Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, embodies a unique blend of liberal and socialist ideals. This is reflected in the inclusion of both Fundamental Rights, guaranteeing individual liberties, and Directive Principles of State Policy, aiming at socio-economic justice. However, a potential conflict between these two sets of principles was foreseen by the framers. The inherent tension between individual rights and collective welfare has, over the decades, necessitated frequent constitutional amendments and significant judicial interventions to reconcile these seemingly opposing philosophies, shaping the trajectory of Indian constitutionalism. This commentary will explore this dynamic relationship and its consequences.
The Initial Conflict and Early Judicial Approach
The initial years after the Constitution came into force witnessed a clear demarcation between FRs and DPSPs. FRs were enforceable by courts, while DPSPs were considered non-justiciable – meaning courts could not directly enforce them. This led to a debate: which should prevail in case of a conflict? The early judicial approach, exemplified in cases like State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), prioritized FRs. The Supreme Court struck down a state law providing reservations in medical colleges, holding it violated Article 14 (equality before the law) despite being based on DPSPs.
Constitutional Amendments and the Shift in Balance
The Champakam Dorairajan case prompted the government to amend the Constitution to assert the supremacy of DPSPs. This led to a series of amendments:
- First Amendment (1951): Introduced Article 31A, which allowed the state to make laws restricting FRs in furtherance of DPSPs related to land reforms and economic justice.
- Fourth Amendment (1955): Expanded the scope of Article 31A to include other DPSPs.
- Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1971): Clarified that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including FRs, was absolute. This was a direct response to the Bank Nationalisation case (1970) where the Supreme Court had limited Parliament’s amending power.
- Forty-Second Amendment (1976): Further strengthened the amending power of Parliament and introduced Article 31C, which gave precedence to DPSPs over FRs in specific cases.
Judicial Response to Amendments: The Basic Structure Doctrine
The expansive amending power granted to Parliament through the 24th and 42nd Amendments faced strong judicial resistance. The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine. This doctrine held that while Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, it could not alter its ‘basic structure’ or essential features. The basic structure included principles like secularism, democracy, federalism, and the dignity of the individual – implicitly safeguarding FRs.
Subsequent Amendments and Judicial Balancing
Following Kesavananda Bharati, subsequent amendments aimed to balance FRs and DPSPs within the framework of the basic structure.
- Forty-Fourth Amendment (1978): Repealed Article 31C and partially restored the original position regarding FRs.
The courts, through a series of judgments, have adopted a ‘harmonious construction’ approach, attempting to reconcile FRs and DPSPs wherever possible. For example, the right to property (Article 31, later deleted) was often restricted in the name of land reforms, considered a DPSP. More recently, the right to education (Article 21A) was inserted as a FR, reflecting the importance of DPSPs in shaping fundamental rights.
Contemporary Challenges and the Evolving Balance
The reconciliation between FRs and DPSPs remains an ongoing process. Contemporary challenges, such as balancing economic development with environmental protection, or national security with personal liberty, continue to test this balance. The debate over reservations, particularly the 50% ceiling established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), exemplifies this ongoing tension. The increasing emphasis on socio-economic rights as FRs, as seen in the debate surrounding the right to livelihood, further complicates the equation.
| Amendment | Year | Key Provision | Impact on FRs/DPSPs |
|---|---|---|---|
| First | 1951 | Article 31A | Allowed restrictions on FRs for DPSPs related to land reforms |
| Twenty-Fourth | 1971 | Expanded Parliament’s amending power | Threatened FRs by allowing their alteration |
| Forty-Second | 1976 | Article 31C | Gave precedence to DPSPs over FRs |
| Forty-Fourth | 1978 | Repealed Article 31C | Restored some balance between FRs and DPSPs |
Conclusion
The constitutional reconciliation of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles has been a dynamic and evolving process, marked by legislative amendments and judicial interventions. While the initial emphasis was on protecting FRs, subsequent amendments attempted to prioritize DPSPs, leading to the development of the Basic Structure doctrine as a safeguard against excessive legislative power. Today, the courts strive for a harmonious construction, recognizing the interdependence of both sets of principles. The ongoing challenge lies in striking a delicate balance between individual liberties and societal welfare, ensuring that the pursuit of socio-economic justice does not come at the expense of fundamental freedoms.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.