{"id":33315,"date":"2024-03-11T05:14:05","date_gmt":"2024-03-11T05:14:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/edukemy.com\/blog\/?p=33315"},"modified":"2024-03-11T05:14:07","modified_gmt":"2024-03-11T05:14:07","slug":"bring-out-the-differences-between-the-fundamental-rights-and-the-state-policy-discuss-some-of-the-measures-directive-principles-of-state-patients-for-the-imperil-services-directive-principles-of-stat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/edukemy.com\/blog\/bring-out-the-differences-between-the-fundamental-rights-and-the-state-policy-discuss-some-of-the-measures-directive-principles-of-state-patients-for-the-imperil-services-directive-principles-of-stat\/","title":{"rendered":"Bring out the differences between the Fundamental Rights and the State Policy. Discuss some of the measures Directive Principles of State Patients for the imperil Services Directive Principles of State Policy."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a>
Refer & Earn NOW<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Directive Principles of State Policy<\/strong> are enshrined in Part IV<\/strong> of the Constitution under Articles 36 to 51<\/strong>. Borrowed from the Irish Constitution<\/strong>, these principles, featured in Part III<\/strong> of the Constitution, alongside Fundamental Rights<\/strong>, are often described as the “Conscience of the Constitution<\/strong>.” While they collectively reflect the constitutional conscience of India, they also embody inherent differences. Fundamental Rights<\/strong> function negatively, acting as restrictions on the state, while Directive Principles<\/strong> are positive, requiring the state to undertake specific actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fundamental Rights<\/strong> are justiciable<\/strong>, meaning they are legally enforceable by courts in case of violations, whereas Directive Principles<\/strong> are non-justiciable<\/strong>. Fundamental Rights aim at establishing political democracy<\/strong>, while social and economic democracy<\/strong> is sought through the Directive Principles. The former have legal sanctions<\/strong>, while the latter rely on moral and political sanctions<\/strong>. Fundamental Rights secure individual welfare<\/strong>, while Directive Principles promote community welfare<\/strong>. Although most Fundamental Rights are directly enforceable, separate legislation is required for implementing the Principles. A law violating Fundamental Rights may be declared invalid, unlike a law infringing on Directive Principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Presently, due to various Supreme Court decisions<\/strong>, Fundamental Rights<\/strong> enjoy supremacy over Directive Principles<\/strong>, though this doesn’t imply that Directive Principles cannot be implemented. Fundamental Rights may be amended by Parliament to give effect to any Directive Principles, as long as the amendment doesn’t affect the Constitution’s basic structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since 1950<\/strong>, numerous programs have been implemented to give effect to the Directive Principles. Examples include the Minimum Wages Act (1948)<\/strong>, Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act (1986)<\/strong>, the Maternity Benefit Act (1961)<\/strong>, Equal Remuneration Act (1976)<\/strong>, and the establishment of boards for handloom<\/strong>, handicrafts<\/strong>, coir<\/strong>, and silk<\/strong>. Various rural development programs<\/strong>, employment guarantee schemes<\/strong>, and the National Forest Policy (1988)<\/strong> aim to improve living standards. Despite efforts by Central and State governments, full implementation of the Directive Principles<\/strong> has been hindered by resource constraints, social and economic conditions, and population challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n