Directive Principles of State Policy

By

J. Saravanan

Directive Principles of State Policy

 The Directive Principles of State Policy are enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution from
Articles 36 to 51

 The framers of the Constitution borrowed this idea from the Irish Constitution of 1937, which
had copied it from the Spanish Constitution

 Dr B R Ambedkar described these principles as ‘novel features’ of the Indian Constitution.

 The Directive Principles along with the Fundamental Rights contain the philosophy of the
Constitution and is the soul of the Constitution.

 Granville Austin has described the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights as the
‘Conscience of the Constitution’

FEATURES OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

 The phrase ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ denotes the ideals that the State should keep
in mind while formulating policies and enacting laws. These are the constitutional instructions
or recommendations to the State in legislative, executive and administrative matters.

 The Directive Principles resemble the ‘Instrument of Instructions’ enumerated in the

Government of India Act of 1935.

 In the words of Dr B R Ambedkar, ‘the Directive Principles are like the instrument of
instructions, which were issued to the Governor-General and to the Governors of the colonies
of India by the British Government under the Government of India Act of 1935.

 The Directive Principles constitute a very comprehensive economic, social and political
programme for a modern democratic State.

 They aim at realising the high ideals of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as outlined in
the Preamble to the Constitution

 They embody the concept of a ‘welfare state’ and not that of a ‘police state’, which existed
during the colonial era. In brief, they seek to establish economic and social democracy in the
country.

 The Directive Principles are non-justiciable in nature, that is, they are not legally enforceable
by the courts for their violation
  The Directive Principles, though non-justiciable in nature, help the courts in examining and
determining the constitutional validity of a law.

 The Supreme Court has ruled many a times that in determining the constitutionality of any
law, if a court finds that the law in question seeks to give effect to a Directive Principle, it may
consider such law to be ‘reasonable’ in relation to Article 14 (equality before law) or Article 19
(six freedoms) and thus save such law from unconstitutionality.

Text of DPSP Article

36. Definition.

37. Application of the principles contained in this Part.

38. State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people.

39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.

39A. Equal justice and free legal aid

40. Organisation of village panchayats.

41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases.

42. Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.

43. Living wage, etc., for workers.

43A. Participation of workers in management of industries.

44. Uniform civil code for the citizens.

45. Provision for free and compulsory education for children.

46. Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
weaker sections.

47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public
health.

48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.

48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life.

49. Protection of monuments and places and objects of national importance.

50. Separation of judiciary from executive.

51. Promotion of international peace and security.

The Directive Principles may be classified into 3 broad categories—

1) Socialistic

2) Gandhian and

3) Liberal-intellectual.

(1) Socialistic Directives

Principal among this category of directives are

(a) securing welfare of the people (Art. 38)

(b) securing proper distribution of material resources of the community as to best sub serve the
common-good, equal pay for equal work, protection of childhood and youth against exploitation. etc.
(Art.39),

(c) Securing right to work, education etc. Art. (41),

(d)Securing just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief (Art. 42) etc.

(e) To promote equal justice and to provide free legal aid to the poor (Article 39 A).

(2) Gandhian Directives

Such directives are spread over several Arts. Principal among such directives are

(a) to organize village panchayats (Art. 40),

(b) to secure living wage, decent standard of life, and to promote cottage industries (Art.43),

(c) to provide free and compulsory education to all children up to 14 years of age (Art. 45),

(d) to promote economic and educational interests of the weaker sections of the people,
particularly, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes,

(e) to enforce prohibition of intoxicating drinks and cow-slaughter and to organize agriculture and
animal husbandry on scientific lines (Arts. 46-48).

(3) Liberal intellectual directives

Principal among such directives are

(a) to secure uniform civil code throughout the country (Art.44),

(b) to separate the judiciary from the executive (Art.50),

(c) to protect monuments of historic and national importance and

 (d) to promote international peace and security.

Fundamental Rights and DPSP

 Parts III and IV, that is, chapters on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, together
constitute the “conscience” of the Indian constitution.

 But, the differences between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State policy are
significant. The differences are

 Firstly, the fundamental rights constitute a set of negative injunctions. The state is restrained
from doing something’s.

 The directives on the other hand are a set of positive directions.

 The state is urged to do something to transform India into a social and economic democracy.

 As Gladhill observes, Fundamental Rights are injunctions to prohibit the government from
doing certain things

 The Directive principles are affirmative instructions to the government to do certain things.

 Secondly,

The Directives are non-justiciable.

Courts do not enforce them.

 A directive may be made enforceable by the courts only when there is a need for it.

 Fundamental rights, on the other hand are justiciable.

 They impose legal obligations on the state as well as on individuals.

 Courts enforce them. If a law violates a fundamental right, the law in question will be declared
void.

 But no law will be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it violates a directive principle
against violation of a fundamental right, constitutional remedy under Art. 32 are available
which not the case is when a directive is violated either by the state or, by individual.

