SEE NOTES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

MODULE -06

(DPSP) -Directive Principles of State Policy

INTRODUCTION: Articles 36-51 of the Indian Constitution outline the Directive Principles of
State Policy (DPSP), inspired by the Irish and Spanish Constitutions. These principles guide the
government in creating policies for social and economic welfare, ensuring justice, equality, and a
better society. Though not legally enforceable, they are vital for governance. DPSPs often
conflict with Fundamental Rights, leading to debates about balancing individual rights and
collective welfare.

What are the Directive Principles of State Policy?

In 1945, the Sapru Committee proposed two rights categories: justiciable (enforceable by law,
now Fundamental Rights) and non-justiciable (guiding principles for governance, now Directive
Principles of State Policy).

DPSP are ideals which are meant to be kept in mind by the state when it formulates policies and
enacts laws. There are various definitions to 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.

Classification of the DPSP:

The Directive Principles are classified on the basis of their ideological source and objectives.

1. Economic and Social Principles: Directive Principles aim to promote social and
economic welfare, guiding India towards becoming a Welfare State.

(i) Article 38: The State must promote the welfare of the people by ensuring a social
order based on social, economic, and political justice throughout national institutions.

(ii) Article 39: The State should secure citizens' livelihoods, ensure common good
through resource management, prevent wealth concentration, guarantee equal pay for
equal work, protect workers' health, and safeguard children and youth from exploitation.

(iii) Article 42: The State must ensure just and humane working conditions, including
provisions for maternity relief.
 (iv) Articles 43 & 43A: The State should strive for a living wage and decent standard of
life for workers and facilitate their participation in industrial management.

2. Directives Based on Gandhian Principles: Mahatma Gandhi significantly influenced

the freedom struggle and the Constitution's framers, inspiring several Directive Principles
aimed at implementing his Gandhian principles.

(i) Article 40: The State will organize village panchayats for self-government,
enhancing local governance and enabling grassroots participation in democratic
processes.

(ii) Article 43: The State will encourage cottage industries in rural areas to boost local
entrepreneurship and economic development.

(iii) Article 45: Amended by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act 2002, this article
ensures early childhood care and education for children until age 14 (Article 21-A).

(iv)Article 46: The State will support the educational and economic advancement of
weaker sections, including Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs),
promoting their upliftment.

(v) Article 47: The State will improve public health and prohibit harmful intoxicants,
fostering a healthier community.

(vi) Article 48: The State will prohibit the slaughter of cows and draught cattle,
reflecting cultural and agricultural significance.

3. Directive Principles relating io International Peace: A year after World War II, India’s
Constituent Assembly began drafting the Constitution, emphasizing international peace
and security. Article 51 states that the State shall endeavor to promote harmony and
cooperation to establish global peace and security.

(i) promote international peace and security;

(ii) maintain just and honorable relations with the nations;
(iii) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations; and
(iv) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

4. Miscellaneous directive principles: The fourth category of Directive Principles Contains

some general subjects which are sometimes termed as liberal principles. These are as follows;

(i) Article-44: The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizen a uniform civil code through
the territory of India.

(ii) Article-48A: Directs the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the
forests and wildlife of the country.
(iii) Article-49: State should protect every monument or place of artistic or historic interest.

(iv) Article-50: The State shall take steps to separate judiciary from the executive in the public
services of the State.

Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy: As a point of debate, the following reasons
are stated 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.

Distinction between Fundamental Rights & DPSP: Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles are both vital to the Indian Constitution, but they often conflict. Implementing
Directive Principles may require restrictions on Fundamental Rights due to their differing
objectives. The key distinctions include their justiciability, nature, and the balance of individual
rights versus societal goals.

(i) Justiciability: Fundamental Rights are enforceable in court, while Directive Principles are
not. Citizens can seek judicial remedy for violations of Fundamental Rights.

(ii) Nature: Fundamental Rights impose limits on state actions, whereas Directive Principles
mandate the state to achieve specific social and economic goals.

(iii) Political Structure: Fundamental Rights support liberal democracy in India, while Directive
Principles aim to create a Welfare State focused on social justice.

