Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy are two of the most vital constituents of the Indian Constitution. While providing a guarantee for individual freedom, Fundamental Rights are meant to comprise welfare towards society as a whole by the DPSP. Both share importance in all-around nation development but differ in terms of enforceability and scope. This article will discuss the salient differences between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs and how they shape the constitutional framework of India.
Meaning of Fundamental Rights
Fundamental rights are the rights declared in the Constitution of India for every citizen so that the freedom, dignity, and equality of an individual are protected. These are under Part III of the Indian Constitution with provisions from Articles 12 to 35. It acts like a shield to protect against arbitrary actions by the state or government authority. They are very important rights in the life of a person for the better development of society. It is for the establishment of a society where liberty, justice, and equality shall coexist.
Scope of Fundamental Rights:
Fundamental rights cover a wide range of aspects to protect civil liberties and prevent any kind of discrimination. They apply to citizens but, under certain circumstances, to non-citizens too, protecting them from the action of the state. The rights include personal liberty, freedom of expression, protection against exploitation, and cultural and educational rights, among others. Of course, these are not absolute but could be reasonably restricted by the state in the interest of public order, morality, or national security.
Are you interested in pursuing a career in Law? The Legal School in collaboration with IndusLaw has created a unique program for a Certification in Mergers & Acquisitions, Private Equity and Venture Capital Laws for fresh law graduates as well as professionals looking to advance in their careers! Enquire now for details!
Key Features of Fundamental Rights
Fundamental Rights form part of the Indian Constitution that aims at extending guarantees of individual freedoms and also protection from action by the state. These rights, which are enforceable, ensure that every citizen has the fundamental liberty to live a dignified life. They encompass a very wide gamut of freedom and equality before the law to protect against exploitation and constitutional redress. The salient features of fundamental rights speak to universality, enforceability, and preserving democratic values, which make them the mainstay of the Indian constitutional order.
Judicially Enforceable: The basic rights are there to be exercised judicially in case one of these rights is violated.
All-Inclusive: The Fundamental Rights comprise almost every right required for personal, political, economic, social, and cultural development.
Universal: The Basic Rights are there for all, applicable to everybody and everyone, irrespective of caste, religion, sex, or place of birth.
Protection against State Actions: They protect the individual against state actions, but some towards private individuals.
Restricted but not absolute: Some restrictions can be legally put on these rights in the interest of public order, morality, and national interest.
Suspension during Emergency: Suspended during Emergency Except for Articles 20 and 21 Protection in respect of conviction for offences and Protection of life and personal liberty, all other rights can be suspended during a national emergency.
Meaning of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) is a set of non-justiciable guidelines to the government found in Part IV (Articles 36 to 51) of the Indian Constitution. DPSP intends to establish a social order within which economic, social, and political well-being will be bettered. DPSPs do not carry the statute of law but provide guidelines for the state in framing laws and policies that would advance the welfare of people and organize society in such a way as to promote justice.
Scope of DPSP
The DPSPs have a broad social and economic range. They are meant to be an instrument that guides the state in course correction towards better governance and overall development of the country. It encompasses and addresses a very long series of concerns. These concerns maybe social welfare, economic equalization, environmental protection, law reform, and international peace. Their function is to build a welfare state that balances the rights of the individual with social responsibilities.
Read about types of law degrees.
Key Features of DPSP
The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are exceptional provisions of the Indian Constitution. They form guiding principles for the government in forming policies aimed to bring social and economic justice. Though they cannot be legally pursued in courts, they hold immense moral and political value. These are features that make DPSPs an integral part of Indian governance.
Non-justiciable: DPSPs are not like Fundamental Rights. The courts cannot intervene in the decisions taken by the government in DPSP. DPSP only gives guidance to the government.
Objectives of Social and Economic Justice: DPSP aims to enhance citizens' welfare and reduce inequalities in society.
Complementary to Fundamental Rights: Fundamental Rights protect individual liberties, whereas DPSPs provide collective welfare.
Dynamic and Progressive: They are flexible, and the state can alter laws and policies according to society's progress.
Constitutional Mandate: The Constitution, though not making them legally enforceable, directs the government to act per DPSPs for a better society
Instructions to Policy Making: They guide the state to legislative enactments and schemes for bettering public welfare and development.
Know about the best part time law degree programs to pursue in India.
Difference Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
The Constitution of India is a body of law that articulates the rights and liabilities of citizens as well as of the state. It embodies both Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). But the two are distinctive categories of provisions different from, and supplementary to, each other. Both are directed toward the attainment of a just and fair society but differ on many points, namely enforceability, nature, and purpose.
1. Enforceability
Fundamental Rights: These rights are enforceable in courts of law. If any Fundamental Right is violated, the citizen can seek immediate redress from the judiciary directly under Article 32 for their right to constitutional remedy or under Article 226 and the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts. The courts can issue such writs as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari to enforce the rights.
DPSP: On the other hand, DPSPs are non-justiciable. These principles are contained in Part IV (Articles 36–51) of the Constitution, but they cannot be enforced by any court. No citizen can directly approach the courts to get a DPSP enforced, nor can the judiciary issue writs for their implementation. On the other hand, these principles provide an essential direction to the state in making policies and laws.
2. Nature
Fundamental Rights: These are negatively conceived, mainly putting limits on the power of the state. They work as prohibitions on the government, which should result in the non-invasion of the freedoms of individuals by the state. For example, the state cannot legislate laws derogating from the right to equality or freedom of speech.
DPSPs: As compared to the DPSP, these are positive because it compel the state to take certain steps that also add up for the welfare of the people. The state is asked to provide free legal aid, and a living wage, and to enhance the fair distribution of resources. For this reason, DPSPs bring the state to perform in the pursuit of public good. But they do not provide individual rights that can be claimed in court.
3. Object
Fundamental Rights: They are meant for protection of citizen's individual rights against state action. The drafters of the Constitution wished to sketch a framework of individual liberties in order to establish personal development and dignity. Fundamental rights are regarded as the vital need of the democratic state in order to protect freedom and equality of the citizens.
DPSPs: The Directive Principles aim at a welfare state. They speak of collective good, social justice, and distributive justice. In fact, the DPSPs epitomise the socialist and Gandhian perspective of the Constitution, which paints a picture of a state that is actively engaged in reducing inequality, education, and public health.
4. Extent
Fundamental Rights: The ambit of Fundamental Rights is lesser, as they deal with civil liberties mainly such as equality, freedom of speech and expression, right to life, and personal liberty. It has been individualistic, securing the personal freedoms of every citizen.
DPSPs: The scope of DPSPs is broader and covers both socio-economic dimensions of governance. They also provide objectives for the state, such as providing equal remunerations for equal work, protection of the environment, betterment of living standards, education, and health of citizens.
5. Conflict Resolution
Fundamental Rights: The entitlement of a law would be overridden by that of a fundamental right. This was clarified in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) and reaffirmed later on. The judiciary can declare null and void any law that invades the basic rights vested in citizens under the Constitution.
DPSPs: As far as the conflict between a law implementing a DPSP and a Fundamental Right is concerned, and especially after the 42nd Amendment (1976), the law that seeks to implement a DPSP may sometimes be upheld. The Supreme Court has held in a case such as Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), that balance needs to be struck between the Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. It also laid down that harmony and balance between the two must be approached to interpret the Constitution.
6. Amendment Process
Fundamental Rights: The amendments to the Fundamental Rights can be challenged in a court of law where they proceed against the basic structure of the Constitution. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the basic structure doctrine was established whereby Parliament's power to alter the essential features of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, is restricted.
DPSPs: DPSPs do not have to face such stringent judicial tests. Parliament can modify the Constitution to enact DPSPs, which is what happened in the 42nd Amendment. That's because they are thought of as flexible and adaptable to changing social needs.
