UNIT IV
DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICIES
• Articles 36-51 under Part-IV of the Indian Constitution
deal with Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). They
are borrowed from the Constitution of Ireland, which had
copied it from the Spanish Constitution.
What are the Directive Principles of
State Policy?
• The Sapru Committee in 1945 suggested two categories of individual
rights. One being justiciable and the other being non-justiciable rights.
The justiciable rights, as we know, are the Fundamental rights, whereas
the non-justiciable ones are the Directive Principles of State Policy.
• DPSP of Indian Constitution are ideals which are meant to be kept in
mind by the state when it formulates policies and enacts laws. There are
various definitions of Directive Principles of State which are given below:
• They are an ‘instrument of instructions’ which are enumerated in
the Government of India Act, 1935.
• They seek to establish economic and social democracy in the country.
• DPSPs are ideals which are not legally enforceable by the courts for their
violation.
Directive Principles of State Policy –
Classification
• Indian Constitution has not originally classified DPSPs
but based on their content and direction, they are
usually classified into three types-
• Socialistic Principles,
• Gandhian Principles and,
• Liberal-Intellectual Principles.
DPSP – Socialistic Principles
Definition: They are the principles that aim at providing social and economic justice and set the path towards the welfare state. Under
various articles, they direct the state to:
Article 38 Promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order through justice—social, economic and political—and to
minimise inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities
Article 39 Secure citizens:
•Right to adequate means of livelihood for all citizens
•Equitable distribution of material resources of the community for the common good
•Prevention of concentration of wealth and means of production
•Equal pay for equal work for men and women
•Preservation of the health and strength of workers and children against forcible abuse
•Opportunities for the healthy development of children
Article 39A Promote equal justice and free legal aid to the poor
Article 41 In cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, secure citizens:
•Right to work
•Right to education
•Right to public assistance
Article 42 Make provision for just and humane
conditions of work and maternity relief
Article 43 Secure a living wage, a decent standard of
living and social and cultural
opportunities for all workers
Article 43A Take steps to secure the participation of
workers in the management of industries
Article 47 Raise the level of nutrition and the
standard of living of people and to
improve public health
DPSP – Gandhian Principles
Definition: These principles are based on Gandhian ideology used to represent the programme of
reconstruction enunciated by Gandhi during the national movement. Under various articles, they direct the
state to:
Article 40 Organise village panchayats and endow them with necessary powers and authority to enable
them to function as units of self-government
Article 43 Promote cottage industries on an individual or cooperation basis in rural areas
Article 43B Promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional
management of co-operative societies
Article 46 Promote the educational and economic interests of SCs, STs, and other weaker sections of
the society and to protect them from social injustice and exploitation
Article 47 Prohibit the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health
Article 48 Prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle and to improve
their breeds
DPSP – Liberal-Intellectual Principles
Definition: These principles reflect the ideology of liberalism. Under various articles, they direct the state
to:
Article 44 Secure for all citizens a uniform civil code throughout the country
Article 45 Provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six
years. (Note: 86th Amendment Act of 2002 changed the subject matter of this article and
made elementary education a fundamental right under Article 21 A.)
Article 48 Organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines
Article 49 Protect monuments, places and objects of artistic or historic interest which are declared to
be of national importance
Article 50 Separate the judiciary from the executive
in the public services of the State
Article 51 •Promote international peace and
security and maintain just and
honourable relations between nations
•Foster respect for international law and
treaty obligations
•Encourage settlement of international
disputes by arbitration
42nd Amendment Act, 1976 added four new Directive Principles to the list:
S.No Article New DPSPs
1 Article 39 To secure opportunities for the
healthy development of
children
2 Article 39A To promote equal justice and to
provide free legal aid to the poor
3 Article 43A To take steps to secure the
participation of workers in the
management of industries
4 Article 48A To protect and improve the
environment and to safeguard
forests and wildlife
New DPSP under Article 38 was added by the 44th Amendment
Act of 1978, which requires the State to minimise inequalities in
income, status, facilities and opportunities.
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 reach the age of 14 years.
A new DPSP under Article 43B was added by the 97th Amendment
Act of 2011 relating to cooperative societies. It requires the state to
promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic
control and professional management of cooperative societies.
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.’
Champakam Dorairajan Case
(1951)
• Supreme Court ruled that in any case of conflict between
Fundamental Rights and DPSPs of Indian Constitution, the
provisions of the former would prevail. DPSPs were regarded as a
subsidiary of Fundamental Rights. SC also ruled that Parliament
can amend Fundamental Rights through a 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 and 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 to implement the Directive Principles, so long as the
amendment does not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
Application of the principles contained in this
Part. – ARTICLE 37
• 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.
PART IV A- FUNDAMENTAL
DUTIES
Ins. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 11
(w.e.f. 3-1-1977).
ARTICLE 51A
• 51A. It shall be the duty of every citizen of India—
(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and
institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;
(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our
national struggle for freedom;
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of
India;
(d) to defend the country and render national service when called
upon to do so;
• (e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood
amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic
and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices
derogatory to the dignity of women;
• (f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite
culture;
• (g) to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures;
• (h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of
inquiry and reform;
• (i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;
• (j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and
collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher
levels of endeavour and achievement;
• *(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for
education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the
age of six and fourteen years. - Ins. by the Constitution (Eighty-
sixth Amendment) Act, 2002.
