UPSC Exam > UPSC Questions > The directive principles of State policy laid...
Start Learning for Free
The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.
Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?
Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?
- a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)
- b)Golaknath case (1967)
- c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)
- d)Minerva Mills case (1980)
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
| FREE This question is part of | Download PDF Attempt this Test |
Most Upvoted Answer
The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Co...
- In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that the directive principles of State policy laid down in Part IV of the Constitution cannot in any way override or abridge the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III. On the other hand, they have to conform to and run as subsidiaries to the fundamental rights laid down in Part III. But, it also held that Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliament by enacting constitutional amendment acts.
- As a result, the Parliament made the First Amendment Act (1951), the Fourth Amendment Act (1955), and the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964) to implement some of the Directives.
- The above situation underwent a major change in 1967 following the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Golaknath case (1967). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights, which are ‘sacrosanct’ in nature. In other words, the Court held that the Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of the Directive Principles.
- In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court declared the above second provision of Article 31C as unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away.
- In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court also held that ‘the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. They together constitute the core of the commitment to social revolution. They are like two wheels of a chariot, one no less than the other. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution. This harmony and balance between the two is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Hence, option (a) is the correct answer.
Community Answer
The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Co...
Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)
The Supreme Court held the opinion that the directive principles of State policy laid down in Part IV of the Constitution cannot override or abridge the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III. They must conform to and run as subsidiaries to the fundamental rights laid down in Part III.
Explanation:
- In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that the directive principles of State policy cannot take precedence over the fundamental rights provided in Part III of the Constitution.
- The Court emphasized that while directive principles are important for the governance of the country, they must not violate or abridge the fundamental rights of citizens.
- This case established the principle that while directive principles are essential for the socio-economic development of the country, they cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals.
- The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing the directive principles with fundamental rights, ensuring that both aspects of the Constitution work harmoniously to promote the welfare of the citizens.
Therefore, in the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court firmly established the hierarchy between fundamental rights and directive principles, ensuring that fundamental rights are paramount and directive principles must be in conformity with them.
Attention UPSC Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed UPSC study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in UPSC.
|
Explore Courses for UPSC exam
|
|
Top Courses for UPSCView all
The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice The directive principles of State policy laiddown in Part IV of the Constitution cannot inany way override or abridge the fundamentalrights guaranteed by Part III. On the otherhand, they have to conform to and run assubsidiaries to the fundamental rights laiddown in Part III. But, the FundamentalRights could be amended by the Parliamentby enacting constitutional amendment acts.Q. In which of the following cases did theSupreme Court hold this opinion?a)Champakam Dorairajan case (1951)b)Golaknath case (1967)c)Keshavananda Bharti case (1973)d)Minerva Mills case (1980)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for UPSC exam
|
|
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
Follow Us
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup