Answer:

Explanation:

1) **Why are the Directive Principles of State Policies not enforceable?**

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in a country's constitution are often not enforceable in a court of law, unlike fundamental rights. There are several reasons for this:

  a) **Nature of DPSP:** DPSPs are primarily guidelines and recommendations for the government on how it should frame policies and laws. They provide a moral and ethical direction for governance rather than creating legally enforceable obligations.

  b) **Conflicting Priorities:** Sometimes, different DPSPs can conflict with each other, making it challenging to enforce them in a clear and consistent manner. In contrast, fundamental rights are usually considered absolute and cannot be compromised.

  c) **Resource Constraints:** Enforcing all DPSPs could require significant financial and administrative resources, which may not be feasible for the government. Prioritizing certain DPSPs over others becomes necessary, and this prioritization is a political decision.

  d) **Judicial Prudence:** Courts are often hesitant to intervene in policy matters and prefer to leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government. Enforcing DPSPs could involve interpreting and implementing government policies, which is a political process.

  e) **Non-Justiciability:** In some cases, DPSPs may be explicitly labeled as non-justiciable in the constitution, meaning that they are not meant to be subject to judicial enforcement. This is often the case to avoid undue interference in matters of state policy.

2) **Why should rights have restrictions?**

Rights, while fundamental and essential in a democratic society, may have restrictions for several reasons:

  a) **Balancing Conflicting Rights:** Sometimes, different rights can come into conflict with each other. For example, the right to free speech may conflict with the right to privacy. Restrictions help in balancing these conflicting rights to maintain social harmony and protect individuals' interests.

  b) **Public Interest and Safety:** Restrictions on certain rights may be necessary to ensure public safety and the greater good. For instance, the right to bear arms may be subject to restrictions to prevent gun violence.

  c) **Preventing Abuse:** Without some restrictions, rights could be abused. For instance, the right to free speech does not permit hate speech or incitement to violence. Such restrictions are in place to prevent harm to individuals or society.

  d) **National Security:** In the interest of national security, governments may place restrictions on rights, such as surveillance of communication, to protect the country from threats.

  e) **Limiting Harm:** Rights are not absolute; they must be exercised within the bounds of the law. Restrictions ensure that rights are exercised responsibly and do not infringe upon the rights and well-being of others.

  f) **Legal and Ethical Boundaries:** Legal systems establish boundaries on rights to ensure that they align with legal and ethical principles. This helps maintain order and fairness within a society.

In summary, restrictions on rights are often necessary to strike a balance between individual freedoms and the broader interests of society, including public safety, security, and the protection of other fundamental rights. These restrictions are typically defined by laws and regulations and should be subject to scrutiny to ensure they do not unduly infringe on individual liberties.

pls mark me the brainliest if it helps…