Human Rights

Research Paper on Human Rights

TOPIC
“Inter-Relationship
Between
Part-III & Part-IV of Constitution”

Submitted to:
Mr. Roopesh

Submitted by:
Nikita Chaudhary
Paluck Sharma
Kirti Karishma Saarangii
Diksha Singh

1
 Human Rights

Acknowledgement

We would like to express our special thanks of gratitude to our teacher Mr. Roopesh as well as
our Manju Khilery ma’am who gave us the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on
the topic- “Inter-relationship b/w Part-III & Part-IV of Constitution of India”, which also helped
us in doing a lot of Research and we came to know about so many new things we are really
thankful to them.

Secondly we would also like to thank our parents, seniors and friends who helped us a lot in
finalizing this project within the limited time frame.

Last but not the least it’s our joint effort in gathering information, collecting data, that we are
able to put forward our research in a well organized manner

We all are highly obliged to all mentioned above.

 Nikita Chaudhary
 Paluck Sharma
 Kirti Karishma Sarangii
 Diksha Singh

LLOYD LAW COLLEGE

2
 Human Rights

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………2
II. Table of Contents……………………………………….…………………………….3
III. List of Abbreviation……………………………………..…………………………….4
IV. Index of Authorities……………………………………..…………………………….5
(i) Cases Referred…………………………………………………………………….5
(ii) Books Referred……………………………………………………………………5
(iii) Websites Referred…………………………………………………………………6
V. Advanced Research..………………………………………………………………….7
(i) Introduction……………………………………………………………………….7
(ii) Purposes for insertion of Part III and IV in the Constitution of India…………….8
(iii) Concept of Fundamental Rights- Their Origin & Development………………...10
(iv) Fundamental rights in India…………………………………………………...…12
(v) Why guaranteed rights…………………………………………………………...13
(vi) Directive principles of state policy………………………………………………14
(vii) Object and purpose behind the directive principles………………….…………..15
(viii) Nature of Directive Principles……………………………………………….…..15
(ix) Enforcement of Directive Principles – Role of Judiciary………………………..16
(x) Relation between part III and part IV of the Indian constitution……………...…17
(xi) Distinction between FRs and DPSP………………………………………..…….18

VI. Critical Analysis……………...…………………………………………...…….……20

VII. Bibliography……..……..……………………………………………………………21

3
 Human Rights

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

 AIR……………………………………………………………………….All India Report

 Regd............……………………………………………………………………Registered
 Co……...………………………………………………………………………...Company
 Edn/Ed…....………………………………………………………………………..Edition
 ER…………...…………………………………………………………...English Reporter
 Anr……………......……………………………………………………………….Another
 Ors………………….....…………………………………………………………….Others
 Etc……………………...………………………………………………………….Etcetera
 Vol............................................................................................................................Volume
 SC………………………...……………………………………..…………..Supreme Court
 SCC………………………...…………………………………...…….Supreme Court Cases
 SCR…………………………...………………………………...…...Supreme Court Record
 Id. …..…………………………......…………………………....……………………….Ibid
 Ltd...……………………………...........……………………....…………………….Limited
 No.………………………………………........………………………………..…….Number
 Pg./p…………………………………………….......…………………………………..Page

 Para...........................................................................................................................Paragraph

 Hon’ble..................................................................................................................Honourable

 u/s……………………………………………………….…....…..……………Under Section
 UOI……………………………………………………………..…………….Union of India

4
 Human Rights

BOOKS REFERRED
1. Basu, D.D., Shorter Constitution of India, Vol.-I, 5th ed., 2009
2. Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law Vol- I, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur, 6th ed.,
2003
3. Sorabjee, Soli J. , Law & Justice An anthology, Universal Law Publishing, 2006
4. Dias, W. M., Jurisprudence, Butterworths Publications, 5th Ed. 1985
5. Dunham, Beth Walston, ‘Introduction to Law’, 5th Ed., 2008
6. Halsbury’s ‘Laws of England’, LexisNexis Butterworths Publication, 5th Ed. 2008

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. Manupatra Online Resources  http://www.manupatra.com.

2. Lexis Nexis Academica
3. Lexis Nexis Legal
4. SCC Online
5. Oxford Dictionary
6. Supreme Court of India
7. Westlaw India
 http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica.
 http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
 http://www.scconline.co.in.
 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com
 http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/
 http:// www.westlawindia.com

5
 Human Rights

Cases Referred

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 8

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnet, (1942) 319 US 624 8
Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India, 1981 SCR (1) 206 11
Champakam Doriarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC 226 12, 18
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union, 1952 SCR 89 12
I C Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967 SCR (2) 762 12
In Re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1959 1 SCR 995 13
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 14
Chandrabhavan Boarding v. State of Mysore, AIR 1970 SC 2042 13
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 13,15
Salal Hydro Project v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1984 SC 177 14
Mumbai Kangar Sabha v. Abdulbhai, AIR 1976 SC 1455 15
Minerva Mills Ltd v. UOI, 1981 SCR (1) 206 15
M.H Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 1548 16
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary,State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369 16
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 223 16
PUDR v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 1473 16
Laxmikant Pandey Vs. Union of India AIR1984 SC469 17
Randhir Singh v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 879 17
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. UOI, AIR 1995 SC 922 17
John Vallmattam v. UOI, AIR 2003 SC 2902 17
National Textile Workers Union v. P.R. Ramakrishna, AIR 1983 SC 750 17
Air India statutory Corporation v. United Labor Union, AIR 1996 SC 645 17

6
 Human Rights

Inter-Relationship between Part III and Part IV

of Constitution of India

Introduction:
An individual to lead a life requires some rights. Rights have been described as those claims of
an individual that are necessary for the development of his oneself and recognized by society or
state. Some of rights that are recognized by the state and enshrined in the constitution are called
fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are those rights of an individual that are enforceable
through courts of law.

During the national struggle our leaders indicated that in the constitutional set up in free India,
people would be granted certain rights. In fact in the various schemes relation to future
constitutional set up, there were references of particular rights that the people of India should be
granted. The common wealth of India bill (1925), the Nehru committee report, the memorandum
of the National trade Union Federation submitted to the joint committee on Indian constitution
reforms (1932–33), the memorandum submitted by M. Venkatarangaiah to the Sapru committee
and the Sapru committee proposals provided for various fundamental rights that the people of
free India should get. The fundamental rights that are provided in the constitution can be divided
into six categories are as follows:

1. Right to Equality (Articles 14-18)

2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22)
3. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24)
4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)
5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)
6. Rights to constitutional remedies (Articles 32-35)

Directive principles of state policy are included in part IV of the Indian constitution. Indian
constitution is one among few constitution of the world that has incorporated such provisions as
a part of the main body of the constitution. The constitution makers were inspired to include
directive principles of state policy in the constitution by the constitution of Ireland.

One of main objectives of the constitution makers in including such a provision in the
constitution was to lay down certain principles for the guidance of the governments. While
formulating their policies the Governments are expected to work according to these principles.

During the freedom struggle of India our national leaders had made promises regarding the
fundamental rights that the citizens of free India should get, these fundamental rights included
not only civil & political rights but also social & economic rights. But when India got

7
 Human Rights

Independence the leaders realized that it would not be possible for them to grant immediately
some of the social & economic tights that they had promised in the past. But at the same time
they did not want to go back on hurdle. They assigned this task to a sub – committee of the
constituent assembly. The sub-committee suggested that the fundamental rights should be
divided into two categories. Some rights could be granted immediately and others may be
granted in future, if and when the country was in position to grant them. This was the genesis of
the two parts of the constitution. Part three of the constitution deals with fundamental rights
while part IV relates to directives principles of state policy.

The Fundamental Rights are defined as the basic human rights of all citizens. These rights,
defined in Part III of the Constitution, apply irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste,
creed or gender. They are enforceable by the courts, subject to specific restrictions.

The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines for the framing of laws by the
government. These provisions, set out in Part IV of the Constitution, are not enforceable by the
courts, but the principles on which they are based are fundamental guidelines for governance that
the State is expected to apply in framing and passing laws.

Purposes for insertion of Part III and IV in the Constitution of India

The framers of the Indian constitution were aware that there were other constitutions which had
given expression to certain ideals as the goal towards which the country should strive and which
had defined the principles considered fundamental to the governance of the country. They were
aware of the event that had culminated in the charter of United Nations.

