Q.Do you agree socio-economic rights should have been Fundamental Rights not Directive Principles in a poor developing country? Give reasons and possible reasons for the original choice.

The chapter openly leaves this question unresolved, so an honest answer needs both a position and the framers' likely reasoning for the choice they actually made. …

The chapter itself raises this exact question as one of the Constitution's three acknowledged limitations, without resolving it: 'it is not clear why in a poor developing country, certain basic socio-economic rights were relegated to the section on Directive Principles rather than made an integral feature of our fundamental rights.' I agree with the underlying concern. In a country where mass poverty, illiteracy and deprivation were the dominant reality at independence, rights to things like work, education, or a basic standard of living arguably matter just as much to a person's real freedom and dignity as classic civil-political rights like freedom of expression — a starving or illiterate citizen cannot meaningfully exercise many of the individual freedoms the Constitution otherwise protects. Making such rights directly enforceable would have given citizens a real legal claim against the state's failure to provide for them, rather than leaving their fulfilment to the government's own discretion and changing political will. …