📌 Detailed Analysis & Key Provisions: • Fundamental Rights (Part III, Articles 12-35) are 'justiciable' in courts of law. Under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts), citizens possess guaranteed legal remedies to directly enforce these rights against state actions. • Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV, Articles 36-51) are expressly declared 'non-justiciable' under Article 37. While they are fundamental in the governance of the country, they cannot be legally enforced by any court. • Core Distinction: Fundamental Rights operate as enforceable legal prohibitions against state overreach (promoting political democracy), whereas DPSPs serve as non-justiciable socio-economic policy blueprints (striving for a welfare state). 📚 Related Exam Facts & Comparative Overview: • Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951): The Supreme Court held that in any conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, Fundamental Rights would prevail. • Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Affirmed that while DPSPs are vital, constitutional amendments implementing them cannot dismantle the fundamental basic structure of human freedoms. • Minerva Mills Case (1980): The Supreme Court held that the Constitution is founded on the bedrock of balance between Part III and Part IV. Giving absolute primacy to one over the other destroys the harmony of the Constitution. • Nature: FRs impose negative obligations on the State (what it must not do), while DPSPs place positive affirmative obligations on the State (what it should strive to do).