DPSP and FR : Inter relationship

Dr. Archana Gadekar

DPSP: Constitutional Position

Non-Justifiable

Classification of DPSP

A. Social and Economic Charter B. Social Security Charter C. Community Welfare Charter

Social and Economic Charter

Social Order based on Justice Principles of Policy to be followed by the State for securing Economic Justice

Social Security Charter

Participation of Workers in management of Industries Rt. To work , education and Public assistance Just and Human conditions of work Living Wage for workers Early Childhood Care and Education to Children

Social Security Charter

Raise Standard of Living & Improvement of Health Promotion of Educational Interest of Weaker Sections Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid to EBC

Community Welfare Charter

Uniform Civil Code Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Improvement and Protection of Forest and Wild Life Protection of Monuments and places of National Interest Separation of Judiciary from Executive Promotion of International Peace and Security

DPSP-FR: Inter-relationship

St. of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan St. of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh Re. Kerala Education Bill Keshvananda Bharati v. St. of Kerala Minerva Mills v. UOI Sanjeev Coke Mfg Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd

St. of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan

Constitution First Amendment Act Under Challenge Contention of State enactment made to promote the social justice for all sections of society Amendment struck down Held:

SC on 1st Amendment

DPSP, which by Art.37 are expressly made unenforceable by Courts cannot override the provisions found in Part III which, notwithstanding other provisions, are expressly made enforceable by appropriate writs, orders or directions under Art.32. The Chapter on FR is sacrosanct by legislative or executive act and not liable to be abridged by legislative orders, except to the extent provided in the appropriate Art.in Part III.

The DPSP have to conform and to run as subsidiary to the Chapter on FR. In our opinion that is the correct approach in which the provision found in Part III and IV have to be understood. However, so long as there is no provision in Part III, there can be no objection the State acting in accordance with the directive principles set out in Part IB , but subject to the legislative and executive powers and limitations conferred on the State in different provisions

In case of conflict between DPSP and Fr, FR shall prevail.-Champakam Doraijans Case.

Effect of SC decision

Article 15 Amended; Nullifying Chamapakams case.

St of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh

Zamindari Abolition Act- u/c Passed with a public purpose. within the meaning of Art.31 (2) Court relied on Art.39 (b) Held:

Certain Zamindari Abolition laws had been passed for a public purpose within thee meaning of article 31 (2). State ownership or control over land was a necessary preliminary step towards the implementation of DPSP and it could not but be a public purpose. DPSP were not merely the policy of any particular party, but were intended to be principles fixed by the Constitution for directing the State Policy whatever party came to power

Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. St of Bihar

U/C: Validity of U.P,M.P and Bihar legislationbanning Slaughter of certain animals including cows. Contention: Of Petitioners Ban prevented petitioners from carrying on their butchers trade and its subsidiary undertaking. Therefore, infringed their F.R. guaranteed under 19(1)(g)

Of Respondents Legislations were enacted in pursuance of DPSP contained in Art.48 which provided inter alia prohibition of slaughter of cows, claves and other milch and draught cattle; That the laws having been made in discharge of the fundamental obligation imposed on the states, the F.R conferred on the citizens and others by Part III must be regarded as subordinate to those laws;and

That the dpsp were equally, if not more, fundamental and must prevail.

SC decision

S.R.Das, C.J said: We are unable to accept this argument as sound. Article 13 (2) expressly says that state shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Chp.III The DPSP cannot override this categorical restriction imposed on legislative power of State. Harmonious Construction- for the first time

Held:

i. that the total ban on slaughter of cows of all ages, cows, calves and of shebuffaloes, male and female , is quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive principles laid down under Art.48;

Ii. That a total ban on slaughter of buffaloes or breeding of bulls or working bullocks as long as these are a milch or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid; and

Iii. that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocks after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be supported as reasonable

Law upheld

Re. Kerala Education Bill

SC called upon to give opinion on relationship between DPSP and FR U/C: Validity of Cl 20 of Kerala Education Bill . It prohibited the govt and pvt schools to collect any tuition fee from students in primary classes.

Contention of State

To make education free upto primary classes within the State. Cl 3 (5) of Bill extended the provisions of the Bill including Cl 20 to new schools also. If acted otherwise: shall not be entitled for recognition by govt.

Contention of other side

Cl 20 violated the F.R. of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

SC on Re Kerala Education Bill

DPSP cannot override the FR , nevertheless , in determining the scope and ambit of F.R. , the court may not entirely ignore the dpsp but should adopt the principle of harmonious construction as far as possible.

Keshvanand Bharati v. St of Kerala

31C was added by 25th Amendment.