Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, embodies a vision of a just society as articulated in its Preamble – justice, social, economic and political. To realize this vision, the Constitution incorporates Fundamental Rights, guaranteeing civil liberties, and Directive Principles of State Policy, outlining aspirational goals for state action. While FRs are legally enforceable, DPSPs are not. This has led to a debate regarding their relative importance in achieving socio-economic justice. The question asks us to assess whether DPSPs, despite their non-enforceability, are, in fact, more fundamental than FRs in fulfilling the Preamble’s promise of a welfare state.
Understanding Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
Fundamental Rights (FRs), enshrined in Part III of the Constitution (Articles 12-35), are considered basic human rights. They are justiciable, meaning individuals can approach the courts for their enforcement. These rights include equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, religious freedom, cultural and educational rights, and the right to constitutional remedies. FRs primarily focus on protecting individuals from state action.
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), outlined in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36-51), are guidelines for the state to follow when formulating policies and laws. They aim to create a welfare state by promoting social and economic justice. DPSPs cover areas like raising the standard of living, ensuring equitable distribution of wealth, providing adequate livelihood, promoting education, and protecting the environment. They are non-justiciable, meaning courts cannot directly enforce them.
Comparing FRs and DPSPs in Achieving Socio-Economic Justice
Both FRs and DPSPs contribute to socio-economic justice, but in different ways. FRs ensure equal opportunity and prevent discrimination, which are crucial for social justice. For example, Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination) are fundamental to creating a level playing field. However, FRs primarily address *formal* equality, not necessarily *substantive* equality.
DPSPs, on the other hand, directly address socio-economic inequalities. Article 38 mandates the state to promote the welfare of the people and secure a social order for the maximization of welfare. Article 39 emphasizes equitable distribution of material resources and adequate livelihood for all. Article 41 guarantees the right to work, education, and public assistance in certain cases. These principles aim to create a society where basic needs are met and opportunities are available to all, regardless of their socio-economic background.
Why DPSPs Might Be More Fundamental
Several arguments support the claim that DPSPs are more fundamental to achieving socio-economic justice:
- Comprehensive Scope: DPSPs cover a wider range of socio-economic issues than FRs. They address poverty, inequality, health, education, and environmental protection – all essential components of a just society.
- Positive Obligations: DPSPs impose positive obligations on the state to actively promote social and economic welfare. FRs primarily impose negative obligations – restraining the state from infringing on individual rights.
- Guiding Principles for Legislation: DPSPs serve as guiding principles for legislation. Many laws enacted by the Indian Parliament and State Legislatures are based on these principles. For example, land reform laws, minimum wage legislation, and various social welfare schemes are inspired by DPSPs.
- Foundation for Five-Year Plans: The Five-Year Plans adopted by India since 1951 were largely based on the objectives outlined in the DPSPs.
- Judicial Interpretation: While non-justiciable, courts have increasingly recognized the importance of DPSPs. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court held that DPSPs are “fundamental in the governance of the country” and that a balance must be struck between FRs and DPSPs. The court also stated that the power of judicial review over laws violating DPSPs cannot be taken away.
Counterarguments and Balancing FRs and DPSPs
However, it’s crucial to acknowledge the importance of FRs. Their enforceability provides a crucial check on state power and protects individual liberties. Without FRs, the pursuit of socio-economic justice could potentially lead to the suppression of individual rights. Furthermore, the argument that DPSPs are more fundamental doesn’t negate the importance of FRs; rather, it suggests that a harmonious balance between the two is essential.
The Constitution itself recognizes this need for balance. Article 37 states that DPSPs are “not enforceable by any court,” but are “nevertheless enforceable by the state.” This implies that the state should strive to implement DPSPs, but not at the expense of FRs. The judiciary has played a crucial role in maintaining this balance through its interpretations of both FRs and DPSPs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while Fundamental Rights are vital for protecting individual liberties, the Directive Principles of State Policy arguably hold greater fundamental importance in realizing the socio-economic justice envisioned in the Preamble. Their comprehensive scope, positive obligations, and influence on legislation and planning make them essential for creating a welfare state. However, this does not diminish the significance of FRs; a harmonious balance between the two is crucial for a just and equitable society. The ongoing interplay between judicial interpretation and legislative action will continue to shape the relationship between FRs and DPSPs in India’s pursuit of its constitutional ideals.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.