Conflict between fundamental rights and directive principles assignment

The Supreme Court held that Article 37 expressly says that the The Supreme Court held that Article 37 expressly says that the directive principles are not enforceable by court. Supreme Court mandated that the chapter on Fundamental rights in the constitution is sacrosanct and the directive principles have to conform to and run subsidiary to the chapter on Fundamental Rights. This means that Fundamental Rights were given superiority over the Directive principles.

This continued for a decade and half and some other cases such as Queries v/s State of Briar, Ganja Sings V/s State of Restaurants cases court confirmed this stand. Kola Nathan Case In 1 967 came a very important case. This was Kola Nathan vs.. The State of Punjab (1967). In this case, for the first time a bench of 1 1 judges of the Supreme Court was formed. The court in this case laid down that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged/ diluted to implement the directive principles. This decision forced the government to amend the constitution.

But the solution provided by the Supreme Court may be “ Judicial” but not “ practical” in all cases. It is the parliament which can reach beyond the “ Judicial” solution. When a social conflict arises out of the conflicts of the Fundamental Rights and DIPS, the Tate should emerge as a “ Torch bearer” because ultimately it is the superiority of the “ Social Interest” over the “ individual interest’ However, it is the duty of the Court to resolve a conflict with an eye on the constitution and another on the social harmony.

After the Minerva Mills Case, The supreme court to the view that there is no conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the DIPS and they were complimentary of each other. There was no need to sacrifice one for the sake of the other. If there is a conflict it should be avoided as far as possible.