Q.Activist argues poor need Directive Principles made legally binding, not Fundamental Rights. Do you agree? Give reasons.

The activist's argument raises a real and long-debated constitutional question, but treating

Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights as substitutes for each other misunderstands how the two …

The activist's underlying concern is real: Directive Principles like the right to an adequate

livelihood, free legal aid, and education matter enormously to poor citizens, and their lack of

court-enforceability is a genuine limitation. But it would be a mistake to conclude that the poor

therefore need Directive Principles made binding "instead of" Fundamental Rights. Fundamental Rights

-- equality, freedom of speech and assembly, protection from arbitrary arrest, the Right to

Constitutional Remedies itself -- are often MOST important precisely for people who are poor or

marginalised, since they are the ones most likely to face arbitrary treatment by employers, the

police, or local power-holders, with the least ability to protect themselves without a legal remedy.

The Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills judgments already settled that neither part of the

Constitution should be given unconditional priority over the other -- both are considered part of

the Constitution's basic structure, meant to work together. A more workable response to the …