relation between frs and dpsps

8/19/2019 Relation Between FRs And DPSPs

1/26

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

RELATION BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE

PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-I

(Mr. A. NAGESWARA RAO)

SUBMITTED BY:

SHUBHAM RAJ

ROLL !"#$##"

SEMESTER- V

1


2/26

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I feel highly elated to work on the “R%&'*+ %%%+ F+/'0%+'& R123 '+/ Dr%45%

Pr+46&%3 *7 S'% P*&489 under the guidance of the faculty of C*+3*+'& L', Mr. A.

N'1%3'r' R'*. I am very grateful to him for his exemplary guidance.

I have tried my best to pave the way for bringing more luminosity to this topic. Doing

the project was an experience where the knowledge was my best takeaway.

I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finishing this project

within the limited time.

Once again, thanks to all who helped me in completing this project work.

hanking you

S22'0 R'.

2


3/26

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE P'1% +0%r

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT "!

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF CASES

ABSTRACT

";

"<

"=

#. AIMS OF THE STUDY ">

!. SIGNIFICANCE ? BENEFITS ">

$. SCOPE OF THE STUDY ">

;. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ">


4/26

!I" !ll India "eporter

!rt. !rticle

!rts. !rticles

#tc. #tcetra

Id. Ibid

$% $upreme %ourt

$%% $upreme %ourt %ases

v. &ersus

&ol. &olume

www 'orld 'ide 'eb

4


5/26

LIST OF CASES

$tate of (adras v. %hampakam Dorairajan, !I" )*+) $% -

anif /ureshi v. $tate of 0ihar !I" )*+1 $% 23)

(umbai 4angar $abha v. !bdulbhai, !I" )*2- $% )5++

In re 4erala #ducation 0ill, !I" )*+1 $% *+-6 )*+* $%" **+.

Orient weaving mills v 7.O.I., !I" )*13 $% *1

$tate of 0ombay v. 8. 9. 0alsara !I" )*+) $% 3:

0ijoy cotton (ills v. $tate of !jmer, !I" )*++ $% 33

%handra 0havan 0oarding and ;odging, 0angalore v. $tate of (ysore, !I" )*2: $% :5 at

:+:6 olak 9ath v. $tate of ?unjab, !I" )*-2 $% )-53

4esavananda 0harti v. $tate of 4erala, !I" )*23 $% )5-) at )-5)6


6/26

%hameli $ingh v. state of 7ttar ?radesh, !I" )**- $% ):+)6


7/26

ABSTRACT

Both the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles were of common origin and both

of these had common objective. These have been enshrined in our Constitution to implement

the ideals achieve the goals enshrined in the preamble and to establish the welfare state. The

Fundamental Rights have been enshrined in part III from !rticles "# to $% and Directive

Principles of state polic& in part I' from !rticle $( to %".

!lthough these two appear in the Constitution as distinct entities it was the !ssembl& that

separated these) the leaders of the freedom struggle had drawn no distinction between the

positive and negative obligations of the state. Both t&pes of rights had developed as a

common demand products of national and social revolutions of their almost inseparable

intertwining and of the character of Indian polit& itself.

7


8/26

#. AIMS OF THE STUDY

Over the course of this project, the researcher aims to find out the actual relationship between

8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples of $tate ?olicy. he researcher endeavors to

find out why are the 8undamental "ights given more preference whereas, the Directive

?rinciples are not even enforceable at law, with the help of pre decided case laws.

!. SIGNIFICANCE ? BENEFITS

!fter going through this research work, one will be able to understand the relation between

the 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples of $tate ?olicy, why 8undamental "ights are

preferred over Directive ?rinciples and why are the Directive ?rinciples not enforceable at

law. !lso, the readers will get through the landmark judgments related to the topic.

$. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

he research work is limited only to the provisions of 8undamental "ights and the Directive

?rinciples of $tate ?olicy.

;. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

he methodology that will be used by the researcher is nonAempirical. he researcher would

rely primarily on secondary sources of data in the form of books, articles, journals, reports

and Internet resources. he researcher would follow a descriptive style throughout the project

while the analytical style would also be used wherever reBuired. he arvard 0luebook

%itation >uide will be followed.


9/26

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 8 J. N. PANDEY: In the Indian %onstitution a

successful attempt has been made to bring about a synthesis between the concepts of

individual freedom and social justice. It is for the reason that the attainment of social

economic and political along with the liberty and eBuality of the citiens is enshrined in the

preamble as the objective of the constitution.

INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BY M. P. JAIN: It is an authoritative and

comprehensive study on the constitution of India. he book critically examines the salient

features of this most uniBue of constitutions. he book provides the relevant facts of

important cases and a summary of the law laid down in them, have been given in the body of

the text so as to enable the readers to better understand the subject. he book provides the

complete text of crucial documents on the historical development of the Indian %onstitution.

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY V N SHUKLA: he book includes the %onstitutional

!mendments and $upreme %ourt decisions on issues as eBuality and affirmative action

education womenEs right and principles of constitutionalism and judicial review.

"=. INTRODUCTION

“$ince the seventeenth century, if not earlier, human thinking has been veering round

to the theory that man has certain essential, basic, natural and inalienable rights or freedoms and it is the function of the state, in order that human liberty may be

preserved, human personality developed. !nd an effective social and democratic life

prompted, to recognie these rights and freedoms and allow them a free playF)

0oth, the 8undamental "ights and the Directive ?rinciples of $tate ?olicy, have a common

grounding. In fact both these set of rights owe their origin to the freedom struggle waged by

the Indians against the 0ritish "egime to protect Indian culture, ?hilosophy and system. he

0ritish system caused disintegration of all kinds of Indian system, society and economy. his

state of affairs led to the thinking in the minds of the Indians that the socio ‐economic

conditions of the people cannot be improved unless there is change in >overnment and its

!dministrative set up. It led the public to realie that the solution lies in ?olitical freedom and

Indianisation of 9ational set up. ence, to fulfill the pledges and commitments, hopes and

aspirations of pre‐independence era, and “to implement the ideals and achieve the goals

enshrined in the preamble to our constitution and to establish a welfare state, 8undamental

1( ? @!I9, I 9DI!9 %O9$I7IO9!; ;!', p. 1*2


10/26

"ights and the Directive ?rinciples of state policy have been provided for in the constitution

he 8undamental "ights have been enshrined in part III from !rticles ) to 3+ and Directive

?rinciples of state policy in part I&, from !rticle 3- to +).F3

0efore going to the relationship between the 8undamental "ights and the Directive ?rinciples

let us discuss about the two in briefG5

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: 8undamental "ights have been incorporated in the ?artA III of

the %onstitution. hese are the necessary conseBuences of the declaration in the preamble to

the constitution that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a

sovereign democratic republic and to secure to all its citiens justice, social and economic,

and political6 liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship6 eBuality of status and

opportunity.+ ! person can claim 8undamental "ights against the state subject to the state

imposing some permissible restrictions in the interest of social control. he ground for

imposing these restrictions on 8undamental "ights is expressly mentioned in the %onstitution

itself and, therefore, these rights can be abridged only to the extent laid down. -

he 8undamental "ights in Indian %onstitution have been grouped under seven heads as

followsG

i. "ight to *+ualit& comprising !rticles )5A)1.

ii. "ight to Freedom comprising !rticles )*A which guarantee several freedoms.

iii. "ight against *,ploitation consists of !rticles 3 and 5.

iv. "ight to Freedom of Religion is guaranteed under !rticles +A1.

v. %ultural and #ducational rights are guaranteed by !rticles * and 3:.

vi. "ight to Propert& which was guaranteed under !rticle 3) is now very much diluted.

2Dr. >okulesh $harma, !n #valuation of "elationship between 8undamental "ights and Directive

?rinciples 7nder %onstitution, available at httpGHHdrgokuleshsharma.comHpdfH!9

:#&!;7!IO9O8:"#;!IO9A$I?:0#'##9:879D!(#9!;$

:"I>$.pdf last visited $eptember , :)+.

