Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles (DPSP): Key Differences, Cases & Meaning – Indian Constitution
LuNotes – your trusted for Lucknow University Semester exam notes, crafted with love. ❤️
🔹 Introduction
🔸 The Constitution of India (1950) guarantees a set of Fundamental Rights (FRs) to ensure individual liberty and freedom
➤ Mentioned in Part III: Articles 12 to 35
➤ Available to citizens and in some cases, non-citizens too
🔸 Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
➤ Found in Part IV: Articles 36 to 51
➤ Provide guidelines to the State for governance
➤ Aim: Establishing a welfare state (social & economic justice)
➤ Not enforceable by courts, but essential for governance
➤ Borrowed from the Irish Constitution
➤ Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called DPSP a “Novel Feature“
🔹 Relationship Between FRs & DPSP
🔸 Both aim to:
➤ Protect citizens from arbitrary actions of the State
➤ Ensure the welfare of the people
➤ Represent the soul and philosophy of the Constitution
🔹 Difference Between FRs & DPSP
| Basis | Fundamental Rights (FRs) | Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | ✖️ Negative (restrict State action) | ✔️ Positive (require State action) |
| Justiciability | ✅ Enforceable by courts | ❌ Not enforceable by courts |
| Objective | ⚖️ Political Democracy | 👥 Social & Economic Democracy |
| Sanction | 📜 Legal | 🧭 Moral & Political |
| Scope | 👤 Individual-centric | 👨👩👧👦 Community-centric |
| Implementation | 🟢 Automatically enforced | 🛠️ Require legislation |
🔹 Conflict Between FRs and DPSP: Landmark Cases
1. Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (1951)
➡️ SC ruled: FRs > DPSP
➡️ DPSP must be subordinate to FRs
➡️ FRs can be amended by the Parliament
2. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
➡️ SC: FRs cannot be amended, even to implement DPSP
➡️ Contradicted earlier ruling (Shankari Prasad Case)