Introduction

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), enshrined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution, serve as a cornerstone for establishing a just and equitable society in India..

“Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity — but how do we achieve them in real governance?”

The objective of our constitution is to establish a welfare state, wherein the government is tasked with catering to the needs of its citizens. In a welfare state, the government assumes responsibility for ensuring the well-being and welfare of the people of the country.

Directive Principles of State Policy, enshrined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution, guide the government toward establishing a just and equitable society. Though non-justiciable, these principles play a crucial role in shaping welfare legislation, constitutional interpretation, and democratic governance. In this detailed guide, we explore their meaning, classification, judicial recognition, and practical implementation in India.

The directive principles of state policy (DPSP) Serves as a guiding beacon for legislators in India, illuminating their path as they formulate policies and laws. Essentially, they function as a moral compass for both the Legislature and administrators, directing them towards the realization of the constitutional ideals outlined in the preamble: ‘’justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity’’.

 

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY (DPSP)

The DPSPs outlined in Part IV (Articles 36-51) of the Indian Constitution are the founding principles of governance in India and are non-justiciable, meaning they cannot be enforced by the courts. However, the principles enshrined within are regarded as indisputable guidelines for governing the nation. It becomes the State's responsibility to incorporate these principles into the legislative process, aiming to build a fair and equitable society as mandated by the Constitution.

The Directive Principles in the Indian Constitution draw inspiration from the Constitution of Ireland. However, the concept and philosophy behind these principles can be traced back to various sources. They find roots in the French Declaration of Human Rights, the American Declaration of Independence, and the liberal and socialist philosophies of the 19th century. Additionally, they reflect the Gandhian concept of Sarvodaya, emphasizing the welfare and upliftment of all sections of society.

 

SCHEME AND CLASSIFICATION OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY

Classification of the directive principles of state policies

1.      Economic and social principle.

2.      Gandhian principles.

3.      International peace and security.

4.      Miscellaneous.

 

Economic and Social Principles

A significant portion of Directive Principles in India adopts a socialist approach, aiming to achieve social and economic welfare for the citizens and establish India as a Welfare State. Some key principles include:

Article 38 emphasizes the promotion of welfare by ensuring justice in social, economic, and political spheres throughout national institutions.

Article 39 directs the State to focus on securing various rights, such as adequate means of livelihood, equitable ownership of resources for the common good, prevention of wealth concentration, equal pay for equal work, worker protection, and prevention of child labour. It further states that State shall in particular, direct its policies towards securing:

(a) That the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood.

(b) That the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;

(c) That the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment:

(d) That there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;

(e) That the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;

(f) That children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.

Article 42 mandates the State to ensure just and humane working conditions and provide maternity relief.

Article 43 says that the State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas

 

Directives Based on Gandhian Principles

Mahatma Gandhi's influence during the freedom struggle significantly impacted the framing of the Constitution. Several directive principles aim to implement Gandhian ideals, including:

 

Article 40: The State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.

Article 43 says that the State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis, in rural areas.

Article 45 provides that the State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.

Article 46 The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.

Article 47 The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.

Article 48 The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

 

Directive Principles Relating to International Peace and Security

Post-World War II, the Constituent Assembly members expressed deep concern about international peace and security, reflected in the Directive Principles:

Article 51 urges the State to promote international peace and security. It further declares that to establish international peace and security the State shall endeavour to-

(i) Promote international peace and security;

(ii) Maintain just and honorable relations with the nations;

(iii) Foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another, and

(iv) Encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

 

Miscellaneous Directive Principles

This category encompasses general principles often labelled as liberal principles including:

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

Article 48A: Directs the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.

Article 49: State should protect every monument or place of artistic or historic interest.

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

 

IMPORTANT DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES EXPLAINED

Free Legal Aid

The Indian Constitution includes provisions for ensuring both equal justice and free legal aid for those in need under Article 39A. It mandates that the legal system should operate to promote justice based on equal opportunity.

Specifically, it requires the State to provide free legal assistance through appropriate legislation, schemes, or other means, ensuring that no citizen is deprived of access to justice due to economic or other barriers.

The Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987 further elaborates on these provisions, outlining guidelines to ensure the availability of free legal aid and equitable justice. Legal aid refers to the provision of free legal services to individuals who are economically disadvantaged and unable to afford representation in legal proceedings before courts, tribunals, or other judicial bodies.

The landmark case of Hussain ara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979) established the right of accused individuals to receive free legal aid if they cannot afford representation. This underscores the State's responsibility to ensure that financial constraints do not obstruct access to justice for any individual.

 

Equal Pay For Equal Work

The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is regarded as a constitutional objective and is enshrined under Article 39(d). However, India still lacks a comprehensive and transparent wage policy across all sectors of the economy.

While gender equality is the overarching goal, practices such as gender neutrality and gender equity contribute to achieving this goal. Gender parity, a measure of gender balance in a given context, can facilitate gender equality but is not an end in itself.

The notion of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" was initially addressed in the case of Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India (1962), where the Supreme Court deemed it unenforceable in a court of law.

However, it gained recognition in 1987 through the Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Audrey D'Costa & Another case. In this matter, the issue revolved around the claim for equal remuneration between Lady Stenographers and Male Stenographers. with the court ruling in favour of equal pay for the women.

Further, the Apex court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) expressed the view that the principle of "equal work" is not explicitly declared as a fundamental right in the Constitution, it is considered a constitutional objective. Article 39(d) ensures equal pay for equal work for both genders. To implement this article, Parliament enacted the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. The doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' extends to all employees, including daily wage workers, who are entitled to the same wages as permanent employees performing identical tasks within the department.

 

Uniform Civil Code

Article 44 of the Indian Constitution recommends that the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.

This code is crucial for abolishing patriarchal norms entrenched in society. A Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a set of laws aimed at governing personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption, uniformly for all citizens regardless of their religion or other affiliations.

The concept of a UCC in India, as enshrined in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, strives to promote equality and social justice by harmonizing diverse personal laws prevalent among different religious communities.

Currently, India lacks a Uniform Civil Code, unlike the Uniform Criminal Code which applies uniformly to all citizens. The absence of uniformity particularly affects personal laws governed by various religions. Despite Article 15(1) prohibiting discrimination based on religion, gender inequality persists globally, underscoring the necessity of gender justice for true equality.

Legal cases like Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1955) highlights the Supreme Court's advocacy for a Uniform Civil Code to address injustices, particularly concerning bigamy.

However, it's essential to acknowledge the nuanced challenges associated with implementing the UCC as a DPSP. India's rich cultural and religious diversity necessitates

sensitivity to community-specific practices and traditions. Critics argue that imposing a uniform code could infringe upon individual and community rights, potentially leading to social unrest and disharmony.

Despite these challenges, the UCC as a DPSP serves as a guiding beacon for policymakers to foster inclusive and equitable legal frameworks. While its implementation may require careful deliberation and consensus building, the overarching goal remains to uphold principles of justice, gender equality, and secularism enshrined in the Constitution. Upon examining the operation of the Constitution and the development strategies pursued by the Indian government it is evident that Directive Principles have consistently received significant attention and precedence in legislation and policy formulation.

Several Directive Principles have been effectively implemented, both in letter and in spirit, while others are currently under deliberation for implementation.

 

Implementation

The Directive Principles lack judicial enforcement as it is in case of Fundamental Rights and their implementation relies on the discretion of the State. Since 1950 successive governments both at the central and state levels have enacted numerous laws and devised various programs to execute the Directive Principles some of which are

The Minimum Wages Act (1948), the Payment of Wages Act (1936).

The Payment of Bonus Act (1965).

The Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act (1970)

The Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act (1986).

The Bonded Labour System Abolition Act (1976).

The Trade Unions Act (1926).

 

Relation Between Fundamental Rights And The Directive Principles Of state Policy.

 Since the inception of the Constitution, there has been ongoing debate about the significance of Directive Principles. The primary issue revolves around whether Fundamental Rights or Directive Principles should take precedence if there is a conflict between the two.

The fundamental difference between these constitutional mandates lies in their enforceability within the legal system. While the Fundamental Rights can be enforced through courts, Directive Principles cannot.

This distinction has led to an exploration of the relationship between enforceable Part III and non-enforceable Part IV.

