DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY :
Introduction & Historical Background : The Directive Principles of State Policy
r guidelines to the Central and State Govts. of India to be kept in mind while
framing laws & policies. These r contained in Part IV (Art. 38 to 51) of the
Constitution of India & not enforceable by any court. The principles hv bn
inspired by the Directive Principles of the Constitution of Ireland. A Constitution
is not intended to be a static document in a developing society & its provisions
must lend themselves to meet the changing needs & requirements of a society.
The main idea is that they serve an educational purpose & might serve as
restraints on those who come in power. They could be held accountable for
ignoring them before the electorate if not before a court of law.
Now, we are living in an era of welfare state, which seeks to promote prosperity
& well-being of the people. The DPSP strengthen & promote this concept by
seeking to lay down some socio-economic goals which the Govt. has to strive to
achieve. The DPSP give directions to legislatures & executive in India as
regards the manner in which they should exercise their power. It shall be the
duty of the State to follow these principles both in the matter of administration as
well as in the making of laws.
Most of the DPSP aim at the establishment of economic & social democracy,
which is pledged for in the Preamble. The Preamble emphasizes that India
should be a socialist secular democratic republic, based on social, economic &
political justice. The Constitution-makers rightly perceived that political
democracy would be meaningless without economic justice. The DPSP,
therefore, spell out in greater detail the goal of economic democracy. Thus, they r
supplementary to the Preamble. They have played a crucial role in legislative &
administrative policy making in the country. They have inspired the idea of
socialist pattern of society.
Directive Principles & Fundamental Rights : The Constitution draws a
distinction b/w FRs & DPSP. The FRs r rights enforeable by legal action; while
DPSP r excluded from the purview of the courts. India has followed the plan of
the Irish Constitution. They r nt contained in USA Constitution.
Though the DPSP hv to run as subsidiary to the FRs, in determining the scope &
ambit of the rights & reasonableness of the restrictions imposed in exercise of
the rights, the court may not entirely ignore the DPSP, but should adopt the
principle of harmonious construction & should attempt to give effect to both as
much as possible, per Kerala Education Bill, 1957. But the DPSP can’t override
the provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution, per State of Madras v.
Champakam Dorairajan. Parts III & IV of the Constitution are supplementary to
each other, per Unni Krishan v. State of A.P. The sanction behind them is, in
fact, political. As Dr. Ambedkar observed in the Constituent Assembly, “If any
Govt. ignores them, they will certainly have to answer before the electorate at the
election time”. They impose positive obligations on the State. In course of time,
courts started giving some value to DPSP from a legal point of view. Where two
judicial choices r available, the construction in conformity with the social
philosophy in DPSP has preference. The courts also adopted the view that in
determining the scope & ambit of the FRs, the DPSP should not be completely
ignored & that the courts should adopt the principles of harmonious construction
& attempt to give effect to both as far as possible. Without making the DPSP
justiciable as such, the courts began to implement the values underlying them to
the extent possible.
The position before 1972 Amendment of the Constitution was that they were not
completely meaningless. However, the value of DPSP underwent a
metamorphosis. The first step was the enactment of Art. 31C which gave
primary importance to Art. 39(b), 39(c) & 31. The next step in the direction of
giving primacy to all the DPSP over the FRs was taken in 1976 when all DPSP
were given precedence over Art. 14, 19 & 31.
The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing &
protecting a social order. The 44th Amendment, 1978 widened the scope of Art.
38, which provided, “the State shall strive to minimize the inequalities in income
& endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities & opportunities, not only
amongst individuals, but also amongst groups of people residing in different
areas or engaged in different vocations”.
Principles of Policy to be followed by the State : Article 39 requires the State
to direct its policy towards securing :
(a) that the citizens, irrespective of sex, hv right to an adequate means
(b) that the ownership & control of the material resources are so
(c) that operation of the economic system does not result in the
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men & women;
(e) that health & strength of workers, men & women & tender age of
of livelihood;
distributed as best to sub-serve the common good;
concentration of wealth to the common detriment;
(f) that children r given opportunities & facilities to develop in a healthy
children r not abused; that citizens r not forced by economic necessity
to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;
manner & that childhood & youth r protected against exploitation &
against moral & material abandonment.
Art. 39(b) & (c) r/w other relevant provisions contain the main objective of
building of a welfare society as also the egalitarian social order in the country.
The Constitution does not permit distinction b/w same class of workers. In
Hindustan Antibiotic v. Workmen, Art. 39(d) was judicially enforced & held that
equal pay for equal work was not a mere dogmatic slogan, but a goal attainable
through constitutional remedies & the enforcement of constitutional rights. In
Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of Delhi, the SC laid down that the State
must pay equal pay for equal work & the pay structure of the employees of the
Govt. should also reflect many other social values.
In M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, held that in view of Article 39, the
employment of children within match factories directly connected with the
manufacturing process of the matches & fireworks can’t be allowed as it is
hazarduous. Children can, however, be employed in the process of packaging
but it should be done in area away from the place of manufacturing to avoid
exposure to accidents.
Free Legal Aid : Article 39A provides that the State shall secure that the
operation of the legal system promotes justice & shall provide free legal aid to
ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by
reason of economic or other disabilities.
In Hussainara Khatton & Ors. v. The Home Secretary State of Bihar (IV), the SC
observed that it is the constitutional right of every accused person unable to
engage a lawyer & secure legal service on a/c of reason such as poverty or
indigence, to have free legal services provided to him by the State, & the State is
under a constitutional mandate to provide a lawyer to such accused person if the
needs of justice so require. If free legal services are not provided to such an
accused, the trial itself may run risk of being vitiated as contravening Article 21.
In PUDR v. UOI, held that rule of law does not mean that the protection of law
must be available only to fortunate few, the poor too have civil & political right
though today it exists only on paper & not in reality.
In State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Bagali Vachi, held that Art. 21 r/w Art. 39-A
casts a duty on the State to afford grants-in-aid to recognize private law colleges
& it can’t be whittled down in any manner either by pleading paucity of funds or
otherwise.
Village Panchayats : Art. 40 requires the State to take steps to organise village
panchayats to enable them to function as units of self-govt. & to produce
democracy at the grass roots. This provision doesn’t prescribe as to what
powers should be given to the panchayats or what their structure should be & so
the panchayat laws vary from one State to another.
Social Services : The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity &
development, make effective provisions for securing the right to work, to
education & to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness &
disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want. ‘Public assistance’ means
‘economic assistance’.
In Radhakrishna Mills v. S.I.T., held that Art. 41 places no disability on the State
to pay compensation to workers whose continuous employment has suffered as
a result of action on the part of the Govt. such as short supply of electricity. But
in Bennet Coleman v. UOI, observed that the duty to take effective steps to
educate the people within limits of its available economic resources includes
political education as well.
Conditions of Work : Art. 42 provides that the State shall make provision for
securing just & humane conditions of work & for maternity relief. In D.B.
Patanaik v. State of A.P. observed, DPSP (Art. 42) may benevolently be
extended to living conditions in jail.
Living Wage : Art. 43 requires that the State shall endeavour to secure govt.
cos. in public sector should not necessarily be different from cos. in private sector
as Arts. 39 & 43 would be disobeyed if distinction is made b/w the same class of
labourers on the ground that some of them are employed in state enterprises &
others in private enterprises.
Participation of Workers in Management of Industries : Art. 43A provides that
the State shall take steps to secure the participation of workers in the
management of undertakings, establishments or other organizations engaged in
any industry.
Uniform Civil Code : Art. 44 provides that the State shall endeavour to secure
for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. At present,
Hindus are governed by Hindu Law. Likewise, the Muslims are governed by
Mohammadan Law. As India has accepted the ideal of a secular State, this DP
seeks to replace the various systems of personal law by a uniform civil code. In
Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano, the SC observed, “A common civil code will
help the case of national integration by removing disparate loyalities to laws
which have conflicting ideologies.”
