Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: An Analytical Approach Towards Social Justice

Abstract

The relationship between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is best illustrated in the Article 37. It provides that Directives are not enforceable in a court of law. But, they are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply them in making laws. In view of such provision, there have arisen certain conflicts between the Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights. But, as of now Article 39(b) and 39(c) can take precedence over Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 14 and Article 19. During the initial period from 1950 to 1966 there was emphasis on sacrosanct character of Fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held the view that if two interpretations of a law are possible, the one avoiding conflict should be accepted. But in case of a single interpretation, leading to conflict fundamental right would prevail other directive principles. In this view, constitutionality of 1st Amendment Act was hailed as valid. In the historic Golan Math’s case, 1967, the Supreme Court emphasized on unamedability of the fundamental rights which have been given a ‘transcendental position.’ The Government passed 24th and 25th Amendment Act 1971. The 24th Constitution Amendment Act made it clear that the Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including the fundamental Rights.