Which of the following statements correctly describes the constitutional distinction regarding enforceability and judicial remedies between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) under the Constitution of India?
- AFundamental Rights constitute positive obligations on the State and are non-justiciable, whereas Directive Principles impose negative restrictions on State action and are directly enforceable in courts.
- Fundamental Rights are justiciable and guaranteed by judicial remedies under Article 32, while Directive Principles are non-justiciable and cannot be directly enforced by any court as declared in Article 37.Answer
- CHigh Courts cannot issue writs under Article 226 for any constitutional provisions other than Fundamental Rights, rendering both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles equal in writ scope.
- DIn any scenario of conflict, Directive Principles automatically override Fundamental Rights because Article 37 expressly designates them as paramount over Part III provisions.
Answer
Fundamental Rights are justiciable and guaranteed by judicial remedies under Article 32, while Directive Principles are non-justiciable and cannot be directly enforced by any court as declared in Article 37.
The statement identifying Fundamental Rights as justiciable under Article 32 and Directive Principles as non-justiciable under Article 37 correctly states Indian constitutional law. Article 37 explicitly declares that the provisions contained in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Justiciability contrast between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (DPSP) under Articles 32 and 37