Q. Differentiate between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights
The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights are two essential components of the Indian Constitution that aim to ensure justice, equality, and the overall development of individuals and society. While both are aimed at establishing a just and humane society, they differ in several aspects including their nature, scope, implementation, and enforceability.
Below is a detailed comparison highlighting the differences between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights:
✅ Key Differences between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
| Basis of Difference | Fundamental Rights | Directive Principles of State Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Fundamental Rights are the basic individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. | DPSPs are the guiding principles for the State to frame laws and policies. |
| Source | Derived from the U.S. Constitution | Inspired by the Irish Constitution |
| Part of Constitution | Enshrined in Part III (Articles 12 to 35) | Enshrined in Part IV (Articles 36 to 51) |
| Nature | They are justiciable, i.e., legally enforceable by courts. | They are non-justiciable, i.e., not enforceable by courts. |
| Enforceability | If violated, the aggrieved person can move to the High Court or Supreme Court. | No legal remedy is available for their non-implementation. |
| Objective | To establish political democracy and protect individual liberties. | To establish social and economic democracy and promote welfare of all. |
| Focus Area | Focuses on individual rights and liberties. | Focuses on state responsibilities towards society. |
| Examples | Right to Equality, Right to Freedom, Right against Exploitation, etc. | Equal pay for equal work, free legal aid, protection of environment, etc. |
| Legal Status | They are legally binding on the State. | They are morally binding, not legally enforceable. |
| Amendability | Can be amended by Parliament, but not to destroy their basic structure. | Can be modified or added through simple amendments. |
| Relationship with Law | Any law violating Fundamental Rights can be declared unconstitutional. | Laws cannot be struck down solely for violating DPSPs. |
| Priority (in conflict) | Initially, Fundamental Rights had primacy. After the 42nd and 44th Amendments, a balance is maintained. | DPSPs now also play a significant role in shaping laws, especially related to welfare. |
✅ Important Constitutional Provisions and Amendments
- Article 37: Clearly states that Directive Principles are not enforceable by any court, but are fundamental in the governance of the country.
- Article 32 and 226: Provide citizens the right to move the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
- 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976:
- Gave more importance to DPSPs.
- Made it obligatory for the state to promote equal justice, ensure free legal aid, and secure participation of workers in industries.
- Minerva Mills Case (1980):
- Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are complementary and not contradictory.
- A balance must be maintained between the two to achieve the objectives of the Constitution.
✅ Examples to Illustrate the Difference
- Right to Education (Article 21A) was initially a Directive Principle (Article 45), but later made a Fundamental Right through the 86th Amendment Act, 2002.
- Right to Clean Environment is interpreted as part of Right to Life (Article 21) though it also reflects the aim of DPSPs (Article 48A).
✅ Conclusion
In conclusion, while Fundamental Rights are individual-centric, enforceable, and justiciable, the Directive Principles are state-centric, non-justiciable, and aspirational. Together, they form the soul of the Indian Constitution, aiming to establish a balance between individual liberty and social welfare. The harmonious relationship between the two is essential to achieve the vision of a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic.