Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorFundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties

Regarding the constitutional provisions, amendments, and judicial interpretations governing Part III (Fundamental Rights), Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), and Part IV-A (Fundamental Duties) of the Constitution of India, which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 introduced Article 31C, giving legal primacy to the Directive Principles contained in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) over the Fundamental Rights conferred by Articles 14 and 19.Cevap
  2. B
    The Fundamental Duties under Article 51A were made directly justiciable and enforceable by writs under Article 32 through the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978.
  3. In the landmark judgment of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, Fundamental Rights would prevail.Cevap
  4. D
    A High Court under Article 226 can issue a writ of Mandamus directing the State Legislature to enact legislation enforcing non-justiciable principles under Part IV.

Cevap

The statements confirming that the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 granted primacy to Article 39(b) and 39(c) over Articles 14 and 19, and that the Supreme Court ruled in Champakam Dorairajan (1951) that Fundamental Rights prevail over Directive Principles, are correct.
The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 added Article 31C, establishing that laws carrying out Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and (c) cannot be challenged under Articles 14 or 19. Furthermore, in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Supreme Court clearly held that Fundamental Rights override Directive Principles whenever a conflict arises, making both of these statements factually and constitutionally accurate.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the constitutional history of Article 31C and DPSP primacy over Fundamental Rights.
The 25th Amendment Act, 1971 introduced Article 31C, protecting laws enacted to implement Article 39(b) and 39(c) from judicial challenge under Articles 14, 19, and 31.
To verify the validity of the statement concerning the 25th Amendment.
2
Evaluate the enforceability and justiciability of Fundamental Duties under Part IV-A.
Fundamental Duties incorporated via the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 (and expanded by the 86th Amendment Act, 2002) are non-justiciable. Neither Article 32 nor Article 226 can be invoked directly to enforce them without underlying statutory authority.
To verify the claim regarding the 44th Amendment Act making Fundamental Duties justiciable under Article 32.
3
Examine judicial precedents regarding the hierarchy between Part III and Part IV.
In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Supreme Court established that Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct and DPSPs must remain subsidiary to them, a position later modified in Kerala Education Bill (1958) and Minerva Mills (1980).
To verify the accurate historical doctrine laid down in the 1951 ruling.
4
Assess the scope of Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226) regarding Directive Principles.
Article 37 explicitly declares Part IV provisions non-enforceable by any court. Courts cannot issue a writ of Mandamus compelling Parliament or State Legislatures to enact laws for implementing DPSPs.
To evaluate the judicial writ power regarding legislative mandates under Part IV.

Anahtar Kavram

Interrelationship, amendments, and judicial evolution of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, and Fundamental Duties

Bu konudan daha fazla soru