Universal declaration of Human rights had been adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations, for India was a signatory to it. It contained a basic and fundamental rights appertaining
to all men. These rights were born of the philosophical speculation of the Greek and Roman
stoics and nurture by the jurists of ancient Rome. These rights had found expression in a limited
form in the accords of 1188 entered into between King Alfonso IX and the cortes of leon, the
Magna Carta of 1215 and the guarantees which King Andrew II of Hungary was forced to give
by his Golden bull of 1822. The French National Assembly also included the “Declaration of the
Rights of Man and of the Citizen”. The first ten amendments to the constitution of the United
States of America contained certain rights akin to Human rights. Constitution of Eire, Japan also
contained similar rights and Directive principles. Section 8 of the article 1 of the U.S constitution
contained a Welfare clause empowering the federal Government to enact laws for the overall
general welfare of the people. U.S.A, the U.K and Germany had passed social welfare
legislation. The framers of the Indian constitution, therefore, headed the constitution of India
with a preamble which declared India’s goal and inserted parts III and IV in the constitution.

8
 Human Rights

Concept of Fundamental Rights- Their Origin & Development

Part III of the constitution of India, titled as “fundamental right” secures to the people of India,
certain basic, natural and inalienable rights. These rights have been declared essential rights in
order that “human liberty may be preserved, Human personality developed and an effective
social and democratic life promoted”.

Bhagwati. J in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1 held that these fundamental
rights represent and basic value cherished by the people of this country since the Vedic times and
they are calculated to protect the dignity of the individual and create conditions in which every
human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent. They weave a “pattern of
guarantees on the basic structure of human rights”, and impose negative obligations on the state
not to encroach on individual liberty in its various dimensions.

The aim behind having a declaration of fundamental rights is to make inviolable certain
elementary rights appertaining to the individual and to keep them unaffected by the shifting
majorities in the legislatures. It is to preserve certain basic human rights against interference the
state.

Justice Jackson of the U.S. Supreme court in West Virginia State Board of Education v.
Barnet2 - The very purpose of a bill of rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the
vicissitudes of political controversy to place them beyond the reach of majorities and official and
to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life and liberty, to
freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly and other fundamental rights
may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections.

The inclusion of a chapter on fundamental rights in the constitution is in accord with the trend of
modern democratic thought. These rights are basic to a democratic polity. The object is not only,
to ensure the inviolability of certain essential rights against political vicissitudes, but also to
impress upon the people the fact of their having reached a new level of national existence. The
guarantee of certain basic human rights is an indispensable requirement of a free society. The
purpose is to preserve, for the benefit of the people, their fundamental rights against infringement
by the institutions created by the constitution.

The origin of the concept of fundamental rights may be traced to the 13th century England. It
was in 1215 that the people of England revolted against King John at Ranneymade and enforced
their demand for reiteration of their claims against the Royal Absolutism. They, for the first time,
seceded in extraction assurances, from the King, for respect of their ancient liberties. The King

1
AIR 1978 SC 597
2
(1942) 319 US 624

9
 Human Rights

was made to acknowledge that there were certain rights of the subject which could not be
violated even by a sovereign in whom all power was legally vested. The Magna Carta, 1215,
which evidenced people’s success, was a written document. It enjoined “respect for the law by
the king; for bade denial of or delayed justice; prohibited unlawful detention and excessive fines.

In 1628, the petition of rights was presented to King Charles I, which was the first step in the
transfer of sovereignty from the King to parliament. It was passed as the bill of rights, 1689,
which dealt with rights and liberties of the British people.

In England the concept of “Rule of Law” forms the very bed-rock of British constitution, “Rule
of Law” explains that an individual in England has the right and freedom to take whatever action
he likes, so long as he does not violate any rule of the ordinary law of the land. The rights of the
individual are secured by the ordinary law there. The proclamations of certain rights of the
people, made from time to time, in the form of charters such as Magna Carta 1215, and the Bill
of rights, 1689 are therefore, merely declaratory. These charters are binding on the executive but
impose no limitation on the power of parliament. The protection of the rights and freedoms of
the individual in England therefore, rests not on constitutional guarantees, but on public opinion
good sense of the people, strong common law traditions and the sagacity of parliament itself.