In Sarla Mudgal v. UOI, the SC directed the then PM to take fresh look at Art. 44,
which according to the SC, is imperative. But unfortunately, the Court while
hearing an appeal filed by one of the accused clarified that its direction was only
obiter dicta & not legally binding on the Govt.
Free & Compulsory Education for Children : Article 45 requires the State to
endeavour to provide, within ten years, for free & compulsory education for all
children until they complete the age of 14 years. Art. 45 is not confined to
primary education; it extends to providing free education upto an age of 14 years,
whatever the stage of education it may come to.
In Unnikrishan v. State of A.P., observed, ‘Right to Education’ means (a) every
child/citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes 14
years, his right to education is circumscribed by the limits of the economic
capacity of the State & its development. Only Art. 45 speaks of a time. Art. 45
does not speak of the limits of its economic capacity & development as does Art.
41, which inter alia speaks of RTE.
Promotion of Educational and Economic Interests of Weaker Sections : Art.
46 obligates the State to promote with special care the educational & economic
interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of SCs & STs &
to protect them from social injustice & all forms of exploitation.
Raising Standard of Living : The State is under an obligation to take measures
for raising standards of living. In Nashirwar v. State of MP, held dealing in liquor
can’t be regarded as ‘trade or business’ u/Art. 19(1)(g). Opium is a drug &
injurious to health. However, use of drugs for medicinal purposes has been
exempted, per Pritpal Singh v. Chief Comr.
Organisation of Agriculture & Animal Husbandry : U/Art. 48, the State shall
endeavour to organise agriculture & animal husbandry on modern & scientific
lines & shall take steps for preserving & improving the breeds and prohibiting the
slaughter of cows & calves. The directive for taking steps for preventing
slaughter of certain specified categories of animals is quite explicit & positive.
Protection of Wild Life : U/Art. 48A, the State shall endeavour to protect &
improve the environment & to safeguard forests & wild life of d country.
Protection of Monuments : Art. 49 obligates the State to protect every
monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest, declared to be of
national importance, from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal,
disposal or export, as the case may be.
Separation of Judiciary from Executive : U/Art. 50, the State shall take steps
to separate judiciary from executive. In other words, judiciary be freed from
executive control. By & large, this goal has been achieved.
Promotion of International Peace : U/Art.51, State shall endeavour to –
(a) promote international peace & security;
(b) maintain just & honourable relations b/w nations;
(c) foster respect for intl. law & treaty obligations in the dealings of organised
people with one other; &
(d) encourage settlement of intl. disputes by arbitration.
Fundamental Duties : Rights & duties go together. The Constitution mentions
only the Rights, which r FRs. There r also DPSP, which again confer rights on
the citizens of India. Prior to 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, which came
into force on 01.02.1977, there was no provision in the Constitution dealing with
FDs of a citizen. Art. 51A does not contain provision for the enforcement of FDs.
The Swaran Committee suggested that the Parliament be empowered to impose
punishment for breach of FDs, which was, however, not accepted.
Enforcement by the State : Part IV contains a no. of human rights intended
to ensure socio-economic justice. Though they hv bn declared to be
fundamental in the governance of the country, yet they were not enforeable by
court. In the beginning, they did not receive the importance they deserved.
However, gradually they started getting importance. In re. Kerala Education Bill,
1957, held that an attempt must be made to harmonise the provisions of FRs
with DPSP as far as possible such as ‘equal pay for equal work’ has been held to
be a human right / FR.
It is not necessary that a right to be recognised as a human right is expressly
stated in Part III of the Constitution. New rights can be read into & inferred from
the rights stated in Part III. ‘Right to life’ has been held to include many
freedoms. In Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, held that the expression ‘personal liberty’
in Art. 21 is of the widest amplitude & it covers a variety of rights which go to
constitute the personal liberty of man & some of them hv bn raised to the distinct
human rights & given addl. protection. If a law deprives a person of personal
liberty & prescribes a procedure for that purpose within the meaning of Art. 21, it
has to stand the test of Art. 19 & 14. The procedure contemplated by Art. 21
must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Art. 14.
