Constitutional Law

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 ...

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Ans:  In the case of  Pathumma vs the State of Kerala in 1978 , the Supreme Court emphasised the purpose of DPSP, which is to achieve certain social-economic goals. The Constitution aims to strike a balance and create a combination between DPSP and Fundamental Rights, a principle reflected in several other cases.

 Ans:  In the case of  Kesavananda Bharathi in 1973 , the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution. Still, it should not destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. As mentioned earlier, the second clause of Article 31(C) was declared unconstitutional and void as it went against the basic structure. However, the first clause of Article 31(C) was deemed valid. In response, the Parliament enacted the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976, expanding the scope of Article 31(C) provisions.

Ans:  According to the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, the Constitution’s provisions should be interpreted and constituted to allow Fundamental Rights and DPSP to work in harmony, avoiding conflicts between them. The court aims to construe each provision of the Constitution so they can function together seamlessly. The court held that no conflict will arise if there is no inherent conflict. However, suppose a conflict arises due to the court’s interpretation of a particular law. In that case, the court should make efforts to give effect to both Fundamental Rights and DPSP as much as possible. The objective is to connect Fundamental Rights and DPSP without requiring any amendments. If conflicts persist despite attempts to maintain balance, the court must prioritise the implementation of Fundamental Rights over DPSP.

Ans:  In the case of   Champak Dorairajan vs the State of Madras , the Supreme Court ruled that DPSP cannot override the provisions of Part III of the Constitution, which includes Fundamental Rights. DPSP must operate subsidiary to Fundamental Rights and should not contradict them. This judgment was crucial, and in response, the Parliament amended various fundamental rights conflicting with DPSP. Moving on to the case of the Kerala Education Bill, the Supreme Court introduced the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction. This doctrine emphasises that constitutional provisions should be interpreted to allow Fundamental Rights and DPSP to work harmoniously, avoiding conflicts between them.  The court held that if there is no inherent conflict, both should be given effect. However, if a conflict arises due to the interpretation of a particular law, the court should strive to harmonise both as much as possible.

 Ans:  In the case of  Golak Nath vs the State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1976 S.C.R. (2) 762),  the Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights cannot be diluted, abridged, diminished or taken away. In response, the Parliament introduced an Amendment Act and inserted Article 31(C) in Part III of the Constitution. Article 31(C) states that if a law is framed in line with DPSP and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 (Fundamental Rights), the law should not be declared void on these grounds alone.

Ans:  Following are the differences between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy:  1. Fundamental Rights are sometimes considered as a kind of restriction imposed on the State. Directive Principles are written in Part 4 of the Constitution of India. They are given in Articles 36-51 of the Constitution of India. 2.  The basic rights that are guaranteed to Indian citizens by the Constitution of India are known as Fundamental Rights. Directive Principles of the Indian constitution are the guidelines to be followed by the Government while framing policies. 3.   Political Democracy is established in India with the help of Fundamental Rights given in the Constitution of India. Economic and Social Democracy is established with the help of the Directive Principles of State Policy. 4.  The welfare of each and every citizen is promoted through the Fundamental Rights. The welfare of the entire community is fostered with the help of Directive Pri...

Ans:  Subject Matter:  The 7th schedule comprises of three lists i.e., Union list, concurrent list and state list. The priority of union list is greater than concurrent list and the priority of concurrent list is greater than union list. The Parliament will make laws in following subject matters and will supercede in the following matters: 1. National Emergency President's Rule. 2. Rajya Sabha passes a resolution 3. On state's request 4. Implementing international agreements. Doctrine of Pith and Substance: 1. Prafulla Kumar V. Bank of Commerce The doctrine of pith and substance comprises of three tests i.e., Object,  Scope and Effect. The main nature of Bengal Money laundering act is to govern the money lending activities and it is incidentally encroaching upon the matter of promissory note but this act was held to be valid. Similarly,  in case of State of Bombay Vs. F. N. Balsara,  AIR 1951, SC 318, the law was made regarding sale,import and profession of liqu...

 Ans:  The extra territorial jurisdiction is mentioned in 6th schedule and it is mentioned that the governors of state can repeal and amend the laws of parliament in tribal districts of Assam, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Tripura . So these three are the exceptions of law making power of parliament.

Ans: The second exception is 5th schedule where scheduled areas are covered.  According to this schedule,  the governors of these respective states have the power that at any point of time, they can declare that the laws of parliament will not be applicable in these tribal areas.

Ans: The first exception is Article 240 which mentions that in four union territories I.e., Dadar and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep Islands,  the president has the power to make regulations for their peace, progress and good governance. The regulation making power of president is so strong that the president can amend,  repeal and modify the law of parliament in these union territories.

Ans: No, Parliament has not the absolute power of law making under Article 245 of Indian Constitution. There are three exceptions of it.

Ans: The laws for extra territorial operation will be based on territorial nexus test. Wallace Brothers And Co. Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 February, 1948. There was a company which was registered in England and its partnership was in India. Since the major income of this company is from India, the Indian Income Tax Authority has the power to put tax on it. If the parliament would like to make laws and if the parliament would like to make laws on  subject matters of extra territorial jurisdiction, there must be reasonable connections between the subject matters. The parliament has the power to make laws for the centre as well as for extra territorial jurisdiction . The state can not make laws for extra territorial jurisdiction.

Ans: The centre had three powers i.e, legislative,  Administrative and Financial. The powers of centre and state are divided into legislative relations, administrative relations and financial relations. The legislative relations are connoted from 245 to 255. The jurisdiction between centre and state are also divided in territorial jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. According to Article 245(1), the parliament has the power to make laws for a particular territory or for whole territory. The state legislature has the power to make laws for a particular part or whole territory of state in accordance with Article 245(2). The Parliament also has the power to make laws for extra territorial operation in accordance with Article 245(3) of Indian Constitution.