7. Historical and Constitutional Significance
Fundamental Rights: The institution of Fundamental Rights was drawn from the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. The rights are liberalistic in approach to resist excessive state control and win personal freedom for the individual.
DPSPs: DPSPs are, as such borrowed from the Irish Constitution and imbued with Gandhian philosophy and other socialist-oriented ideals. They are, therefore closer to the concept of welfare state that involves assurance and promotion of social justice, equity, and public welfare.
8. Effect on Governance
Fundamental Rights: These rights form some sort of fetters to the legislative and executive actions so that laws and governmental policies do not infringe upon individual rights. They work well for rule of law and act as check against arbitrary exercise of power of the state.
DPSPs: Though not directly enforceable, DPSPs have a great influence on governance. In due course of time, the government has passed several enactments based on DPSPs like The Minimum Wages Act, The MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act), and the Right to Education Act. The state relies on DPSPs in policymaking areas like labor laws, environmental protection, public health, and social welfare.
Read to find out about government legal jobs.
Landmark Cases Related to Fundamental Rights
Fundamental rights are individual liberties in India that the spirit is to life. Landmark judgments have enlarged the scope of some rights. This ensured that rights were dynamic in adaptation to changing society. It established important precedents and invoked the supremacy of fundamental rights within the constitutional framework of India.
Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973:
This case established the Basic Structure Doctrine by barring Parliament from modifying the Constitution in a way that would alter its basic features or demolish constitutional rights.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
In this case, Article 21 'Right to Life and Personal Liberty' was widened and it was held that any law touching personal liberty should be reasonable, just, and fair.
Landmark Cases Related to DPSP
DPSP is a very vital part of India's legal and policy framework, although it is not binding on the courts. These cases highlighted the balance of rights with social welfare and how the courts understand the significance of DPSPs.
Minerva Mills Case, 1980:
The Supreme Court held that fundamental rights prevail over DPSPs and a balance of both should be struck. The court declared that fundamental rights cannot be sacrificed in order to achieve the objectives of DPSPs.
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951):
Held that DPSPs are not enforceable in a court of law and can never supplant Fundamental Rights.
Conclusion
Fundamental rights constitute enforceable legal rights to protect individual freedom. Directive Principles of State Policy guide the government to build a welfare state by promoting social justice and economic equity. Both are indispensable and integral constituents of the Indian Constitution. They complement each other in balancing the cause of defence for individual rights with that of collective benefits. Over time, the judiciary worked out a balanced interpretation of Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. Hence, no one can prevail over another in a manner that militates against the very spirit of the Constitution.
Difference between Fundamental Rights and DPSP FAQs
1. Why are DPSPs not justiciable?
DPSPs are not justiciable because they are to be used as general guidelines in governance rather than a law to be followed. The draftsmen of the Constitution did so intend DPSPs to allow flexibility to the state in policymaking due to changing social and economic conditions.
2. Are DPSPs amendable or alterable?
Yes, Parliament, through constitutional amendments, can alter DPSPs. Such amendments enable the state to change these principles in accordance with the emerging needs and concerns of society.
3. What is the significance of Fundamental Rights and DPSPs combined?
The fundamental rights and the DPSPs aim at achieving a balanced society to individual freedom and the welfare of all citizens. While it protects personal liberties through Fundamental Rights, DPSPs guide the state toward building a just and equitable society.
4. What is the relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSP?
DPSPs and Fundamental Rights supplement each other. While one provides a benefit of individual liberties, the other endeavors to achieve social and economic justice. The courts have held that both have to be brought into action together to attain a balanced constitutional framework.
5. What is the distinction between Fundamental Rights and DPSP?
The point of difference is as follows: whereas basic rights are justiciable in the sense that the courts have the authority to enforce them, DPSPs are non-justiciable in the sense that the state only makes use of them as guidelines. Fundamental rights revolve around liberty by an individual; DPSPs, however, aim at collective welfare.
