Relationship Between Fundamental Right And DPSP
Article 37 says that Directive Principles Of State Policy (DPSP) are not enforceable in a court of law, but they are fundamental in the Governance of the country.
Supreme Court in Champakam Durairajan versus the State of Madras 1951, held that the Directive Principles Of State Policy (DPSP) cannot overwrite Fundamental Right.
25th Amendment Act 1971 introduced Article 31(c), which says that if states enact a law to give effect to two directives under article 39 (b) and 39 (c), and in that process if a law violates Article 14, 19, and 31 then that law will not be held unconstitutional.
In Keshav Nand Bharti Case 1973, Supreme Court upheld the 24th Amendment Act 1971 and declared the Bank nationalization act, privy purse abolition to be valid if elected again.
Parliament enacted the 42nd amendment act 1976 which among other things amended article 31 (c), which now read that if a state enact a law to give effect to all or any of the DPSP and in the process, it violates Article 14, 19, and 31, then the law shall not be held unconstitutional merely on this ground. And such law cannot be question in court.
Later, by 44th Amendment Act 1978, Parliament remove Article 19 (f) and Article 31 from the list of fundamental right.
In the Minerva mill case, Supreme Court declared the 42nd amendment act induced changes in 31 (c) as unconstitutional on the grounds that it disturbs the balance between Part 3 (Fundamental Rights) and Part 4 (Directive Principles Of State Policy) which itself a basic structure and also took away the power of Judicial review of the Court which is also part of basic structure.
The two directives under article 39 (b) and article 39 (c) can prevail over Article 14 and 19.