Topic 04 of 5 · Chapter 06 · Indian Polity
Conflict Between Fundamental Rights & DPSP
Historical conflict, Golaknath case, Kesavananda Bharati case, Minerva Mills case, and current position.
📋 In This Article
1. The Conflict — FR vs DPSP
The conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs arises when the State tries to implement DPSPs through laws that restrict Fundamental Rights. The question is: which prevails — FR or DPSP?
⭐ The Core Issue: FR are justiciable and enforceable. DPSPs are non-justiciable. But when Parliament passes a law to implement a DPSP, and that law restricts a FR, which one prevails?
2. Landmark Cases — Evolution of the Conflict
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
1951
Ruling: Fundamental Rights prevail over DPSPs. A State order reserving seats in educational institutions based on religion and caste was struck down as violating Article 29(2). This led to the 1st Constitutional Amendment (1951) which added Article 15(4).
Golaknath v. State of Punjab
1967
Ruling: Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. FR are transcendental and immutable. This made it impossible to implement DPSPs that required restricting FR. Led to the 24th and 25th Amendments.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
1973
Ruling: Parliament can amend FR but cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Overruled Golaknath case. Established the Basic Structure Doctrine. Harmony between FR and DPSP is part of the basic structure.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
1980
Ruling: Struck down clauses of 42nd Amendment that gave DPSPs absolute primacy over FR. Held that harmony and balance between FR and DPSP is a basic feature of the Constitution. Neither can be given absolute primacy over the other.
3. Current Position
✅ Current Position (after Minerva Mills, 1980):
- Neither FR nor DPSP has absolute primacy over the other
- There must be harmony and balance between FR and DPSP
- This harmony is a basic feature of the Constitution
- Parliament can restrict FR to implement DPSPs, but cannot destroy the basic structure
- Courts try to interpret laws in a way that upholds both FR and DPSP
4. FR vs DPSP — Comparison Table
| Feature | Fundamental Rights | DPSP |
|---|---|---|
| Part | Part III (Art. 12–35) | Part IV (Art. 36–51) |
| Justiciable? | Yes — enforceable in courts | No — not enforceable |
| Nature | Negative obligations on State | Positive obligations on State |
| Source | USA | Ireland |
| Purpose | Protect individual rights | Promote social welfare |
| Primacy | Neither has absolute primacy | Neither has absolute primacy |
| Suspension | Can be suspended during Emergency | Cannot be suspended |
5. Key Points for Exam
🔑 Must-Remember Facts
- Champakam Dorairajan case (1951) — FR prevail over DPSP
- Golaknath case (1967) — Parliament cannot amend FR
- Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) — Parliament can amend FR but not basic structure
- Minerva Mills case (1980) — Harmony between FR and DPSP is basic structure
- Current position: Neither FR nor DPSP has absolute primacy
- 42nd Amendment gave DPSPs primacy over FR — struck down by Minerva Mills case
- FR = negative obligations; DPSP = positive obligations
- FR = justiciable; DPSP = non-justiciable