It must be right, just & fair – not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise there
shd b no procedure at all & requirement of Art. 21 wud nt b satisfied.
In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., held that right to life means not only
continuance of a person’s animal existence but a right to be in possession of
each of his organ, his arms, legs, etc. This means something more than mere
survival of animal existence. Right to life includes the right to basic necessities of
life & the right to carry on such functions & activities as constitute the bare
minimum expression of human-self, per Francis Muller v. Union Territory of Delhi.
Now, it has become a reservoir of human rights & interpreted to include:
(i) right to privacy, Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., which covers tapping of
telephone, People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. UOI;
(ii) right to livelihood, Olga Tellis v. Bby. Municipal Corpn.; it includes better
standard of life, hygienic conditions in work place & leisure; & it ensures to
workmen health & medical care during & after service.
(iii) right to education, Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P.;
(iv) right to travel abroad, Satwant Singh v. Asstt. Passport Officer;
(v) right to envmntl. protection, Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. UOI;
(vi) right to shelter; U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing
Society Ltd.;
(vii) right to have pollution free air & water, Indian Council for Enviro Legal
Action v. UOI & M.C. Mehta v. UOI; and
(viii) bonded labour must be identified, released & suitably rehabilitated,
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI.
In Joginder Kr v. State of UP, held that right of arrested person upon arrest to hv
someone informed about his arrest & right to consult privately with lawyer r
inherent in Art. 21 & 22. The arrest & detention of an honest judgment debtor in
civil prison, who has no means to pay the debt, in absense of mala fide &
dishonesty, violated Art. 11 of Intl. Covenant on Civil & Political Rights & Art. 21 :
Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin.
Right to have free legal aid to the accused at the State cost has been held to be
implicit in Art. 21. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn., held the practice of keeping
under-trials with convicts in jails offends the test of fairness. The torture or use of
third degree method by police against an accused or under-trial is violative of Art.
21, per Sunil Batra (No. 2) v. Delhi Admn. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., held
any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment falls within the
inhibition of Art. 21. Speedy trial is also implicit in Art. 21, per Hussainara
Khatton (No. 1) v. State of Bihar. Furthermore, this right is available at all stages
of proceedings, i.e., investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision & retrial.
In Charles Shobhraj v. Suptd. Central Jail, Tihar, held that prisoners also hv a no.
of rights which r included in the right to life. It means right to live with dignity.
Human dignity needs not to b lost even in prison setting. The treatment of a
human being, which offends human dignity, reduces the man to the level of
beast. Justice Krishna Iyer in Sunil Batra (No.1) obsvd., there is no iron-curtain
b/w the Constitution & the prisoners of this country; held that they r also entitled
to rights included in the right to life. Delay in execution of death sentence is also
violative of right u/Art. 21 & in such circumstances, death sentence may be
reduced to life imprisonment, per Triveniben v. State of Gujarat.
In Minerva Mills v. UOI, Art. 31C as amended by 42nd Amendment was
challenged on the ground that it destroys the basic feature of the Constn. The
SC struck down Art. 31C being unconstitutional. Thus, to give absolute primacy
to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution, which is the
essential feature of the basic structure. The goals set out in Part IV have to be
achieved without the abrogation of the means provided by Part III. In Unni
Krishnan v. State of A.P., held that the FRs & DPSP r supplementary to each
other and the provisions in Part III should be interpreted having regard to the
Preamble & the DPSP.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI, held that though DPSP r nt enforceable by
courts, yet courts can’t direct legislature or executive to enforce them. Once a
legislation in pursuance of DPSP hs bn passed, courts can order the State to
enforce the law, particularly when non-enforcement of law leads to denial of FR.
Conclusion : DPSP hv bn drafted in flexible & general language & leave enough
leeway to various govts. in the country to frame their policies from time to time in
accordance with contemporary needs & circumstances to achieve the goals set
out therein. These have played a crucial role in legislative & administrative policy
making in the country. They have inspired the idea of socialist pattern of society.