3/7##9%J ?#"#I"!, InterArelation 0etween 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples of $tate

?olicy, p. 3 available at httpGHHwww.grkarelawlibrary.yolasite.comHresourcesH;;(A%onstA)A

/ueency.pdf last visited $eptember , :)+

4-upra note

5-upra note ) at *:)

6-upra note ) at )2

10


11/26

vii. "ight to Constitutional Remedies is secured by !rticles 3A3+.2

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES: hese have been incorporated in the ?art I& of the

%onstitution6 the idea of incorporating the Directive ?rinciples into our %onstitution has been

borrowed for the Irish %onstitution. hese are of the positive aspect against the state and have

been held to supplement the 8undamental "ights in achieving welfare state.1 he Directive

?rinciples are the ideals which the 7nion and the $tate governments must keep in mind while

they formulate policy or pass a law. hey lay down certain social and economic programme

for modern democratic state.* he Directive ?rinciples are categorised into three following

groupsG

!llahabad, :)+=

10 %entral Inland 'ater ransport %orporation v. 0rojo 9ath >anguli,


12/26

endeavour to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and

professional management of %oAoperative $ocieties. )3 !nd, !rticle 51A! reBuires the state to

protect and improve the forest and wildlife.)5

>. COMMON ROOTS BUT DIFFERENT BRANCHES

!lthough 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples appear in the %onstitution as distinct

entities, it was the !ssembly that separate them6 the leaders of the freedom struggle had

drawn no distinction between the positive and negative obligations of the states. 0oth typesof rights had developed as a common demand, products of national and social revolutions, of

their almost inseparable intertwining and of the character of Indian polity itself. he Directive

?rinciples, though fundamental in the governance of the country, are not enforceable by any

court in terms of the express provisions of !rticle 32 of the %onstitution, while 8undamental

"ights are enforceable by the $upreme %ourt and the igh %ourt in terms of the express

provisions of !rticle 3 and - of the %onstitution. his does not, however, mean or imply

any dichotomy between the two. Its social aspect can, however, be amended only by

legislation to carry out the objectives of the Directive ?rinciples of state policy.)+

Directive ?rinciples are in the nature of instruments of instructions to the government of the

day to do something positive. hey are not justiciable or enforceable in courts. On the other

hand, the 8undamental "ights are enforceable in the courts under !rts 3 and - of the

constitution and hence are justiciable.)-

13 Id at 5++

14 Id

15 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples, lawteacher.net, available at

httpGHHwww.lawteacher.netHfreeAlawAessaysHadministrativeAlawHfundamentalArightsAandAdirectiveA

principlesAadministrativeAlawAessay.php last visitedA $ept. +, :)+.

16 " !90I" $I9>, %O9$I7IO9!; ;!', p. 33

12


13/26

During the proclamation of emergency the operation of the 8undamental "ights


14/26

8undamental rights are enforceable by the courts as per the !rticle 3 and the court are bound

to declare void any law that is inconsistent with the fundamental rights whereas, the directive

principles are not so enforceable by the courts nor can the courts declare as void any law

which otherwise is valid on the grounds that it violates the Directive ?rinciples. !ccording to

!rticle 32 the Directive ?rinciples, though they are fundamental in the governance of country

and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making law, but they are

expressly made nonAjusticiable.

he Buestion of relationship between the Directive ?rinciples and the 8undamental "ights has

caused some difficulty, and the judicial attitude has undergone transformation on this

Buestion over time. 'hat if a law enacted to enforce a Directive ?rinciple infringes a

8undamental "ightC On this Buestion, the judicial view has veered round from

irreconcilability to integration between the 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples and

in some of the more recent cases, to giving primacy to the Directive ?rinciples. Initially, the

courts adopted a strict and literal legal position in this respect. he $upreme %ourt adopting

the literal interpretative approach to !rt. 32 ruled that a Directive ?rinciple could not override

a 8undamental "ight, and that in case of conflict between the two, the 8undamental "ight

would prevail over the Directive ?rinciple.:

his point was settled by the $upreme %ourt in -tate of /adras v. Champa0am Dorairajan,)

where governments order in conflict with !rt. *


15/26

appropriate writs, orders or directions under article 3. he chapter on 8undamental "ights is

sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any legislative or executive act or order, except to

the extent provided in the appropriate article in part III. he Directive ?rinciples of state

policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the chapter on 8undamental "ights.F

In course of time, a perceptible change came over the judicial attitude on this Buestion. he

$upreme %ourtEs view as regards the interplay of Directive ?rinciples and 8undamental

"ights underwent a change. he $upreme %ourt started giving a good deal of value to the

Directive ?rinciples from a legal point of view and started arguing for harmoniing the twoA

the 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples.

he $upreme %ourt came to adopt the view that although Directive ?rinciples, as such, were

legally nonAenforceable, nevertheless, while interpreting a statute, the courts could look for

light to the “lode starF of the Directive ?rinciples. “'here two judicial choices are available,

the construction in conformity with the social philosophyF of the Directive ?rinciples has

preference. he courts therefore could interpret a statute so as to implement Directive

?rinciples instead of reducing them to mere theoretical ideas. his is on the assumptions that

the law makers are not completely unmindful or obvious of the Directive ?rinciples.

8urther the courts also adopted the view that in determining the scope and ambit of 8undamental "ights, the Directive ?rinciples should not be completely ignored and that the

courts should adopt the principles of harmonious construction and attempt to give effect to

both as far as possible. 8or example, as early as )*+1, in 1erala *ducation Bill ,3 D!$, %.@.,

while affirming the primacy of 8undamental "ights over the Directive ?rinciples, Bualified

the same by pleading for a harmonious interpretation of the two. e observed “nevertheless,

in determining the scope and ambit of the 8undamental "ights relied upon by or on behalf of

any person or body, the court may not entirely ignore these Directive ?rinciples of state

policy laid down in part I& of the constitution but should adopt the principle of harmonious

construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as possible.F5

22 (umbai 4angar $abha v. !bdulbhai, !I" )*2- $% )5++

23 In re 4erala #ducation 0ill, !I" )*+1 $% *+-6 )*+* $%" **+.

24 !I" )*+1 $% at *--A-26 )*+* $%" **+.

15


16/26

'ithout, therefore, making the Directive ?rinciples justifiable as such, the courts began to

implement the values underlying these principles to the extent possible. he $upreme %ourt

began to assert that there is “no conflict on the wholeF between the 8undamental "ights and

the Directive ?rinciples. Khey are complementary and supplementary to each other.F+

$ince then, the judicial attitude has become more positive and affirmative towards Directive

?rinciples, and both 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples have come to be regarded

as coAeBual. here is in effect a judicial tendency to interpret 8undamental "ights in the light

of, and so as to promote, the values underlying Directive ?rinciples.

his aspect of the Directive ?rinciples was stressed upon by the $upreme %ourt in 2ola0

3ath.- he $upreme %ourt there emphasied that the 8undamental "ights and Directive

?rinciples formed an “integrated schemeF which was elastic enough to respond to the

changing needs of the society.

In /d. 4anif 5ureshi v. -tate of Bihar #6 the petitioner claimed that the sacrifice of cows on

the occasion of 0akrid was an essential part of his religion and therefore the state law

forbidding the slaughter of cows was violative of his right to practice religion, the court

rejected his argument and held that a state law that prohibits the slaughter of cows and other

cattle capable of work has been upheld because it was meant to give effect to article 51 of the

%onstitution $upreme %ourt held that enactment of prohibition of cow slaughter !ct

In 7rient weaving mills v 8.7.I.#9 exemption was granted for excise duty in small scale

industries. his was challenged on the grounds that the exemption was given only to the

small scale industries and not others. he $upreme %ourt held that !rticle 53 applies because

for the development of rural areas and also because it is the duty of government to promote

small scale industries.

!ccording to >rain &ille !ustin, the fundamental rights and the directive principles are the

conscience of our constitution.

25 %handra 0havan 0oarding and ;odging, 0angalore v. $tate of (ysore, !I" )*2: $% :5 at

:+:6 olak 9ath v. $tate of ?unjab, !I" )*-2 $% )-53

27 !I" )*+1 $% 23)

28 !I" )*13 $% *1

16


17/26

In 1esavananda Bharti v. -tate of 1erala#: #>D# and (74#"@I,@@., observedG

“he 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples constitute the “conscience of the

constitutionF there is no antithesis between the 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples

and one supplements the other.F

$#;! and >"O", @@., observed in their judgment G

“0oth parts III


18/26

the %onstitution. It was held that the fixation of wages for labourers did not violate freedom

of trade under the !rt. )* goes out.

his amendment considerably enhanced the importance of D?$?s. he object of the

amendment stated in the object was that, this was enacted to get over difficulties placed in the

way of giving effect to the D?$?s.

he article 3) % was again amended in 5 nd amendment )*2-. his amendment further

widened the scope of article 3) % so as to cover all the D?$?s. 8or this purpose, the

amendment substituted the words, “!ll or any principles laid down in part I&F for words “the

principles specified clause


19/26

he 8undamental "ights “are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end.F he end

is specified in Directive ?rinciples. On the other hand, the goals set out in Directive

?rinciples are to be achieved without abrogating the 8undamental "ights. “It is in this senseF

that 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples “together constitute the core of our

constitution and combine to form its conscience. !nything that destroys the balance between

the two parts will ipso facto destroy an essential element of the basic structure of our

constitution.F

In -anjeev Co0e /anufacturing Co. v. Bharat Coo0ing Coal ?td .31 the $% expressed doubt on

th validity of its decision in (inerva (ills %ase. 0ut it has not overruled expressly by the $%

in this case and hence the judgment of $% in (inerva (ills case is valid.

