Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

53. A seven Judges Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors. , had considered the Kesavananda Bharati case regarding determination of the position of directive principles vis-a-vis fundamental rights and has observed as follows:

Post Kesavananda Bharati, , so far as the determination of the position of directive principles, vis-a-vis fundamental rights are concerned, it has been an era of positivism and creativity. Article 37 of the Constitution while declaring the directive principles to be unenforceable by any court goes on to say, "that they are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country". The several clauses of Article 37 themselves need to be harmoniously construed assigning equal weightage to all of them. The end part of Article 37 - "it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws" is not a pariah but a constitutional mandate. The series of decisions which we have referred to hereinabove and the series of decisions which formulate the three stages of development of the relationship between directive principles and fundamental rights undoubtedly hold that, while interpreting the interplay of rights and restrictions, Part III (Fundamental rights) and Part IV (Directive principles) have to be read together. The restriction which can be placed on the rights listed in Article 19(1) are not subject only to Article 19(2) or 19(6); the provisions contained in the chapter on directive principles of State policy can also be pressed into service and relied on for the purpose of adjudging the reasonability of restrictions placed on the fundamental rights.