 For this reason Prof K. T. Shah criticizes the Directive Principles as “Pious wishes” or a mere
window dressing for the social revolution of the country.

 Whenever conflicts arise between fundamental rights and directive principles, fundamental
rights prevail over the directive principles because, in terms of Arts. 32 and 226, fundamental
rights are enforceable by the courts.
  In 1951, in Champakam Dorairajan vs. the state of Madras, the Supreme Court held “The
chapter on Fundamental Rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any legislative or
executive act”.

 The Directive Principles of State Policy have to conform and are subsidiary to the chapter on
Fundamental Rights.

 25th constitution amendment Act in 1971 by Article 31(c) provided that laws enacted to
implement directives in Article 39 (b) and (c) shall not be declared void on ground of
contravention of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 19.

 In 1976, during emergency, the 42nd amendment, sought to widen the scope of Article 31 (c),
to place all laws passed for the implementation of any or all directive principles beyond
judicial review.

DPSPs and its Intricacies

Constitution Drafters divided rights of the citizen into two parts i.e., Justiciable and Non
Justiciable part.

Part III of the Constitution was made Justiciable and the non-justiciable part was added in Part
IV (Article 36 to Article 51) of the Indian Constitution. This part is called the Directive
Principles of State Policy.

DPSPs are positive obligations on the state. DPSPs were not made justiciable because India did
not have sufficient financial resources. Moreover, its backwardness and diversity were also a
hindrance in implementing these principles at that time. At the time of the drafting of the
Constitution, India was a newly born independent state and was struggling with other issues and
making DPSPs justiciable would have put India in great difficulty.

Enforceability of DPSPs
Many times the question arises that whether an individual can sue the state government or the
central government for not following the directive principles enumerated in Part IV. The answer
to this question is in negative. The reason for the same lies in Article 37 which states that:

“The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles
therein laid down 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.”

Therefore by the virtue of this Article no provision of this part can be made enforceable in the
court of law thus these principles cannot be used against the central government or the state
government. This non-justiciability of DPSPs make the state government or the central
government immune from any action against them for not following these directives.

Another question arises that whether Supreme Court or High Court can issue the writ of
mandamus if the state does not follow the directive principles. The literal meaning of mandamus
is “to command.” It is a writ which is issued to any person or authority who has been prescribed
a duty by the law.This writ compels the authority to do its duty.

The Writ of mandamus is generally issued in two situations. One is when a person files writ
petition or when the Court issues it suo moto i.e. own motion. As per Constitutional Principles, a
Court is not authorized to issue the writ of mandamus to the state when the Directive Principles
are not followed because the Directive Principle is a yardstick in the hand of people to check the
performance of government and not available for the courts. But the Court can take suo moto
action when the matter is of utmost public importance and affect the large interest of the public.

Fundamental Rights are the legal obligation of the state to respect, whereas the DPSPs is the
moral obligation of the state to follow. Article 38 lay down the broad ideals which a state should
strive to achieve. Many of these Directive Principles have become enforceable by becoming a
law. Some of the DPSPs have widened the scope of Fundamental Rights.

DPSPs and Fundamental Rights

The compatibility between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs have always been contentious. The
applicability of both the concepts need to be understood because if the Constitution is a coin then
Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are two facades of that coin.

On the one hand Part III i.e. Fundamental Rights limit the power of government and restrains the
state from making any law which contravenes the interests of its people, on the other hand, Part
IV helps the state in making a law which harmonizes the interest of its people. Both Fundamental
rights and Directive Principles of State Policy hold equal relevance and significance in the
current legal scenario and cannot overlook each other. Many people argue that DPSPs are useless
because of its non-justiciability but we need to understand that these are not only the guiding
principles but also lay down the broad objectives and ideals that India strives to achieve.

DPSP and its Implementation

Although the implementation of the principles laid down in Part IV are not directly visible yet
there are a plethora of laws and government policies which reflect the application of the principle
of Part IV. In the Judicial History of India, many laws and legal provisions were created by
judicial reasoning. In such cases, DPSPs played a very vital role and the courts took the directive
principles into consideration very cautiously.

Policies like Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) get
their authority from Article 39(a) which talks about the right to adequate means of
livelihood. Laws such as the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 bolster the
canons of Article 39(g) which deals with the protection of children.
Laws pertaining to prohibition of slaughter of cows and bullocks get their sanctity from Article
48 which deals with the organization of agriculture and husbandry. Laws such as Workmen
Compensation Act, Minimum Wages Act, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, The
Factories Act, Maternity Benefit Act depict the implementation of Article 41, Article 42 and
Article 43A.

Government Policies such as Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP), Integrated Tribal
Development Program (ITDP), and Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana etc. are the reflections
of the principle objectives enumerated in Article 47 which talks about raising the standard of
living and to improve public health.

In the end, all these laws and policies try to achieve goals and principle given in Article 38 i.e.
the creation of welfare state.