Important Supreme Court Judgements

Can the Court declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes the Directive
principles?
When there is a conflict between Fundamental Rights(FR) and Directive Principles of State
Policy (DPSP), which should prevail? FR? or DPSP?
The answer is not as simple as one would think.
There are some important Supreme Court judgements regarding this. We shall see them in
detail.
DPSPs are not enforceable by law, but just directives to the state. But when the state tries to
implement a DPSP, there can be a conflict between the Fundamental Rights of citizens and
DPSP.
In that sense, the conflict between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State

Policy (DPSP) can also be seen as the conflict between the individual and the state.
While Parliament often tried to assert the supremacy of the state and DPSPs over
Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of the individual as enshrined in
the Constitution, by giving appropriate judgments.
Let us study the highlights of a series of court judgments like Champakam Dorairajan Case
(1952), Golak Nath Case (1967), Kesavanath Bharathi Case (1973), Minerva Mill Case (1980)
etc and see the present status.
Case 1: Kerala Education Bill (1957): Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

Supreme Court in the Re Kerala Education Bill(1957) had propounded the Doctrine of
Harmonious Construction to avoid a situation of conflict while enforcing DPSPs and the
Fundamental Rights. As per this doctrine, the court held that there is no inherent conflict
between FRs and DPSPs and the courts while interpreting a law should attempt to give effect
to both as far as possible i. e. should try to harmonize the two as far as possible.
The court further said that where two interpretation of the law is possible, and one
interpretation validates the law while other interpretation makes the law unconstitutional
and void, then the first interpretation which validates the law should be adopted. But if only
one interpretation is possible which leads to conflict between DPSPs and FRs, the court has
no option but to implement FRs in preference to DPSPs.
Case 2: Champakam Dorairajan Case (1952)

Court Verdict: All Fundamental Rights are superior over DPSP.
Parliament Reaction: The parliament responded by amending and modifying various FRs

which were coming in conflict with DPSPs.
Case 3: Golak Nath Case (1967)
Court Verdict: Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged or diluted.
Parliament Reaction: The parliament responded again by bringing the 25th Amendment Act
of the constitution which inserted Article 31C in Part III. Article 31 C contained two
provisions:
a. If a law is made to give effect to DPSPs in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) and in the process,
the law violates Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31, then the law should not be declared as
unconstitutional and void merely on this ground.
b. Any such law which contains the declaration that it is to give effect to DPSPs in Article
39(b) and Article(c) shall not be questioned in a court of law.
Case 4: Kesavanath Bharathi Case (1973)

The above amendment was challenged in the Kesavananda Bharati Case(1973).
Court Verdict: Parliament can amend any part of Constitution, but could not destroy Basic
Structure of the Constitution. The second clause of Article 31C was as declared as
unconstitutional and void as it was against the Basic Structure of the Constitution
propounded in this case itself. However, the SC upheld the first provision of Article 31C. The
court also held that the power of Judicial review cannot be taken out by Parliament.
Parliament Reaction: Parliament brought the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976, which extended
the scope of the above first provision of Article 31C by including within its purview any law to
implement any of the DPSPs specified in Part IV of the constitutional and not merely Article
39 (b) or (c).
Case 5: Minerva Mill Case (1980)

Court Verdict: A law under Article 31C would be protected only if it is made to implement
directives in article 39b and 39 c and not any other DPSPs. The extension to all DPSPs was
declared as unconstitutional and void by the SC in the Minerva Mills Case(1980).
Present Order of Precedence

So, if there is a conflict between FR and DPSP, which should prevail? The present order of
precedence is as below:
1. FR except 14 and 19.

2. DPSP 39(b) and 39(c).
3. FR 14 and 19.
4. DPSP except 39(b) and 39(c).
This means that DPSP 39B and 39C has been given precedence over Fundamental Right 14
(Right to Equality) and Fundamental Right 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression).
What is Article 39(b)?
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing: that the ownership and
control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the
common good.
What is Article 39(c)?

The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing: that the operation of the
economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to
the common detriment.
Summary of the History of Conflict: Supreme Court vs Parliament

The Supreme Court in the Champakam Dorairajan Vs State of Madras(1951) held that DPSPs
cannot override the provisions of Part III of the constitution. As per the judgment, the DPSPs
have to run subsidiary to the FRs and have to confirm them.
The parliament responded by amending and modifying various FRs which were coming in
conflict with DPSPs. The Supreme court, however, in the Golknath Case(1967) pronounced
that parliament cannot amend the FRs to give effect to the DPSPs. The parliament responded
again by bringing the 25th Amendment Act of the constitution which inserted Article 31C in
Part III. Article 31 C contained two provisions:
a. If a law is made to give effect to DPSPs in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) and in the process,
the law violates Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31, then the law should not be declared as
unconstitutional and void merely on this ground.
b. Any such law which contains the declaration that it is to give effect to DPSPs in Article
39(b) & Article(c) shall not be questioned in a court of law.
Later parliament brought the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976, which extended the scope of the
above first provision of Article 31C by including within its purview any law to implement any
of the DPSPs specified in Part IV of the constitutional and not merely Article 39(b) or (c).
However, this extension was declared as unconstitutional and void by the SC in the Minerva
Mills Case(1980).
The present position is that only Article 39 (b) and Article 39 (c) can be given precedence over
Article 14, 19 and not all the Directive Principles.

Important Supreme Court Judgements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Important Supreme Court Judgements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Important Supreme Court Judgements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Can the Court declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes the Directive

The answer is not as simple as one would think.

In that sense, the conflict between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State

Case 1: Kerala Education Bill (1957): Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

Case 2: Champakam Dorairajan Case (1952)

Parliament Reaction: The parliament responded by amending and modifying various FRs

Case 4: Kesavanath Bharathi Case (1973)

Case 5: Minerva Mill Case (1980)

Present Order of Precedence

1. FR except 14 and 19.

What is Article 39(c)?

Summary of the History of Conflict: Supreme Court vs Parliament

You might also like