Balancing Fundamental Rights with DPSPs

Context

• The Supreme Court of India is currently reviewing the case Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra.
• This case centres on a critical debate regarding the balance between fundamental rights (Part III of the Indian Constitution) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP, Part IV).

Key Questions related to Fundamental Rights with DPSPs

• Definition of “material resources of the community” (Article 39b): What falls under this definition, and to what extent can the state regulate these resources in the name of “common good”?
• Immunity of Laws Furthering Article 39(b): Are laws aimed at securing material resources and distribution immune from challenges based on fundamental rights to equality and freedom?

Balancing Fundamental Rights with DPSPs: Historical Context

Historically, this relationship has been contentious, particularly highlighted by amendments aimed at placing certain laws beyond judicial review, thereby igniting a constitutional debate that persists.

Judiciary Interventions

• The judiciary has intermittently addressed these tensions
• A landmark case, Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973), established that while constitutional amendments are permissible, they cannot alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
  • This principle was partially applied to uphold Article 31C introduced by the 25th Amendment in 1971, which protects laws made to implement Article 39(b) and (c) from being invalidated on the grounds of violating Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 19 (Right to Freedom).
• However, subsequent amendments, notably the 42nd Amendment in 1976, expanded these protections to include laws implementing any DPSP, which was later struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980).
• The court argued that fundamental rights, constituting a “golden triangle” with Articles 14, 19, and 21, are essential for governance and cannot be completely overridden by DPSPs.

Current Case: Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra

• The present case involves a law that allows a state government board to take control of dilapidated buildings with the consent of 70% of residents, purportedly under Article 39(b).
• The court is tasked with determining not only whether the law genuinely advances the goals of Article 39(b) but also whether it can be challenged based on fundamental rights violations.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

• This case offers the Supreme Court an opportunity to address unresolved issues from previous judgments and potentially reconcile the enduring conflict between fundamental rights and DPSPs.
• The decision could have profound implications on the constitutional doctrine and the balance between individual rights and state policy objectives.

Sharing is caring!