Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Yes, Fundamental Rights are generally considered superior to Directive Principles of State Policy. Fundamental Rights are enforceable by courts, ensuring their protection against state infringement. They are enshrined as justiciable, meaning individuals can seek legal redress if these rights are vioRead more
Yes, Fundamental Rights are generally considered superior to Directive Principles of State Policy.
Fundamental Rights are enforceable by courts, ensuring their protection against state infringement. They are enshrined as justiciable, meaning individuals can seek legal redress if these rights are violated. This makes them legally binding on the state.
In contrast, Directive Principles are not-justiciable, meaning they cannot be directly enforced by courts through lawsuits. They serve as guidelines for the state to strive for, guiding its policies towards social and economic welfare. While important, they do not override individual rights.
However, it’s crucial to note that the relationship between these two isn’t always clear-cut. In certain cases, courts have interpreted Directive Principles to inform the meaning and scope of Fundamental Rights, indicating a degree of interdependency.
Ultimately, the supremacy of Fundamental Rights is established through their justiciability and the guarantee of individual liberties.