Relation Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Pinciples:

• The Supreme Court in various cases has evolved a 'Doctrine or Theory of Harmonization'.
• It has further stated that both the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles are in fact supplementary to each other and together constitute an integrated scheme.
• It has also held that where this is not possible, the Fundamental Rights shall prevail over the Directive Principles.
• The present position is that only Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) can be given precedence over Article 14, 19 and not all the Directive Principles.
peacekeeping operations of the UN (Somalia in 1992-93; Sierra Leone in 2000); pioneering and leading the Non-Aligned Movement and so on.

Difference between FR & DPSP 
• The Fundamental Rights provide the foundation of political democracy in India whereas the Directives spell out the character of social and economic democracy in India.
• Fundamental Rights are in the form of negative obligations of the State i.e. injunctions against the actions of the State. The Directive Principles are, on the contrary, positive obligations of the State towards the citizen.
• Whereas the Fundamental Rights are justiciable, the Directive Principles are non¬justiciable.

Importance of the DPSP 
• Article 37 declares Directive Principles as fundamental in the Governance of the Country.
• Since the Government is answerable to the people, the Directive Principles act as a sign post to all succeeding Governments.
• The Directive Principles provide the yardstick for assessing the successes or failures of these Governments.


Uniform Civil Code: 
• By uniform civil code, it is meant that all sections of society irrespective of their religion shall be treated equally according to a national civil code, which shall be uniformly applicable to all.
• Civil code covers areas like marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, succession of property and adoption.
• Uniform civil code (UCC) has been provided under Art 44 of the Constitution as a directive principle.
• It will enhance the status of women and therefore, it is vitally desired to achieve the empowerment of women.
• Articles 25 and 26 guarantee right to freedom of religion and UCC is not opposed to secularism or will not violate these articles.
• Article 44 is based on the concept that there is no necessary connection between religion and personal law in a civilised society.
• Marriage, succession and like matters are of secular nature and, therefore, law can regulate them.
• The UCC will not and shall not result in interference of one's religious beliefs relating, mainly to maintenance, succession and inheritance. But in matters of inheritance, right to property, maintenance and succession, there will be a common law.
• Article 25 confers right to practice and profess religion, while Article 44 divests religion from social relations and personal law.
• According to Justice R.M. Sahai " Freedom of religion is the core of our culture. But religious practices, violative of human rights and dignity and sacerdotal suffocation of essentially civil and material freedoms are not autonomy but oppression. "

Earlier Supreme Court verdicts Shah Bano case
• In Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, popularly known as the Shah Bano case, a penurious Muslim woman claimed for maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after she was given triple talaq from him.
• The Supreme Court held that the Muslim woman have a right to get maintenance from her husband under Section 125.
• After this decision, nationwide discussions, meetings, and agitation were held.
• The then Rajiv Gandhi led Government overturned the Shah Bano case decision by way of Muslim Women (Right to Protection on Divorce) Act, 1986 which curtailed the right of a Muslim woman for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sarla Mudgal case
• The second instance in which the Supreme Court again directed the government of Article 44 was in the case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India.
• In this case, the question was whether a Hindu husband, married under the Hindu law, by embracing Islam, can solemnise second marriage.
• The Court held that a Hindu marriage solemnised under the Hindu law can only be dissolved on any of the grounds specified under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• Conversion to Islam and marrying again would not, by itself, dissolve the Hindu marriage under the Act. And, thus, a second marriage solemnised after converting to Islam would be an offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

John Vallamatton case• The priest from Kerala, John Vallamatton filed a writ petition in the year 1997 stating that Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act was discriminatory against the Christians as it impose unreasonable restrictions on their donation of property for religious or charitable purpose by will.
• The Supreme Court struck down this Section in 2003 declaring it to be unconstitutional.
Thus, the apex court has on all these instances directed the government to realise the directive principle enshrined in our Constitution and asked to implement UCC as early as possible.

;;
Related Posts with Thumbnails
toolbar powered by Conduit