemnation. Consequently, the first ten amendments were enacted in 1791, incorporating the fundamental rights. These amendments have been described as the American “Bill of Rights” the rights are binding on the executive as well as the legislature. The courts of America therefore are competent to declare, an act of the congress as unconstitutional, on the ground of violation of any provision of their bill of rights.
Fundamental rights in India
The framers of the Indian constitution followed the American model in adopting and incorporating the fundaments rights for the people of India. The constitution, not only secures the fundamental rights, but also, provides a speedy and effective remedy for their enforcement.
In the preamble to the constitution, wherein the people of India solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic and to secure to themselves justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. They have been said to be the very foundation and the corner-stone of the democratic way of life ushered in this country by the constitution. These rights have been declared as sacrosanct, inalienable and inviolable. The minorities regard these rights as the bedrock of their political existence, while the majorities consider them as guarantee for their way of life. A significant feature of the Indian Bill of Rights is that the remedy for the enforcement of the fundamental rights is itself declared a fundamental right and is included in the very chapter on fundamental rights. An act of the state whether legislative or executive, if inconsistent with a fundamental rights is declared to be null and void the nullity of such an act does not rest upon judicial pronouncement but upon the express provision contained in Article 13.
Why guaranteed rights?
The very purpose to withdraw certain subjects from the changing pattern of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of a majority in a legislature and officials in the government and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. For, if the danger of personal rule by despotic rulers has more or less disappeared as a result of representative institutions coming into their own, that from legislative interference has correspondingly increased because of the high handed manner in which majorities might manage affairs in legislature. A dominant group of legislators could pass any discriminatory or unjust legislation and prejudice the interests of considerable section of the people. This meant in reality the substitution of one kind of tyranny by another replacement of personal rule of the monarch by the tyranny; of the legislative majority. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech and free expression, freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights are not subjects to be submitted to vote. They should not depend on the outcome of elections.
When legislatures were prohibited form encroaching upon certain rights through constitutional safeguards, the protection of these rights was achieved against the arbitrary conduct of both the executive and the legislature. When and independent judiciary was made the guardian of these rights was completely and enjoyment of these rights by all irrespective of wealth or social status, race or religious belief, was fully ensured. Herein lays the importance of fundamental rights. The United States has led many countries in this respect. Today, the idea of a list of a list of written rights as an integral part of new constitution has been generally adopted. Even the British do not seriously contest the wisdom of this arrangement and are prepared to concede is value at least to a limited extent.
Directive principles of state policy
Part IV article 36-51 of the India constitution says about directive principles of state policy. It sets forth the ideals and objectives to be achieved by the state for setting up in India a social welfare state, as distinguished from a mere police state, which aims at social welfare state, as distinguished from the common good and the secure to al its citizens, justice socio and economic. The inspiration to include directive principles of state policy is drawn from the constitution of Ireland. The basic aim of the welfare state is the attainment of the substantial degree of social, economic and political equalities the assumption by community acting through the state, as its responsibility to provide the means, whereby all members can reach minimum standard of economic security, civilized living capacity to secure social status and culture to keep good health.
Object and purpose behind the directive principles
The founding fathers were aware of the drawbacks; the country had been suffering from such as poverty unemployment, lack of education, social, economic, and political backwardness. They in order to eradicate these evils, set forth in the very preamble, the ideals and objectives to be achieved. The intention of the constitution framers was to establish in India a democracy political, economic and social.
To achieve this cherished goal, the framers were unanimous to secure to the people practically all the prevailing political social and economic rights. These rights were broadly speaking divided into two categories.
Political and Civil Rights
Social and Economic Rights
The political and Civil rights which were in opinion, with the reach of the individual were provisional as fundamental rights and the latter being considered beyond individual’s reach under the prevailing circumstances, were titled as Directive Principles of State Policy.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar while explaining the object underlying the Directive principles of State Policy observed
While we have established political democracy, it is also the desire that we should law down as our ideal, economic democracy. We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the Government. That is ideal is economic democracy, whereby, so far as I am concerned, I understand to mean one man one vote. By this it is clear that the main object behind the Directive Principle sis to achieve the ideal of Economic democracy.
Nature of Directive Principles
In view of the non-enforceability, the directive principles have been described by some critics as “pious expressions” or “resolution made by the new years day”. To other they appear as an “instrument of instructions”. These expressions however, betray the ignorance of the critics about the legal utility of the Directives. Though they are non-enforceable, the directives are the fundamental principles of governance and all the branches of government. The executive, the legislature and the judiciary, have to take cognizance of them. In fact, the judiciary has followed the principle of the harmonious construction between the fundamental rights and the Directive principles of State policy. Judiciary has also taken the help of the Directives while interpreting the various provisions of the constitution. While dealing with relationship between the fundamental rights and the directive principles, Chandrachud, chief Justice of India then, stated in Minerva Mill’s case, “the Indian constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV to give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and Directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution.