In -tate of Tamil 3adu v. ? !bu 1avur Bai ,3* while upholding the validity of the state law,

enacted for nationaliing transport service in the state on the ground that it was enacted for

implementing the D?$?s contained in !ticle 3*


20/26

civil and political rights and the Directive ?rinciples embody social and economic rights.

(erely because the Directive ?rinciples are nonAjusticiable by the judicial process does not

mean that they are of subordinate importance.

he Directive ?rinciples and 8undamental "ights are not now regarded as exclusionary of

each other. hey are regarded as supplementary and complementary to each other. In course

of time, the judicial attitude has veered from irreconcilability to integration of the

8undamental "ights and the Directive ?rinciples. he Directive ?rinciples which have been

declared to be “fundamentalF in the governance of the country cannot be isolated from

8undamental "ights. he Directive ?rinciples have got to be read into the 8undamental

"ights. !n example of such relationship is furnished by the “right to educationF.

he $upreme %ourt has argued in 7lga Tellis># that since the Directive ?rinciples are

fundamental in the governance of the country they must, therefore, be regarded as eBually

fundamental to the understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of

8undamental "ights.

In Dalmia Cement>$ the $upreme %ourt has emphasied that the core of the commitment of

the constitution to the social revolution through rule of law lies in effectuation of the

8undamental "ights and directory principles as supplementary and complimentary to eachother. he preamble to the constitution, 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciplesAthe

trinityAare the conscience of the constitution.

It has now become a judicial strategy to read 8undamental "ights along with Directive

?rinciples with a view to define the scope and ambit of the former. 0y and large this

assimilative strategy has resulted in broadening, and giving greater depth and dimension to,

and even creating more rights for the people over and above the expressly stated,

8undamental "ights. !t the same time, the values underlying the Directive ?rinciples have

also become enforceable by riding on the back of the 8undamental "ights. On the whole, a

survey of the caseAlaw shows that the courts have used Directive ?rinciples not to restrict, but

rather to expand, the ambit of the 8undamental "ights.

42 Olga ellis v. 0ombay (unicipal %orpn., !I" )*1- $% )*56


21/26

he theme that “8undamental "ights are but a means to achieve the goal indicated in the

Directive ?rinciplesF and the 8undamental "ights must be construed in the light of the

Directive ?rinciplesF has been advocated by the $upreme %ourt time and again.

hus, the integrative approach towards 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples, or that

“8undamental "ights must be construed in the light of the directive principleF has been

advocated by the $upreme %ourt time and again.

hus, the integrative approach towards 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples, or that

the both should be interpreted and read together, has now come to hold the field. It has now

become a judicial strategy to read 8undamental "ights along with Directive ?rinciples with a

view to define the scope and the ambit of the former. (ostly, Directive ?rinciples have been

used to broaden, and to give depth to some 8undamental "ights and to imply some more

rights there from for the people over and above what are expressly stated in the 8undamental

"ights. hat biggest beneficiary of this approach has been !rt ). 0y reading !rt. ) with the

Directive ?rinciples, the $upreme %ourt has derived there from a bundle of rights. o name a

few of theseG


22/26


23/26

the 8undamental "ights contained in !rts. )5, )* and 3). he $upreme %ourt held the

!mendment valid in the 1esavananda case%". he court emphasied that there is no

disharmony between the Directive ?rinciples and the 8undamental "ights as they supplement

each other in aiming at the same goal of bringing about a social revolution and the

establishment of a welfare state, which is envisaged in the preamble. he courts therefore

have a responsibility to so interpreting the constitution as to ensure implementation of the

