The Constitutional Philosophy for the Protection of Human Rights

In one line

Rights that the State may not take away, duties the State must work towards, and a court that can be reached: the Indian philosophy is that dignity requires all three.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: the constitutional philosophy for the protection of human rights in India has four elements. The Preamble states the ends, securing to all citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity, and assuring the dignity of the individual. Part III confers rights that are enforceable against the State and makes any law inconsistent with them void. Part IV states directives that are not enforceable by any court but are fundamental in the governance of the country and which it is the duty of the State to apply in making laws. And article 32 makes the remedy itself a fundamental right, so that the rights are not declarations but claims. The philosophy is therefore neither purely liberal, since it commits the State to positive action, nor purely socialist, since it entrenches individual rights against the State; it is a design in which negative and positive obligations are placed in separate Parts and made to work together.

The four elements

The Preamble states the ends. It resolves to secure to all citizens justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.

Two things about it. The order is deliberate: justice first, then liberty, then equality, then fraternity, and fraternity is what assures dignity. And the Preamble is not a source of power, but it has been used as a key to the Constitution's purposes, and in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, its values were treated as part of the basic structure.

Part III confers enforceable rights. Articles 12 to 35 confer rights against the State, article 13 makes an inconsistent law void, and articles 32 and 226 supply the remedy.

Part IV states unenforceable directives. Article 37 provides that the provisions of Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court, but that the principles are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.

Article 32 entrenches the remedy. Which is the point made in [Access to Courts: Where the Right Comes From], and which distinguishes the Indian design from a constitution that declares rights and leaves their enforcement to ordinary law.

What kind of philosophy this is

An answer should be able to place the design, and three characterisations are defensible.