Indian Polity notes by Laxmikant - Directive principles

                    

                                                               Directive Principles

                                                 

PART – IV, ARTICLES (35 – 51)

·         DPSP are also known as non justifiable rights.

·         They are taken from Irish const.

·         Originally they were obtained from Scandinavian countries, which are ‘DP of social policy’.

·         DPSP are guidelines to the central & state Govt. in their policy making.

·         Hence Dr. B.R Ambedkar observed that DPSP are instruments of instructions, provided in act of 1935.

·         The purpose of DPSP is ‘Est. of socialistic pattern of society’. It is mixed economy (pvt, public). It means not exproportion of rich, but multiplying the wealth & distributing to the people.

·         To achieve this, there are certain directives for central & state Govt. & every Govt. is expected to follow these directives.

·         DPs are meant for the community welfare, but FRs is meant for individual progress.

Classification of Directive Principles: There is no classification in the const. however, based on the nature, they are classified into 3 categories by Prof. M.P. Sharma.

·         Prof. M.P. Sharma was the 1^st Prof. of public ad. In India from Nagpur university. This classification is extra constitutional.

·         It was not universally accepted.

1.      Socialist principles – Articles - (38, 39, 4, 42, 43)

2.      Gandhian principles – Articles – (40, 46, 47, 48)

3.      Liberal principles – Articles – (44, 45, 49, 50, 51)

Article – 36: definition of state. (Same as article – 2 of const.)

Article – 37: DPSP are non justifiable.

-Non justifiable means, if the DP is not implemented, citizens can’t move to courts for their implementation.

Socialistic Principles: These principles imply that, Govt. should initiate certain steps for Est. of egalitarian society, by preventing the concentration of wealth.

Article – 38: The state to secure social order, for the promotion of welfare of the people. To secure social, Economic, political justice & minimize inequalities among the people.

Article – 39: The state shall provide securing an adequate means to livelihood and ownership & control of material & equitality distributed and equal pay for equal work for men/women.

Article – 41: right to work & employment, Right to education to all, Right to public assistance.

Article – 42: Just & Humane working condition at work place. Maternity relief to woman.

Article – 43: Living wages to workers, social security measures like insurance, job security.

GANDHIAN PRINCIPLE:

Article – 40: Est. of Panchayat Raj institutions i.e., grama swaraj.

Article – 46: Special development & welfare programme for upliftment of down trodden like SC, ST, and OBC.

Article – 47: Total prohibition of all drugs, liquors, injurious to public health; except for the industrial & medicinal purposes.

-Only state to have total prohibition is GJ.

Article – 48: Ban on slaughtering of animals, which are useful to agricultural, dairy department.

Liberal Principles:

Article – 44: Implementation of uniform civil code- It means, in the civil matters like property, inheritance, marriage, divorce.

• This art -44 is not implemented.
•  In Goa, uniform civil code is implemented.
• Sarala maudgal case related to art – 28.

Article – 45: Free pre-1° education by 86^th Amend, 2002.

Article 49: Protecting preserving all the places of historical significance.

Article 50: Separation of judiciary from executives.

Articles 51: Resolving all internal disputes, with other countries peacefully amicably through negotiations.

·         Art 51 prescribes the nature of foreign policy which is non-aligned with panchashal policy.

New directives, added by 42^nd 1976 amend:

Article 39 A: Equal justice and free legal aids to the poor people.

·         Providing such facilities & opportunities to develop the children in healthy manner, protecting the against exploitation.

Article 43 A: Participation of workers in management of industry i.e. profit sharing.

Article 48 A: protection of environment & wildlife.

Directives other than part – IV in other parts of const.:

Part – 16, Art 335: The claims of SC, ST shall be considered in the matters of Govt. services, without hampering the general merit. (Reservation)

Part – 17, Art 350A: The Govt. shall provide the facilities to impact 1° Education tongue only.

Art 351, part – 17: recognizing Hindi as national language & initiate action to speed Hindi as national language.

·         In Tamil Nadu, Hindi is not recognized as national language.

NOTE: All the above 3 directives area justifiable as parliament had already made the law.

Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy:

• They are non justifiable.
• Some are out dated.
• Some do not have clear meaning.
• A conflict between DPSP, Fundamental Rights

Comments on DPSP:

·         Prof. K.T Shah observed that DPSP are like ‘post dated check’, payment at the convenience.

·         Nasiruddin Shah observed DPSP are like the ‘resolution of a new year day’, conveniently forgotten.

·         Dr. B. R Ambedkar said that they are like ‘instruments of instructions, ensuring economic democracy’.

·         Ivor Jennings observed that they are like ‘Devils of Sidney web, paraded in all parts of const. of India without socialism in reality’.

·         Nani Palki wala, a famous jurist observed that ‘DPSP are like election speeches, which are generally not kept’.

·         M.C. Chagla, former CJI observed that, ‘if the DPSP are implemented property, heaven on earth, Sp in India’.

Conflict between Fundamental Rights & DPSP:

-In the original const., there was a fine balance between FR & DP. However, with subsequent Amendments, this balance was disturbed.

1^st const. Amend, 1951: Dealing with right to property i.e. 9^th schedule, imposing limit on right to property to implement DPSP.

In 1956, 7^th Amendment: imposed some limitations.

è In 1967, Golakhnath vs PB state, SC held that, FR are most precious aspects & they are ‘unAmendable’.

·         If at all these rights are to be amended, there must be a separate C.A.

1950-1967 – FR prevailed over DPSR.

è In 1973, in KB vs state of KL (case related 24^th const. Amend, 1971), 24^th Amend imposed limitations of judicial review of SC.

‘Any Amend. made under art 368, is not a law’. Even it violates Fundamental Rights, it is valid.

NOTE: KB challenged 24^th Amendment, who restricted J. review.

·         In this case, SC completely reversed Golakhnath Judgment and held that; parliament can amend any part of Const. including FR, but not the ‘basic structure’.

·         Restricting Judicial review, according to 24^th const. amend is valid. So, to implement certain FR, imposing limitation on FR is valid.

è Again in 1976 by 42^nd Amendment, parliament imposed limitations on J. Review.

·         In 1980, in Minerva mills cases 42nd amend were challenged. SC repeated the judgment of KB case.

·         However if any amendment made to Fundamental Rights, in order to implement DPSP under art 39(b), 39 (c), such amendment is held valid.

NOTE: Only in the case of articles 39 (b), (c) if they conflict Fundamental Rights, these principles prevail over Fundamental Rights. In the rest Fundamental Rights prevail over Directive principles.

-As of now, the balance between Fundamental Rights & DPSP had been established.