Directive principles, fundamental duties, and their relation to fundamental rights - Constitutional Law I

Check the judgment before you rely on this. Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

The examiner's real question. Almost every question on this topic is asking one thing: what happens when Part III and Part IV conflict? The answer moved from rights prevail (Champakam) to harmonious construction (Kesavananda) to the balance itself is a basic feature (Minerva Mills). Learn that arc.

1. Directive principles: nature and classification

Part IV, Articles 36 to 51, sets out the directive principles of State policy. Article 37 is the key: they are not enforceable by any court, yet they are fundamental in the governance of the country, and it is the duty of the State to apply them in making laws. Borrowed from the Irish Constitution.

The usual classification is threefold:

Socialistic — Article 38 (a social order based on justice), 39 (adequate means of livelihood, distribution of material resources to subserve the common good, prevention of concentration of wealth, equal pay for equal work), 39-A (free legal aid), 41 (right to work, education and public assistance), 42 (just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief), 43 (living wage), 47 (nutrition and standard of living).
Gandhian — Article 40 (organisation of village panchayats), 43 (cottage industries), 46 (promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections), 47 (prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs), 48 (organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry, prohibition of cow slaughter).
Liberal-intellectual — Article 44 (uniform civil code), 45 (early childhood care and education), 48-A (protection of environment and forests), 49 (protection of monuments), 50 (separation of judiciary from executive), 51 (promotion of international peace and security).

Why unenforceable?

Because they require resources, and their fulfilment depends on the economic capacity of the State. A court cannot order a living wage into existence. The framers chose to state the goals honestly rather than promise what could not be delivered, and to leave their achievement to the political process — the sanction being the electorate rather than the court.

2. Fundamental duties

Part IV-A, Article 51-A, inserted by the Forty-second Amendment, 1976, on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee. Originally ten duties; an eleventh — the duty of a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to a child between six and fourteen — was added by the Eighty-sixth Amendment, 2002.

They include abiding by the Constitution and respecting its ideals, cherishing the ideals of the freedom struggle, upholding the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, defending the country, promoting harmony and renouncing practices derogatory to the dignity of women, valuing the composite culture, protecting the natural environment, developing the scientific temper, safeguarding public property and abjuring violence, and striving towards excellence.

Duties are not directly enforceable, and no penalty attaches to their breach as such. Their legal significance is threefold: they are an aid to interpretation, particularly where the reasonableness of a restriction is in issue; Parliament may enact laws giving them effect; and they may be relied on to sustain legislation that would otherwise appear to restrict a right.

3. The conflict with fundamental rights

Stage one: rights prevail

In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 INSC 26, AIR 1951 SC 226, communal reservation of college seats was defended by reference to Article 46. The Court held that the directive principles must conform to and run subsidiary to the fundamental rights, since Part III is enforceable and Part IV is not. Parliament's response was the First Amendment, inserting Article 15(4).

Stage two: harmonious construction

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 INSC 91, (1973) 4 SCC 225, the Court moved away from strict subordination, holding that Parts III and IV are complementary and supplementary, together constituting the conscience of the Constitution, and are to be read harmoniously wherever possible.

Stage three: the balance is itself protected

The Forty-second Amendment extended Article 31-C so that a law giving effect to any directive principle would prevail over Articles 14 and 19. In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1980 INSC 142, (1980) 3 SCC 625, that extension was struck down. The reasoning is the sentence to remember: the Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV, and to give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution. The balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is part of the basic structure.

4. Directive principles made enforceable through Article 21

The most important modern development. Although Part IV cannot be enforced directly, courts have read directive principles into Article 21, and so made them enforceable indirectly.

The clearest example is education. In Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 INSC 40, (1993) 1 SCC 645, the Court held that the right to education flows from the right to life under Article 21, read with Articles 41 and 45, at least up to the age of fourteen. Parliament later gave that constitutional form through Article 21-A, inserted by the Eighty-sixth Amendment, 2002.

The same technique has produced a right to a clean environment from Article 48-A, a right to health and to humane conditions of work from Articles 39(e), 42 and 47, and a right to legal aid from Article 39-A. An unenforceable principle, read into an enforceable right, becomes enforceable in substance.

5. Distinctions to state clearly

Rights against duties. Fundamental rights are enforceable, negative in form, and mostly operate against the State. Directive principles are unenforceable, positive in form, and impose obligations on the State. Fundamental duties are unenforceable and are addressed to the citizen.
Rights are political democracy; principles are economic and social democracy. Ambedkar's point was that political democracy without social democracy cannot last.

How this is examined

Among the most frequently set essay questions in the paper: discuss the relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles, or examine whether directive principles are of any value given that they are unenforceable.

For the second form, the answer is that unenforceability is not the same as ineffectiveness. Give four reasons: they guide legislation and have produced a great volume of it; they are an aid to interpretation; they have been read into Article 21 and so made indirectly enforceable; and the balance between them and Part III is protected as a basic feature. Then run the Champakam – Kesavananda – Minerva Mills arc, and finish with Unni Krishnan and Article 21-A as the worked example of a principle becoming a right.

Now go and read the questions themselves: Constitutional Law I past question papers.