All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.
Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.
Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahil's argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?
  • a)
    The Directive Principles are legally enforceable in courts, whereas fundamental rights are not.
  • b)
    The Directive Principles are distinct from fundamental rights and are not subject to judicial review.
  • c)
    Fundamental rights of citizens take precedence over the Directive Principles of State Policy.
  • d)
    The Directive Principles of State Policy are integrated into Part III of the Constitution as fundamental rights.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions...
The passage provides clear guidance that the Directive Principles outlined in Part IV of the Constitution are distinct from the fundamental rights outlined in Part III and regular laws of the land. They are not subject to legal enforcement in courts and do not establish justifiable rights for individuals. Option A is inaccurate because it contradicts the information presented in the passage. Option C is incorrect as it implies that fundamental rights can take precedence over Directive Principles, which is not the case. Option D is also incorrect as it presents false information.
Therefore, option B is the correct choice.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. A person approached the Supreme Court contending that a law passed by the Parliament takes away his fundamental right and prayed that the Court must stay the operation of law at first instance and then he would move forward to prove that law is unconstitutional as it violates fundamental rights of the petitioner. Decide.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the broad framework of judicial review under the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to declare any law unconstitutional, either because it is ultra vires (or, contrary to any provision of the Constitution) or it violates any of the fundamental rights, invalid because it is repugnant to a central law on the same subject or has been enacted without legislative jurisdiction. However, interim orders staying or suspending laws enacted by the legislature are frowned upon by constitutional courts and legal scholars. The general argument is that unless there are compelling reasons such as flagrant lack of constitutional validity, or absence of legislative competence (that is, the legislative body concerned lacks the jurisdiction to enact the law in question), a law ought not to be stayed.Why is it considered unusual for a court to suspend a law or its operation?The main principle is that suspending a law made by the legislature goes against the concept of separation of powers. Courts are expected to defer to the legislature's wisdom at the threshold of a legal challenge to the validity of a law. The validity of a law ought to be considered normally only at the time of final adjudication, and not at the initial stage. The second principle is that there is a presumption that every law enacted by any legislature is constitutional and valid. The onus is on those challenging it to prove that it is not. Therefore, courts are circumspect when hearing petitions seeking suspension of a law pending a detailed adjudication.How did the SC justify its order on farm laws?This court cannot be said to be completely powerless to grant stay of any executive action under a statutory enactment, the Bench observed in its order. This means that it was apparently making a distinction between staying a law and staying its implementation or any action under it. Some may argue, however, that the effect remains the same, as the order operates as a stay on the government invoking its provisions.Q. Based on the author's argument in the last paragraph of the passage, which of the following statements is/are correct?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage.The most remarkable achievement in post-constitution India is the exercise of the power of the judicial review by the superior courts. So long as this power is wielded by the courts effectively and fearlessly, democracy will remain ensured in India and, with all its shortcomings, the Constitution will survive. The numerous applications for the constitutional writs before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and their results testify to the establishment in India of 'limited government', or, 'the government of laws, not of men', as they call it in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has well performed its task of protecting the rights of the individual against the executive, against oppressive legislations and even against the Legislature itself, when it becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges not only against the individual citizens but even against the judges.At the same time, it should be observed that neither the guarantee of the Fundamental Rights nor its adjunct 'Judicial Review' could have full play during the first quarter of a century of the working of our Constitution owing to their erosion by Proclamations of Emergency over a substantial period of time. It is true that the Emergency provisions are as much a part of the Constitution of India as any other, and that history has proved the need for such powers to meet extraordinary situations, but, broadly speaking, if the application of the Emergency provisions overshadows the other features of the Constitution, the balance between the 'normal' and 'emergency' provisions is palpably destroyed. Even, apart from Emergency, there has been an astounding erosion of Fundamental Rights owing to multiple amendments of the Constitution.The means to prevent any such conflict between competing interests is to process all proposals for constitutional amendments through an expert and objective machinery, which would ensure the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the Copernican changes in the social, economic and political background.Q. What, according to the passage, is the biggest concern of the author?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage.The most remarkable achievement in post-constitution India is the exercise of the power of the judicial review by the superior courts. So long as this power is wielded by the courts effectively and fearlessly, democracy will remain ensured in India and, with all its shortcomings, the Constitution will survive. The numerous applications for the constitutional writs before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and their results testify to the establishment in India of 'limited government', or, 'the government of laws, not of men', as they call it in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has well performed its task of protecting the rights of the individual against the executive, against oppressive legislations and even against the Legislature itself, when it becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges not only against the individual citizens but even against the judges.At the same time, it should be observed that neither the guarantee of the Fundamental Rights nor its adjunct 'Judicial Review' could have full play during the first quarter of a century of the working of our Constitution owing to their erosion by Proclamations of Emergency over a substantial period of time. It is true that the Emergency provisions are as much a part of the Constitution of India as any other, and that history has proved the need for such powers to meet extraordinary situations, but, broadly speaking, if the application of the Emergency provisions overshadows the other features of the Constitution, the balance between the 'normal' and 'emergency' provisions is palpably destroyed. Even, apart from Emergency, there has been an astounding erosion of Fundamental Rights owing to multiple amendments of the Constitution.The means to prevent any such conflict between competing interests is to process all proposals for constitutional amendments through an expert and objective machinery, which would ensure the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the Copernican changes in the social, economic and political background.Q. What possible dangers does the author envisage when an institution becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges?