Directive ?rinciples and to harmonie the social objectives underlying therein with individual

rights. @7$I%# (!#' went farthest in attributing to the directive principle, a

significant place in the constitutional scheme. !ccording to himG

In building up a just social order it is sometimes imperative that the 8undamental "ights

should be subordinate to Directive ?rinciples. #conomic goals have an uncontestable claim

for priority over ideological ones on the ground that excellence comes only after existence. It

is only if men exist that there can be 8undamental "ights.F

e thus came to the conclusions, as regards art. 3)%, that “if parliament, in its capacity as an

amending body, decides to amend the constitution in such a way as to take away or abridge a

8undamental "ight to give priority value to the moral claims embodied in part I& of the

constitution


24/26

“by enacting 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples which are negative and positive,

obligations of then states, the constituent assembly made it the responsibility of the

government to adopt a middle path between individual liberty and public good. 8undamental

"ights and Directive ?rinciples have to be balanced. he balanced can be tilted in favour of

the public good. he balance, however, cannot be overturned by completely overriding

individual liberty. his balance is an essential feature of the constitution.F

On the whole, a survey of the case law shows that the courts have used Directive ?rinciples

not so much to restrict 8undamental "ights as to expand their scope and content.

CONCLUSION

he interArelation doctrine between 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples of state

policy is not only theoretical but also practical and rewarding. 8undamental "ights provide

political freedom to the citiens by protecting them against the excessive stste action while

Directive ?rinciples are to secure social and economic freedom by appropriated action both

are inspiration of reform legislation.+3 he recent trend in this regard, is that though the

Directive ?rinciples are unenforceable, and a $tate cannot be compelled to undertake a

legislation to implement a Directive, the $upreme %ourt has been issuing directions to the

$tate to implement the ?rinciples. ence various aspects of ?art I& are being enforced by thecourts indirectly. oday thus, the Directive ?rinciples no longer remain merely a moral

obligation of the >overnment.+5

In the recent judgments the court has declared many directives as 8undamental "ights and

have enforced them. #Bual pay for eBual work, ?rotection of children from exploitation,

!bolition of child labour in haardous works, 8ree and compulsory education of children

below the age of )5 years

available at httpGHHwww.legalservicesindia.comHarticleHarticleHrelationAbetweenApartAiiiAandApartAivAofA

constitutionAofAindiaAchangingAtrendsA):+1A).html last visited $eptember *, :)3

54 -upra not 3- at -

55 -upra note * at 5-+.

24


25/26

to establish harmony between 8undamental "ights and Directive ?rinciples, since

maintenance of harmony between them is a basic feature to the constitution. +-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

). ( ? @!I9, I 9DI!9 %O9$I7IO9!; ;!', p. 1*2 ! D!$ 0!$7, I 9"OD7%IO9 O # %O9$I7IO9 O8 I 9DI!, :th edition,

;exis 9exis 0utter 'orths $wadha, 9agpur.

ARTICLES

). Dr. >okulesh $harma, !n #valuation of "elationship between 8undamental "ights

and Directive ?rinciples 7nder %onstitution, available at

httpGHHdrgokuleshsharma.comHpdfH!9:#&!;7!IO9O8:"#;!IO9A$I?

:0#'##9:879D!(#9!;$:"I>$.pdf last visited $eptember ,

:)+.

. /7##9%J ?#"#I"!, InterArelation 0etween 8undamental "ights and Directive

?rinciples of $tate ?olicy, p. 3 available at

httpGHHwww.grkarelawlibrary.yolasite.comHresourcesH;;(A%onstA)A/ueency.pdf last

visited $eptember , :)+

3. @agadish, "elation 0etween ?art III and ?art I& of the IndiaA %hanging trend


26/26

STATUTES

). he %onstitution of India, )*+:

WEBLIOGRAPHY

). httpGHHwww.lawteacher.netHfreeAlawAessaysHadministrativeAlawHfundamentalArightsA

andAdirectiveAprinciplesAadministrativeAlawAessay.php

. httpGHHdrgokuleshsharma.comHpdfH!9:#&!;7!IO9O8:"#;!IO9$I?

:0#'##9:879D!(#9!;$:"I>$.pdf

3. httpGHHwww.grkarelawlibrary.yolasite.comHresourcesH;;(A%onstA)A/ueency.pdf

4. httpGHHwww.legalservicesindia.comHarticleHarticleHrelationAbetweenApartAiiiAandApartAivA

ofAconstitutionAofAindiaAchangingAtrendsA):+1A).html

relation between frs and dpsps

Documents