The American adopted the constitution making for securing their bill of rights. The original
constitution framed in 1787 and brought into force in 1789, did not contain any fundamental
rights for Americans. It was met with serious condemnation. Consequently, the first ten
amendments were enacted in 1791, incorporating the fundamental rights. These amendments
have been described as the American “Bill of Rights” the rights are binding on the executive as
well as the legislature. The courts of America therefore are competent to declare, an act of the
congress as unconstitutional, on the ground of violation of any provision of their bill of rights.

Fundamental rights in India

The framers of the Indian constitution followed the American model in adopting and
incorporating the fundaments rights for the people of India. The constitution, not only secures the
fundamental rights, but also, provides a speedy and effective remedy for their enforcement.

In the preamble to the constitution, wherein the people of India solemnly resolved to constitute
India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic and to secure to themselves
justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. They have been said to be the very foundation and the
corner-stone of the democratic way of life ushered in this country by the constitution. These
rights have been declared as sacrosanct, inalienable and inviolable. The minorities regard these
rights as the bedrock of their political existence, while the majorities consider them as guarantee
for their way of life. A significant feature of the Indian Bill of Rights is that the remedy for the
enforcement of the fundamental rights is itself declared a fundamental right and is included in

10
 Human Rights

the very chapter on fundamental rights. An act of the state whether legislative or executive, if
inconsistent with a fundamental rights is declared to be null and void the nullity of such an act
does not rest upon judicial pronouncement but upon the express provision contained
in Article 13.

Why guaranteed rights?

The very purpose to withdraw certain subjects from the changing pattern of political controversy,
to place them beyond the reach of a majority in a legislature and officials in the government and
to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. For, if the danger of personal
rule by despotic rulers has more or less disappeared as a result of representative institutions
coming into their own, that from legislative interference has correspondingly increased because
of the high handed manner in which majorities might manage affairs in legislature. A dominant
group of legislators could pass any discriminatory or unjust legislation and prejudice the interests
of considerable section of the people. This meant in reality the substitution of one kind of
tyranny by another replacement of personal rule of the monarch by the tyranny; of the legislative
majority. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech and free expression, freedom of
worship and assembly and other fundamental rights are not subjects to be submitted to vote.
They should not depend on the outcome of elections.

When legislatures were prohibited from encroaching upon certain rights through constitutional
safeguards, the protection of these rights was achieved against the arbitrary conduct of both the
executive and the legislature. When and independent judiciary was made the guardian of these
rights was completely and enjoyment of these rights by all irrespective of wealth or social status,
race or religious belief, was fully ensured. Herein lays the importance of fundamental rights. The
United States has led many countries in this respect. Today, the idea of a list of written rights as
an integral part of new constitution has been generally adopted. Even the British do not seriously
contest the wisdom of this arrangement and are prepared to concede its value at least to a limited
extent.

Directive principles of state policy

Part IV article 36-51 of the India constitution says about directive principles of state policy. It
sets forth the ideals and objectives to be achieved by the state for setting up in India a social
welfare state, as distinguished from a mere police state, which aims at social welfare state, as
distinguished from the common good and the secure to all its citizens, justice socio and
economic. The inspiration to include directive principles of state policy is drawn from the
Constitution of Ireland. The basic aim of the welfare state is the attainment of the substantial
degree of social, economic and political equalities the assumption by community acting through
the state, as its responsibility to provide the means, whereby all members can reach minimum
standard of economic security, civilized living capacity to secure social status and culture to keep
good health.

11
 Human Rights

Object and purpose behind the directive principles

The founding fathers were aware of the drawbacks; the country had been suffering from such as
poverty unemployment, lack of education, social, economic, and political backwardness. They in
order to eradicate these evils, set forth in the very preamble, the ideals and objectives to be
achieved. The intention of the constitution framers was to establish in India a democracy-
political, economic and social.
To achieve this cherished goal, the framers were unanimous to secure to the people practically all
the prevailing political social and economic rights. These rights were broadly speaking divided
into two categories.

 Political and Civil Rights

 Social and Economic Rights

The political and Civil rights which were in opinion, with the reach of the individual were
provisional as fundamental rights and the latter being considered beyond individual’s reach
under the prevailing circumstances, were titled as Directive Principles of State Policy.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar while explaining the object underlying the Directive principles of State
Policy observed:
While we have established political democracy, it is also the desire that we should lay down our
ideal, economic democracy. We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people
to come and capture power. The constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who
would be forming the Government. That ideal is economic democracy, whereby, so far as I am
concerned, I understand to mean one man one vote. By this it is clear that the main object behind
the Directive Principle is to achieve the ideal of Economic democracy.

