Can the Directive Principles of State Policy override the provisions relating to Fundamental Rights? Explain.

 Fundamental Rights contained in the Part III of the Constitution are most basic and inalienable human rights guaranteed to the citizens of India, and are enforceable through the ‘right to constitutional remedy’ under Article 32 which in itself is a Fundamental Right. 

Fundamental Rights can also be protected and enforced by taking recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226.

However, the Directive Principles of State Policy are merely the fundamental principles of governance seeking to establish a welfare state for the citizens. However, they do not enjoy the same protection as fundamental rights and cannot be enforced either through the Supreme Court or the High Court.

Article 37 of the Constitution states that the DPSPs are not enforceable in the Courts of law. In the case of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) it was held that ‘the DPSPs cannot override the Fundamental Rights as they have to conform to and run subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights and in case of any conflict between the two, the Fundamental Right shall prevail over DPSPs.

However, gradually recognizing the significance of the DPSPs, it was held in the case of In re Kerala Education Bill that although the DPSPs cannot override Fundamental Rights but they are not to be entirely ignored and the scope and ambit of Fundamental Rights has to be decided in light of the DPSPs.

It was held that the rule of harmonious construction should be followed where both Fundamental Rights and DPSPs appear to be at conflict, and it should be tried to give effect to both as much as possible.

In the recent past the Supreme Court in its activist phase has extended the scope of ‘right to life and personal liberty’ under Article 21 by reading it with many DPSPs, thereby taking many Directives to the status of Fundamental Rights.