Clash Between Fundamental Rights & DPSPs

Source-This post on Clash Between Fundamental Rights & DPSPs has been created based on the article “A chance to settle a constitutional clash” published in “The Hindu” on 8 May 2024.

UPSC Syllabus-GS Paper-2- Indian Constitution—Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions and Basic Structure.

Context – The article highlights that the Supreme Court can resolve the longstanding conflict between fundamental rights and DPSPs in Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra case by providing clarity on Article 31C’s validity and adherence to the Constitution’s basic structure. The concept of democracy as a governing method and a core societal value

What are the key questions raised in the case of Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra?

1) The interpretation of the term “material resources of the community” as mentioned in Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

2) Whether laws enacted to achieve the objective set forth in Article 39(b) are immunized from legal challenges based on fundamental rights to equality and liberty. This question also highlights a conflict between Part III of the Constitution, which outlines fundamental rights, and Part IV, which lists Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

NOTE-Article 39(b)-It places an obligation on the state to create policy towards securing “the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”.

What has been the history of conflict between fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)?

This tension between the two has existed throughout India’s history.However,it has become particularly intense in the 1970s when amendments were made to exempt certain laws from judicial review.

1) Constitutional Provisions and Earlier Judicial Interpretations-

A) At its inception, the Constitution’s bare text was clear enough. Article 13 stated that any law violating a fundamental right would be invalid. In contrast, Article 37 stated that Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) wouldn’t be enforceable in court.

B) In its early judgments, the Supreme Court clarified the hierarchy between fundamental rights and DPSPs. In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs State of Bihar (1958), the Chief Justice stated that the state should implement DPSPs without abridging fundamental rights.

2) Introduction of Article 31(C)– The 25th amendment introduced Article 31C to protect laws enacted to fulfill Article 39(b) and (c) from challenges under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. This provision aimed to exempt legislation promoting the common good from fundamental rights scrutiny.

3)  Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973)– The court upheld the validity of Article 31C but made it subject to judicial review.

4) 42^nd Constitutional Amendment– Parliament brought the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976, which extended the scope of the 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).

5) Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980)– 42^nd CAA was subsequently challenged in this case. The court declared the amendment unconstitutional. The Court found that while DPSPs provided the ends of governance, fundamental rights constituted the means to such ends.

6) Waman Rao vs Union of India– The court upheld the validity of Article 31C by arguing that laws aligned with Articles 39(b) and (c) wouldn’t violate rights under Articles 14 and 19.

Read more- Difference between Fundamental Rights and DPSP

What are the consequences of legal ambiguity surrounding Article 31C?

1) Potential for Abuse: Critics argue that Article 31C, as amended, gives excessive power to the legislature, enabling it to enact laws that could infringe upon fundamental rights under the guise of achieving the objectives of the Directive Principles. In other words, it places certain laws above fundamental rights. For instance, a law nationalizing the printing press, purportedly for the common good, could suppress free speech.

2) Judicial Responses and Uncertainties: The Supreme Court has struggled with Article 31C’s implications, as seen in the Minerva Mills case (1980) and the Waman Rao judgment.

For ex-in Minerva Mill case, there some of the questions were not answered like- Has Article 31C reverted to its original version from the 25th amendment, minus the parts invalidated by the majority in Kesavananda? Or is it in a limbo where its validity is uncertain?

These rulings questioned the amendment’s alignment with the Constitution’s basic structure. But did not conclusively resolve the tensions between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights.

This ongoing ambiguity has led to a persistent conflict between fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). The Court now has an opportunity in the Property Owners case to address this conflict and strengthen the Constitution’s core principles.

Question for the practice

What are the consequences of legal ambiguity surrounding Article 31C?