Nature of Directive Principles

In view of the non-enforceability, the directive principles have been described by some critics as
“pious expressions” or “resolution made by the new years day”. To other they appear as an
“instrument of instructions”. These expressions however, betray the ignorance of the critics
about the legal utility of the Directives. Though they are non-enforceable, the directives are the
fundamental principles of governance and all the branches of government, the executive, the
legislature and the judiciary, have to take cognizance of them. In fact, the judiciary has followed
the principle of the harmonious construction between the fundamental rights and the Directive
principles of State policy. Judiciary has also taken the help of the Directives while interpreting
the various provisions of the constitution. While dealing with relationship between the
fundamental rights and the directive principles, Chandrachud, chief Justice of India then, stated
in Minerva Mill’s case,3 “the Indian constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance
between Parts III and IV to give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony
3
Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India 1981 SCR (1) 206

12
 Human Rights

of the constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and Directive
principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution.

The executive has also resorted to them while justifying its (executive) actions. For instance, in
the case of Champakam Doriarajan v. State of Madras4, while defending the communal order
of the Madras government, the plea was taken that it was done to promote the interest of the
weaker sections of the society as per Directive Principle of the State Policy provided in Article46
of the constitution of India.

The parliament also referred them while justifying its legislative measure. For instance, in cases
of Shankari Prasad5 and Golaknath6, the government of India pleaded before the Supreme
Court while defending the constitution (First Amendment Act, 1957) and the constitution (Fourth
Amendment Act, 1955 respective that they were enacted to give effects to the directive
principles of the state policy. Now directive principles of the state policy are related to political
policies, economic policies educational and cultural policies and health policies.

Enforcement of Directive Principles – Role of Judiciary

The Directive principles, as has been earlier seen, impose positive delegation on the state. These
directives are address to the state. The term state has been defined by article 36 to have the same
meaning as is given to this term in part III of the constitution relating to the fundamental rights.
It thus means that the term State not only includes the legislature and the executive organs of the
government, but it also include its agencies and instrumentalities.

It follows that the directive principles can be implemented by executive action, so long as these
do not contravene any law. For the same reason, the local authorities or the state
instrumentalities shall have a moral obligation to follow these directives and to act in consonance
with these directives. Since the term, state includes judiciary also; the courts or the statutory
tribunals would be equally under a duty to give effect to the directives.

Relation between part III and part IV of the Indian constitution

The genesis and objectives underlying part III and part IV have common desideratum in
responding to the social consciousness rest with the constitution making force. Where
Fundamental Rights focus on interests of personality, Directives Principles look on to the welfare
of society. Judicial remedies for fundamental rights and non justice able of directive principles
are the deliberate strategies of the constitution. The dichotomy between part III and part IV and
the supremacy of former over the latter a theory based on formalistic and too textual an
interpretation in Champakam Dorairajan did not last for long time.

4
AIR 1951 SC 226
5
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union 1952 SCR 89
6
I C Golaknath v. State of Punjab 1967 SCR (2) 762

13
 Human Rights

A government order of the Madras government divided seats in colleges on the basis of religion
and caste. This was repugnant to article 29(2). But it was argued that the government order could
be supported on the basis of article 46 of the constitution which makes the state responsible for
promoting the education interests of the weaker sections of people. The Supreme Court held that
the fundamental rights under Article 29(2) over the Directive principle under article 46. So the
government order was struck down. It was held that in case of any conflict between part III and
part IV, the part III would prevail. These observations of the court were based on the literal
interpretation of the provision of article 37 which declares the directive principle not justifiable.

A remarkable change had come over in the judicial attitude on the question of inter relationship.

In re Kerala Education7 bill

The Supreme Court observed “though the directive principles can not override the fundamental
rights, nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of fundamental rights the court could not
entirely ignore the directive principle but should adopt the principle of harmonious construction
and should attempt to give effect to both as much as 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.

