Conflict between a Fundamental Right and a Directive Principle :

The declarations made in Part IV of the Constitution under the head ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ are in many cases of a wider import than the declarations made in Part III as ‘Fundamental Rights’. Hence, the question of priority in case of conflict between the two classes of the provisions may easily arise. What will be the legal position if a law enacted to enforce a Directive Principle violates a Fundamental Right? Initialy, the Courts, adopted a strict view in this respect and ruled that a Directive Principle could not override a Fundamental Right, and in case of conflict between the two, a Fundamental Right would prevail over the Directive Principle. When the matter came before the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Champakram Dorairajan, AIR 1951 S.C. 226, where the validity of a Government order alleged to be made to give effect to a Directive Principle was challenged as being violative of a Fundamental Right, the Supreme Court made the observation that :

“The Directive Principles of State Policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the chapter of Fundamental Rights.”

The Court ruled that while the Fundamental Rights were enforceable, the Directive Principles were not, and so the laws made to implement Directive Principles could not take away Fundamental Rights.

The Supreme Court also pointed out that looking at Directive Principles, we find as was envisaged by the Constitution makers, that they lay down the ideals to be observed by every Government to bring about an economic democracy in this country. Such a democracy actually is our need and unless we achieve it as soon as possible, there is a danger to our political and constitutional democracy of being overthrown by undemocratic and unconstitutional means.