Raghav JhunjhunwalaAIR 4 · CSE 2025 · 262 wordsTheir whole copy
Opening
As per Granville Austin, F.R. and DPSP together form the bedrock and conscience of Indian Constitution.
Body · points
Evolving Relationship
(1) Initial Interpretations didn't include constitutional Amendment as law → can't violate 13(2) Judicial Review
(2) Technically; unlimited powers to abridge constl/Fundamental Rights (Art 14, 19, 21) to implement DPSP (land Reforms : Art 38, 39)
(3) Judicial pronouncements'
3.1 : Shankari Prasad case
3.2 : Sajjan Singh Case
(4) upheld validity of 1st and 17th const. Amendment
(5) Art 368 was widely interpreted
1960s
(6) Golaknath case 1967 changed the discouse.
(7) Argued: Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct; can't be violated even by amending constitution.
(8) Fundamental Rights were given higher pedestal than DPSP.
Legislative Response
(9) 24th Amendment Act : nullified Golaknath case
9.1 → Amendment is not covered in Art 13(2) → NO J/Review
9.2 → Constitutent power of Parliament is unlimited
landmark case: Kesavanand Bharti 1973
Balance → Constitutional Amendment is not law (thus, not covered by 13(2)) → But, Constituent Power of parliament limited to Basic structure (Judicial Evolution)
minerva mills case, 1980 & uaman Rao case
↳ Even 9th schedule (Art. 31B / 1st Amendt 1951) is not fully immune for acts past 1973 cut off date!
IR coelho case
Impact Test: Any act curtailing 14, 19, 21 Trioka must pass the Reasonability Test for Reasonable Restrictions on all of them simultaneously.
current status
Close · a summary
All F.R. (except 14, 19) > Art. 39(b)(c) (Equality in wealth) > Art. 14, 19 > All other DPSP.
Thus a variant mix of constitutional Amendment & case laws have shaped current domain.