In Chandrabhavan8 and Kesavananda Bharati9 cases inaugurated a new era of integrationist

approach which could emphasis the under pinning of interrelated value of part III and part IV,
Kesavananda Bharati’s case stood for penetration of the notion of distributive justice
under Article 39(b) and (c) into the property relations by upholding the constitutionality
of Article 31c. the legislative contributions through agrarian and economic reforms, labor
welfare and other social justice statutes have by focusing on social welfare, ultimately enhanced
the worth of fundamental rights. Judicial review, by removing unreasonable provisions
monitored this process. In practice, the interconnections of rights are more sensitized when the
government takes the directive principles of state policy seriously.

In Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India10

The court observed that the constitution was founded on the bed-rock of balance between part III
and part IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other was to disturb the harmony of the
constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and the directive principles
is an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution. Both the fundamental and
directive principles of the state policy are embodying the philosophy of our constitution, the
7
1959 1 SCR 995
8
Chandrabhavan Boarding v. State of Mysore, AIR 1970 SC 2042
9
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
10
1981 SCR (1) 206

14
 Human Rights

philosophy of justice social economic and political. They are the two wheels of the chariot as an
aid to make social and economic democracy a truism.

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India11

The approach of sticking to strict legalism in the implementation of laws enforcing directive
principles, which in turn promote fundamental rights, has increased the role of directive
principles in the inter-relationship doctrine.

The integrative approach towards fundamental rights and directive principles or that the both
should be interpreted and read together has now come to hold the field. It has now become a
judicial strategy to read fundamental rights along with Directive principles with a view to define
the scope and the ambit of the former. Mostly, directive principles have been used to broaden
and to give depth to some fundamental rights and to imply some more rights therein for the
people over and what are expressly stated in the fundamental rights.

By reading article 21 with the directive principles, the Supreme Court has expanded the horizon
of article 21 and derived there from different rights of the citizen. Some of them are;

Right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution free water, air and environments. The court has
derived this right by reading article 21 with article 48A.
Right to health has been recognized as fundamental rights of the workers under article
21. Article 23 and 24 deal with right against exploitation. Those articles reflect the principles of
article 39c. the directive principles that the tender age of children and not abused and the
children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of
freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against
moral and material abandonment are supported by the post Maneka jurisprudence of rights of
children under article 21 and 24. In Asad and Salal Hydro project12 cases, the Supreme Court
applied article 24 along with article 21 to prohibit child labor being influence by the above
directive principles.
Right to education under article 21A is to be understood with reference to directive principles
contained in article 41 and 45.

It is necessary to look into interrelationship between specific directive principles and

fundamental rights in active practice. The central theme of directive principles is human
development with distributive justice, aims at upward movement of the entire social system by
making more people better off without making others worse off. The interrelationship between
the two results in greater freedom and autonomy to all people, reduction of disparity in access to
resources and opportunities and sustainability of environment. Although directives principles is a

11
AIR 1984 SC 802
12
Salal Hydro Project v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1984 SC 177

15
 Human Rights

policy, because of its importance to human rights values, its elevation to principle has taken
place through the inter-relationship, at least in core areas.
The Supreme Court came to adopt the view that although Directive Principles, as such, were
legally non-enforceable, nevertheless, while interpreting a statute, the courts could look for light
to the “lode star” of the Directive Principles. “Where two judicial choices are available, the
construction in conformity with the social philosophy” of the Directive Principles has
preference.13

I. Directive Principles of state policy, which are related to distributive justice, molded the
property relations by influencing the inter-relationship doctrine both directly strive for promoting
justice, social, economic and political, in the social order. According to article 39(b) and (c), the
state shall direct its policy towards equitable distribution of the material resources of the
community, and non-concentration of wealth and means of production to the common
detriment. Article 38(2) directs state to minimize inequalities in income and status amongst
individuals and groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
The protection of agrarian reform legislations under Article 31(4) and (6) was a manifestation of
achieving these goals in property relations. The post Kameshwar Singh development of
incorporating articles 31A and 31B into the constitution was for promoting the policy of
distributive justice. This meant the philosophy underlying article 39b and (c) in the sphere of
property relations became established after the incorporation of article 31c. This provision
immunizes the laws providing for implementation of Directive principles enshrined
in Article 39(b) and (c) from any challenges based on articles 14, 19 and 31.

