Fundamental Rights and the DPSP are supplementary to each other and are essential to meet the social and economic dimensions of a democratic government.

Shankari Prasad case (1951)

In the Shankari Prasad case (1951), the constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act (1951), which curtailed the right to property, was challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.

Kerala Education Bill (1957): Doctrine of Harmonious Construction

• Kerala Education Bill (1957): The Supreme Court used the Doctrine of Harmonious Interpretation to address conflicts between DPSPs and Fundamental Rights in the case of the Kerala Education Bill (1957).
• Doctrine of Harmonious Interpretation: According to this doctrine, there should be an effort to reconcile and harmonize DPSPs and Fundamental Rights whenever conflicts arise.
• No Obvious Difference: No inherent hierarchy exists between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), the Supreme Court highlighted.
• Equal Priority: The court established that both FRs and DPSPs are important and courts should strive to uphold the principles of both as far as possible.
• Preference in Interpretation: In situations where a law can be interpreted in only one way, the court would give precedence to protecting fundamental rights over the DPSPs.

Champakam Dorairajan Case (1952)

• Smt. Champakam Dorairajan, hailing from Tamil Nadu, was refused entrance to a veterinary institution in 1951 due to a Communal Government Order that granted caste-based quotas in government jobs and educational institutions. 
• The Champakam Dorairajan judgment was the first time the Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights hold more value than DPSPs.
• It was the Apex Court’s first important judgment on reservations.
• The Court ruled that enforcing DPSPs by law was not possible in the same manner as Fundamental Rights.
• This long-drawn case was similar to the Sajjan Singh V/s State of Rajasthan and Qureshi v/S State of Bihar cases.

Golak Nath Case (1967) 

• In the Golak Nath vs Punjab State case in 1967, the Supreme Court had to form a committee of eleven judges.
• They were forced to come together and make changes to the constitution.
• Amendments to articles 13 and 368 clarified Parliament’s authority to modify the constitution for India’s citizens‘ welfare.

Conflict Between DPSPs And FRs, Conflict Between DPSPs And FRs

Read Also: