Skip to content

Political Science · Ch 2 — Rights in the Indian Constitution

Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

11

Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles were meant to work together --

Fundamental Rights protect the individual's civil and political liberty against arbitrary state

power, while Directive Principles commit the state to building the social and economic conditions

in which that liberty becomes meaningful for everyone, not just those already well off. In practice,

however, the relationship between the two has also been the site of one of independent India's most

significant constitutional debates.

Directive Principles of State Policy grouped into their Goals (welfare, justice, standard of living, international peace), the Non-justiciable rights they list (livelihood, equal pay, right to work), and the Policies they direct the State to pursue (uniform civil code, prohibition, village panchayats)
Directive Principles of State Policy grouped into their Goals (welfare, justice, standard of living, international peace), the Non-justiciable rights they list (livelihood, equal pay, right to work), and the Policies they direct the State to pursue (uniform civil code, prohibition, village panchayats)

Drawn by us to help you understand the concept clearly, and verified to make sure it's accurate. For exams, practice from your NCERT textbook's own diagram.

Directive Principles of State Policy grouped into their Goals (welfare, justice, standard of living, international peace), the Non-justiciable rights they list (livelihood, equal pay, right to work), and the Policies they direct the State to pursue (uniform civil code, prohibition, village panchayats) Own-illustrated for this platform from the real NCERT page's own facts (composition, labels, and content are recreated; the specific artistic rend …

When Parliament amended Fundamental Rights in order to implement certain Directive Principles (for

instance, land-reform laws meant to reduce inequality in landholding), the courts had to decide how

far Parliament's amending power could go. In Golaknath (1967), the Supreme Court held Parliament

could not amend Fundamental Rights at all; in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Court modified this,

holding that Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights, including to implement Directive Principles,

but could never alter the Constitution's "basic structure"; in Minerva Mills (1980), the Court struck

down an attempt to give Directive Principles unconditional priority over Fundamental Rights, holding

instead that the balance between the two is itself part of the basic structure. Increasingly, courts …