It was in 1971 that the first step was taken to provide supremacy for directive principles in the
form of article 31c which was added to the constitution by the constitution twenty fifth
amendments Act, 1971

The effect of the insertion of articles 31c was to provide supremacy for directive principles
contained in articles and 39(c) over fundamental rights contained in articles 14, 19 and 31. It
enhanced the utility of directive principles which had stood the testimony of the Supreme Court
in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala.14
The Court observed: In building up a just and social order it is sometimes imperative that the
fundamental rights shared be subordinated to directive principles, economic goals have no
uncontestable claims for priority over ideological ones on the ground that excellence comes only
after existence. It is only if men exist that there can be fundamental rights.

To further widen the scope of the Directive principles, the constitution (42nd Amendment) Act
1976, amended article 31c for providing supremacy for all the directive principles. The effect of

13
Mumbai Kangar Sabha v. Abdulbhai, AIR 1976 SC 1455
14
AIR 1973 SC 1461

16
 Human Rights

amendment was to give overriding effect to directive principles and to make them immune from
being declared as violative of the rights guaranteed by articles 14, 19 & 31.

However, the change incorporated by 42nd Amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court
in Minerva Mills Ltd v. UOI.15

The Court thus restored Article 31c to its original State as inserted by Twenty fifth amendments,
1971.
It thus follows that the Directive principles contained articles 39(b) and 39(c) shall have
supremacy on the fundamental rights contained in articles 14 & 19.

II. The inter-relationship doctrine is very much influenced by article 39A providing for equal
justice and free legal aid the justice delivery system. According to article 39A the state shall
secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity and
shall in particular provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way to
ensure that opportunities for securing or other disabilities. The role of this provision was pivotal
in removing the impediment of poverty in one’s access to grievance redressed system

In M.H Hoskot16 and Hussainara Khatoon17 in number of public interest litigation cases, this
provision was relied upon to bring the principle of equality into effect in the system of access to
justice.

In M.H. Hoskot the court held that “free legal assistance at state cost is a fundamental right of
person accused of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or personally liberty and his
fundamental rights is implicit in the requirement of reasonable fair and just procedure prescribed
by article 21.

III. The directive principles that the state shall strive to secure its citizens right to an adequate
means of livelihood and make effective provision for securing rights to work article 41 provided
a basis for the supreme court in olga tellis18 to locate right to livelihood in right to life under
article 21, at least the circumstance of deprivation of that right. The post Maneka approach of
just a fair and reasonable procedure become a handy instrument in this regard similarly various
positive rights of life like right to food, health, environment and education were evolved by
emphasizing on the relevant directive principles of state policy. It is important to note that the
language of these provisions hinted the limitation of the scope of the positive rights also. This
enabled a pragmatic approach with regard to positive rights.

15
1981 SCR (1) 206
16
M.H Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 1548
17
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369
18
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 223

17
 Human Rights

IV. The directive principle that “tender age of children are not abused” and article 39(f) could
give impetus to and also get supported by the post Maneka jurisprudence of rights of children
under articles 21 and 24. In Asiad construction19 the Supreme Court applied Article 24 in
collaboration with article 21 to prohibit child labor being partly influenced by the above directive
principles. In Lakshmikanth Pandey20 a case concerning transnational adoption to conform to
article 14, and 21 The PIL cases relating to rights of children under custodial detention also
reflect similar approach.

V. The directive principles of “Equal pay for equal work” and “participation of workers in
management” were received through right to equality under article 14 into part III in Randhir
Singh v. UOI21 and National Textile Workers Union v. P.R. Ramakrishna22 cases, and in turn
assisted freedom of occupation under article 19(1) or right to livelihood under Article 21. In
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. UOI23 by reading article 21 with articles 39(c),
41, 43 and 48 A K. Ramaswamy J held for the court, “The health and strength of the worker is an
integral facet of right to life”.

VI. The directive principles relating to uniform civil code has the potentiality of using the
interrelationship doctrine for its implementation. Application of articles 14, 19, 21 in examining
the constitutionality rights or right to maintenance has shown the permeability of these noble
principles into personal laws will be compelled to conform to these standards, and hence uniform
of constitutional spirit will persuade for uniform standards. In John Vallmattam v. UOI24 where
section 118 of Indian success Act 1925 which discriminated between religious communities in
the matter of allowing death bed bequests was struck down as violative of articles 14, 15, 16 and
26. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to effectuate the policy of uniform civil code.

