Rights versus Directives: Golaknath to Minerva Mills
Key cases, amendments and doctrines in the clash between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
Keyboard Shortcuts
💡 Pro tip: Use keyboard shortcuts for faster studying!
Study Smart Tips for Rights versus Directives: Golaknath to Minerva Mills
Master these concepts using proven study techniques that actually work:
Active Recall
Test yourself before flipping each card to strengthen memory retention
Spaced Repetition
Review difficult cards more frequently than easy ones
Multiple Sessions
Break study time into shorter, focused sessions
Explain Aloud
Verbalize answers to reinforce understanding
Questions Covered in This Set
10 cards to master
What does Article 37 say about Directive Principles?
They are not enforceable by any court, but are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it is the State's duty to apply them in making laws.
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) — what was held?
Caste-based reservation of college seats was struck down; a Directive Principle (Art. 46) cannot override a Fundamental Right (Art. 29(2)). Directives must 'conform to and run subsidiary to' Part III.
What did the First Amendment (1951) do?
Inserted Article 15(4) allowing special provisions for backward classes, added Articles 31A and 31B, and created the Ninth Schedule to shield land reform laws from judicial review.
What is the Ninth Schedule?
A list added by the First Amendment where laws (chiefly land reform laws) could be placed to protect them from challenge on Fundamental Rights grounds.
What did Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965) hold?
A constitutional amendment is not 'law' under Article 13(2), so Parliament may amend and even abridge Fundamental Rights.
What did I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) decide?
By 6:5 the Court reversed earlier rulings: Fundamental Rights are transcendental and immutable, an amendment is 'law' under Article 13, so Parliament cannot abridge Part III at all.
What is prospective overruling, as used in Golaknath?
A technique where the new ruling applies only to the future — past amendments affecting rights remained valid, but no future amendment could abridge Part III.
What did the 24th and 25th Amendments do?
The 24th declared Article 368 permits amendment of any part, including Part III; the 25th inserted Article 31C protecting laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c) from Articles 14, 19 and 31.
What does Article 39(b) and (c) direct?
That material resources of the community be distributed to best serve the common good, and that the economic system not result in concentration of wealth and means of production.
Why was Kesavananda Bharati (1973) historic?
A 13-judge bench (the largest ever), 68 days of argument, 11 opinions; by 7:6 it overruled Golaknath — Parliament can amend any part — but cannot destroy the Constitution's basic structure.
