Clash or Harmony? Basic Rights and Directive Principles Explored 1200 Words
The Indian Constitution adopted in the year 1950 had for the first time expressed a unique conjunction between Basic Rights and the DPSPs. Together, these two categories have provided a reflection of the goals of individual freedom and the socio-economic justice. As it has been observed above that the Directive Principles guide the State towards socio-economic welfare while the Basic Rights provide a framework under which individual liberties and equality exist, this chapter reflects upon the play of two pillars of the Indian Constitution, their difference and their critical role in constituting Indian democracy.
The Shield of Individual Liberties: Fundamental Rights
Such vital factors relating to human growth as well as guarding of the Constitution for democracy are done through Part III of the Constitution. They provide protection over the basic human rights and put certain limitation upon the authority of the State. Amongst these, some important characteristics of Fundamental Rights have been listed below:-
Justiciability:-
These rights are vindicable. The citizen can refer his grievance to the courts if his Fundamental Rights are violated.
Scope and Coverage:-
The Fundamental Rights are enforceable by every citizen, and some of them are even guaranteed to non-citizens as well, that too with the guarantee of equality, freedom, and justice.
Types of Rights: There are six types of Fundamental Rights:-
Right to Equality (Articles 14-18)
Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22)
Right against Exploitation(Articles 23-24)
Right to Freedom of Religion(Articles 25-28)
Right to Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)
Right to Constitutional Remedies(Article 32)
These rights gave an underpinning for the Indian legal system which would protect its people against arbitrary action by the State and provide an even platform.
Directive Principles of State Policy
Welfare Orientation:-
The part IV of the constitution says Directive Principles of State Policy are those guidelines which may not be justiciable in order to bring socio-economic justice for which they have derived inspiration from the Irish Constitution as well as the Gandhian ideology of creating a welfare state. Features of DPSPs:-
Not Justifiable:-
The basic rights unlike DPSP are not enacted by the court. This is dependent upon the activities of legislature as well as the executives.
Division of principles
Social and Economic Justice:-
Articles 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 43A and 47 deals with equality and reasonable wages.
Gandhian Principles:-
Articles 40, 43, 46, 47 and 48 deal with integrated village, cottage industries, and prohibition of intoxicating drugs.
Liberal-Intellectual Principles:-
Articles 44, 45, 48, 48A, and 49 involve Uniform Civil Code, free education, environment protection.
Long-term goals:-
General objectives of the state as reflected in DPSP are removal of poverty, gender inequality, and environmental protection.
Basic rights vs Directive Principles Major Difference
Justiciability:-
Fundamental Rights can be enforced in the Court where the individual may approach for a judicial relief upon violation. DPSPs cannot be enforced in the Court of Law and hence are, non-justiciable.
Focus:-
Fundamental Rights speak about the liberty and equality of the people whereas DPSPs speak about the good and welfare of the society as well as social economic advancement.
Nature:-
Fundamental Rights impose a negative obligation on the State to desist from the restriction of the individual freedoms. DPSPs impose positive obligations on the State to follow welfare objectives.
Supremacy:-
In the event of conflict, hitherto, Fundamental Rights were regarded as supreme over DPSPs, though this has also changed with judicial pronouncements.
Dynamic Relationship: Evolution through Judicial Interpretation
The relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs has undergone a great transformation through judicial interpretation. Some of the landmark cases illustrate this very dynamic:
Champakam Dorairajan Case, 1951. The Supreme Court held that in case of conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, the former prevails. This set the tone of a hierarchical understanding of these two provisions.
Golaknath Case (1967):-
The court restated the supremacy of Fundamental Rights and decreed that the Parliament cannot amend it so as to acquire DPSPs.
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973):-
The doctrine of the basic structure was postulated and rigid fundamental rights were balanced with the necessary achievement of DPSP. The idea was that parliament may amend Fundamental Rights; the amendment cannot change the basic structure of the constitution.
Minerva Mills Case (1980):-
It reaffirmed the coequality status of Fundamental Rights vis-à-vis DPSPs by insisting on congruence rather than as superordinate-subordinate. According to it, if such supremacy is given to one over the other, that would disturb the constitutional balance.
Unni Krishnan Case, 1993:-
This is how the Court merged the right to education, a DPSP under Article 45, with the right to life under Article 21 to prove that concurrence of both is possible.
Legislative and Judicial Efforts toward Harmonization even in the early years of the Constitution’s implementation, at which time when the division between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs appeared apparent, was also present along with legislative efforts in terms of offering harmonization:
Legislative Measures:-
42nd Amendment Act 1976 has been incorporated to elevate some of the DPSPs into Fundamental in running the country.
Examples include the Right to Education Act, 2009, and the National Food Security Act, 2013, wherein enforceable rights were added to DPSPs.
Judicial Activism:-
Judicial activism in India has also highly been active in interpreting the Fundamental Rights in the light of DPSPs. This can be understood through a few examples:
The jurisprudence of environmentalism has linked the Right to Life with Article 48A or protection of the environment.
Article 21 and 39 (a) is known to be socio-economic rights The form of power this entitlement entitles is the kind of right to livelihood
Outside of constitution:-
Right to free education is also added in Fundamental right due to amendment 86th Constitution brought it forth in year 2002 but the articles 21 and 39 (a) goes in its flow at the same time
Criticism and Difficulties
Critics consider that duplication results in conflict as both have rights and objectives for an individual as well as social welfare.
Gaps in Implementation:-
Though DPSPs were made enforceable, yet chiefly remained unfilled owing to absent resources and will to implement.
Judicial Overreach:-
This extension of the Fundamental Rights is considered to have usurped the legislative competence at their cost.
Conclusion
This dialectical relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is, as it were, a reflection of the Indian vision of an integral and not a split-level democracy. Where the former guards individual liberties, the latter attempts to construct a socio-economic scenario in which those liberties may be meaningfully exercised. Therefore, with the judiciary, legislature, and executive constituting three arms of government, harmonization provisions must therefore occur such that justice and welfare come together and guarantee delivery. This is a system where there is collective commitment to the spirit of upholding the Constitution towards realisation equality, liberty, and fraternity.
Also Read:- The Indian Constitution and the Basic Structure Doctrine: Defending Democracy and Justice 1200 Words