VII. Articles 46 of DPSP provides a guidance for affirmative actions under articles 15(4) and
16(4) and a pointer for resonant the tension between formal and substantive equality by laying
emphasis on infusing of strength and ability to compete, through education and training to the
weaker sections.

VIII. The directives principles that the state shall Endeavour to foster respect for international
law and treaty obligations articles 51 has a great potentiality of absorbing the international
principle relating to guarantee of human rights , and thus influence the inter-relationship
doctrine.

19
PUDR v. UOI AIR 1982 SC 1473
20
Laxmikant Pandey Vs. Union of India AIR1984 SC469
21
AIR 1982 SC 879
22
AIR 1983 SC 750
23
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. UOI, AIR 1995 SC 922
24
AIR 2003 SC 2902

18
 Human Rights

In Air India statutory Corporation v. United Labor Union25, it has been held that the
directive principles in the constitution are forerunners of the UNO convention on right to
development as inalienable human rights and every person and all people are entitled to
participate in contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development in
which all human rights, fundamental freedoms would be fully realized. These principles are
embedded as integral part of the constitution in the directive principles. Therefore, the directive
principles now stand elevated to inalienable fundamental human rights.

Distinction between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy

Fundamental Rights Directive principles of State Policy

Fundamental rights are enforceable through
courts of law. (justiciable)
Fundamental rights prohibit the state from
doing certain things.
Civil and political rights are predominant
in fundamental rights.
Contravention of any fundamental rights
can be rescinded by the court.
Courts can strike down an act of
Government violative of any fundamental
right and can enforce the right against the
Government.
Directive principles of State policy are not
enforceable (non-justiciable)
Directives are affirmative instruction to the
State to do certain things.
Economic and social rights are
predominant in the directive principle
The courts cannot declare any law as void
on the ground that it contravenes any of the
directive principles.
Directives do no confer upon or take away
any legislative power from the appropriate
legislature.

25
AIR 1996 SC 645

19
 Human Rights

Critical Analysis :
The inter-relationship doctrine between fundamental rights and directive principles of state
policy is not only theoretical but also practical and rewarding. Fundamental rights provide for
political freedoms to the citizens by protecting them against excessive state action while
directive principles are to securing social and economic freedom by appropriated action both are
inspiration of reform legislation. The fundamental rights should be interpreted in the light of
directive principles to observe the limits set by directive principles in the scope of the
fundamental rights. For example article 39, 39-A can be interpreted with article 21 of the
constitution and article 46 can be interpreted with article 29 and 30 of the constitution.

The judicial attitude has undergone transformation where courts are very active to uphold the
fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution thereby interpreting the provisions of part-IV i.e.
Directive Principles of State Policy. Initially, the courts adopted a strict and literal legal position
in interpreting part-III with part-IV of the constitution which is reflected in State of Madras vs.
Champakam Dorairajan26. It was held in case of conflict between part-III and part –IV the
fundamental rights will prevail. In the course of time, change came over the judicial attitude as
the apex court views the interplay between part-III and part-IV in different manner from that of
Champakam Dorairajan’s case and held that there is good deal of value for directive principles of
state policy from legal point of view and started to have harmonize between the two parts of
constitution. The author has made an attempt to show core area of interaction part-III and Part-IV
in the above paragraphs of this article. In the recent decisions of the apex and high courts there
has been a changing trend by making a harmonious construction between part-III and part-IV of
the constitution making directive principles of state policy justifiable and enforceable on par with
fundamental rights of the constitution.

26
AIR 1951 SC 226

20
 Human Rights

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFERRED:

1. Dr. Ranbir Singh, Constitutional law, constitutional law, LexisNexis Butterworths

2. Dr. J.N.Pandey, Constitutional law of India, 46 edition, Central law Agency
3. M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional law(volume 2) Wadhwa & company Nagpur
4. P.Ishwara Bhatt, Fundamental rights, Eastern Law house

WEB VISITS:
http://www.manupatra.com  Last Updated: 13th April, 2015
http://www.legalservicesindia.com  Last Updated: 10th April, 2015
http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica  Last Updated: 17th April, 2015
http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal  Last Updated: 29th March, 2015
http://www.scconline.co.in  Last Updated: 1st April, 2015
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com  Last Updated: 11th April, 2015
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in  Last Updated: 1st April, 2015
http://www.westlawindia.com  Last Updated: 16th April, 2015

21