Author: Kumari Anushka Srivastava, Lloyd Law College
MEANING OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Fundamental Rights are the basic human Rights which are guaranteed by our Constitution, indispensable for human dignity and individual development. These are considered for balancing the ideals of liberty with social Justice. These Rights act as shield and protect individual from arbitrary actions by state. The Fundamental Rights are legally enforceable in Court and uphold principles of democracy, Justice, and equality. Part III of Indian Constitution is also known as ‘magna carta ‘of India
MEANING OF DPSP
Directive Principles for State Policy (DPSP) are the guidelines or instructions to the state enshrined in part IV of the Indian Constitution Articles(36- 51). They represent the ideals that the framers of the Constitution wanted the future governments to strive towards in order to establish a welfare state and achieve social and economic democracy alongside political democracy. The ultimate objective is to establish a welfare society based on social economic and political Justice.
POSITION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
Fundamental Rights are justiciable i.e. these Rights allow person to move the Courts for their enforcement, if and when violated. In layman terms, when a Fundamental right of a person is violated or infringed or defied then they can approach Courts in India. Under Article 32 of Indian Constitution one can approach directly to Supreme Court of India in case of violation of any Fundamental right directly.
POSITION OF DPSP
DPSP consists of all the ideals which the State should follow and keep in mind while formulating policies and enacting laws for the country. The DPSP’s are non justiciable which means that any violation of DPSP laid in part IV of Indian Constitution cannot be enforced in Court of law. In other words, even if the State fails to implement or respect such a principle, citizens cannot approach the judiciary to claim it as a matter of legal right. The rationale behind this is that Governments should have freedom to prioritize policies based on resources, socio-economic needs, and time. Also, Courts cannot handle implementation of broad welfare schemes; that is a matter of policy, not judicial adjudication.
CAN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OVERRIDE DPSP?
Fundamental Rights (Part III) guarantee enforceable freedoms to individuals, while Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) lay down broad obligations for the State to promote social and economic democracy.
The persistent question, however, has been: Can Fundamental Rights override DPSPs, or do DPSPs hold equal Constitutional weight?
This question can be understood through various judgements of our honourable Courts and the changes our legal system went through before reaching to what we have currently adopted known as harmonious construction.
THE STATE OF MADRAS V. CHAMPAKAM DORAIRAJAN (1951)
The State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) is a landmark case that established the supremacy of Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles of State Policy.
Background: The madras government issued an order reserving seats in medical college and engineering colleges on religion and caste, with the view to implement Article 46(a DPSP ). This act was challenged by champakam dorairajan a brahmin student who was denied admission. The act was considered to be in violation of Article 15.
Judgement: The Court in this case struck down the reservation in educational institution as it was violating Article 15. The Fundamental Rights were Supreme to DPSP in this case, making the DPSP subordinate to Fundamental Rights.
FIRST CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1951
The judgement of champakan dorairajan led to the first Constitutional amendment. The amendment aimed to balance Fundamental Rights with DPSP. The amendment added Article 15(4) which empowered the states to make provisions for socio economic backward classes, SC, and ST. further the amendment added reasonable restrictions in Article 19. Therefore, in relation to the revolving question it can be said that it empowered states to align DPSP with Fundamental Rights.
SHANKARI PRASAD SINGH DEO V. UNION OF INDIA (1951)
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951) case established Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, using Article 368.
Background: Petitioner was a zamindar from West Bengal, challenged the first amendment act which had violated the right to property under Article 31.
Judgement: A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the government, upholding the the first amendment in 1951 and that the Parliament has power to amend Constitution under Article 368. The Court further clarified that Constitutional amendments are not laws under Article 13(2).
SAJJAN SINGH V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (1964)
The Parliament passed the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964, which placed certain land reform laws into the 9th Schedule.The purpose was to protect agrarian reform laws (implementing DPSPs under Article 39(b) & (c)) from being challenged on the grounds of violating Fundamental Rights (particularly Right to Property under Article 31, which existed then).
