The Role of DPSPs in the Presence of Violations of Fundamental Rights
The Role of DPSPs in the Presence of Violations of Fundamental Rights
In the context of constitutional governance and the interplay between different legislative principles, an interesting debate revolves around the implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) when fundamental rights are violated. In my opinion, DPSPs are primarily instrumental in guiding governance and policy-making, rather than serving as a direct enforcement mechanism for fundamental rights. This article delves into the nature and function of DPSPs, the relationship between DPSPs and fundamental rights, and explores whether the implementation of DPSPs is necessary when fundamental rights are violated.
Understanding DPSPs and Fundamental Rights
Directives Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) form a significant part of the Indian Constitution, embodying the aspirations and principles that the state is expected to follow in shaping its policies. These principles are non-justiciable, meaning that they cannot be enforced through the judiciary. They are more like guidelines or aspirations, rather than binding laws. On the other hand, fundamental rights, enumerated in the Indian Constitution under Part III, are justiciable and are enforceable by the courts.
DPSPs as Guidelines for Policy-Making
DPSPs are primarily designed to provide direction to the state in policy-making and governance. These principles include ensuring certain socio-economic goals such as a effective administration of justice, eradication of child labor, and promotion of educational and economic opportunities for all. They serve as a benchmark for the government to strive for, promoting the welfare of citizens and ensuring a more equitable society.
The Interplay Between DPSPs and Fundamental Rights
While DPSPs act as guiding principles for the government, they are not an exhaustive list of fundamental rights. When it comes to the protection of fundamental rights, the primary responsibility lies with the judiciary. If any laws, policies, or actions by the government violate fundamental rights, citizens can approach the courts to seek redress. The judiciary in this capacity plays a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that the rights guaranteed under the Constitution are protected.
Parliament’s Role and Accountability
Parliament, as the legislative body, has the responsibility to enact laws that align with both DPSPs and fundamental rights. When making policies, Parliament must ensure that they comply with the fundamental rights as interpreted by the courts. If a policy or law is found to be in violation of fundamental rights, the judiciary can strike it down, thus ensuring that the government adheres to the constitutional framework.
Approaching Courts for Redressal
Given that DPSPs are non-justiciable, the process of ensuring their implementation is primarily through the judiciary. If any DPSP is violated, individuals can seek redress through the legal system. The courts can then direct the government to take measures to ensure compliance with DPSPs. However, this does not mean that DPSPs are irrelevant. They serve as an important reference point for the judiciary and the government in shaping policies and providing direction to the state.
Conclusion
In summary, while DPSPs provide valuable guidance for policy-making and governance, their enforcement is not directly tied to the protection of fundamental rights. The primary mechanisms for the protection of fundamental rights remain with the judiciary. Therefore, it is not necessary to implement DPSPs in a manner that overemphasizes their enforcement, as the judicial system already has the tools and mechanisms in place to address violations of fundamental rights. The role of DPSPs is best served when they guide the government in creating policies that enhance the welfare of citizens, which can indirectly contribute to the protection of fundamental rights.