Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
Initially there was lack of clarity because of the contradiction between the two parts. 1st contradiction – Fundamental rights enforceable, directive principles non-enforceable. 2nd contradiction – Fundamental rights based on liberalism, directive principles on socialism. What was the result? (Write discussion as above) The legal battle and the conflict between the legislature and judiciary. What is the current status? Over a period of time, the clarity has come that they are not contradictory but complementary. There is a need for harmonious construction. Political democracy without social and economic is a contradiction. Directive principles were not given immediate effect not because they were not important but because country lacked resources, if given the status of enforceable rights and govt. unable to enforce it, it would create constitutional crisis. In Nehru Report 1928 as well as in Constituent assembly, they were introduced as integrated scheme, but later on separated.
Criticism of Directive Principles.
Disappointment to some members of constituent assembly because they are not legally enforceable. It undermines federalism. (some of the DPSPs contains subjects in state list). There should not be any non-enforceable part in the constitution as it becomes problematic for judiciary. It limits the choice of future governments with respect to the formulation of policies.
Criticism of Fundamental duties.
It is a feature of socialist countries.
In liberal countries, the purpose of constitution is to put limit on govt.
It is also non-enforceable and hence problematic.
Fundamental duties had not made any change in the quality of citizens in India.
Fundamental duties are vaguely worded.
It is not clear how citizens will develop ‘scientific temper’ without basic education.
It was not a part of original constitution.