Directive Principles of State Policy vs. Fundamental Rights: A Constitutional Debate 

The relationship between Fundamental Rights (FRS) and State Policy Directive Principles  (DPSPs) is rooted in the historical developments and philosophical ideals that shaped the Indian  Constitution. While fundamental rights protect individual freedoms, DPSPs guide the  government in establishing socioeconomic justice. Together, they reflect India’s double  commitment to democracy and social good. 

Fundamental Rights in India are inspired by global documents such as: 

• Bill of Rights (USA) – Ensured protection of individual liberties from state interference. 

• Magna Carta (UK, 1215) – Established the idea of limiting government power and  safeguarding personal freedoms. 

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) – Laid the foundation for  international human rights. 

The framers of the Indian Constitution incorporated these ideas into Part III, ensuring that all  citizens enjoy rights that protect their dignity and equality. These rights include: 

1. Right to Equality (Articles 14-18) – Ensures all individuals are treated equally before  the law, abolishes untouchability, and prohibits discrimination. 

2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22) – Guarantees freedom of speech, expression,  assembly, movement, and personal liberty. 

3. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24) – Prohibits human trafficking, forced labor,  and child labor in hazardous occupations. 

4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28) – Grants individuals the right to practice,  profess, and propagate any religion. 

5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30) – Protects the rights of minorities to  maintain their language, script, and culture. 

6. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32) – Allows citizens to approach the  Supreme Court if their rights are violated directly.¹ 

These rights are justiciable, meaning courts can enforce them. The Supreme Court and High  Courts can protect citizens if the government violates these rights. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called  Article 32²the “heart and soul of the Constitution” because it allows people to seek justice  directly.³ 

Directive Principles of State Policy: Goals for Social Justice 

While Fundamental Rights protect individual freedoms, DPSPs focus on collective welfare.  These principles were inspired by: 

• Irish Constitution (Article 45) – Introduced the idea of non-justiciable socio-economic  directives for the state. 

• Gandhian Principles – Emphasized village self-governance, prohibition of alcohol, and  welfare of low-income people. 

• Socialist Ideals – Aimed at reducing economic inequality and ensuring fair distribution  of resources. 

Whereas, unlike fundamental rights, courts cannot apply the DPSPs Found in part IV (articles  36-51), they remain moral obligations for the state to pursue while making laws and policies.  Even if DPSPs are not applied by the courts, they become a guiding principle for governments  to formulate well-being policies. Landmark legislation, such as the Law of Education of 2009  and the Legal Assistance Services Law of 1987, were passed with these principles in mind.⁴ 

Conflicts between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles  

There is a delicate balance between fundamental rights and state policy directive principles in  the Constitution of India. The most unfortunate fact is the conflict when the laws made to  implement DPSPs become hits on fundamental rights. In straightforward terms, while the FRS  are justiciable and applicable to the courts, the DPSPs are the master governance guidelines.  The judiciary played a vital role in interpreting both, and subsequently, over the years, striking  judgments complemented the evolutionary balance between individual freedoms and  socioeconomic well-being.⁵ 

In the constitutional interpretation, themes were set where the primacy was given to  fundamental rights over the DPSPs. A case of significant note in this context was the state of  Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951). In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a  reservation policy in educational institutions designed to uplift the backward classes and  declared violative of Article 15 (1) (right to equality).⁶ The Court opined that when there is a  conflict between a fundamental right and a directive principle, the basic right prevails. This  decision brought forth the First Constitutional Amendment (1951), which introduced Article  15 (4),⁷thereby permitting the State to make special provisions for socially and educationally  backward classes and thus putting DPSPs at the bottom of the constitutional pyramid.⁸ 

Another case of significant importance in the perspective of fundamental rights was Golak  Nath v. State of Punjab (1967). The Supreme Court, in this case, held that Parliament does not  have the power to amend fundamental rights to give effect to DPSPs. The judgment reiterated  that fundamental rights constitute the very essence of the Constitution, and any dilution of them  is unconstitutional. This has become a serious impediment for the State in undertaking the task  of socioeconomic reform. In response, the government brought in the 24th Amendment to the  Constitution in 1971, restoring the power of Parliament to alter fundamental rights under  Article 368 and thus paving the way for several amendments regarding DPSPs.⁹ 

The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) was a milestone in the relationship  between fundamental rights and DPSPs. This historic judgment established the doctrine of the  basic structure, which holds that while Parliament can change any part of the Constitution, it  cannot change the “basic structure.” The trial sought to balance individual freedoms  (fundamental rights) and the need for socioeconomic reform (DPSPs), which could allow  changes so long as it did not destroy the basic structure of the constitution.¹⁰ 

