Introduction 

• The Constitution of India, 1950(COI) enshrines a set of Fundamental Rights (FRs) designed to protect the individual liberties and freedoms of all people within the territory of India. 
• FRs are enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution from Articles 12 to 35. 
• Some Fundamental rights are guaranteed to both citizens and non-citizens. 
• The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are certain guidelines enshrined in Articles 36-51 which are contained in Part IV of the COI to manage the governance of India. 
• They show the path towards establishing the welfare state. 
• The objective of incorporating DPSP into the Constitution is to establish a political democracy rather than social or economic democracy. 
• The concept was borrowed from Irish Constitution. 
• Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, known as the Architect of the COI terms it as a ‘Novel Feature’.

Relationship Between DPSP and FRs 

• The main aim of both the DPSP and FRs is to protect the citizen from any arbitrary actions of the state. 
• Both of them work for the welfare of the state. 
• The DPSP along with FRs contain the philosophy of the Constitution and is the soul of the Constitution. 

Difference Between DPSP & FRs 

• DPSP are positive as they require the State to do certain things while FRs are negative as they impose limitations on the working of the state. 
• FR are justiciable, that is, they are legally enforceable by the courts in case of their violation, but DPSP are non-justiciable. 
• FR aims at establishing political democracy in the country, but DPSP aims at establishing social and economic democracy in the country. 
• FR have legal sanctions, but DPSP have moral and political sanctions. 
• FR promotes the welfare of the individual. Hence, they are personal and individualistic while DPSP promote the welfare of the community. Hence, they are solitarian and socialistic. 
• FR do not require any legislation for their implementation. They are automatically enforced while DPSP require legislation for their implementation. They are not automatically enforced. 

Conflicts Between Fundamental Rights and DPSP: Associated Cases 

• Champakam Dorairajan v. The State of Madras (1951):  
  • In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the FRs and the DPSP, the former would prevail. 
  • It declared that the DPSP have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the FRs. 
  • It also held that the FRs could be amended by the Parliament by enacting constitutional amendment acts. 
• Golaknath v. The State of Punjab (1967):  
  • In this case, the Supreme Court declared that FRs could not be amended by the Parliament even for implementation of DPSP 
  • It was contradictory to its own judgement in the ‘Shankari Parsad case’. 
• Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala (1973):  
  • In this case, the Supreme Court overruled its Golak Nath (1967) verdict and declared that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, but it cannot alter its “Basic Structure”. 
  • Thus, the Right to Property (Article 31) was eliminated from the list of Fundamental Rights.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):  
  • In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, but it cannot change the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The ultimate goal of the constitution is to maintain harmony between FRs and DPSP. There are several differences between the two but both of them act supplementary as well as complementary to one another. Both are necessary for a just and equitable society.