Skip to content

CS Professional · Labour Laws and Practice · Constitution and Labour Laws

A court is hearing a challenge to a statute that restricts a labour-related Fundamental Right, and the State defends it as giving effect to a Directive Principle. Which view reflects the settled approach of the Supreme Court on harmonising Parts III and IV?

Parts III and IV are complementary and must be harmonised, and Directive Principles can be used to interpret Fundamental Rights and justify reasonable restrictions. Neither part always prevails over the other, and Directive Principles cannot be enforced by writ directly against private employers.

  1. ADirective Principles always prevail over Fundamental Rights
  2. BFundamental Rights always prevail and Directive Principles are irrelevant
  3. CParts III and IV are complementary, to be harmonised, and Directive Principles may be used to interpret and give content to Fundamental RightsCorrect
  4. DDirective Principles can be enforced by writ against private employers directly

Explanation

The Supreme Court treats Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as complementary, to be read harmoniously, with Directive Principles helping to interpret rights such as Article 21 and to justify reasonable restrictions. Neither part absolutely prevails over the other. Directive Principles are also not enforceable by writ against private employers.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Constitution and Labour Laws shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Constitution and Labour LawsFree diagnostic mock

More Constitution and Labour Laws questions