Criticism of Fundamental Duties
• They have been described by critics as a code of moral precepts
due to their non-justiciable character. Their inclusion in the
Constitution was described by the critics as superfluous. This is
because the duties included in the Constitution as fundamental
would be performed by the people even though they were not
incorporated into the Constitution.
• Some of the duties are vague, ambiguous and difficult to be
understood by the common man.
• The list of duties is not exhaustive as it does not cover other
important duties like casting votes, paying taxes, family planning
and so on. In fact, the duty to pay taxes was recommended by the
Swaran Singh Committee.
• The critics said that the inclusion of fundamental duties as an appendage to
Part IV of the Constitution has reduced their value and significance. They
should have been added after Part III so as to keep them on par with
Fundamental Rights.
• Swaran Singh’s Committee recommended more than 10 Fundamental
Duties, however, not all were included in the Constitution. Those duties
recommended by the committee which were not accepted were:
• Citizens to be penalized/punished by the parliament for any non-compliance
with or refusal to observe any of the duties.
• The punishments/penalties decided by the Parliament shall not be called in
question in any court on the ground of infringement of any of Fundamental
Rights or on the ground of repugnancy to any other provision of the
Constitution.
• Duty to pay taxes.
• M.C.MEHTA (2) V. UNION OF INDIA (1983) 1 SCC 471 :- The
Supreme Court has held that under art.51-A(g) it is the duty of the
central government to introduce compulsory teaching of lessons
at least for one hour in a week on protection and improvement of
natural environment in all the educational institution of the
country. It directed central government to get textbook written on
that subject and distribute them to the educational institute free
of cost. In order to arouse amongst the people ,the consciousness
of cleanliness of environment, it suggested the desirability of
organizing – keep the city clean week, keep the town clean, keep
the village clean week in every city, town and village throughout
India at least once in a year.
AIIMS STUDENT UNION V. AIIMS AIR 2001 SC 3262:-
In this case importance of fundamental duties enshrined in art 51A has been
shown while striking down the institutional reservation of 33% in AIIMS coupled
with 50% reservation disiplinewise as violative of art.14 of the Constitution, the
Supreme Court said that they are equally important like fundamental rights. Tough
fundamental duties are not made enforceable like fundamental rights but it cannot
overlook as “duties” in Part IV is prefixed by to same word “fundamental” which
was prefixed by the founding fathers of the constitution to “right” in Part III. Every
citizen of India is fundamentally obliged to develop the scientific temper and
humanism. Though art. 51A does not cast any fundamental duty on the state. The
fact remains that the duty every citizen is the collective duty of the state. Any
reservation apart from being substantive on the constitutional anvil must also be
reasonable to be permissible. In assessing the reasonability one of the factors to
be taken into consideration would be whether the character and quantum of
reservation would stall or accelerate in achieving ultimate goal of excellence
enabling nation constantly rising to higher level. It was also held that fundamental
duties though not enforceable by a writ of the court , yet provide a valuable guide
and aid to interpretation of constitutional and legal issues. In case of doubt or
choice of people’s wish as manifested through art.51A can serve as a guide not
only for resolving the issues but also for constructing or moulding the relief to be
given by courts.
ARUNA ROY V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 2002 SC
3176:-
• In this case the validity of National Curriculum Framework for School
Education was challenged on the ground that it was violative of art.28
of the constitution and anti-secular. It provides imparting of value
development education relating to basics of all religions. The court
held that the NCFSE does not mention of imparting “religious
instruction” as prohibited under art.28. what sought to be imparted is
incorporated in art.51A(e) which provides “to promote harmony and the
spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India
transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities ;
to renounces practices derogatory to the “dignity of woman”. And to
see that universal values such as truth related conduct , peace , love
and non-violence be the foundation of education. Accordingly , the
court held that such education is neither violative of art. 28 of the
constitution nor is against the concept of secularism.
Dr. Dasarathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
(AIR: 1985 AP 136):-
• It was held that under article 51A (j) of the Constitution, we all owe
a duty to ourselves to strive towards excellence in all spheres of
individual and collective activity so that this nation may constantly
rise to higher levels of Endeavour and achievement. When the
State undertakes to promote excellence, it can do so only through
the methods which our Constitution permits to adopt. Rewarding
of sycophancy only helps to retard the growth of efficiency and
excellence.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA V. GEORGE PHILIP
AIR 2007 SC 705:-
• In this case the respondent has challenged his compulsory
retirement from service. He was granted leave by the department
to pursue advanced research training. He was granted leave by the
department to pursue advance research training. He was granted
leave for two years. He over stayed in a foreign country inspite of
repeated reminders come and join his duty after the expiry of his
leave. An inquiry was instituted against him and the charge of
overstaying in a foreign country was proved. He was compulsorily
retired from service. The tribunal and the high court granted him
remedy of joining his service without back wages. The Supreme
court set aside the order of the high court.
• The Supreme court held that art.51A(j) imposed a duty on citizen
to strive towards excellence in all sphere and it cannot be
achieved unless employees maintain discipline and devotion to
duty. The courts should not pass orders which instead of
achieving underlying spirit and object of part IV A of the
Constitution has tendency to negate or destroy the same.
Overstay of leave and absence from duty by government
employee and granting him six month’s time to join duty amount
to not only giving him premium to indiscipline but wholly
subversive of work cultures in organization.