6. Relation with Fundamental Rights

The Fundamental Rights and DPSP’s constitute the conscience of the Constitution. The purpose of FR’s is to confer on individuals the rights necessary for their development, free from coercion. DPSP’s are essential for a welfare society. According to Justice Chandrachud, the Constitution aims to bring about a synthesis between the two and together they constitute, not individually, the conscience of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has hence pronounced the ‘doctrine of harmonious construction’ to establish the relation between FR’s and DPSP’s.

The tension between FR and DPSP has been evident ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Initially, the comparative status of FR’s and DPSP’s was not clear. It was believed that they were contradictory in nature. It was in the Champakam Dorairajan case, in 1952 that the debate first came to the fore. A series of judicial pronouncements and constitutional amendments have altered the balance between the two since the commencement of the constitution.

Champakam Dorairajan case (1951) The Supreme Court held that Article 37 expressly says that the directive principles are not enforceable by court. The Supreme Court mandated that the chapter on Fundamental Rights in the constitution is sacrosanct and the directive principles have to conform to and run subsidiary to the chapter on Fundamental Rights. This means that Fundamental Rights were given superiority over the Directive principles. It also held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliament by enacting constitutional amendment acts.

♤ In Golaknath case (1967) however, the SC reversed its decision stating that FR’s have been given a transcendental position and cannot be abridged. The doctrine of Prospective Overruling was applied in the Golaknath case, whereby the SC could overrule its own decision.

♤ 24th Amendment Act, 1971 was enacted to overcome the Golaknath case. It added Article 13(4) to the Constitution, whereby Constitutional amendment could modify a FR.

♤ In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the SC gave the Doctrine of basic structure, whereby FR’s could be abridged only to the extent that they did not form part of the basic structure.

♤ 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 passed by Parliament gave precedence to DPSP’s over FR’s and extended the scope of Article 31C, which provided for protection of laws implementing DPSP’s 39(b), 39(c) from illegality on ground of being violative of the constitution. This amendment included within the protection provided by Article 31C, any law to implement any of the Directive Principles and not merely those specified in Article 39 (b) and (c).

♤ In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the SC held that powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution are limited by the basic structure doctrine. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution exists on the balance of Part III and Part IV. Giving absolute primacy to one over the other will disturb the harmony of the Constitution. This took the Article 31(C) to its prior condition that “a law would be protected by article 31C only if it has been made to implement the directive in article 39(b) and (c) and not any of the articles included in Part IV”.

♤ Thus, the final status of FR’s and DPSP’s with respect to each other is following:

o They form an integrated scheme

o They are not supplementary but complementary in nature

o Together they provide the basis for inclusive democracy in India

o Supreme Court has pronounced the doctrine of Harmonious Construction

o FR’s have a superior legal status but it doesn’t undermine the importance of DPSP’s

o Over a period of time by using the doctrine of “liberal interpretation” Supreme Court

has included number of directive principles under Article 21.

o To examine the validity of a particular law giving effect to directive principles which

abridge FR’s, SC applies the doctrine of –

 Basic Structure and

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

This doctrine is used to avoid any inconsistency and repugnancy within a section or between a section and other parts of a statute. The rule follows a very simple premise that every statute has a purpose and intent as per law, and should be read as a whole. The interpretation which is consistent with all the provisions and makes the enactment consistent shall prevail. The doctrine follows a settled rule that an interpretation that results in injustice, hardship, inconvenience, and anomaly should be avoided. The interpretation with the closest conformity to justice must be picked.

The Supreme Court laid down 5 main principles of the ‘Doctrine of Harmonious Construction’-

1. The courts must avoid a ‘head of clash’ of contradictory provisions and they must construe

the contradictory provisions so as to harmonize them.

2. When it is not possible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions, the court must interpret them in such a way so as to give effect to both provisions as much as possible.

3. Courts must keep in mind that the interpretation which reduces one provision to a useless

standing is against the essence of ‘Harmonious Construction’.

4. To harmonize the provisions is not to render them fruitless or destroy any statutory provision.

5. The provision of one section cannot be used to render useless the other provision, unless the court, despite all its efforts, finds a way to reconcile the differences.

 The Golden Triangle of rights – Article 14, 19, and 21.