Introduction: Why This Debate Matters in Indian Constitutional Law
At the very core of Indias Constitution sits a telling pair of provisions: Part III packs enforceable Fundamental Rights (FRs) while Part IV lays out the hopeful Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). The former guards personal freedom and keeps the government in check; the latter nudges the State toward a fair and caring society. By weaving together these sometimes clashing goals, the Constituent Assembly tried to marry democratic liberty with the dream of socialist justice.
Fundamental Rights borrow heavily from the American Bill of Rights, promising basic freedoms that courts can protect through writs and speedy remedies. DPSPs, in contrast, take their cue from Irlands blueprint, urging lawmakers to craft rules that serve the common good and narrow social gaps. Yet the persistent puzzle for judges and leaders alike is this: what do we do when a defined Right seems to step on an aspirational Principle? Should individual freedom always win, or is there room to interpret and adjust both sides so they work hand in hand?
Meaning and Scope of Fundamental Rights
Fundamental Rights, found in Part III (Articles 12 to 35) of the Indian Constitution, lie at the heart of liberty, equality, and justice on which Indias democracy stands. They come as a promise to every person, mainly citizens, that the state will not trample human dignity and that its power will be kept in check. By shielding individuals from misuse of authority, these rights help keep the political system democratic and responsive.
Meaning: Fundamental Rights are legal entitlements formally acknowledged in the Constitution, backed by courts, and meant to be upheld whenever they are threatened. They earn the label “fundamental” for three clear reasons:
• They are crucial for a persons full growth and well-being.
• They form the bedrock on which democratic rule in India rests.
• They can be enforced in court, so violators cannot hide behind excuses.
Because of these rights, every individual expects fair treatment, the freedom to speak and act, a life of dignity, and protection against arbitrary harm.
Scope and Legal Position: Fundamental Rights cover a wide and still-growing space, mainly because Indian courts keep reading them forward. Though they usually bite only on the State as spelled out in Article 12, some duties creep onto private hands whenever human dignity or social safety is at stake-for instance, the ban on untouchability in Article 17 or the shield against trafficking in Article 23.
Article 13 makes it plain: any law that clashes with these rights is void to that degree. That rule, often called the supremacy clause, puts Fundamental Rights higher than ordinary legislation.
Because they are justiciable, anyone can walk straight into court. They may choose:
– the High Court under Article 226,
– or the Supreme Court under Article 32, a remedy Dr. B.R. Ambedkar once called the heart and soul of the Constitution.
Yet no right is beyond limit. Reasonable curbs can be placed for sovereignty, national security, public order, morality, and the rights of others.
Illustrative Rights and their Expansion
Several Fundamental Rights stand out as especially important:
• Article 14 – guarantees equal treatment in the eyes of the law and equal protection against discrimination.
• Article 19 – protects freedom of speech, movement, assembly, work, and where to live, letting citizens move and speak within sensible limits.
• Article 21 – guards life and personal liberty; judges now stretch it to cover living with dignity, having privacy, access to education, a clean planet, shelter, health, and more.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) the Supreme Court insisted that any rule taking away a persons freedom must be fair, just, and reasonable, linking Article 21 with Articles 14 and 19. Later, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Court said privacy lives inside Article 21, showing how these rights keep growing and changing.
Fundamental Rights are not just rules written in law books; they breathe life into the very idea of the Constitution. By protecting individual freedoms and laying down a yardstick for State conduct, these rights keep power in check and remind rulers to act with decency. Over time, courts have broadened their meaning, helping India move beyond a formal promise of freedom toward a real, working guarantee.
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs): An Overview
The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), found in Part IV (Articles 36 to 51) of the Constitution of India, express the vision of a fair, just, and inclusive society. These principles are meant to guide the government in creating laws and policies to develop India as both a political and a social and economic democracy.
Philosophical Foundation and Purpose
Inspired by the Directive Principles of the Irish Constitution, the DPSPs show the framers’ intent to connect individual freedom (Part III) with social justice (Part IV). While Fundamental Rights focus on securing freedoms and protecting individual interests, DPSPs aim to promote the welfare of the community, especially for marginalized and disadvantaged groups.
Their purpose is to:
• Promote social and economic justice.
• Eliminate inequality in status and opportunity.
