There are some rights that are essential to living. The term "Fundamental Rights" refers to a number of the rights that are protected by the Constitution and acknowledged by the government.

Parts III, IV, and IV-A of the Constitution, respectively, contain the provisions of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, and Fundamental Duties. The Constituent Assembly of India developed these, which are regarded as essential components of the Constitution, between 1947 and 1949.

The Constitution of India grants certain rights to its citizens, including defence, welfare, and other rights. These rights are referred to as fundamental rights. Regardless of caste, gender, sex, colour, religion, place of birth, etc., these provisions are applicable. These are referred to be fundamental human rights for citizens. Under Articles 226 and 32, the High Courts and Supreme Court, correspondingly, have the authority to enforce Fundamental Rights, subject to certain limitations. They emphasise personality interests.

The Constitution provides directive principles as a framework for drafting laws by the government. These are not fundamental rights clauses that the courts can enforce. These ideas serve as the guiding principles for State governance while the State is drafting and adopting laws. In other words, the DPSP is a set of instructions for the State to follow as it establishes economic and social democracy. The wellbeing of society is the main concern of the Directive Principles

The moral obligations of all citizens, known as the Basic Responsibilities, aid in fostering both the patriotism and national unity of India. Similar to Directive Principles, they are likewise not enforceable in court because they deal with people and the country. There were initially 10 Basic Obligations, but after the 86th Amendment was passed in 2002, one more duty was added:
"Every parent or guardian shall offer his child between the ages of 6 and 16 years with appropriate opportunities of education." There are 11 Basic Responsibilities as of right now.

Inter-Relationship:
When a law conflicts with a fundamental right, the Directive Principles have been utilised to defend the constitutional legality of the law. The 25th Amendment inserted Article 31-C in 1971 to give the Directive Principles primacy in the form of Article 31-C. To give effect to the Directive Principles in Articles 39-B and 39-C over Fundamental Rights granted by Articles 14, 19, and 31, this article was added.

The Supreme Court ruled in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab that fundamental rights cannot be modified, reduced, or removed. In response, the Amendment Act was introduced, and Article 31-C was added to Part III of the Constitution. Any law that is created in accordance with the DPSP but contradicts Articles 14, 19, and 21 shall not be declared invalid for this reason alone

By the 42nd Amendment of 1970, this article was supposed to apply to all DPSP, but in the Minerva Mill, the Supreme Court declared the extension invalid on the grounds that it contradicted the fundamental framework of the Constitution. Moreover, legislation for the welfare of citizens has been built on the foundation of both fundamental rights and directive principles.

In the pivotal Kesavananda Bharati case, three According to the Supreme Court, Parliament has the right to modify any portion, but not the fundamental framework. Because it violated the fundamental principles of the Constitution, clause 2 of Article 31-C has been ruled illegal and void. However the validity of clause 1 has been determined. The 42nd Amendment Act, introduced by the Parliament, broadens the application of Article 31-C's requirements. Following the ruling, the Supreme Court has taken the position that the Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are complimentary to one another and fill in for each other's roles in order to construct the welfare state through social means.

Thus the Court restored Article 31-C to its original state as inserted by 25th Amendment in 1971. It follows that the Directive Principles of Article 39-B and Article 39-Cshall have the supremacy on fundamental rights conferred by Article 14 and 19.

In State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas, the SC stated that the DPSP and Fundamental Rights should be constructed in a way that allows the courts to make every attempt to resolve any disputes between them.

The Fundamental Duties have been used by the Supreme Court to support the constitutional legitimacy of statutes that aim to advance the goals set forth in Part IV of the Constitution, or the Fundamental Duties. All citizens are considered to be required to perform these duties, provided that the State does so by way of an effective law. The State has been given instructions by the Supreme Court on how to implement the regulations and give citizens the opportunity to carry out their responsibilities.

Bombay Municipal Corporation v. Olga Tellis, According to the SC, the DPSP are essential to the nation's governance. As a result, the definition and conceptions of fundamental rights should be given equal weight.

Union of India v. Dalmia Cement, According to the SC, the Preamble of the Constitution, which serves as an introduction, and the Fundamental Rights and DPSP constitute the conscience of the Constitution, respectively. They are supplemental to and complimentary to one another.

In Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, The SC said that no difference can be made between these two sets of rights. Fundamental Rights are the rights which deal with the Civil and Political Rights whereas DPSP deals with social and economic rights. DPSP are not enforceable in courts but it doesn't mean it is a subordinate.

Role of Judiciary In the Inter-Relationship
The Supreme Court stated in Re Kerala Education Bill 8 that although the DPSP cannot supersede fundamental rights, the court must use the concept of harmonious construction and make an effort to give effect to both when assessing the scope and ambit of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court also started stating that there is no conflict between the Directive Principles and Basic Rights. They are additive and supportive of one another.

In the Minerva Mill case, the court noted that Parts III and IV act as the chariot's two wheels, promoting social and economic democracy. The fundamental framework of the Constitution is comprised of the Basic Rights and Directive Principles.

Affirmative action under Article 15(4) and Article 16 is now governed by Article 46 of the DPSP (4). Through Article 14, as well as Article 19 (1) on freedom of occupation and Article 21 on the right to subsistence, the Directive's principles of "Equal pay for equal work" and "involvement of workers in management" were received. In Consumer Education and Research Center v. UOI, Judge K. Ramaswamy ruled for the court that "The health and strength of the worker is an inherent component of right to life" by combining Article 21 with Articles 39-C, 41, 43, 48-A.

Conclusion:
The two sides of a coin—the Basic Rights, Fundamental Obligations, and Directive Principles—serve the same function, which is the interest of the citizen. Part III, Part IV-A, and Part IV of the constitution describe the fundamental rights, duties, and directive principles. Basic Rights and Fundamental Obligations are the cornerstones of a citizen's behaviour in society, whilst Directive Principles serve as the state's blueprint for enacting legislation.

While the Directive Principles are not enforceable in court, Basic Rights and Obligations are. Consequently, it is up to the party who feels wronged to decide whether to enforce directive principles, and the court's jurisdiction will determine whether or not to do so.

The judicial mindset has changed significantly, and courts are now actively defending the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and interpreting the terms of Part IV, or the DPSP. In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (9), it was decided that in the event of a conflict between Parts III and IV of the Constitution, the Fundamental Rights would take precedence. This decision reflects the court's initial strict and legal stance in interpreting Parts III and IV of the Constitution.

In a recent ruling by the Apex and High Courts, a new trend was established by creating a harmonious construction between Parts III and IV of the Constitution, making the Directive Principles justifiable and enforceable on par with Part III, or the Constitution's Fundamental Rights. Both of them are additive to and supportive of one another.

Written By: Kamlesh Singh - The author's Views are Personal