Sajjan Singh, a former ruler, challenged the Amendment, arguing that Parliament had no power to amend Fundamental Rights, since they form part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
In this case the Supreme Court held the validity of Shankari prasad. The Court favoured DPSP over Fundamental Rights. A strong dissenting opinion was from Justice Hidayatillah, sais that excessive amendment power would destroy the sanctity of Fundamental Rights.
THE TURNING POINT
I.C. GOLAKNATH AND ORS. V. STATE OF PUNJAB(1967)
This case gave a turn to the previous precedents and laid some restrictions to the amending power. In this case the Punjab security of land tenures act, 1953 was challenged which was placed in ninth schedule. Petitioners argued that their right to property was violated.
The question raised in this case was whether the Parliament has powers to amend the Fundamental Rights under Article 368?
To which the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 of Indian Constitution. Supreme Court declared Fundamental Rights could not be amended by Parliament even for implementation of directive principles. This judgement strengthened Fundamental right over DPSP.
24TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1971
The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 was enacted as a calculated move by Parliament to counter the effect of the Golak Nath v. State of Punjab judgment and reassert its authority to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. Through this amendment, Articles 13 and 368 were revised to expressly declare Parliament’s competence to alter any provision of the Constitution. It also mandated that the President must give assent to any Constitutional Amendment Bill, thereby removing the scope for refusal.
25TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1971
The 25th Constitutional amendment was passed to overturn the judgement of the Supreme Court in RC Cooper v. Union of India (1970). The amendment introduced Article 31C and modified Article 19(1)(f), aiming to curtail the Fundamental right to property to facilitate socio-economic reforms and implement Directive Principles. if Parliament made laws to implement the DPSP under Article 39(b) and (c) then those laws shall take priority over Fundamental Rights.
KESHAV NANDA BHARATI V STATE OF KERELA (1973)
he Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case is the most important Constitutional law judgment in India, establishing the revolutionary Basic Structure Doctrine.
The case questioned the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which placed limits on the property rights of religious institutions. It emerged from a clash between the rights of religious bodies over their property and the broader goals of land reform policies. Alongside this, the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments was also brought under challenge.
Question underlying the case also included: Was the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution unlimited? In other words, could Parliament alter, amend, abrogate any part of the Constitution even to the extent of taking away all Fundamental Rights?
The historic verdict was pronounced on 24 April 1973 by a narrow margin of 7:6. It was held in this case that Constitution can be amended by Parliament but that amendment should not change the basic structure doctrine The Court held that the 24 Constitutional Amendment was entirely valid. But it found the second part of the 25 Constitutional Amendment to be ultra vires. Moreover, Article 31(c) was held unconstitutional as it infringed upon the Basic Structure Doctrine.
The blanket ban on amending Fundamental Rights laid down in Golak Nath was overturned. The Basic Structure Doctrine was given prospective effect, meaning amendments made after 24 April 1973 would be tested against it, while earlier amendments were upheld as valid.
42ND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1976
the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, often called the “Mini-Constitution” because it made sweeping changes. It is directly linked to the Fundamental Rights vs. DPSPs conflict, especially through Article 31C.
Added three new words (i.e., socialist, secular and integrity) in the Preamble. Extended Article 31C’s protection to ALL Directive Principles (Part IV), not just 39(b) & (c). Any law made to implement any DPSP would have primacy over Fundamental Rights (Articles 14 & 19). It also added clauses (4)and(5) to Article 368 saying that no Constitutional amendment could be questioned in any Court. This marked the absolute supremacy of Parliament over the Constitution reducing the role of Fundamental Rights and judiciary
MINERWA MILLS V. UNION OF India (1980)
In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court declared that the Indian Constitution rests on a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. The ruling reinforced and expanded the scope of the Basic Structure Doctrine. Minerva Mills, a textile company located in Karnataka, had contested its nationalization carried out under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.
The questions in front of the apex Court were that can the Parliament, through Article 368 of the Constitution have unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights?