• Build a foundation for a welfare state committed to the common good.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar suggested that while these principles are not enforceable, they represent “the soul of the Constitution.”
Nature and Features
• Non-Justiciable: Citizens cannot enforce these rights in court. Courts cannot force the government to carry out a Directive Principle.
• Moral and Political Obligations: The government should translate them into laws and social reforms.
• Fundamental to Governance: Article 37 states that the principles must be considered when making laws and policies.
• Supplement to Fundamental Rights: DPSPs do not oppose Fundamental Rights. Instead, they complement them by addressing broader social and economic issues.
Key Directive Principles (with Examples)
Some significant DPSPs that highlight the State’s responsibilities include:
• Article 39(b) – Ensures the community’s resources are shared to promote the common good. This supports land reform, nationalization, and public sector welfare policies.
• Article 44 – Calls for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) across India to ensure unity and equality in personal laws, regardless of religion. It remains politically debated but reflects the constitutional goal of legal uniformity in civil issues.
• Article 48A – Added by the 42nd Amendment (1976), this article directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife, forming the groundwork for India’s environmental laws.
Judicial Recognition and Constitutional Importance
Even though they are not enforceable, the Supreme Court has increasingly acknowledged the significance of DPSPs when interpreting and expanding Fundamental Rights. In landmark cases, such as:
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – The Court highlighted that both FRs and DPSPs are crucial features of the Constitution, and balancing them is part of the Basic Structure.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) – The Supreme Court declared that favoring DPSPs over FRs would harm the Basic Structure. Therefore, harmony between the two is essential.
Over time, some Directive Principles have become enforceable rights. For example:
• Article 45, which called for free and compulsory education for children, was made a Fundamental Right through Article 21A via the 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002).
Directive Principles of State Policy reflect the moral conscience of the Constitution. While they may not be enforceable in court, they can be executed through politics, governance, and public accountability. They serve as a framework for social change, aiming to uplift vulnerable groups and create a fair economic system.
Justice Krishna Iyer said, “DPSPs are the conscience of our Constitution; fulfilling them is not a matter of charity but a serious constitutional duty.”
Together with Fundamental Rights, DPSPs strive to balance individual freedom with the common good, ensuring that democracy in India is not just political but also social and economic in nature.
Conflict Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy
The Indian Constitution aims to balance the protection of personal liberty with the goal of social and economic justice. However, achieving this balance has not always been easy. There have been many incidents where the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) have conflicted with Fundamental Rights (Part III), raising important constitutional questions: What should be prioritized when implementing a Directive Principle compromises a Fundamental Right?
Historical Context of the Conflict
In its early years, Parliament tried to enact progressive socio-economic reforms, especially concerning land ownership, education, and social justice, by relying on DPSPs. However, these reforms often conflicted with Fundamental Rights, such as the Right to Equality (Article 14), Right to Property (Article 31, now repealed), and freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)).
These tensions led to a series of legal challenges that shaped India’s constitutional law. The judiciary had to establish the limits of parliamentary authority, the scope of constitutional rights, and the position of Directive Principles in the hierarchy of constitutional values.
Illustrative Examples of Conflict
1. Right to Property vs. Land Reforms
In post-independence India, a key objective was to redistribute land to decrease inequality and empower rural communities, aligning directly with Articles 38 and 39(b)(c) of the Directive Principles. However, these reforms often clashed with the Right to Property (then Article 31), which was a Fundamental Right.
• In State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252), parts of the Zamindari Abolition Act were struck down for violating property rights.
• In Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, including the right to property, to implement DPSPs.
These rulings led to significant constitutional amendments, such as:
• The First Amendment (1951) – added Articles 31A and 31B to safeguard agrarian reform laws.
• The Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth Amendments – limited judicial authority over socio-economic laws passed to implement DPSPs.
Eventually, in 2002, the 44th Amendment removed Article 31, taking the Right to Property out of Part III and placing it under Article 300A, thereby resolving much of this conflict in favor of Directive Principles.
2. Free Speech vs. Censorship and Morality
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while various Directive Principles advocate morality, decency, and public order (e.g., Articles 39(e), 47). Conflicts may arise when the government enacts laws to regulate or censor speech for social welfare or moral reasons.
For example:
• In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), a magazine ban was ruled unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(a).
