4 Relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

1. The classic tension: rights as the individual's shield (negative, immediate, justiciable) vs. directives as the collective program (positive, progressive, aspirational) — the liberal vs. social- justice constitution-making dialectic;2. The synthesis positions: (i) complementarity — rights need directives for their social content; directives need rights for their enforcement edge; (ii) the Irish-Indian resolution —harmonious construction: neither automatically trumps; (iii) the justiciability gradient — the 2015 Constitution deliberately blurred the line: social rights inside Part 3 itself (education, health, food, housing — Articles 31, 35–37: justiciable in form, directive-like in "as provided by law" qualification) — the Nepali text's distinctive move;3. The conflict cases: property (Article 25) vs. land-reform directives (Article 51(5)) — the 25(4) land-reform clause as the constitution's own pre-cooked reconciliation (Property Law's frame, Semester 3); religious freedom (Article 26) vs. the social-transformation directives; environment (Article 30(3)'s environment-development balance) as the express balancing template;4. The exam conclusion: in the 2015 Constitution the relationship is structural, notadversarial — Part 3 (rights) supplies the legal floor, Part 4 (directives) the policy ceiling; the judiciary's role is the bridge (harmonious interpretation), the legislature's the builder (Article 47's implementation statutes), and the political process the ultimate arbiter of pace.