The executive has also resorted to them while justifying its (executive) actions. For instance, in the case of Champakam Doriarajan v/s State of Madras, while defending the communal order, of the Madras government, the plea was taken that it was done to promote the interest of the weaker sections of the society as per Directive Principle of the State Policy provided in Article 46 of the constitution of India.
The parliament also referred them while justifying its legislative measure. For instance, in cases of Shankari Prasad and Golaknath, the government of India pleaded before the Supreme Court while defending the constitution (First Amendment Act, 1957) and the constitution (Fourth Amendment Act, 1955 respective that they were enacted to five effects to the directive principles of the state policy. Now directive principles of the state policy are related to political policies, economic policies educational and cultural policies and health policies.
Enforcement of Directive Principles – Role of Judiciary
The Directive principles, as has been earlier seen, impose positive delegation on the state. These directives are address to the state. The term state has been defined by article 36 to have the same meaning as is given to this term in part III of the constitution relating to the fundamental rights. It thus means that the term State not only includes the legislature and the executive organs of the government, but it also include its agencies and instrumentalities.
It follows that the directive principles can be implemented by executive action, so long as these do not contravene any law. For the same reason, the local authorities or the state instrumentalities shall have a moral obligation to follow these directives and to act in consonance with these directives. Since the term, state includes judiciary also; the courts or the statutory tribunals would be equally under a duty to give effect to the directives.
Relation between part III and part IV of the Indian constitution
The genesis and objectives underlying part III and part IV have common desideratum in responding to the social consciousness rest with the constitution making force. Which fundamental rights focus on interests of personality, the Directives principles look on to the welfare of society. Judicial remedies for fundamental rights and non justice able of directive principles are the deliberate strategies of the constitution. The dichotomy between part III and part IV and the supremacy of former over the latter a theory based on formalistic and too textual an interpretation in Champakam Dorairajan did not last for long time.
A government order of the Madras government divided seats in colleges on the basis of religion and caste. This was repugnant to article 29(2). But it was argued that the government order could be supported on the basis of article 46 of the constitution which makes the state responsible for promoting the education interests of the weaker sections of people. The Supreme Court held that the fundamental rights under Article 29(2) over the Directive principle under article 46. So the government order was struck down. It was held that in case of any conflict between part III and part IV, the part III would prevail. These observations of the court were based on the literal interpretation of the provision of article 37 which declares the directive principle not justifiable.
A remarkable change had come over in the judicial attitude on the question of inter relationship.
In Inre Kerala Education bill
The Supreme Court observed “though the directive principles can not override the fundamental rights, nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of fundamental rights the court could not entirely ignore the directive principle but should adopt the principle of harmonious construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as possible.
The Supreme Court began to assert that there is “no conflict on the whole” between the fundamental rights and the directive principles. They are complementary and supplementary to each other.
In Chandrabhavan and Kesavananda Bharati cases inaugurated a new era of integrationist approach which could emphasis the under pinning of interrelated value of part III and part IV, Kesavananda Bharati’s case stood for penetration of the notion of distributive justice under Article 39(b) and (c) into the property relations by upholding the constitutionality of Article 31c. the legislative contributions through agrarian and economic reforms, labor welfare and other social justice statutes have by focusing on social welfare, ultimately enhanced the worth of fundamental rights. Judicial review, by removing unreasonable provisions monitored this process. In practice, the interconnections of rights are more sensitized when the government takes the directive principles of state policy seriously.
In Minerva Mills Limited v/s Union of India
The court observed that the constitution was founded on the bed-rock of balance between part III and part IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other was to disturb the harmony of the constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and the directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution. Both the fundamental and directive principles of the state policy are embodying the philosophy of our constitution, the philosophy of justice social economic and political. They are the two wheels of the chariot as an aid to make social and economic democracy a truism.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v/s Union of India
The approach of sticking to strict legalism in the implementation of laws enforcing directive principles, which in turn promote fundamental rights, has increased the role of directive principles in the inter-relationship doctrine.
The integrative approach towards fundamental rights and directive principles or that the both should be interpreted and read together has now come to hold the field. It has now become a judicial strategy to read fundamental rights along with Directive principles with a view to define the scope and the ambit of the former. Mostly, directive principles have been used to broaden and to give depth to some fundamental rights and to imply some more rights therein for the people over and what are expressly stated in the fundamental rights.
By reading article 21 with the directive principles, the Supreme Court has expanded the horizon of article 21 and derived there from different rights of the citizen. Some of them are;
Right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution free water, air and environments. The court has derived this right by reading article 21 with article 48A.