Another interesting development occurred after this ruling when the Indira Gandhi government  brought in the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976, which attempted to prioritize DPSPs  over fundamental rights. It exercised an effort to make DPSPs supreme by stating that no law  implementing DPSPs would be challenged because it infringes upon fundamental rights.  However, this exercise to put fundamental rights in the backseat was struck down within four  years in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), where the court affirmed that both fundamental  rights and DPSPs occupy an equal place. The court observed that if one is given absolute  primacy, it would disturb the equilibrium of the Constitution, and therefore, the harmony  between the two has to be maintained.¹¹ 

The conflict between the fundamental rights and the DPSPs has been a dynamic feature of the  landscape of Indian constitutional law and policy over the decades. While earlier judicial  precedents favored fundamental rights, as the goals of socioeconomic justice became  important, courts and the government worked to reconcile both. The doctrine of the basic  structure laid down in Kesavananda Bharati and reiterated in Minerva Mills guarantees that  neither individual freedoms nor the collective is compromised. Today, while rights remain  constitutional as sacrosanct, DPSPs remain relevant as guidelines for law and policy-making  toward the growth of an egalitarian society. 

Harmonization of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of State Policy  

Though fundamental rights (FRS) have almost always been understood in juxtaposition with  the directive principles of state policy (DPSPs), the gap between these two evaluation criteria  has been gradually narrowed down through judgments of the Indian judiciary over various  points of time. The very initial judgments include that of the Supreme Court, wherein it was  held that fundamental rights had priority over DPSPs in a case related to the state of Madras v.  Champakam Dorairajan (1951). Evolving the country’s constitutional jurisprudence led the  courts toward interpreting both provisions harmoniously, ensuring that DPSPs complemented  rather than conflicted with fundamental rights. In recognition that civil political rights (FRS)  and socioeconomic rights (DPSPs) are intertwined and need to dovetail for the realization of  the vision of the constitution of a just society, this change has happened.¹² 

Through striking trials, constitutional amendments, and judicial activism, the judiciary has  gradually made considerable inroads in the harmonization between FRS and DPSPs in  significant areas, but much more needs to be covered in the areas of the right to education,  socioeconomic rights under article 21, and PILS (public interest litigation). 

Right to Education 

Following the recognition of the right to education, one of the most significant cases in  harmonizing DPSPs and fundamental rights occurred.  

In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), it was held by the Supreme Court that a  right to education is, therefore, a vital part of the right to life under Article 21.¹³ It was stressed  that a dignified life could not be imagined without education. This coincided with Article 45¹⁴ of the DPSP, which states that the state must provide free and compulsory education for  children. So, the case has marked a turning point in the judicial interpretation whereby  economic and social rights contained in the DPSPs must not remain as mere policy directives  but must be made enforceable through fundamental rights.¹⁵ 

This decision had a long-term effect, and in response, the government passed the 86th  Constitutional Amendment (2002) with Article 21, thereby making elementary education a  fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14 years. This was an enormous victory for socioeconomic justice as a principle once contended that it was already not enforced in the  DPSP (article 45). The development has illustrated how the interplay of judicial interpretation  and legislation can synthesize objectives of socioeconomic well-being into the scheme of  fundamental rights. 

Critically, its role has been in extending those rights encompassed within the socio-economic  right under Article 21, whereby it does not allow itself to fall into judicial antecedents but  understands that right to live in the broad or inclusive sense, more so with the application of  principles contained in the Welfare-oriented State Policy Directive or Directive Principles of  State Policy. Through its impact judgments, the court has changed socioeconomic aspirations  into enforceable rights within the ambit of human dignity and well-being.  

The right to have a means of subsistence was held an integral part of the right to life and the  right to exist within the pavement; people without rehabilitation would amount to a violation  of these means. 21 and article 39 (A)¹⁶ guarantee an average means of being exists. In the same way, in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of Western Bengal (1996)¹⁷, the right to  health was confirmed as one of the fundamental aspects of life, in keeping with the provision  of article 47¹⁸ (DPSP), according to which the state must “raise the standard of living” of the  “people” and “improve public health.” Also, in Mc Mehta v. Union of India (1987),¹⁹ the court  insisted that a clean environment is necessary for a dignified life, connecting Article 4²⁰ to  (DPSP) on environmental protection. 

Judicial activism further strengthened socioeconomic justice through public interest disputes  (Pils). In PUCL v. Union of India (2001), the Supreme Court instructed the government to  ensure food security by applying Article 47 (DPSP) through the middle-of-the-day meal  scheme.²¹ Similarly, in Chameli Singh v. State of Up (1996),²² the right of shelter was  confirmed under Article 21, reinforcing Article 39 (DPSP) on the distribution of equitable  resources. Labor rights were also strengthened in the Union People of Democratic Rights v.  Union of India (1982), where the court ruled that the non-payment of minimum wages violated  fundamental rights by Article 43 (DPSP) on decent working conditions. Through these  decisions, the judiciary filled the gap between basic and DPSPs, ensuring that social justice is  an aspirational objective and a constitutional reality. 

