Relationship Beetween Directive Priciple of State Policy and Fundamental Rights
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle are integral components of the same organic constitutional system and no conflict between them could have been intended by founding fathers. But the view of Supreme Court on the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles have not been uniform throughout. There are three possible views on the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. The first view is that former are the superior to the latter and so the latter must give way to the former in case of repugnancy or irreconcilable conflict between the two. The second view is that Fundamental Rights and directive principle are equal in importance and hence , in case of conflict between the two an attempt must be made to harmonise them with each other. The view is that Directive Principles are superior to Fundamental Rights mainly because the constitution provide that the former are ‘fundamental in the governance of the country’ and it shall be the ‘duty’ of the state “to apply these principle in making laws” and the binding nature of law does not cease to be so merely because it can not be enforced. These different view regarding the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles have been pronounced by the judiciary at different times .In the following chapters an attempts has been made to examine the role of judiciary in relation to the Directive Principles with the Fundamental Rights.
(1) First phase: From champakam Dorairajan to fourth Amendment
The first occasion of confrontation of the Supreme Court with the issue of relationship between rights and Directive Principles was presented by State of Madras V.Champakam Dorairajan [1]. The fact of this case were as follows: The government of Madras issued an order popularly known as communal government order under which the seat in the engineering and medical colleges were
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle are integral components of the same organic constitutional system and no conflict between them could have been intended by founding fathers. But the view of Supreme Court on the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles have not been uniform throughout. There are three possible views on the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. The first view is that former are the superior to the latter and so the latter must give way to the former in case of repugnancy or irreconcilable conflict between the two. The second view is that Fundamental Rights and directive principle are equal in importance and hence , in case of conflict between the two an attempt must be made to harmonise them with each other. The view is that Directive Principles are superior to Fundamental Rights mainly because the constitution provide that the former are ‘fundamental in the governance of the country’ and it shall be the ‘duty’ of the state “to apply these principle in making laws” and the binding nature of law does not cease to be so merely because it can not be enforced. These different view regarding the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles have been pronounced by the judiciary at different times .In the following chapters an attempts has been made to examine the role of judiciary in relation to the Directive Principles with the Fundamental Rights.
(1) First phase: From champakam Dorairajan to fourth Amendment
The first occasion of confrontation of the Supreme Court with the issue of relationship between rights and Directive Principles was presented by State of Madras V.Champakam Dorairajan [1]. The fact of this case were as follows: The government of Madras issued an order popularly known as communal government order under which the seat in the engineering and medical colleges were