Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy | Political Science
Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy – Explained! Article shared by. Despite being part of the same constitution, . What is the relationship between Fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, with respect to what has been discussed by the. Abstract: The relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution has been a controversial issue right from their.
In order to claim the right, it is essential that the educational institution must have been established as well as administered by a religious or linguistic minority. Further, the right under Article 30 can be availed of even if the educational institution established does not confine itself to the teaching of the religion or language of the minority concerned, or a majority of students in that institution do not belong to such minority.
Exercise of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court can also be suo motu or on the basis of a public interest litigation. Now it is not counted as a Fundamental Right.
Directive Principles of State Policy[ edit ] Main article: Directive Principles in India The Directive Principles of State Policy, embodied in Part IV of the Constitution, are directions given to the state to guide the establishment of an economic and social democracy, as proposed by the Preamble. The Directive Principles may be classified under the following categories: Several enactments, including two Constitutional amendments, have been passed to give effect to this provision. However, this has remained a "dead letter" despite numerous reminders from the Supreme Court to implement the provision.
The Fundamental Duties of citizens were added to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment inupon the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee that was constituted by the government earlier that year. They also obligate all Indians to promote the spirit of common brotherhood, protect the environment and public property, develop scientific temperabjure violence, and strive towards excellence in all spheres of life.
Supreme court has ruled that these fundamental duties can also help the court to decide the constitutionality of a law passed by the legislature. The court thus upheld the Coking Coal Mines Nationalization Act, by granting greater importance to Directive Principles than Fundamental Rights in accordance with Article 31C that provided for the same. AIR SC Abu Kavier Bai The court referred to the decision of Constituent Assembly to create two parts for these core constitutional concepts.
It was stated that the purpose of the two distinct chapters was to grant the Government enough latitude and flexibility to implement the principles depending on the time and circumstances. It can therefore be construed to be well settled that a harmonious interpretation of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is quintessential in ensuring social welfare and the apex court is promoting the same view after much deliberation.
The author believes that with the advent of judicial activism, the opinion of the court may change in due course of time. The courts off late have played a proactive role in facilitating socio-economic development at a macrolevel which requires compromise on a microlevel.
The freedom of speech and expression, the freedom to form associations or unions, freedom to assemble peacefully etc. On other hand, the Directive Principles aim at the establishment of the socio-economic democratic system in India. Their aim is to put an end to all sorts of exploitation and to establish and maintain economic equality in the Indian Political System through appropriate legislation by the state.
Fundamental rights are judicially supreme over the Directive Principles of State Policy. Fundamental Rights are enforceable. These have been given a priority of mention in the constitution.
Directive Principles are non-enforceable principles which have been incorporated in the Constitution after the fundamental rights.
These features are a source of legal superiority of the latter over the former. In the case of the State of Madras, Vs. The directive principles have to conform to and run subsidiary to the chapter on fundamental rights. The courts have accepted viewpoint that the directive principles are subsidiary and not supreme over the fundamental rights.
Fundamental Rights have been achieved whereas Directive Principles are yet to be achieved. With the inauguration of the Constitution, part III containing the fundamental rights of the people become operative and people got these constitutionally guaranteed and enforceable rights since the day of the implementation of the constitution.
On the other hand, the directive principles of state policy are yet to be attained. Some laws have been enacted to implement some of these principles but most these are yet to be secured by the state. There is legal force behind Fundamental Rights whereas Directive Principles have the force public opinion. The constitution clearly vests the fundamental rights in a constitutional and legal basis and makes these provisions enforceable by the courts.
These are binding on the state. Their violation is an offence. On other hand, Directive Principles have been denied a legal basis by the constitution.
But the Directive Principles enjoy widespread support of public opinion.
Relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs | Kumar Gaurav - pugliablog.info
The State finds it essential to work for the implementation of these principles under the pressure of public opinion. For State and Citizen: Fundamental Rights are for citizen whereas Directive Principles are for state.
- RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY: AN EVALUATION.
- Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy | Political Science
- Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India
The fundamental rights are given to the people of India so that they may be able to develop their personalities whereas Directive Principles are the directives for the state which would keep in view while formulating national policies.
They guide the state in the formulation of national policy. Due to difference in the nature of fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy there has been tension in the mutual relationship between Part III and Part IV of the constitution.
Fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the constitution the civil political dimension of Indian democracy. These stands constitutionally granted and guaranteed.
The directive principles as enshrined in Part IV of the constitution constitute the socio-economic dimension of the Indian democracy which the state is to achieve through appropriate legislation. No one as such can question the attempts of the state to implement the directive principles.
Difference Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
However, the existence of some conflict between some of the fundamental rights and directive principles, at times, makes the attempts controversial. In the past, the Right to Equality, the Right to freedom and the Right to property as contained in Articles 14, 18, 19, 22 and 31 respectively often got involved in a controversy with several laws which were enacted by the state for implementing the Directive principles contained in articles 39 b and 39 c and others. Article 19 1 g guarantees the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any profession, trade or business but Article 47 calls upon the State to introduce prohibition and to ban cow slaughter.
Fundamental Rights do not include the right to work, education and public assistance but Article 41 of Part IV calls upon the State to make effective provisions for securing these.