Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
The core of the commitment to the social revolution lies in parts III and IV, in the
Fundamental Rights and in the Directive Principles of State Policy. These are the
conscience of the Constitution.30
While Fundamental Rights are justiciable and Directive Principles are not, the latter are no less
important for that reason. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also contains two sets of
rights, the traditional civil and political rights and the new economic and social rights. In the Indian
constitution, the first kind is included under Fundamental Rights and the second under Directive
Principles. The reason for the distinction between the two is very simply that while the state could
straightaway guarantee political and civil liberties contained under ‘Fundamental Rights’, it could
only secure economic and social justice over a period of time as the economy developed and
social change took place. The latter set of rights could not therefore be made justiciable, that is, a
citizen could not go to a court of law in case of denial. But nonetheless, the state was enjoined
upon to do its utmost to apply these precepts when making laws. By this process, rights contained
in the Directive Principles could become justiciable as and when they were incorporated into
laws.
The decision to have written rights, a list of rights, a declaration of rights in the constitution
marked a sharp break with British constitutional tradition and practice. The British had consistently
rejected Indian demands for a list of rights. Indians, on the other hand, because of their colonial
experience, had developed a healthy suspicion of government and preferred rights to be written
down. Their preference was in keeping with international trends as well. Following the suppression
of human rights in Germany , the Soviet Union, and other places, the Atlantic Charter, and the
United Nations Charter had been drawn up and the United Nations Human Rights Commission
established.
The inclusion of Fundamental Rights in the constitution was imperative also because the first
Constitution of India Bill framed in 1895 had contained this concept in embry o, and it had figured
prominently in the Motilal Nehru Report of 1928. Further, it not only represented ‘advanced
democratic thought’ but was also ‘a convenient way of setting at rest the fears of minorities’.31
Stung by the British claim that they had stay ed on in India to protect the minorities who would
otherwise be suppressed by the majority , the Congress was determined to show how patently
false this assertion was. As Patel said:32
It is for us to prove that it is a bogus claim, a false claim, and that nobody can be
more interested than us in India, in the protection of our minorities. Our mission is to
satisfy every one of them . . .
The core of the commitment to the social revolution lies in parts III and IV, in the
Fundamental Rights and in the Directive Principles of State Policy. These are the
conscience of the Constitution.30
While Fundamental Rights are justiciable and Directive Principles are not, the latter are no less
important for that reason. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also contains two sets of
rights, the traditional civil and political rights and the new economic and social rights. In the Indian
constitution, the first kind is included under Fundamental Rights and the second under Directive
Principles. The reason for the distinction between the two is very simply that while the state could
straightaway guarantee political and civil liberties contained under ‘Fundamental Rights’, it could
only secure economic and social justice over a period of time as the economy developed and
social change took place. The latter set of rights could not therefore be made justiciable, that is, a
citizen could not go to a court of law in case of denial. But nonetheless, the state was enjoined
upon to do its utmost to apply these precepts when making laws. By this process, rights contained
in the Directive Principles could become justiciable as and when they were incorporated into
laws.
The decision to have written rights, a list of rights, a declaration of rights in the constitution
marked a sharp break with British constitutional tradition and practice. The British had consistently
rejected Indian demands for a list of rights. Indians, on the other hand, because of their colonial
experience, had developed a healthy suspicion of government and preferred rights to be written
down. Their preference was in keeping with international trends as well. Following the suppression
of human rights in Germany , the Soviet Union, and other places, the Atlantic Charter, and the
United Nations Charter had been drawn up and the United Nations Human Rights Commission
established.
The inclusion of Fundamental Rights in the constitution was imperative also because the first
Constitution of India Bill framed in 1895 had contained this concept in embry o, and it had figured
prominently in the Motilal Nehru Report of 1928. Further, it not only represented ‘advanced
democratic thought’ but was also ‘a convenient way of setting at rest the fears of minorities’.31
Stung by the British claim that they had stay ed on in India to protect the minorities who would
otherwise be suppressed by the majority , the Congress was determined to show how patently
false this assertion was. As Patel said:32
It is for us to prove that it is a bogus claim, a false claim, and that nobody can be
more interested than us in India, in the protection of our minorities. Our mission is to
satisfy every one of them . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment