State the difference between Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights.

Difference Between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV)

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar termed Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) as the 'Conscience of the Constitution' (Granville Austin). Together, they form the core of constitutional justice.

Comparison Parameter	Fundamental Rights (Part III, Arts. 12–35)	Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV, Arts. 36–51)
1. Constitutional Nature	Justiciable: Directly enforceable by the Supreme Court (Art. 32) and High Courts (Art. 226).	Non-Justiciable: Not legally enforceable by any court of law (Art. 37).
2. Character of Mandate	Largely Negative Injunctions: Prohibits the State from taking certain actions infringing individual liberty.	Positive Injunctions: Directs the State to implement welfare policies and socio-economic legislation.
3. Objective & Democracy	Establishes Political Democracy and civil liberties for the individual.	Establishes Socio-Economic Democracy and a Welfare State.
4. Legal Sanction & Legislation	Self-executory; automatically enforceable without requiring separate implementing legislation.	Not self-executory; requires enabling statutory legislation (e.g., MGNREGA for Art. 41, RTE for Art. 45).
5. Judicial Power	Courts are bound to declare any law violating FRs as null and void (Art. 13).	Courts cannot declare a law unconstitutional merely for violating DPSPs, but use them to test reasonableness.
6. Suspension	Can be suspended during National Emergency under Art. 352 (except Arts. 20 and 21).	Cannot be suspended; remains permanent guiding principles of state governance.

Judicial Synthesis: In Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution is founded on the bedrock of balance and harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.