Correct option is C
· Assertion (A):True. The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are relevant in determining the reasonableness of restrictions imposed under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. Courts have, at times, referred to DPSPs to assess whether the restrictions on the fundamental rights under Article 19 are reasonable and justifiable in the context of achieving social and economic objectives outlined in the DPSPs.
· Reason (R):False. Directive Principles of State Policy are not superior to Fundamental Rights. Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, are enforceable by the courts, whereas DPSPs, listed in Part IV, are not legally enforceable. The Supreme Court has clarified that while DPSPs are important for governance and can guide the interpretation of laws, they do not have primacy over Fundamental Rights.
Information Booster:
1. Article 19 (2): This article allows the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of certain freedoms guaranteed under Article 19, such as freedom of speech and expression, in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, and other considerations.
2. Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP): Though non-enforceable, DPSPs are crucial in guiding the state in making laws and policies aimed at achieving social justice, economic welfare, and other goals of the state.
3. Judicial Interpretation: The courts have sometimes interpreted Fundamental Rights in light of DPSPs to harmonize individual rights with the collective welfare goals of the state.
4. Fundamental Rights vs. DPSP: Fundamental Rights are enforceable against the state and have a direct legal impact, while DPSPs provide a policy framework for the state to achieve social and economic objectives.
5. Notable Cases: The Minerva Mills case and Kesavananda Bharati case are significant in understanding the relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. The Supreme Court in these cases upheld the primacy of Fundamental Rights while also recognizing the importance of DPSPs.
Additional Information:
· Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court held that the balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs is a basic feature of the Constitution, and any law that destroys this balance would be unconstitutional.
· Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Court emphasized that while DPSPs cannot override Fundamental Rights, they are essential in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution to ensure justice, liberty, and equality.
· Article 37 of the Constitution: Specifies that while DPSPs are not enforceable in courts, they are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.
