Difference between fundamental rights and Dpsp

Difference between fundamental rights and Dpsp

The DPSP and the Fundamental Rights can be compared on the basis of the grounds mentioned underneath:

A. Justiciability

As we already knew, the DPSP are non- justiciable in nature due to the Art. 37. But the Fundamental Rights are justiciable under the Constitution of India. Under the Art. 32, which provides the “Right to Constitutional Remedies”, people of India can move to the Court in case of infringement of these rights.

B. Nature of Instructions

The DPSP are “positive obligation” while the Fundamental Rights are “negative obligation” on the State. These rights enforce lots of restrictions either on citizens of India or on the State. But, as the Directive Principles are positive in nature, so these are only instructions to the State to do certain things for the welfare of people.

C. Democratic System

The objective of the Directive Principles is to form the “socio- economic democratic system” in India on the basis of the “social and economic justice”.

The “Freedom of Speech and Expression, the Freedom to form Associations or Unions, Freedom to Assemble Peacefully” etc. are significant for the political development of a democratic system and all of these provisions are guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights, therefore, these rights are helpful in establishing the political democracy.

D. For State and Citizen

The Directive Principles are for State, the Fundamental Rights are for people of India. These principles are the directions given to the State for making the laws whereas the Fundamental Rights are for people of India to enhance their personality. They guide the State in the formulation of national policy.

E. Binding Force

The force behind the DPSP is citizens of India whenever the Government does not perform its duty according to these principles, then they would not get votes in the elections while the Fundamental Rights have legal force, so if the State infringe the right of any person, that person has right to go to the Court for the enforcement of his “Fundamental Right”