(iv)Focus: Fundamental Rights protect individual interests, whereas Directive Principles

promote socio-economic equality and safeguard vulnerable groups in society.

Relation between DP & Fundamental rights: For the first three decades after the
Constitution's adoption, there was considerable debate over whether Fundamental Rights or
Directive Principles should take precedence in cases of conflict. Government actions like land
reforms and bank nationalization were often challenged as violations of Fundamental Rights,
particularly the Right to Property under Article 31, which obstructed the implementation of
Directive Principles. The Supreme Court's inconsistent rulings, notably in the Golak Nath case
(1976) and Keshavanand Bharti case (1973), created confusion. Ultimately, the 44th
Constitutional Amendment (1978) removed the Right to Property from Fundamental
Rights, facilitating the implementation of Directive Principles. Despite their differences, both
sets of provisions are complementary; Fundamental Rights establish political democracy, while
Directive Principles aim for social and economic democracy essential for a Welfare State.

Implementation of the DPSP: Directive Principles face criticism for being non-justiciable and
vague, relying on government discretion for implementation. However, over sixty years,
successive Indian governments have made efforts to implement these principles through various
measures and policies.

(i) Legislation under Article 39 organized material resources for common good, including land
reforms that abolished zamindari, imposed land ceilings, and distributed surplus land to laborers.

(ii) The 73rd Constitutional Amendment established a three-tier Panchayati Raj System,
fulfilling the constitutional obligation of Article 40 for local self-governance.

(iii) The government supports cottage industries under Article 43 through boards that aid in
finance and marketing.

(iv) The 86th Constitutional Amendment and Right to Education Act established free,
compulsory education as a Fundamental Right for children aged 6 to 14.

(v) Development programs like MNREGA aim to improve rural living standards, as outlined in
Article 47.

(vi) Various health and nutritional support programs, including maternity relief and mid-day
meals, target women and children.

(vii) Central schemes like PMGSY and NRHM address social responsibilities, reflecting the
Directive Principles' influence on welfare measures.

Overall, while significant progress has been made, gaps in health and education persist,
necessitating urgent government action.

What is the conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs? Four court cases illustrate the
relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, highlighting
their interplay and conflicts.

1. Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)

The 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.
 2. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

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

Result: The 24th and 25th Amendment Acts of 1971 empowered Parliament to abridge or take
away Fundamental Rights through Constitutional Amendments. The 25th Amendment added
Article 31C, ensuring laws aimed at implementing socialistic Directive Principles (Article 39(b)
and (c)) are not invalidated for violating Fundamental Rights like Articles 14, 19, or 31.
Additionally, such laws cannot be challenged in court for failing to fulfill these policies.

3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of kerala (1973)

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

Result: The 42nd Amendment Act expanded Article 31C, establishing legal primacy for
Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31, reinforcing the
priority of social and economic welfare objectives.

4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

The Supreme Court held the extension of Article 31C made by the 42nd amendment act
unconstitutional and invalid. It made DPSP subordinate to Fundamental Rights. The 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.

● Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is vital to the Constitution's
basic structure.

● Achieve Directive Principles without violating Fundamental Rights

5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

While this case primarily dealt with the right to travel and personal liberty, it emphasized the
concept of "due process" under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court interpreted Article 21
expansively to include both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. It held that DPSPs are
crucial for providing socio-economic rights, which are essential for meaningful enjoyment of
Fundamental Rights.
The role of Judiciary in safeguarding rights: The judiciary safeguards both Fundamental
Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy by ensuring government actions align with the
Constitution. Through judicial review and landmark judgments, the courts clarify their
relationship, uphold the supremacy of Fundamental Rights, and prevent government overreach,
protecting citizens' rights effectively.

The Doctrine of Harmonious construction: The judiciary employs the doctrine of harmonious
construction to reconcile conflicts between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State
Policy, ensuring both are upheld. Courts seek a balance that protects individual rights while
promoting societal goals outlined in the DPSPs.

Conclusion: Currently, Fundamental Rights are supreme over Directive Principles but Directive
Principles can still be implemented. Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights to facilitate this
implementation provided such amendments do not harm or alter the Constitution's basic
structure.