Over the course of various judicial decisions, starting from the Champakam Dorairajan case, several judicial approaches have emerged regarding the interplay between these parts which are discussed as follows:

o In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Supreme Court asserted that Directive Principles must align with and be subsidiary to Fundamental Rights due to their enforceability in courts. However, a shif in judicial attitude occurred over time, with the Supreme Court recognizing that although Directive Principles are legally non-enforceable, courts can consider them as guiding principles when interpreting statutes. This perspective emphasizes the preference for constructions in line with the social philosophy of Directive Principles.

In Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) following the above mentioned view the Supreme Court highlighted that while Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles form an integrated scheme, Fundamental Rights maintain precedence

The subsequent period, known as the harmonious construction period, saw attempts by the judiciary to balance and harmonize Parts III and IV, recognizing them as complementary and supplementary to each other.

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court emphasized that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles constitute the conscience of the Constitution, suggesting that they should be construed in harmony with each other to resolve any inconsistencies.

Furthermore, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Another (1977), it was decided that Fundamental Rights should be understood in the context of Directive Principles. Since then, it has become a common approach for the courts to consider both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles together when determining the rights of citizens This method has often led to an expansion and enhancement of rights beyond those specifically listed in the Constitution.

In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), it was affirmed that harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are essential features of the Constitution's basic structure, emphasizing that Fundamental Rights serve as a means to achieve the ends specified in Directive Principles, thus together forming the conscience of the Constitution. Both were regarded as complementary and supplementary to each other.

In Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008), it was emphasized that there should be no differentiation between the two categories of rights. While Fundamental Rights encompass civil and political rights, Directive Principles encapsulate social and economic rights. It is further clarified that the lack of justiciability of Directive Principles does not diminish their significance or relegate them to a position of lesser importance.

Directive Principles and Article 31-C Correlation: The 25th Constitutional Amendment in 1971 introduced Article 31-C, which contained two crucial provisions:

Firstly, it stated that laws aimed at implementing the directive principles outlined in Article 39(b) and (c) couldn't be declared void for conflicting with the rights enshrined in Article 14 or 19.

Secondly, it established that laws designed to uphold these principles couldn't be challenged based on their effectiveness in implementing them.

The validity of the first part was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case. However, the second part was struck down as it prevented judicial review.

Later, through the 42nd Constitution Amendment, Article 31-C was expanded to encompass all directive principles, not limited to those in Article 39(b) and (c).

This amendment was contested in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case. The Supreme Court ruled against this amendment, asserting that granting absolute precedence to directive principles would disrupt the constitutional balance, a fundamental aspect of the Constitution.

 

Difference between Fundamental Rights And The Directive Principles Of State Policy.

Fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy are integral components of the Indian constitution, yet they have often been at odds with each other.

The implementation of the directive principles of state policy has sometimes required imposing restrictions on fundamental rights, leading to conflicts.

Here are the key difference between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.

	Fundamental rights	Directive principles of state policy
Justiciability	Fundamental rights are enforceable through legal resource, allowing individuals to seek redress in court if their rights are violated.	Direct to principles of state policy are non-justiciable, meaning individuals cannot directly approach the courts if the government fails to implement them.
Nature	Fundamental rights primarily entail negative or prohibitive provisions, limiting the stated action.	Directive principles are affirmative directives, outlining the state’s obligations to achieve specific social and economic goals.
Objectives	Fundamental rights uphold liberal political democracy in India by safeguarding individual liberty.	Directive principals aim to establish India as a welfare state, prioritizing social and economic welfare.
Emphasis	Fundamental rights primarily focus on protecting the interests of individuals, ensuring their rights and freedoms.	Directive principals seek to promote socio-economic equality and provide safeguards for weaker and vulnerable sections of society.

 

What are Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution?

Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are guidelines or principles laid down in Part IV (Articles 36 to 51) of the Indian Constitution. They are not enforceable by any court but are considered fundamental in the governance of the country, aiming to establish social and economic democracy by guiding the State in making laws and policies.

Are Directive Principles legally enforceable?

No, Directive Principles are not justiciable, which means they cannot be enforced by courts. However, they are fundamental to the governance of the country, and it is the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws to promote the welfare of the people.

How do Directive Principles differ from Fundamental Rights?

Fundamental Rights are enforceable by the courts and protect individual freedoms and rights, whereas Directive Principles are non-enforceable guidelines for the State to achieve social justice and economic welfare. While Fundamental Rights focus on individual liberty, Directive Principles focus on collective good and welfare