Constitutional Law

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...