Dr.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY
BASICS OF LEGISLATION

Synopsis
on
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VS. DPSP

Submitted to Submitted by

Dr. Shashank Shekhar Vishal kumar arya

Asstt. Prof. (Law) Roll No. 163
Enrollment no. 170101163
1st Year (1st Semester)

2017-2018
 INTRODUCTION
The justiciability of Fundamental Rights and non-justiciability of Directive Principles on the one
hand and the moral obligation of State to implement Directive Principles (Article 37) on the
other hand have led to a conflict between the two since the commencement of the Constitution.
In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict
between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. It
declared that the Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the
Fundamental Rights.
But, it also held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliament by enacting
constitutional amendments acts. As a result, the Parliament made the First Amendment Act
(1951), the Fourth Amendment Act and the Seventeenth Amendment Act to implement some of
the Directives. The above situation underwent a major change in 1967 following the Supreme
Court's judgement in the Golaknath case (1967).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Method- For the purpose of following research, researchers method is doctrinal. This
methodology is suitable for the research topic: fundamental rights vs. dpsp which requires
extensive and closed examination of facts.

Sources- The research would be conducted by investigator through utilizing the primary,
secondary and miscellaneous sources. Books and articles would be referred for the research
purpose.

TENTATIVE CHAPTERISATION

1. INTRODUCTION
 2. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DPSP: THE
RELATIONSHIP
The important question is where there is a conflict between the fundamental rights and
directive principles, which should prevail? The Fundamental Rights are the rights of the
individual citizens guaranteed by the Constitution. The directive principles lay down
various tenets of a welfare state.

3. TUSSLE BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND

JUDICIARY
The question of relationship between the Directive Principles and the Fundamental
rights has caused some difficulty, and the judicial attitude has undergone
transformation on this question over time.
Initially, the courts adopted a strict and literal legal position in this respect. The
Supreme Court adopting the literal interpretative approach to Art. 37 ruled that a
Directive Principle could not override a Fundamental right, and that in case of conflict
between the two, the Fundamental right would prevail over the Directive Principle.

4. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE

PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY: CONFLICTING OR
COMPLIMENTARY
Without, therefore, making the directive principles justifiable as such, the courts began
to implement the values underlying these principles to the extent 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.1
Since then, the judicial attitude has become more positive and affirmative towards
directive principles, and both fundamental rights and directive principles have come to

1
In re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956: 1959 SCR 995
 be regarded as co-equal. There is in effect a judicial tendency to interpret Fundamental
rights in the light of, and so as to promote, the values underlying Directive Principles.
This aspect of the directive principles was stressed upon by the Supreme Court in
Golak Nath.2

5. CONCLUSION

TENTATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.http://www.facts-about- india.com/fundamental-rights- in-India.php

2. http://www.importantindia.com/2041/fundamental-rights-and-directive-principles-of-state-
policy/
3.D.D Basu Constitution of India ,Lexis Nexis

4. V.N Shukla ,Constitution of India , Eastern book company

2
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643