Directive Principles of State Policy

             

 

Topics Discussed: -

·       Introduction

·       Features

·       Classification of DPSPs

·       Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy

·       Difference between Fundamental Rights & DPSPs

·       Conflict between Fundamental Rights & DPSPs

·       PRACTICE QUESTIONS

 

·       Introduction

 

The Constitution of India aims to establish not only political democracy but also socio-economic justice to the people to establish a welfare state.

 

1.    With this purpose in mind, our Constitution lays down desirable principle and guidelines in Part IV (Article 36 to 51) known as the Directive Principle of State Policy(DPSPs).

 

2.    The idea of Directive Principles of State Policy has been taken from the Irish Republic.

 

·       Features

1.    Resemble the ‘Instrument of Instructions’ enumerated in the Government of India Act,1935.

2.    Aim at realising the high ideals of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as outlined in Preamble to the Constitution.

3.    Embody the concept of a ‘welfare state’.

4.    Seek to establish economic and social democracy.

5.    Are non-justiciable.

6.    Fundamental in the governance of the country.

7.    Help the courts in examining and determining the constitutional validity of a law.

·       Classification of DPSPs

---

Article Number	What it says
Article 36	Defines State as same as Article 12 unless the context otherwise defines.
Article 37	Application of the Principles contained in this part.
Article 38	It authorizes the state to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of people.
Article 39	Certain principles of policies to be followed by the state.
Article 39A	Equal justice and free legal aid.
Article 40	Organization of village panchayats.
Article 41	Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases.
Article 42	Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity leaves.
Article 43	Living wage etc. for workers.
Article 43-A	Participation of workers in management of industries.
Article 43-B	Promotion of cooperative societies.
Article 44	Uniform civil code for the citizens.
Article 45	Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of six years.
Article 46	Promotion of education and economic interests of SC, ST, and other weaker sections.
Article 47	Duty of the state to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health.
Article 48	Organization of agriculture and animal husbandry.
Article 48-A	Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife.
Article 49	Protection of monuments and places and objects of national importance.
Article 50	Separation of judiciary from the executive.
Article 51	Promotion of international peace and security.

Note: Facts about Directive Principles of State Policy:

1.    A new DPSP under Article 38 was added by the 44th Constitutional (Amendment) Act of 1978, which requires the State to minimise inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities.

2.    The 86th Amendment Act of 2002 changed the subject-matter of Article 45 and made elementary education a fundamental right under Article 21A. The amended directive requires the State to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.

3.    A new DPSP under Article 43B was added by the 97th Amendment Act of 2011 relating to co-operative societies. It requires the state to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of co-operative societies.

4.    The Indian Constitution under Article 37 makes it clear that ‘DPSPs are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.’

·       Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy

The following reasons are responsible for the criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy:

1.    It has no legal force

2.    It is illogically arranged

3.    It is conservative in nature

4.    It may produce constitutional conflict between centre and state

 

·       Difference between Fundamental Rights & DPSPs

Fundamental Rights

Directive Principles of State Policy

1.   The democratic political system has been established by providing the FRs. 2.   FRs are subject to court of low at any point of time it anybody feels that his FRs are being violated. 3.   FRs can be suspended except the rights mentioned in Article 20 and 22 during emergency. 4.   FRs are assumed negatively sometimes, because of their restrictive attitudes towards the states. 5.   The fundamental rights are a bit limited in its scope.

1.   The economic welfare of the state is established by the implementation of the DPSPs. 2.   While DPSPs are not enforceable by the court of law. 3.   DPSPs can never be suspended under any condition. 4.   DPSPs are always affirmative because they direct the states for definite activity. 5.   While, the scope of Directive Principles of state Policy is endless. In DPSPs, the political, administrative, economic and subjects like international peace are also include.

·       Conflict between Fundamental Rights & DPSPs

With the help of four court cases given below, candidates can understand the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy:

Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)

·       Supreme Court ruled that in any case of conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, the provisions of the former would prevail.

·       DPSPs were regarded to run as a subsidiary to Fundamental Rights. SC also ruled that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendment act to implement DPSPs.

Result: Parliament made the First Amendment Act (1951), the Fourth Amendment Act (1955) and the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964) to implement some of the Directives.

Golaknath Case (1967)

Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights to implement Directive Principles of State Policy.

Result: Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment Act 1971 & 25th Amendment Act 1971 declaring that it has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting Constitutional Amendment Acts. 25th Amendment Act inserted a new Article 31C containing two provisions:

·       No law which seeks to implement the socialistic Directive Principles specified in Article 39 (b)22 and (c)23 shall be void on the ground of contravention of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws), Article 19 (protection of six rights in respect of speech, assembly, movement, etc) or Article 31 (right to property).

·       No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy.

Kesavananda Bharti Case (1973)

Supreme Court ruled out the second provision of Article 31C added by the 25th Amendment Act during Golaknath Case of 1967. It termed the provision ‘unconstitutional.’ However, it held the first provision of Article 31C constitutional and valid.

Result: Through the 42nd amendment act, Parliament extended the scope of the first provision of Article 31C. It accorded the position of legal primacy and supremacy to the Directive Principles over the Fundamental Rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31.

Minerva Mills Case (1980)

Supreme Court held the extension of Article 31C made by the 42nd amendment act unconstitutional and invalid. It made DPSP subordinate to Fundamental Rights. Supreme Court also held that ‘the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles.’

Supreme Court’s rulings following the case were:

·       Fundamental Rights & DPSPs constitute the core of the commitment to social revolution.

·       The harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.

·       The goals set out by the Directive Principles have to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided by the Fundamental Rights.

Conclusion: Today, Fundamental Rights enjoy supremacy over the Directive Principles. Yet, Directive Principles can be implemented. The Parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights for implementing the Directive Principles, so long as the amendment does not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.