On July 31, 1980 judgment was passed which marked the significance in Indian legal history by reaffirming of democratic principles following the dark emergency period. The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitutional bench, led by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, delivered a unanimous and historic judgment that struck down the most dangerous provisions of the 42nd Amendment. The Court declared clause 4, which had added Article 368(4) stating that “no amendment can be questioned in any Court on any ground,” as Fundamentally invalid, establishing that judicial review of Constitutional amendments is an essential and inalienable feature of India’s Constitutional structure. Similarly, clause 5, which had attempted to give absolute primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights, was struck down as violating the basic structure by destroying the essential balance between individual Rights and state duties.
The ruling put forth the “harmony doctrine,” stressing that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles must exist in equilibrium, with neither granted absolute dominance. Decided in the post-Emergency political climate, it marked a firm repudiation of authoritarian overreach and endorsed the democratic revival reflected in the 44th Amendment. By invalidating parts of the 42nd Amendment that gave overriding force to Directive Principles and restricted judicial review, the Court cemented judicial review as an inviolable element of the Constitution and affirmed judicial activism as a safeguard of democratic principles. The verdict secured the continuity of the Basic Structure Doctrine, first established in Kesavananda Bharati, and has since influenced significant rulings, including the NJAC case of 2015.
AFTERMATH OF MINERVA MILLS V. UNION OF INDIA (1980)
The decision in Minerva Mills marked a turning point in India’s Constitutional history. By reinforcing the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Court ensured that Parliament’s authority to amend the Constitution could never be absolute, but would always remain tethered to the higher obligation of preserving harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. The ruling also helped to rebuild public trust in the judiciary after the excesses of the Emergency, making clear that the Constitution rests not on shifting political majorities but on enduring values of liberty, equality, and social Justice. In the years that followed, the judgment served as a constant reminder that judicial review is not a privilege, but a Constitutional necessity for safeguarding democratic identity.
Its influence has been long-lasting. Later cases such as I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) expanded the reach of the Basic Structure Doctrine even to the Ninth Schedule, while the NJAC case (2015) struck down an amendment that threatened judicial independence. Beyond India, Minerva Mills has resonated with Constitutional Courts worldwide, many of which have drawn inspiration from its articulation of Constitutional identity and limits on amendment power. Critics of the judgment often point to the danger of excessive judicial dominance, but its defenders see it as a vital protective shield against authoritarian impulses. Ultimately, the legacy of Minerva Mills lies in proving that the Indian Constitution is a self-preserving and adaptive document—capable of protecting itself against attempts at dismantling its essence. It reaffirmed that when democratic structures are under threat, the judiciary remains the last sentinel of Constitutional balance, ensuring that individual freedom and collective Justice continue to coexist.
CONCLUSION
The debate over whether Fundamental Rights can override Directive Principles is settled not through supremacy, but through Constitutional harmony. Fundamental Rights, by their very nature, are enforceable guarantees that safeguard individual liberty, whereas Directive Principles reflect the State’s duty to establish a just social and economic order. When conflict arises, the Courts have consistently upheld the primacy of Fundamental Rights, but at the same time have stressed that DPSPs cannot be treated as mere ornamental provisions. Decisions from Kesavananda Bharati to Minerva Mills underline that giving unchecked priority to either would damage the Constitution’s basic structure. The true Constitutional vision lies in reading both together, so that Rights protect freedom while principles guide the path toward Justice and equality. In essence, Fundamental Rights may prevail in direct clashes, yet they do not completely overshadow DPSPs; rather, both operate as complementary pillars, ensuring India’s democracy balances individual dignity with collective welfare.
FAQS
Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights to give effect to DPSPs?
Yes, but only within limits. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights to implement DPSPs, but it cannot amend them in a way that destroys the Basic Structure of the Constitution (as held in Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills).
Which is more important for Indian democracy: Fundamental Rights or DPSPs?
Both are equally important. Fundamental Rights protect individual liberty and dignity, while DPSPs guide the State in achieving social and economic Justice. Together, they form the core philosophy of the Constitution.
What is the current position of law?
The prevailing position is that Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are complementary. Fundamental Rights may prevail in cases of direct inconsistency, but DPSPs remain essential for governance and policymaking, ensuring that India’s democracy is not only political but also socio-economic in nature.