Right to health has been recognized as fundamental rights of the workers under article 21. Article 23 and 24 deal with right against exploitation. Those articles reflect the principles of article 39c. the directive principles that the tender age of children and not abused and the children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment are supported by the post Maneka jurisprudence of rights of children under article 21 and 24. In Asad and Salal Hydro project cases, the Supreme Court applied article 24 along with article 21 to prohibit child labor being influence by the above directive principles.
Right to education under article 21A is to be understood with reference to directive principles contained in article 41 and 45.
It is necessary to look into interrelationship between specific directive principles and fundamental rights in active practice. The central theme of directive principles is human development with distributive justice, aims at upward movement of the entire social system by making more people better off without making others worse off. The interrelationship between the two results in greater freedom and autonomy to all people, reduction of disparity in access to resources and opportunities and sustainability of environment. Although directives principles is a policy, because of its importance to human rights values, its elevation to principle has taken place through the inter-relationship, at least in core areas.
I. Directive Principles of state policy, which are related to distributive justice, molded the property relations by influencing the inter-relationship doctrine both directly strive for promoting justice, social, economic and political, in the social order. According to article 39(b) and (c), the state shall direct its policy towards equitable distribution of the material resources of the community, and non-concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. Article 38(2) directs state to minimize inequalities in income and status amongst individuals and groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. The protection of agrarian reform legislations under Article 31(4) and (6) was a manifestation of achieving these goals in property relations. The post Kameshwar Singh development of incorporating articles 31A and 31B into the constitution was for promoting the policy of distributive justice. This meant the philosophy underlying article 39b and (c) in the sphere of property relations became established after the incorporation of article 31c. This provision immunizes the laws providing for implementation of Directive principles enshrined in Article 39(b) and (c) from any challenges based on articles 14, 19 and 31.
It was in 1971 that the first step was taken to provide supremacy for directive principles in the form of article 31c which was added to the constitution by the constitution twenty fifth amendments Act, 1971
The effect of the insertion of articles 31c was to provide supremacy for directive principles contained in articles and 39(c) over fundamental rights contained in articles 14, 19 and 31. It enhanced the utility of directive principles which had stood the testimony of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharti v/s State of Kerala
The Court observed: In building up a just and social order it is sometimes imperative that the fundamental rights shared be subordinated to directive principles, economic goals have no uncontestable claims for priority over ideological ones on the ground that excellence comes only after existence. It is only if men exist that there can be fundamental rights.
To further widen the scope of the Directive principles, the constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976, amended article 31c for providing supremacy for all the directive principles. The effect of amendment was to give overriding effect to directive principles and to make them immune from being declared as violative of the rights guaranteed by articles 14, 19 & 31.
However, the change incorporated by 42nd Amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd v/s UOI
The Court thus restored Article 31c to its original State as inserted by Twenty fifth amendments, 1971.
It thus follows that the Directive principles contained articles 39(b) and 39(c) shall have supremacy on the fundamental rights contained in articles 14 & 19.
II. The inter-relationship doctrine is very much influenced by article 39A providing for equal justice and free legal aid the justice delivery system. According to article 39A. The state shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity and shall in particular provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way to ensure that opportunities for securing or other disabilities. The role of this provision was pivotal in removing the impediment of poverty in one’s access to grievance redressed system
In M.H Hoskot Hussainara Khatoon in number of public interest litigation cases, this provision was relied upon to bring the principle of equality into effect in the system of access to justice.
In M.H. Hoskot the court held that “free legal assistance at state cost is a fundamental right of person accused of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or personally liberty and his fundamental rights is implicit in the requirement of reasonable fair and just procedure prescribed by article 21.
III. The directive principles that the state shall strive to secure its citizens right to an adequate means of livelihood and make effective provision for securing rights to work article 41 provided a basis for the supreme court in olga tellis to locate right to livelihood in right to life under article 21, at least the circumstance of deprivation of that right. The post Maneka approach of just a fair and reasonable procedure become a handy instrument in this regard similarly various positive rights of life like right to food, health, environment and education were evolved by emphasizing on the relevant directive principles of state policy. It is important to note that the language of these provisions hinted the limitation of the scope of the positive rights also. This enabled a pragmatic approach with regard to positive rights.
IV. The directive principle that “tender age of children are not abused” and article 39(f) could give impetus to and also get supported by the post Maneka jurisprudence of rights of children under articles 21 and 24. In Asiad construction and Salal hydro project cases the Supreme Court applied Article 24 in collaboration with article 21 to prohibit child labor being partly influenced by the above directive principles. In Lakshmikanth Pandey a case concerning transnational adoption to conform to article 14, and 21 The PIL cases relating to rights of children under custodial detention also reflect similar approach.
