Co-Relation Between The Fundamental Rights And Directive Principles Of State Policy

1. INTRODUCTION

The Fundamental Rights(FR) and the Directive Principle of State Policy(DPSP) are two important parts of our constitution having similar social, political and economic goals. Both have provisions to ensure equality and justice for all and embody the aspirations of a democratic society. Fundamental Rights are contained in part III of the constitution whereas the Directive Principle of State Policy is contained in part IV of the constitution. While Fundamental Rights ensures individual rights, the Directive Principle of State Policy is more focused towards the welfare of collective beings.

2. UNDERSTANDING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

A. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Fundamental rights are basic liberties and privileges that the Constitution gives to all individuals by them being a citizen of the country. In the Indian constitution, Part III is dedicated to fundamental rights. It includes crucial freedoms such as the right to equality, the right to freedom, the right against exploitation, the right to freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights, and the right to constitutional remedies. The goal behind the incorporation of them in the constitution is to set up a government of law and not a man.[1]

The concept of fundamental rights is borrowed from the US Constitution.

B. DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

Directive Principles of State Policy are a set of guidelines and commitments by the Constitution towards its citizens. It directs and guides the state in its governance to establish social and economic justice, reduce inequalities of income and status, provide adequate means of livelihood, promote educational and cultural interests, and ensure opportunities for all. These are the important principles that must be kept in mind while formulating laws in the country.

The concept of Directive Principles of State Policy is borrowed from the Irish Constitution of 1937, which itself is borrowed from the Spanish Constitution.[2]

Prominent economists such as K.T. Shah have criticized the Directive Principles, calling them "a cheque on the bank, payable only when resources of the bank permit so," as well as former Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari (19561958), who called them "a veritable dustbin of sentiments" due to their lack of legal backing and illogical arrangement.[3]It is important to note here that at the time of Constitution-making, the financial standing of our country was not sufficient to fulfil a few ideals which our constituent makers wanted in our constitution. To implement it when the state is capable enough, they included it in the DPSP. With the growing economy and politics of India, these directives are an important guide for our country to walk on the right path. These rules have grown in significance, and states are making every effort to abide by them with the growing capacity. The right to education implemented by the state is a step in that direction. So criticism may not be fair at present times.

3. DIFFECERNCE BETWEEN THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

A. JUSTIFIABLITY

Fundamental rights are justiciable in nature. It means that aggrieved persons can reach out to court and courts are bound to provide them with relief. Reliefs are mandatory and the rights of all.

Whereas, Directive Principles of State Policy are not justifiable in nature and it means they cannot be enforced by any court in India. it is the discretionary power of the state.

B. INSTRUMENT V. LIMITATIONS

Fundamental Rights are limited to the state's actions and are negative in nature. It means that it puts restrictions upon the exercise of power by the State or private individuals.[4]

Whereas, Directive Principles of State Policy is an instrument of governance and it is positive in nature. It means it requires some positive action on the part of the State or individuals against whom they are available.[5]

C. LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTION

Fundamental rights are not required to be fulfilled by the state through any legislation.

On the other hand, Directive Principles of State Policy are to be fulfilled through the enactment of different legislation. Consumer protection laws are an example of legislation brought in furtherance of Directive Principles of State Policy.

4. THE CORRELATION BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

The relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy has changed over the years. It evolved from a stage where Fundamental rights were considered to be above Directive Principles of State Policy to the present where both are seen as complementary to each other. Both have the same objective of reaching a welfare state.

A. Harmonizing relationship: While Fundamental Rights place more emphasis on societal well-being and the welfare of the group as a whole, Fundamental Rights guarantee the freedoms and rights of the individual. A fair and equitable society for all is the ultimate goal of both DPSP and FR. While DPSPs prioritize ensuring social and economic justice of collective citizens, FRs guarantee liberties such as freedom of speech, expression, and religion to individuals, ultimately bridging the gap between individual rights and the welfare of society as a whole. The nature and goal are not different but the only reason for the difference is that it was deliberated and preserved in different sections of the constitution, by our constituent makers.

B. Evolving Jurisprudence: Courts in India with several judgements over the years have evolved from the prevalence of Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles to reach where both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy are applied in a harmonious nature.

i. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan[6]: Fundamental Rights were given prevalence over Directive Principles of State Policy.

ii. Re Kerala Education Bill Case[7]: The concept of harmonious construction between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy was given by the court. Supreme Court held that an attempt should be made to give effect to both FR and DPSP, as much as possible.

iii. Kesvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[8]: The Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy are supplementary and complementary to each other.

5. CONCLUSION

The foundation of India's constitutional governance is the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. DPSP despite being non-justifiable in nature are an important component of our constitution. Lawmakers must consider the enshrined principle of DPSP and try to put it into effect. The integrative stance toward the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles by the legal system has been an important turning point in fulfilling the dreams of our constituent makers. Preserving this fine equilibrium is essential to the country's ongoing development and prosperity because it guarantees that the principles outlined in the Constitution continue to serve as the benchmark for decision-making and governance.