Posts

Q: What are the relationships between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy ?

Ans: The relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) can be described as follows: Complementary Nature Fundamental Rights and DPSP are considered complementary to each other. While Fundamental Rights focus on individual rights and liberties, DPSP emphasises the goals and principles the state should strive to achieve in the social and economic spheres. Both sets of provisions aim to secure a just and equitable society. Non-Justiciability of DPSP Unlike Fundamental Rights, which are justiciable and can be enforced in courts, DPSPs are non-justiciable. This means that individuals cannot directly approach courts for their enforcement. However, DPSP provides guiding principles to the state in formulating policies and legislation. Harmony and Harmonious Construction The courts have emphasised the need for harmony between Fundamental Rights and DPSP. The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction guides the interpretation of constitutional provisions in a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Delineate the citation of Ashok Kumar Thakur vs Union of India (2008) ?

Ans:  In   Ashok Kumar Thakur vs Union of India (2008),   the Supreme Court clarified that no distinction should be made between the two sets of rights. Fundamental Rights are civil and political rights, while Directive Principles deal with social and economic rights. The fact that Directive Principles are not enforceable in a court of law does not imply that they are subordinate. Overall, these cases highlight the interconnectedness of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Neither is considered supreme over the other. The government has undertaken various acts to implement these principles, such as establishing Panchayats through the 73rd Amendment, creating Nagar Palikas under Article 41 and including compulsory education for children below the age of 14 as a Fundamental Right. Additionally, the government has enacted laws, such as the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951, to protect ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Dalmia Cement vs Union of India ?

Ans:  In  Dalmia Cement vs Union of India,  the Supreme Court stated that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are supplementary and complementary. It also emphasised that the preamble to the Constitution, which provides an introduction to the Constitution, encompasses both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as the conscience of the Constitution.
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Describe the citation of Olga Tellis Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation ?

Ans:  In the case of  Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985),  the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of Directive Principles in the country’s governance, emphasising that equal importance should be given to the meaning and concept of Fundamental Rights.
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Describe the citation of State of Kerala vs N.M. Thomas (1976) ?

Ans:  In the  State of Kerala vs N.M. Thomas (1976),  the Supreme Court emphasised that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles should be construed to allow them to coexist. The court stated that every effort should be made to resolve their disputes.
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Describe Article 31C of Indian Constitution ?

Ans:  Article 31C was inserted by the  25th Amendment Act of 1971 . It contained provisions related to the saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles. It contains the following provisions: No law that seeks to implement all or any of the directive principles specified in Part IV shall be void on the ground of contravention of the fundamental rights conferred by Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws) or Article 19 (protection of six rights in respect of speech, assembly, movement, etc.)
Post a Comment
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Minerva Mills Case ?

Ans:  In the  Minerva Mills Case , the court held that the law under Article 31(C) would be protected only if it is enacted to implement the directive in Article 39(b) and (c) and not for any other Directive Principle. Previously, protection was given to all Directive Principles, but after this case, such protection was restricted. It was declared that protecting all Directive Principles would render them void and unconstitutional.
Post a Comment
Read more