V. The directive principles of “Equal pay for equal work” and “participation of workers in management” were received through right to equality under article 14 into part III in Randhir Singh v/s UOI and national textile workers Union v/s P.R. Ramakrishna cases, and in turn assisted freedom of occupation under article 19(1) or right to livelihood under Article 21. In consumer education and research centre v/s UOI by reading article 21 with articles 39(c), 41, 43 and 48A K. Ramaswamy J held for the court, “The health and strength of the worker is an integral facet of right to life”.
VI. The directive principles relating to uniform civil code has to potentiality of using the interrelationship doctrine for its implementation. Application of articles 14, 19, 21 in examining the constitutionality rights or right to maintenance has shown the permeability of these noble principles into personal laws will be compelled to conform to these standards, and hence uniform of constitutional spirit will persuade for uniform standards. In John Vallmattam v/s UOI where section 118 of Indian success Act 1925 which discriminated between religious communities in the matter of allowing death bed bequests was struck down as violative of articles 14, 15, 16 and 26. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to effectuate the policy of uniform civil code.
VII. Articles 46 of DPSP provides a guidance for affirmative actions under articles 15(4) and 16(4) and a pointer for resonant the tension between formal and substantive equality by laying emphasis on infusing of strength and ability to compete, through education and training to the weaker sections.
VIII. The directives principles that the state shall Endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations articles 51 has a great potentiality of absorbing the international principle relating to guarantee of human rights , and thus influence the inter-relationship doctrine.
In Air India statutory Corporation v/s United Labor Union, it has been held that the directive principles in the constitution are forerunners of the UNO convention on right to development as inalienable human rights and every person and all people are entitled to participate in contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development in which all human rights, fundamental freedoms would be fully realized. These principles are embedded as integral part of the constitution in the directive principles. Therefore, the directive principles now stand elevated to inalienable fundamental human rights.
Distinction between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy
Directive principles of State Policy
Fundamental rights are enforceable through courts of law. (justice able)
Directive principles of State policy are not enforceable (non-justice able)
Fundamental rights prohibit the state from doing certain things.
Directives are affirmative instruction to the State to do certain things.
Civil and political rights are predominant in fundamental rights.
Economic and social rights are predominant in the directive principle
Contravention of any fundamental rights can be rescinded by the court.
The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the directive principles.
Courts can strike down an act of Government violative of any fundamental right and can enforce the right against the Government.
Directives do no confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature.
The inter-relationship doctrine between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy is not only theoretical but also practical and rewarding. Fundamental rights provide for political freedoms to the citizens by protecting them against excessive state action while directive principles are to securing social and economic freedom by appropriated action both are inspiration of reform legislation. The fundamental rights should be interpreted in the light of directive principles to observe the limits set by directive principles in the scope of the fundamental rights. For example article 39, 39-A can be interpreted with article 21 of the constitution and article 46 can be interpreted with article 29 and 30 of the constitution.
The judicial attitude has undergone transformation where courts are very active to uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution thereby interpreting the provisions of part-IV i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy. Initially, the courts adopted a strict and literal legal position in interpreting part-III with part-IV of the constitution which is reflected in State of Madras V/S Champakam Dorairajan. It was held in case of conflict between part-III and part –IV the fundamental rights will prevail. In the course of time, change came over the judicial attitude as the apex court views the interplay between part-III and part-IV in different manner from that of Champakam Dorairajan’s case and held that there is good deal of value for directive principles of state policy from legal point of view and started to have harmonize between the two parts of constitution. The author has made an attempt to show core area of interaction part-III and Part-IV in the above paragraphs of this article.In the recent decisions of the apex and high courts there has been a changing trend by making a harmonious construction between part-III and part-IV of the constitution making directive principles of state policy justifiable and enforceable on par with fundamental rights of the constitution.
About Me: I am Jagadish.A.T - Faculty Of Law, Jss Law College, Kuvempunagar, Mysore
# AIR 1978 SC 597.
# (1942) 319 US 624.
# P.D.K.M Samithy V/S State of West Bengal AIR 1996 SC2426
# CAD III 495-495
# AIR 1951 SC 226; 1951 SCR 525
# Granville Austin Indian constitution Cornerstone of Nation
# AIR 1958 SC 956
# Chandrabhuvan boarding and lodging v/s State of Mysore AIR 1970 SC 2042
# AIR 1973 SC
# AIR 1980 SC 1789.
# AIR 1984 SC 802, (1984) 2 SCC 161.
.# M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexus Butterworths, Wadhwa Nagpur, 6h edition P1370
# AIR 1978 SC597
# Kameshwar Singh V/S State of Bihar AIR 1950 Pat 329.
# AIR 1973 SC 1461
# AIR 1980 SC 1789
# M.H Hoskot v/s State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 1548
# Hussainara khatoon v/s state of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1369
# Olga tellis v.s Bombay Municipal corporation AIR 1986 SC 180
# PUDR v/s UOI AIR 1982 SC 1473
# M.R Balaji v/s State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649 at 664
# AIR 1997 SC 645.