Contemporary Relevance of the Fundamental Rights and DPSP’s Debate  

As new socio-economic, technological, and environmental challenges appear, the nexus  between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs)  continues to generate great debate in present-day India. Judicial interpretation and legislative  action should often balance individual freedoms with collective well-being so constitutional  principles retain meaning in a fast-changing society. While FRs guarantee personal liberties to  protect individuals against excesses of the state, DPSPs direct the state to strive for social and  economic justice, making it necessary that both are synchronized in governance and policy  formation.  

The main contention in this regard is seen in reservation and affirmative action. The 103rd  Constitutional Amendment (2019), by inaugurating a quota for the economically weaker  sections (EWSs), raised the question of whether the Economic Reservation had violated the  principle of equality under Article 14. Caste-based affirmative action in favor of SC/ST and  OBC is justified under Article 46,²³ a DPSP for the promotion of social justice, but legally, it  is still under scrutiny about such provisions affecting the right to equality under Article 15. The  judiciary has a key role in ensuring the interplay of social justice and merit-based opportunity  in applying such policies. 

Privacy and digital governance represent another concurrent area of development in which FRS  and DPSP may collide. In KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court  accepted privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, the implications of which have  dramatically affected data protection laws, AADHAAR authentication, and surveillance  legislation. Here, too, the case reflects the expanding nature of FRS, which now accommodates  digital rights and protection against excesses by the state. Meanwhile, the DPSPs direct the  state in framing policies that guarantee data security and digital inclusion, thus showing the  necessity for a delicate balance between individual autonomy and state interest. ²⁴ 

Another critical area is the conflict between environmental protection and economic  development. Articles 48A²⁵ (DPSP) and 51a (g) (fundamental duty) provide for environmental  protection, which more often than not clashes with the right to carry on a business and earn a  livelihood (article 19). The TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996)²⁶ case is  noteworthy for the emphasis laid on sustainable development, whereby environmental balance  can never be sacrificed for economic activity. The courts have actively interpreted FRS in line  with DPSPs, thus compelling Governments to protect the environment without impediments to  industrial and economic development. 

In terms of areas of contention, the battle of laws contravening Legislative Power could not be  excluded from a few. The term UCC stands for the Uniform Civil Code. Article 44²⁷ (DPSP)  states that the state should enact a UCC, but this has often clashed with the rights guaranteed  to freedom of religion in articles 25-28 (FRS). The courts would repeatedly call for legislative  action, insisting that a common civil law would strengthen the bond of national unity and  ensure gender justice. However, there continue to be earnest debates on the questions of  secularism, cultural diversity, and the autonomy of religious communities regarding this  subject. 

In sum, the Constitution of India recognizes fundamental rights and directive principles as  complementary but not conflicting entities. While the former takes care of the freedoms  guaranteed to individuals, the latter enshrines a framework for socioeconomic justice. Thus,  with time, interpretations of judicial pronouncements have changed from the primacy of  fundamental rights toward a much more balanced approach, where mandates of the  Constitution match with the dynamics of change inherent in social needs. 

The most significant challenges for India are governance, economic development, the  environment, and digital change. Above everything else, individual freedoms need to be  synchronized with collective well-being. The real test of the Constitution would be in its ability  to fuse FRS and DPSPs and then develop a societal agenda that is progressive, inclusive, and  fair in maintaining civil liberties and socioeconomic rights on the road of constant change.

¹INDIA CONST. art, 32

²INDIA CONST. art, 32 

³ Editorial Team, Decoding Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles in India, (Dec. 28, 2024),  https://www.tscld.com/fundamental-rights-directive-principles-indian-constitution. 

⁴ Profile, Know India: National Portal of India https://knowindia.india.gov.in/profile/directive-principles-of state-policy.php.

⁵Fundamental Duties, MODULE-2 Notes Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties Aspects of  the Constitution of India 7 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES, 69 (1976). ⁶INDIA CONST. art, 15(1) 

⁷INDIA CONST. art, 15(4) 

⁸State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCC 351 

⁹ Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762 

¹⁰ Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 

¹¹ Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591 

¹² State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCC 351

¹³ INDIA CONST. art, 21 

¹⁴ INDIA CONST. art, 45 

¹⁵ Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645 

¹⁶ INDIA CONST. art, 39(A)

¹⁷ Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B., (1996) 4 SCC 37 

¹⁸ INDIA CONST. art, 47 

¹⁹ M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 325 

²⁰ INDIA CONST. art, 4 

²¹ PUCL v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 941 : 2001 SCC OnLine SC 832 

²² Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549

²³ INDIA CONST. art,  

²⁴ K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-5J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 641 

²⁵ INDIA CONST. art, 48 

²⁶ T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267 

²⁷ INDIA CONST. art, 44