Sambhav-2024

• Begin with a brief introduction to the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights (FRs).
• Provide an overview of the Complementarity of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights (FRs).
• Discuss how rationalizing Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) with respect to Fundamental Rights (FRs) is the need of the hour.
• Conclude Suitably.

Introduction
The Indian Constitution, a guiding beacon for the nation, encapsulates both the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights (FRs). These constitutional provisions, while distinct, work in tandem to create a harmonious and just society.

Body

• Complementarity of DPSPs and FRs:
  • The DPSPs, outlined in Articles 36 to 51, lay down guidelines for the government to promote the welfare of the people. They encompass principles of economic justice, social equality, and international relations.
  • In contrast, FRs, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution (Articles 12 to 35), are justiciable rights that safeguard individual liberties. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the symbiotic relationship between these two pillars of the Constitution.
• Evolution of DPSPs:
  • Article 39, a key DPSP amongst others, directs the State to ensure social and economic justice. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) upheld the significance of DPSPs, stating that though not enforceable, they are fundamental in the governance of the country.
  • However, the need for rationalization arises due to societal changes. The contemporary landscape demands a nuanced approach, possibly through the addition or modification of DPSPs to address emerging challenges.
• Evolution of FRs:
  • The scope of FRs, as highlighted in landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi (1978), has evolved dynamically. Article 21, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, has been expansively interpreted to include the right to live with dignity.
  • The judiciary, through its interpretative prowess, has adapted FRs to contemporary standards, showcasing their resilience in protecting individual freedoms.
• Rationalizing DPSPs:
  • As society progresses, the relevance of DPSPs becomes paramount. The State's duty to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare, as enshrined in Article 38, may necessitate a reevaluation of existing principles or the inclusion of new ones.
  • For instance, addressing environmental concerns or ensuring digital rights could be areas where DPSPs need augmentation. The judiciary, in cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), has acknowledged the need for environmental protection, aligning with the spirit of DPSPs.
• Expanding FRs:
  • While FRs are considered the cornerstone of individual liberties, their expansion should be approached with caution due to the doctrine of basic structure, elucidated in Kesavananda Bharati.
  • However, the judiciary, as seen in the Navtej Singh Johar case (2018), decriminalizing homosexuality, has demonstrated its commitment to adapting FRs to evolving societal norms.
  • The scope of the right to privacy, declared a fundamental right in the Puttaswamy judgment (2017), showcases the judiciary's responsiveness to contemporary challenges.
• Harmonizing DPSPs and FRs:
  • A delicate balance must be struck in aligning the interests of DPSPs and FRs. The State, while promoting welfare through DPSPs, should not infringe upon fundamental rights.
  • The Golaknath case (1967) emphasized that amendments affecting FRs must not alter the Constitution's basic structure. Striking this balance requires a nuanced approach, ensuring that the expansion or rationalization of one does not compromise the essence of the other.

Conclusion

In navigating the intricate relationship between DPSPs and FRs, the constitutional framework, supported by judicial wisdom, provides the roadmap for a just and progressive society. While the need for rationalizing DPSPs and expanding FRs is evident, the delicate balance between societal progress and constitutional sanctity must be maintained. The dynamic nature of the Constitution, as interpreted by the judiciary, allows for adaptability, ensuring the principles laid down by our forefathers remain relevant in the ever-changing landscape of governance and individual rights.