Q. Regarding the legal evolution of the conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, consider the following statements:
1.In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the two, Fundamental Rights would prevail, but the court also suggested that DPSP could be implemented by amending FRs.
2.The 24th Amendment Act (1971) was enacted by Parliament to declare that it has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting Constitutional Amendment Acts.
3.In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court held that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, and to dilute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Answer: A
Notes:
Explanation:
- Statement 1: Correct. It established the “subsidiary” status of DPSP initially.
- Statement 2: Correct. This was the legislative response to the Golaknath case which had limited Parliament’s power.
- Statement 3: Correct. This judgment restored the “Doctrine of Harmony” and struck down the part of the 42nd Amendment that gave blanket primacy to all DPSPs. In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court held that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, and to give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony
