What if FR and DPSP conflict in a law?
Champakam Dorairajan Case (1952)
- Court: All FR are superior over DPSP.
- Parliament: amends all FR which were in conflict with DPSP 😩
Kerala Education Bill (1957): Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
- Re Kerala Education Bill (1957), SC said that there is no inherent conflict b/w DPSP & FR
- when interpreting a law, courts should interpret in such a manner that harmonizes both as far as possible
- if only one interpretation that leads to conflict, then favour FR 💪
Golak Nath Case (1967)
- Court: FR can’t be abridged or diluted.
- Parliament: 25th CAA, inserted Article 31C, explicitly allowing law for DPSP 39(b) & 39(c) to not be deemed unconstitutional if it violates Article 14, 19 or 31 🥴 Such law can also not be questioned in a court of law. 🤯
Kesavanath Bharathi Case (1973) 💰
- Court: amend anything but don’t destroy basic structure. 31C(b) is unconstitutional.
- Parliament: 42nd CAA 1976, extended 31C(a) to include all DPSP.
Minerva Mill Case (1980) 🏭
- Court: can protect only 39(b) & 39(c). Not all DPSP.
Present preference order
- FR except 14 and 19
- DPSP 39(b) and 39(c)
- FR 14 and 19
- DPSP except 39(b) and 39(c)
Observation
Court allows socialist DPSP to be favored over Right to Equality and FoSE 🧠