Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

In one minute

Part III gives enforceable rights. Part IV sets goals that no court enforces. The two clashed in courts and in Parliament for thirty years. The result is a middle path: neither Part can be given absolute priority, and Article 31C protects only laws that give effect to Article 39(b) and (c).

This is a favourite exam topic. Questions ask for the distinctions between the two Parts, the relationship, and the need for balance with cases. Learn the sequence of cases and Amendments with dates.

Legal provision

• Article 13(2): the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III. Any law made in contravention is void to the extent of the contravention.
• Article 13(4): nothing in Article 13 applies to an amendment made under Article 368. The 24th Amendment inserted it (5 November 1971).
• Article 368(1) and (3): Parliament may amend any provision of the Constitution by addition, variation or repeal. Nothing in Article 13 applies to an amendment made under this Article. The 24th Amendment added both.
• Article 37: the provisions of Part IV are not enforceable by any court.
• Article 39(b) and (c): ownership and control of material resources shared to serve the common good, and no concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.
• Article 31C: notwithstanding Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles in Part IV is void for conflict with Article 14 or 19. The 25th Amendment inserted it (20 April 1972). The 42nd Amendment widened it, and Minerva Mills declared that widening invalid.
• Article 300A: no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. The 44th Amendment inserted it (20 June 1979), after removing the right to property from Part III.

Meaning and definition

The relationship asks which Part wins when a right in Part III meets a goal in Part IV, and how far Parliament may change Part III to reach the goals. The law moved through three stages. First, Part III was held to prevail. Next, Parliament tried to give Part IV priority by amending the Constitution. Finally, the Court held that the balance between the Parts is part of the basic structure.

1. 1951Champakam: Part IV cannot override Part III. First Amendment adds Article 15(4).
2. 1967Golak Nath: Parliament cannot abridge Part III (6:5).
3. 197124th and 25th Amendments: Article 13(4), Article 368(3) and Article 31C.
4. 1973Kesavananda Bharati: amending power exists but not over the basic structure.
5. 197742nd Amendment: Article 31C widened to all of Part IV.
6. 1980Minerva Mills: the widening is void; balance of Parts III and IV is basic structure.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: Part III first (Champakam)

In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), a seven-Judge Bench struck down the Madras Communal G.O. as a breach of Article 29(2). The Court held that the Directive Principles "have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights". The First Amendment then added Article 15(4).

Step 2: reading the two together

In In re Kerala Education Bill, 1957, the Court asked that rights and principles be given effect together as far as possible. Later, in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975), Krishna Iyer J. wrote that the Court must wisely read Part IV into Part III, and that neither Part is superior to the other.

Step 3: the amending power (Golak Nath)

In I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (27 February 1967), eleven Judges held by 6:5 that Parliament could not take away or abridge Part III by amendment. They treated an amendment as "law" under Article 13(2). Using the doctrine of prospective overruling, they left earlier amendments valid.

The headnote records Subba Rao C.J.'s view that the Directive Principles lay down "the routes of State action" that must avoid the restrictions in the Fundamental Rights. It also records that Parts III and IV form an integrated scheme.

Step 4: Parliament's reply (1971)

The 24th Amendment added Article 13(4) and Article 368(3), so that Article 13 does not apply to an amendment. The 25th Amendment inserted Article 31C. It shielded laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c) from Articles 14 and 19. It also said that a law with a declaration that it gives effect to that policy could not be questioned in court.

Step 5: Kesavananda Bharati (24 April 1973)

Thirteen Judges heard Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. The view in Golak Nath on the amending power was reversed. The Court held that Parliament may amend Part III but may not destroy the basic structure. The declaration words in Article 31C were struck down, so a court may still test whether a law really gives effect to Article 39(b) or (c).

As Minerva Mills records, the validity of the first part of Article 31C was upheld by a majority of seven against six.

Step 6: the 42nd Amendment (3 January 1977)

The 42nd Amendment changed Article 31C so that it covered laws giving effect to any principle in Part IV. It also added clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368, which shut out court challenges to amendments and declared that Parliament's amending power had no limit.

Step 7: Minerva Mills (31 July 1980)

A five-Judge Bench decided Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India. Four Judges, with Chandrachud C.J. writing, struck down both changes as damaging the basic structure. Bhagwati J. agreed that the Article 368 clauses were void but upheld the change to Article 31C.

The majority held that Parts III and IV are like two wheels of a chariot. It added: "Anything that destroys the balance between the two parts will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of our Constitution."

Step 8: where the law stands

The majority in Minerva Mills said that unamended Article 31C is valid to the extent upheld in Kesavananda. So today Article 31C covers laws for Article 39(b) and (c) only. In Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996), the Court held that a legislative declaration does not bind the Court. The law must have a real link with Article 39(b) and (c).

In Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (5 November 2024), a nine-Judge Bench decided Article 39(b) did not cover every privately owned resource. The Bench also held unanimously that Article 31C, as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati, continues in force after Minerva Mills.

The result is a settled balance. Part III is enforceable, and Part IV guides. Parliament may amend either, but not so as to damage the basic structure.

Don't confuse: Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

Point	Fundamental Rights	Directive Principles
Part and Articles	Part III, Articles 12 to 35	Part IV, Articles 36 to 51
Enforcement	Courts enforce them by writ (Articles 32 and 226)	No court enforces them (Article 37)
Nature	Mostly civil and political rights, limits on State action	Mostly social and economic aims, positive duties
Who holds them	Persons or citizens, as the Article says	No one; they are addressed to the State
If they clash	Prevail in a direct clash (Champakam)	Read together; Article 31C allows a limited exception
Amendment	Under Article 368, not the basic structure	Under Article 368, not the basic structure

Common mistakes

• Saying Golak Nath is still the law. Kesavananda Bharati reversed it on the amending power.
• Saying Minerva Mills struck down all of Article 31C. It struck down the 42nd Amendment's widening only.
• Saying Bhagwati J. dissented on Article 368 in Minerva Mills. He agreed on that, and upheld the change to Article 31C.
• Saying Directive Principles always lose. Courts read them together with rights, and Article 31C lets some laws pass.
• Saying Parliament can amend anything. It cannot damage the basic structure.

Apply it

Leading case laws

• State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

  Facts. Madras fixed college seats by community, citing Article 46.

  Principle. Directive Principles run subsidiary to Fundamental Rights.

  Why it matters. It began the contest and led to Article 15(4).

• I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)

  Facts. Landowners challenged the 17th Amendment and land laws put in the Ninth Schedule.

  Principle. Eleven Judges held by 6:5 that Parliament cannot abridge Part III. Earlier amendments were left valid.

  Why it matters. It led to the 24th and 25th Amendments.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

  Facts. A challenge to the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments and Kerala land laws.

  Principle. Parliament may amend Part III but not the basic structure. The declaration words of Article 31C fell.

  Why it matters. It set the basic structure limit.

• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)

  Facts. A challenge to the 42nd Amendment's changes to Articles 31C and 368.

  Principle. Four Judges struck down both changes. The balance of Parts III and IV is part of the basic structure.

  Why it matters. It fixes the present position of Article 31C.

• Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)

  Facts. A 1986 Act took over the Madras Race Club under a declaration of Article 39(b) and (c).

  Principle. The Court may ignore a declaration that has no real link with Article 39.

  Why it matters. It shows how far Article 31C goes today.

How to write this answer in the exam

Key points to remember

• Champakam (1951): Part III prevails; the First Amendment added Article 15(4).
• Golak Nath (1967): 6:5, Parliament cannot abridge Part III; prospective overruling.
• 24th and 25th Amendments (1971): Article 13(4), Article 368(3), Article 31C.
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): amending power but not over the basic structure.
• 42nd Amendment (1977) widened Article 31C; Minerva Mills (1980) struck it down.
• Today Article 31C covers laws for Article 39(b) and (c) only.
• The balance between Parts III and IV is part of the basic structure.

Quick self-test

Related topics

• Directive Principles of State Policy
• Application and Judicial Interpretation
• Limitations on Fundamental Rights (Art.31-A,31-B, 31 C, 335, 358 & 359)