Fundamental Rights (Part-III):- Fundamental rights are rights without which a human being cannot survive in dignified manner in a civilized society. Fundamental rights are known as “basic rights”. They are also known as negative rights or individual rights as it imposes negative obligations on the state so that it does not encroach on individual liberty. These rights are justifiable in nature so one can go to Courts if one’s right was violated or infringed

Fundamental rights are enshrined in Part III of Indian Constitution from Article 12-35. Initially there are seven fundamental rights but after the abolition of Zamidari Act, Right to Property was repealed. Six Fundamental rights are as follows:

i) Right to equality (Article 14-18)
(ii) Right to freedom (Article 19-22)
(iii) Right to freedom of religion (Article 23-24)
(iv) Right against exploitation (Article 25-28)
(v) Cultural and educational rights (Article 29-30)
(vi) Rights to constitutional remedies (Article 31-32)

Directive Principles (Part-IV):- Part-IV of the constitution deals with “directive principles of state policy”. They are positive rights and impose positive obligations on the state. Directive Principles of State Policy. They are considered as positive rights as they impose positive obligations on the state. They are non-justifiable in nature yet they are important to provide guidelines to Legislature to formulate a policy. DPSP helps the State to attain its Socio-economical goals. DPSP are borrowed from Section -45 of the Irish Constitution of Ireland.

Article 36-51 of the Indian Constitution entails DPSP. Some of them are of current topics of debate in the Parliament.
Some the DPSP are as follows:
(i)Right to work
(ii) Uniform Civil Code
(iii) Right to education
(iv) Maternity benefit.

Difference between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principals of State Policy

The first case in the Supreme Court pertaining to the conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles was State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226) . In this case the Madras Communal Government order which regulated admission to colleges on the basis of an ordinary ratio was challenged by petitioner as violating Articles 15 (1) and 29 (2). The Supreme Court invalidated the order which provided for communal reservation of seats for admission into a State educational institution, even though it was inspired by Article 46. According to the court, since Fundamental Rights are justifiable and enforceable rights, the directive Principles are not. The laws to implement Directive Principles could not take away Fundamental Rights. The Directive Principles should run subsidiary and conform to the Fundamental Rights.

Relation between Fundamental Rights and DPSP: 

Instead of having certain distinctions, Constitution Framers always talked about the coherence between Fundamental Rights and DPSP. Justice P.N. Bhagwati defines inter relation between Fundamental Rights and DPSP as “It is not possible to fit Fundamental Rights and DPSP in two different and strictly defined categories”. We can safely presumed from the above observations given by Constitution Framers that Fundamental Rights and DPSP are interrelated to each other.

In State of Bihar v.Kameshwar Singh 1952 1 SCR 889, the Apex Court relied on Article 39(b) and held that certain Zamidari Abolition Laws had been passed for a Public purpose within the meaning of Article 13(2). Directive Principles were not merely the policy of any particular party but were intended to be principles fixed by the Constitution for directing the State Policy.
In Mohd Hanif Quereshi v. State of Bihar[1950] S.C.R. 869 at 891-892, petitioner argued that he was prevented from doing his occupation which is butchering of animals which include cow also and said that it lead to violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Then Supreme court rely on Article 48 of Indian constitution and held that preventing cows from butchering does lead to the violation of petitioner’s right and observed two important things:

a) the State should take note of the Directive Principles in determining the scope of Fundamental Rights
(b) adopting the doctrine of harmonious construction.
Court should give effect to both the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles.

In Unni Krishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 AIR 2178, 1993 SCR (1) 594 Supreme court followed the same principle of Keshavanand Bharti case and held that Fundamental Rights and DPSP are supplementary and complementary to each other and provisions of Part III should be read under the light of Preamble and Directive Principles.
In State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu Kavur Bai 1984 AIR 326, it was held that DPSP are not enforceable in Courts but it should be attempt of the Court to harmonize both of them and collision should be avoided as far as possible.
In Gujarat Agricultural University v. Robhod Labhu Prachar AIR 2001 SC 70, Supreme Court implied Article 38 which deals to promote social order by welfare of the people and held that Government who is a guardian of people should eliminate inequalities in a status, and make endeavors to give maximum posts even at the first stage of absorption

Principle of harmonious construction:

In Kerala Education Bill, 19575 the Apex court while affirming the primacy of fundamental rights over the directive principles, it held that Court may not entirely ignore these Directive Principles of State Policy laid down in Part IV of the Constitution but should adopt the principle of harmonious construction and should 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.

Harmonious construction can be defined as provision of Fundamental rights and DPSP should be read harmoniously or hand in hand. If any conflict occurs then court can refer to any particular law or interpret any law so as to give effect to both as far as possible. In the case of R. Coelho v. state of T.N.9 SC said that it is the responsibility of the government to adopt a middle path between individual liberty (Fundamental Rights) and public good (Directive Principles).
In Minerva Mills v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789 case, Supreme Court observed that Fundamental rights are not end in themselves but are the means to an end. End is specific in Directive Principles. Indian Constitution is based on bedrock of balance between the two. To give absolute primacy to one over another is to disturb the harmony of Constitution. The harmony and balance between them is an essential feature of basic structure of Constitution.

Conclusion

Relation between Fundamental Rights and DPSP is cohesive in nature now and is an essential part of basic Structure of Indian constitution. Both are complementary and supplementary to each other. State should follow the guidelines enumerated in DPSP to protect Fundamental rights else they will have to face adverse consequences in next elections. Thus, the Directive Principles no longer remain merely a moral obligation of the Government. Despite differences, both cannot be seen as exclusive from each other; rather they should complement each other for effective governance of the country.

While Fundamental Right is more objective and has more imposing value, Directive Principles of State Policy in some ways are subjective because it is a kind of moral obligation which the State may or may not implement up to their discretion. Fundamental Rights are aimed at empowering people as it prohibits the State from taking extreme steps which is necessary for a democracy to survive