DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & DPSP
| S.No. | FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS | DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES |
| 1 | The Fundamental Rights are enforceable in a court of law by appropriate remedies, including the constitutional remedies i.e., the writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition and certiorari which the Supreme Court and High Courts are empowered to issue against the Government. | But the Courts cannot compel the Government to carry out any Directive nor can any individual seek a legal remedy on the ground that the State has failed to comply with a Directive say, to prohibit the slaughter of cows or to introduce free education for children. The Directive in short does not create any legal right in favour of any individual. |
| 2 | The Fundamental Rights constitute limitations upon State actions. | Directive Principles are in the nature of instruments to the Government of the day to do certain things and to achieve certain ends by their actions. |
| 3 | For the same reason a law which contravenes a Fundamental Right can be declared by the appropriate Court to be void. |
But a law which is contrary to a Directive cannot be so held to be void. The Directives, however, require to be implemented by legislation, and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive neither the State nor an individual can violate any existing law or legal rights under colour of following a Directive. |
| 4 | In case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and Directives, the Fundamental Rights shall prevail, unless the conflict arises out of a law to implement the Directives in Art. 39 (b)-(c), i.e. for the socialisation of the means of production and the material resources of the nation | In this context , it is to be noted that by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, this protection (offered by Art. 31 C ) was sought to be extended to any law made to implement any of the Directives of State Policy as contained in Part IV ; but the Supreme Court has invalidated such extension in the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India. In the result Art. 31C remains where it was prior to the 42nd Amendment and would give pre-eminence to a Directive, overriding a Fundamental Right, only if the law which violates a Fundamental Right was passed to give effect to the Directive specified in Art. 39 (b) or (c) |
| 5 | It should also be noted that in the aforesaid decision or in the Minerva Mills case, the fundamental rights have been pointed out to constitute ‘basic features’ of our Constitution, so that they cannot be amended at all, under Art. 368 | The power of amendment conferred by Art 368 is a limited power, i.e., to effect changes as would not alter the basic structure or essential features of the original Constitution but it can amend the directive principles to delete any one or to add any new one |
| 6 | The power of judicial review belonging to the Courts, to examine whether any authority under the Constitution has exceeded the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution e.g., if it has violated any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part III | The power of judicial review belonging to the Courts is not available in case of Directive Principles |