All questions of Directive Principles of State Policy for BPSC (Bihar) Exam

The correct answer is option 'A', which states that the 25th Amendment Act (1971) introduced Article 31C to protect a law seeking to implement a directive under 39 (b)-(c) from being declared ultra vires on the ground of contravening.

Explanation:
The 25th Amendment Act of 1971 was brought in to amend various provisions of the Constitution of India. One of the significant changes made by this amendment was the introduction of Article 31C.

Article 31C was added to the Constitution to protect laws that sought to implement the directive principles of state policy contained in Article 39(b) and (c) from being declared ultra vires on the ground of contravening the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 31.

Let's break down the explanation further:

1. Introduction of Article 31C:
- The 25th Amendment Act introduced Article 31C into the Constitution of India.
- Article 31C is a constitutional provision that provides protection to laws aimed at implementing the directive principles of state policy.

2. Purpose of Article 31C:
- Article 31C was incorporated to ensure that laws made to implement the directive principles of state policy are not invalidated by the courts on the grounds of violating fundamental rights.
- The directive principles of state policy, enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution, are non-justiciable in nature. However, Article 31C was introduced to give them more teeth by providing immunity to laws enacted for their implementation.

3. Protection from Ultra Vires:
- Ultra vires means an act that is beyond the legal power or authority of the entity performing it.
- Article 31C protects laws that seek to implement the directive principles from being declared ultra vires on the grounds of contravening fundamental rights.
- This means that even if a law made to implement directive principles potentially violates fundamental rights, it cannot be struck down by the courts.

4. Grounds of Contravening:
- The grounds of contravening refer to the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Indian Constitution.
- Article 14 ensures the right to equality, Article 19 guarantees certain fundamental freedoms, and Article 31 safeguards the right to property.
- Article 31C provides protection to laws implementing directive principles from being invalidated on the basis of contravening these fundamental rights.

In conclusion, the 25th Amendment Act (1971) introduced Article 31C into the Constitution of India to protect laws aimed at implementing the directive principles of state policy from being declared ultra vires on the grounds of contravening fundamental rights.

Explanation:
The 25th Amendment Act of the Indian Constitution was enacted in 1971. It was introduced to address the issues related to the election of the President and Vice-President of India. The amendment deals with the manner of election of the President and Vice-President, the conditions of their office, and the powers of the President to address the vacancies in the offices of the President and Vice-President.

Kesavananda Bharati case:
The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) is one of the landmark cases in the history of the Indian judiciary. This case dealt with the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th amendments to the Indian Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 25th Amendment Act of 1971.

Arguments in favor of the 25th Amendment Act:
The government argued that the 25th Amendment Act was necessary to ensure the stability and continuity of the office of the President and Vice-President of India. The amendment provided for the election of the President and Vice-President by an electoral college consisting of elected members of the Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies.

Supreme Court's decision:
The Supreme Court, in its verdict, held that the 25th Amendment Act was valid as it did not violate the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The court also held that the amendment was necessary to ensure the stability and continuity of the office of the President and Vice-President.

Conclusion:
The Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark case as it established the principle of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. It also upheld the validity of the 25th Amendment Act of 1971, which dealt with the election of the President and Vice-President of India.

Explanation:

Statement-I:
- Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in the Indian Constitution are not legally enforceable by courts.
- Unlike Fundamental Rights, which are justiciable, DPSPs are non-justiciable in nature.
- While they are fundamental in the governance of the country, they are not legally enforceable in a court of law.

Statement-II:
- The Directive Principles of State Policy encompass economic, social, and political aspects, aiming for justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
- These principles are enshrined in the Constitution's Preamble, reflecting the ideals and objectives of the Indian state.
- While they are not enforceable by courts, they serve as guidelines for the government to formulate policies and laws in alignment with these principles.
Therefore, in the context of the given statements, both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct. However, Statement-II does not explain Statement-I as it provides additional information about the nature and scope of Directive Principles of State Policy.

**Answer:**

The correct answer is option 'A' - State of Madras vs. Champakam (1951).

**Explanation:**

**Background:**
The State of Madras vs. Champakam case, also known as the First Amendment case, was a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that highlighted the unenforceable nature of directive principles.

**Directive Principles of State Policy:**
Directive Principles of State Policy are a set of guidelines or principles given in Part IV of the Indian Constitution. These principles are not enforceable by any court but are meant to guide the state in making laws and policies.

**Violation of Equality:**
In the State of Madras vs. Champakam case, the Madras government reserved seats in educational institutions for different communities based on their population. This reservation policy violated the principle of equality enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution.

**Supreme Court's Ruling:**
The Supreme Court held that the reservation policy violated the principle of equality and struck it down. In its judgment, the court highlighted the unenforceability of directive principles and stated that fundamental rights override directive principles.

**Conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:**
The court observed that if there is a conflict between a fundamental right and a directive principle, the fundamental right will prevail. The court emphasized that the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution are enforceable, while the directive principles in Part IV are not enforceable.

**Balancing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:**
However, the court also recognized the importance of directive principles and stated that they should be used as a guide for the state in making laws and policies. The court emphasized the harmonious interpretation of fundamental rights and directive principles and urged the state to strike a balance between the two.

**Impact of the Judgment:**
The State of Madras vs. Champakam case highlighted the unenforceable nature of directive principles and the primacy of fundamental rights. It clarified the relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles and established that the fundamental rights have a higher legal status than directive principles.

**Conclusion:**
In the State of Madras vs. Champakam case, the Supreme Court emphasized the unenforceable nature of directive principles and held that fundamental rights override directive principles in case of a conflict. This landmark case clarified the status and importance of directive principles in Indian constitutional law.

The principle that courts should adopt when a law is challenged as constituting an invasion of the fundamental rights specified in Articles 14, 19, or 31 is "harmonious construction."

Explanation:
"Harmonious construction" refers to the interpretation of laws in a way that reconciles conflicting provisions and ensures the preservation of fundamental rights. It is a guiding principle for courts to strike a balance between the exercise of governmental power and the protection of individual rights.

Fundamental rights are enshrined in the Constitution of India, particularly in Articles 14, 19, and 31. Article 14 guarantees the right to equality and prohibits discrimination. Article 19 guarantees certain freedoms, such as the freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, etc. Article 31 guarantees the right to property.

When a law is challenged as an invasion of these fundamental rights, the court's role is to interpret the law in a manner that upholds the spirit of the Constitution and ensures the protection of these rights. The principle of harmonious construction requires the court to reconcile conflicting provisions and interpret the law in a way that minimizes any infringement on fundamental rights.

In applying the principle of harmonious construction, the court may consider various factors such as the purpose of the law, the intent of the legislature, the overall scheme of the Constitution, and the need to balance individual rights with the legitimate interests of the state. The court may also review the reasonableness of the restriction imposed by the law and whether it is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.

By adopting the principle of harmonious construction, courts aim to strike a balance between individual rights and the exercise of governmental power. This ensures that laws are interpreted and applied in a manner that respects and protects fundamental rights, while also recognizing the legitimate needs and interests of the state.

In the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court of India held that the attempt to accord primacy to the directives over fundamental rights was unconstitutional.

The case involved a constitutional challenge to certain provisions of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which had made significant changes to the Constitution of India. One of the key changes made by the amendment was the insertion of Article 31C, which sought to give primacy to the Directive Principles of State Policy over fundamental rights.

The Court, in a majority decision, struck down Article 31C as unconstitutional and upheld the primacy of fundamental rights. The following are the key reasons for the Court's decision:

1. Violation of the Basic Structure Doctrine:
The Court held that Article 31C violated the basic structure doctrine, which states that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended. The Court reasoned that giving primacy to the directives over fundamental rights would undermine the balance and harmony between the two and upset the basic structure of the Constitution.

2. Restriction on Judicial Review:
Article 31C sought to restrict the power of judicial review by providing that laws made to implement the Directive Principles would not be invalidated on the ground of violation of fundamental rights. The Court held that such a restriction on judicial review was arbitrary and against the principles of separation of powers.

3. Equality before the Law:
The Court also noted that Article 31C violated the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. By according primacy to the directives, the amendment would have allowed the State to discriminate against certain individuals or groups in the name of implementing social and economic policies.

4. Harmonious Construction:
Lastly, the Court emphasized the need for a harmonious construction of the Constitution, where fundamental rights and Directive Principles are read together. It held that both are complementary to each other and should be interpreted in a manner that upholds and promotes the welfare of the people.

In conclusion, the Minerva Mills case foiled the attempt to accord primacy to the directives over fundamental rights by striking down Article 31C of the Constitution. The Court upheld the importance of fundamental rights and the need for a harmonious balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles.

Explanation of Statements
The two statements regarding Fundamental Rights and Legal Rights need careful examination.
Statement 1: Both Legal rights and Fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution.
- This statement is incorrect.
- Fundamental Rights are specifically enshrined in the Constitution and are enforceable in courts.
- Legal Rights, however, can arise from statutes, regulations, or common law, and while they may be influenced by constitutional principles, they do not have the same level of constitutional protection.
Statement 2: Fundamental Rights cannot be amended whereas legal rights can be amended.
- This statement is also incorrect.
- Fundamental Rights can be amended under certain conditions as per Article 368 of the Constitution, although such amendments cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Legal Rights, being derived from laws, can be amended or repealed by legislative processes, making them more flexible.
Conclusion
Since both statements are incorrect, the correct answer is option 'D': Neither 1 nor 2.
Understanding the differences between Fundamental Rights and Legal Rights is crucial for comprehending constitutional law and the legal framework in India.

Article 350A, Article 351, and Article 335 are all directives that are not included in Part IV of the Constitution but are still given attention by courts.

1. Article 350A:
Article 350A states that it shall be the duty of the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups. This directive emphasizes the importance of preserving and promoting linguistic diversity and ensuring that children from linguistic minority groups have access to education in their mother tongue. Although it is not included in Part IV of the Constitution, the courts have recognized its significance and have emphasized the need for the State to fulfill this duty.

2. Article 351:
Article 351 deals with the directive for the promotion of the Hindi language. It states that it shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language and to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India. This directive recognizes the importance of Hindi as a language that can unify the diverse cultural and linguistic groups in the country. Although it is not included in Part IV, courts have given attention to this directive and have upheld the constitutional validity of laws that promote the use of Hindi.

3. Article 335:
Article 335 states that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. This directive emphasizes the need to provide representation and reservation for the SC/ST communities in government services while also maintaining efficiency in administration. Although it is not included in Part IV, courts have given attention to this directive and have upheld the reservation policies for SC/ST communities.

In conclusion, Article 350A, Article 351, and Article 335 are all directives that are not included in Part IV of the Constitution but are still given attention by courts. These directives address important issues such as linguistic diversity, promotion of Hindi, and reservation for SC/ST communities, and the courts have recognized their significance in ensuring equality and inclusivity in society.

The correct answer is option C, Part IV of the Indian Constitution contains the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Explanation:
The Indian Constitution is divided into several parts, each dealing with different aspects of governance and rights. Part IV of the Constitution contains the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

1. Meaning and Purpose of Directive Principles of State Policy:
The DPSPs are a set of guidelines and principles that are enshrined in the Indian Constitution and are meant to guide the government in making laws and policies. These principles are not legally enforceable by courts, but they serve as important moral and political obligations for the government to follow.

2. Contents of Directive Principles of State Policy:
Part IV of the Constitution contains Articles 36 to 51, which outline the Directive Principles. These principles cover a wide range of areas, including social, economic, and political matters. Some important DPSPs include:

- Promotion of justice, social, economic, and political (Article 38)
- Equal distribution of resources and opportunities (Article 39)
- Protection of the environment (Article 48A)
- Promotion of educational and cultural interests of weaker sections (Article 46)
- Provision of free and compulsory education for children (Article 45)
- Promotion of cottage industries (Article 43)

3. Significance and Role of Directive Principles of State Policy:
The DPSPs are important for the governance of the country as they provide a moral and ethical framework for the government's actions. They serve as a guide for policymakers to work towards creating a just and equitable society. The principles also aim to bridge the gap between different sections of society and promote social welfare.

4. Relationship with Fundamental Rights:
While the Directive Principles are not legally enforceable like Fundamental Rights, they are considered fundamental in the governance of the country. The courts have held that the DPSPs can be used to interpret laws and policies, and the government is expected to strive towards achieving these principles.

In conclusion, Part IV of the Indian Constitution contains the Directive Principles of State Policy. These principles provide guidelines for the government to formulate policies and work towards creating a just and equitable society. While they are not legally enforceable, they serve as important moral and political obligations for the government.

Difference between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are two important provisions in the Indian Constitution that ensure the protection of individual rights and the development of the country. Here are the differences between the two:

Enforceability
- Fundamental Rights are justiciable and enforceable by the court, while Directive Principles are non-justiciable and not enforceable by the court.
- In other words, if a Fundamental Right is violated, the individual can approach the court for remedy, whereas if a Directive Principle is not implemented, the individual cannot approach the court.

Nature
- Fundamental Rights are negative limitations on the state's power, while Directive Principles are positive obligations on the state to ensure the welfare of the community.
- Fundamental Rights primarily focus on protecting individual rights, while Directive Principles primarily focus on promoting social and economic justice.

Incorporation
- Fundamental Rights are incorporated in Part III of the Indian Constitution, while Directive Principles are incorporated in Part IV.
- Fundamental Rights are enforceable against the state, while Directive Principles are merely guiding principles for the state.

Voidability
- Directives can be declared void by courts if they violate Fundamental Rights, while Fundamental Rights cannot be declared void.
- In other words, if a Directive Principle is implemented in a way that violates Fundamental Rights, it can be struck down by the court, whereas Fundamental Rights cannot be struck down by the court.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the main difference between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is their nature and enforceability. While Fundamental Rights are negative limitations on the state's power and enforceable by the court, Directive Principles are positive obligations on the state and non-justiciable.