• In subsequent years, governments cited DPSPs to justify restrictions on films, books, and public performances, claiming protection of culture, women, and children (e.g., Article 39(e)). This sparked ongoing debates about finding a balance between freedom and morality.
The Core of the Conflict: Prioritizing Rights or Goals?
The main dilemma revolves around this question:
Should individual freedoms always be the priority, or can they be temporarily set aside for long-term community welfare?
In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226), the Supreme Court ruled that:
“In case of a conflict, Fundamental Rights shall prevail over Directive Principles.”
This ruling led to the First Constitutional Amendment, allowing the government to create special provisions for backward classes (Article 15(4)), recognizing the need to balance equality with equity.
Over time, the judiciary moved from strictly prioritizing Fundamental Rights to adopting a more harmonious approach, reading both Parts III and IV together as complementary instead of conflicting.
Constitutional Amendments and Landmark Cases
The ongoing conflict and reconciliation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles have been shaped by significant cases and constitutional amendments:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
This case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, but not its basic structure. The Court recognized that both Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are vital to the Constitution’s basic structure and need to be balanced.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
The Supreme Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment that favored DPSPs over Fundamental Rights, reaffirming that the Constitution relies on a balance between Parts III and IV.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
The Court ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights to implement DPSPs, but this was later changed by the 24th Amendment and the Kesavananda Bharati case.
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
The Supreme Court decided that Fundamental Rights would take precedence over DPSPs when there’s a conflict, but this strict view was later softened.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
The Court linked Articles 14, 19, and 21, broadening the scope of Fundamental Rights and emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
This case recognized the right to privacy as fundamental to Article 21, further expanding the scope of Fundamental Rights in response to changing societal needs.
The Principle of Harmonization: Judiciary’s Balancing Act
The judiciary has gradually adopted the doctrine of harmonious construction, aiming to interpret Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as complementary rather than conflicting.
• The Supreme Court has held that while Fundamental Rights are enforceable, DPSPs should guide the interpretation of these rights, especially regarding environmental protection, education, and social justice.
• In MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the Court used Article 48A (DPSP) to extend the right to a clean environment under Article 21.
• The right to education, which started as a DPSP (Article 45), was made a Fundamental Right (Article 21A) through the 86th Amendment.
This approach reflects the growing understanding that true constitutional justice involves integrating rights with responsibilities and freedom with welfare.
Current Relevance: 2025 Perspective
Today, DPSPs continue to influence Indian law and policy significantly:
• Reservation Policies: Affirmative action for socially and educationally backward classes is grounded in DPSPs and has been supported by the courts to achieve real equality.
• Environmental Protection: The judiciary has used DPSPs to broaden the scope of the right to life and encourage sustainable development.
• Uniform Civil Code: The discussion surrounding a Uniform Civil Code highlights the ongoing tension between individual rights and collective social reform.
The notion of constitutional morality and the broadening interpretation of Article 21 showcase the judiciary’s commitment to aligning individual rights with the larger goals of social justice.
Conclusion: Conflict or Complement – The Future of This Debate
The connection between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is about dynamic balance rather than conflict. Fundamental Rights secure personal freedom, while Directive Principles inspire efforts toward social justice. Through the doctrine of harmonious construction, the Indian judiciary has worked to ensure that both sets of principles align to fulfill the Constitution’s vision of a just, fair, and free society.
As India evolves, the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles will remain a key part of its constitutional path, reflecting the continuous effort to reconcile liberty with equality and individual freedoms with the common good.
About Author
Bhagvati, a law student at the Faculty of Law, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. Passionate about Constitutional Law, Criminal Justice, and Women & Child Rights, I explore evolving legal issues through writing, research, and creative expression.
References
1. Constitution of India, Parts III & IV
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
3. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789
4. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226
5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
6. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
7. iPleaders Blog: Difference Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
8. ClearIAS: Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles
9. https://panaceaconcept.in/directive-principles-of-state-policy/
10. https://bnwjournal.com/2020/08/29/critical-analysis-of-the-42nd-amendment-act/
11. https://bharatarticles.com/the-42nd-amendment-a-comprehensive-overview/#google_vignette
12. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/42nd-amendment-act/
13. https://www.studyiq.com/articles/42nd-amendment-of-indian-constitution-1976/
14. https://panaceaconcept.in/directive-principles-of-state-policy/