The Constitution which lays down the basic structure of a nation's polity is built on the foundations of certain fundamental values. The vision of socio-economic change through the Constitution is reflected in its lofty Preamble.The Preamble expresses the ideals and aspirations of a renascent India. By the year 1949, the Constituent Assembly had completed the drafting of the Fundamental Rights Chapter. Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantees for the human rights of our people. These rights were one of the persistent demands of our leaders throughout the freedom struggle. The founding fathers were conscious of the fact that mere political democracy, i.e., getting the right to vote once in five years or so was meaningless unless it was accompanied by social and economic democracy. Dr. Ambedkar had said:"We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power. The Constitution also wishes to lay down an ideal before those who would be forming the government. That ideal is of economic democracy."Our founding fathers, however, were far-sighted people therefore they consolidated the principles of good governance as Directive Principles contradistinguished from issues of rights, government and politics.That is how the vision of our founding fathers and the aims and objectives which they wanted to achieve through the Constitution are contained in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. These three may be described as the soul of the Constitution and the testament of the founding fathers to the succeeding generations together with the later Part on Fundamental Duties.Q. It is fundamental right of every citizen not to be discriminated on the ground of religion, race, sex, place of birth or any of them. However, nothing in the fundamental rights shall prevent the state from making any special provision for women, children or elderly. State of XYZ enacted a law granting reservation of 50% in National Law School XYZ - to the native students scoring more than 75% percent in XII Examination. Based on the essence of the passage, decide whether the move of reservation is constitutional or not

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?a)The Directive Principles are legally enforceable in courts, whereas fundamental rights are not.b)The Directive Principles are distinct from fundamental rights and are not subject to judicial review.c)Fundamental rights of citizens take precedence over the Directive Principles of State Policy.d)The Directive Principles of State Policy are integrated into Part III of the Constitution as fundamental rights.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?a)The Directive Principles are legally enforceable in courts, whereas fundamental rights are not.b)The Directive Principles are distinct from fundamental rights and are not subject to judicial review.c)Fundamental rights of citizens take precedence over the Directive Principles of State Policy.d)The Directive Principles of State Policy are integrated into Part III of the Constitution as fundamental rights.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?a)The Directive Principles are legally enforceable in courts, whereas fundamental rights are not.b)The Directive Principles are distinct from fundamental rights and are not subject to judicial review.c)Fundamental rights of citizens take precedence over the Directive Principles of State Policy.d)The Directive Principles of State Policy are integrated into Part III of the Constitution as fundamental rights.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?a)The Directive Principles are legally enforceable in courts, whereas fundamental rights are not.b)The Directive Principles are distinct from fundamental rights and are not subject to judicial review.c)Fundamental rights of citizens take precedence over the Directive Principles of State Policy.d)The Directive Principles of State Policy are integrated into Part III of the Constitution as fundamental rights.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?a)The Directive Principles are legally enforceable in courts, whereas fundamental rights are not.b)The Directive Principles are distinct from fundamental rights and are not subject to judicial review.c)Fundamental rights of citizens take precedence over the Directive Principles of State Policy.d)The Directive Principles of State Policy are integrated into Part III of the Constitution as fundamental rights.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?a)The Directive Principles are legally enforceable in courts, whereas fundamental rights are not.b)The Directive Principles are distinct from fundamental rights and are not subject to judicial review.c)Fundamental rights of citizens take precedence over the Directive Principles of State Policy.d)The Directive Principles of State Policy are integrated into Part III of the Constitution as fundamental rights.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?a)The Directive Principles are legally enforceable in courts, whereas fundamental rights are not.b)The Directive Principles are distinct from fundamental rights and are not subject to judicial review.c)Fundamental rights of citizens take precedence over the Directive Principles of State Policy.d)The Directive Principles of State Policy are integrated into Part III of the Constitution as fundamental rights.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?a)The Directive Principles are legally enforceable in courts, whereas fundamental rights are not.b)The Directive Principles are distinct from fundamental rights and are not subject to judicial review.c)Fundamental rights of citizens take precedence over the Directive Principles of State Policy.d)The Directive Principles of State Policy are integrated into Part III of the Constitution as fundamental rights.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?a)The Directive Principles are legally enforceable in courts, whereas fundamental rights are not.b)The Directive Principles are distinct from fundamental rights and are not subject to judicial review.c)Fundamental rights of citizens take precedence over the Directive Principles of State Policy.d)The Directive Principles of State Policy are integrated into Part III of the Constitution as fundamental rights.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?a)The Directive Principles are legally enforceable in courts, whereas fundamental rights are not.b)The Directive Principles are distinct from fundamental rights and are not subject to judicial review.c)Fundamental rights of citizens take precedence over the Directive Principles of State Policy.d)The Directive Principles of State Policy are integrated into Part III of the Constitution as fundamental rights.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup