A review of the present study makes it explicti clear that the concet of social justive which is enshrined
in the preamble of our Constitution contains the aspiration of the people of India. This preambulory
message of justices has been trnslated in various provisiona of Part III & IV of the constitution. Both of
them have a common grounding. In fact both these set of rights owe their origin to the feedom struggle
waged by the Indians against the British Regime to protect Indian culture, Philosophy and system. The
main object of the British rule in India was the overall exploitation of the country and its people. It
caused disintegration of all kinds of Indian system, society and economy. This state of affairs led to the
thinking in the minds of the Indians that socio‐economic conditions of the people can not be improved
unless there is change in Government and its Administrative set up. It led the public to realize that the
solution lies in Political freedom and Indianization of National set up. To fulfill the pledges and
commitments, hopes and aspirations of pre‐independence era, the constitution made clear provisions
for fundamental rights and directive principles of a state policy. Having been impressed with the
fundamental character of directive principles Dr. B.N. Rao, the constitution Advisor for saw the danger
of a conflict between the Directive Principles and fundamental rights. He therefore suggested that a
provision should be incorporated in the constitution to make it clear that no Law by State in discharge of
its obligation contained in directives shall be deemed to be invalid merely because it contravenesthe
provisions of fundamental rights. But the founding fathers did not accept this proposal because they
thought that on a fair reading of the entire constitution it was amply clear that there exists no conflict
between them. They were further said to be complementary and supplementary to each other.
Ragarding the nature and significance of these principles, both the views one, levellin them as pious
wishes and the other, considering them as most inportant, prevailed in the Assembly, Framing
constitution. Directive principles were not made enforceable in the Court of Law. But in the Court of
people while the fundamental rights made enforceable in Court of Law.

Now after a period of about 40 years of constitutional experience era amy ask the question how
far the fundamental rights and directive principles have succeeded in playing its role forward the
achievement of the constitutional objectivge of searching social justive to the masses and what steps
have been taken by the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary in respect of their fulfillment.
Various constitutional amendments (1, 4, 17, 25, 34, 39, 40, 42, 44 etc.) passed by the
Parliament in India for giving effect to the Directive prijndiples thave made it clear that the State always
regarded Directive principles as Fundamental in the governance of the Country. Other Legislative and
Excutive measures taken in the past 40 years clearly indicated that the State providing social justice to
the people. An apprisal of various measures taken inm the field of Eduction health, living standard,
employment, agriculture, Trade and business, Science and Technology, public sercices and other social
services pursued in the past years shows that a good amount of progress has been made in improving
the conditions of the starving millions. This shows that the directive principles have played a very
significant role in implementation of social justice to the ordinary and less privileged class of our society.
It goes without saying that a great deal has been done towards ameliorating the condition of the
poeasantry, the labour, the exploitedand the under privileged by introducing agrarian reforms by
various relief acts by undertaking several important prospects and by initiating several social wefare
schemes. Likewise fundamental rights have also played vital role in the preservation, substantial
equaties, various feedoms, liberty and other civil and political rights. Unfortunately several factors
caused confronation between fundamental rights and directive principles. Marriage between two could
not last long. The fear or danger of B.N. Rau, The constitutional Advisor gradually became apprehensive
and it was felt that there exist conflict between two. Hence it may be recalled that soon after the
comming into force of the constitution, the judiciary entered into a false dilemma of conflict of States
relationship between Fundamental Rights directive principles.
Under our constitution the Judiciary has great role to play in interpreting the social and other
progressive Legislations passed by the State to implement the policies in the directive principles. The
questions is : Has the judiciary succeeded in discharging the constitutional obligation or has it created
any obstacle in the implementation social and progressive legislation enacted on state in furtherance of
directive principles. No clear cut answer can be given because apex court the land in the case of Champa
Karane Dorairajan propounded the theory of subordination of directive Principles to Fundamental rights.
However, a new light was given to the hopes and aspirations of the people by the Judiciary inKeral
eeducation Bill & M.H. – Quareshi cases by the coctrine of harmoneous construction. But the true and
full hopes could not crystallize into reality because of the various pronouncements of the court in
property and other matters (Chiranjee Lal's Kameshwar Singh's, Subodh Gopal's, Vara velu, metal
Corporation's, Santi Lal Mangal Das's cases & Golak Nath's cases). IN order to render these decisions
ineffective, Parlieament enacted a number o amendment to the constitution to carry forward the object
of social justice of constitution.
Similarly the supreme court in early days conceded ............. constituentpower to Parliament in
Sankare Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases. But later in Golak Nath case the Court held that Praliament had
no power to amend the fundamental rights. In Bank nationalization and privy purse cases Court took the
narrow and strict viewl and attached to much sanctity to fundamental rights. A new era of amendment
was opened by the parliament to nullify the effect of these decisions. Constituent power was restored to
the Parliament and srticle 31C was added to give primacy to the directive‐s conrtained in Article 39(b) &
(c) over Article 14, 19 and 31. Here at this time supreme court responeed well to the clarion call of the
time by overruling Golak Nath in Keshwa Nath Bharti. The court observed that Parliament can change
and part of constitution except basic feathres of the constitution. The court also kept the power of
examining the relation and true nexus between the enactment (Law) and the principles to be
implemented. This generated hope and fear both in the mind of people. But in the following year the
Supreme Court showed little bit more concern towards directive principles. While recognising the
importance, it observed in Numbai Kamgar Sabha's case that where two judicial choices are available
(AIR 1976 S.C. 1455) the construction in conformity to the social Philosphy of part IV has preference. The
similar were the views in the case of State of Kerla V/s N.M. Thomas (AIR 1970 SC 490).
Encouraged by these Judicial pronouncements and realizian the need of the time Parliament
passed constitutional (No. 42) Amendment Act 1976 and again amended Article 31C so as to give effect
to all or any of the Directive Principles laid down in Part IV. It established the supremancy of directive
Priciple over Fundamental rights, The opinion of Dr. B.N. Rao, Conxtitutional Advisor ws adopted and
accepted after 34 years, It shifted the power from Raj to Republic. Further Parliament by enacting the
44th. Constitutional amendment Act 1978 repealed the right to property as a fundamental right and
declared it simply to be a simple constitutinal right under Article 300 A.
But the hopes generated by the Court Parliament were belied by the decision Minerva mill case
in which Article 31C was assailed and Judicial trend set up in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha was changed. But a
ray of hopes emertged out of the dissenting opinion of Justice. P.N. Bhagwati who uphelt the amendeed
Article 31C and said that the amendment in Article 31C far frrom damaging the basic feature of the
constitution re‐enforces and strengthens it by giving fundamental importance to the right of the
Members of the community as against the rights of a few individuals. The dissenting opionion of Justice
P.N. Bhagwati prevaild in 1983. In the case of Sanjeeva Coke mfg. Co. Vs Bharat cooking Coal Ltd. the
majority view of Minerva mills case was severly criticised but not overlooked. The opinion of woman
Roa's case also did not make any thing clear but indirectly fovoured the Directive principle.
The repeal of property right from the list of Fundamental rights has made this right to property
more fundamental more vital and more powerful than it was even before just dull to certain Technical
lapse in the Legislative drafting. Now the entire condition is hotch potch. Nothing is clear. It is
interesting to point out here that barring from Status consoversy between fundamental rights and
directive principles where the Legislature and Judiciary entered into a boxing ring, the court has shown
its judicial wisdom by upholding certain Legislation on the ground that directive principles are
reasonalbel restrictions on Fundamental Rights and the law giving effect to them are in public interest.
The concipt of reasonable restrictions runs like a golden thread through entire Fabric of the constitution.
We hope that the courts shall do needful and continue to do needful also infuture. The clouds of
uncertainty shall be made clear and pulled into water and fres breath shall be given to the ideas of the
constitution for harmoneous human notes. But how it all shall be carried into practical form at the
Platform of the Indian Society, has to be sun with catious.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
toolbar powered by Conduit