Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles (DPSP)

Imagine the Constitution is a parent with two children. One child (Fundamental Rights) is given immediate pocket money. The other child (Directive Principles) is given a "Promissory Note" that says, "I will pay you when I am rich enough."

This is the core difference between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy - DPSP). But what happens when the promises made to the second child require taking money away from the first child?

For UPSC and CGL aspirants, understanding this "Tug of War" is essential.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

PART: III (Articles 12-35)
NATURE: Justiciable (Enforceable)
ORIGIN: USA (Bill of Rights)
GOAL: Political Democracy

DPSP

PART: IV (Articles 36-51)
NATURE: Non-Justiciable (Advice)
ORIGIN: Ireland (Irish Const.)
GOAL: Social & Economic Democracy

1. The Core Conflict: Why do they fight?

Fundamental Rights are Individualistic. They say, "The State cannot stop ME from speaking, moving, or doing business."

DPSPs are Socialistic. They say, "The State must distribute wealth, ensure equal pay, and seize property for the common good."

The conflict arises when the Government tries to implement a DPSP (like land redistribution) but it violates an Individual's Fundamental Right (like Right to Property).

2. Comparison Table (High Yield for CGL)

Feature	Fundamental Rights (FR)	Directive Principles (DPSP)
Enforceability	Justiciable. You can go to Supreme Court (Art 32) if violated.	Non-Justiciable. You cannot sue the Govt for not following them.
Nature	Negative. They stop the state from doing things ("State shall NOT...").	Positive. They ask the state to do things ("State SHALL...").
Suspension	Can be suspended during National Emergency (Except 20, 21).	Cannot be suspended (because they aren't enforceable anyway).
Source	USA Constitution.	Irish Constitution.

3. The Historical Battle (High Yield for UPSC)

The Supreme Court's view on "Who is Supreme?" has changed over decades. Here is the timeline of the battle.

1. Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)

Verdict: FR Wins. The Court said FR are primary. DPSP are subsidiary. If they clash, FR prevails.

2. Golaknath Case (1967)

Verdict: FR is Sacrosanct. The Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights to implement DPSP.

3. The 42nd Amendment (1976)

Verdict: Parliament Strikes Back. Indira Gandhi's Govt declared that ALL DPSPs are superior to Articles 14 and 19. It gave DPSP unlimited power.

4. Minerva Mills Case (1980) - THE FINAL VERDICT

Verdict: Balance. The Supreme Court struck down the unlimited power given to DPSP. It ruled that the Indian Constitution is founded on the "Bedrock of Balance" between Part III and Part IV. Neither is superior; they are two wheels of the same chariot.

4. Key Trap: K.T. Shah's Quote

In exams, you are often asked who said DPSP is "A cheque on a bank, payable only when the resources of the bank permit."

The answer is K.T. Shah. This perfectly summarizes DPSP—they are noble goals, but the State is not legally bound to fulfill them immediately due to lack of resources.

Revision Flashcards

Tap/Hover to flip the cards.

Article 32

Relates to FR or DPSP?