While a no. of laws hs bn enacted to promote programmes & policies envisaged
by these DPSP, there has been failure of the administration by way of non-
administration, mal-administrative & mis-administration of these laws.
Introduction & Historical Background : The Directive Principles of State Policy
r guidelines to the Central and State Govts. of India to be kept in mind while
framing laws & policies. These r contained in Part IV (Art. 38 to 51) of the
Constitution of India & not enforceable by any court. The principles hv bn
inspired by the Directive Principles of the Constitution of Ireland. A Constitution
is not intended to be a static document in a developing society & its provisions
must lend themselves to meet the changing needs & requirements of a society.
The main idea is that they serve an educational purpose & might serve as
restraints on those who come in power. They could be held accountable for
ignoring them before the electorate if not before a court of law.
Now, we are living in an era of welfare state, which seeks to promote prosperity
& well-being of the people. The DPSP strengthen & promote this concept by
seeking to lay down some socio-economic goals which the Govt. has to strive to
achieve. The DPSP give directions to legislatures & executive in India as
regards the manner in which they should exercise their power. It shall be the
duty of the State to follow these principles both in the matter of administration as
well as in the making of laws.
Most of the DPSP aim at the establishment of economic & social democracy,
which is pledged for in the Preamble. The Preamble emphasizes that India
should be a socialist secular democratic republic, based on social, economic &
political justice. The Constitution-makers rightly perceived that political
democracy would be meaningless without economic justice. The DPSP,
therefore, spell out in greater detail the goal of economic democracy. Thus, they r
supplementary to the Preamble. They have played a crucial role in legislative &
administrative policy making in the country. They have inspired the idea of
socialist pattern of society.
Directive Principles & Fundamental Rights : The Constitution draws a
distinction b/w FRs & DPSP. The FRs r rights enforeable by legal action; while
DPSP r excluded from the purview of the courts. India has followed the plan of
the Irish Constitution. They r nt contained in USA Constitution.
Though the DPSP hv to run as subsidiary to the FRs, in determining the scope &
ambit of the rights & reasonableness of the restrictions imposed in exercise of
the rights, the court may not entirely ignore the DPSP, but should adopt the
principle of harmonious construction & should attempt to give effect to both as
much as possible, per Kerala Education Bill, 1957. But the DPSP can’t override
the provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution, per State of Madras v.
Champakam Dorairajan. Parts III & IV of the Constitution are supplementary to
each other, per Unni Krishan v. State of A.P. The sanction behind them is, in
fact, political. As Dr. Ambedkar observed in the Constituent Assembly, “If any
Govt. ignores them, they will certainly have to answer before the electorate at the
election time”. They impose positive obligations on the State. In course of time,
courts started giving some value to DPSP from a legal point of view. Where two
judicial choices r available, the construction in conformity with the social
philosophy in DPSP has preference. The courts also adopted the view that in
determining the scope & ambit of the FRs, the DPSP should not be completely
ignored & that the courts should adopt the principles of harmonious construction
& attempt to give effect to both as far as possible. Without making the DPSP
justiciable as such, the courts began to implement the values underlying them to
the extent possible.
The position before 1972 Amendment of the Constitution was that they were not
completely meaningless. However, the value of DPSP underwent a
metamorphosis. The first step was the enactment of Art. 31C which gave
primary importance to Art. 39(b), 39(c) & 31. The next step in the direction of
giving primacy to all the DPSP over the FRs was taken in 1976 when all DPSP
were given precedence over Art. 14, 19 & 31.
The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing &
protecting a social order. The 44th Amendment, 1978 widened the scope of Art.
38, which provided, “the State shall strive to minimize the inequalities in income
& endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities & opportunities, not only
amongst individuals, but also amongst groups of people residing in different
areas or engaged in different vocations”.
Principles of Policy to be followed by the State : Article 39 requires the State
to direct its policy towards securing :
(a) that the citizens, irrespective of sex, hv right to an adequate means
(b) that the ownership & control of the material resources are so
(c) that operation of the economic system does not result in the
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men & women;
(e) that health & strength of workers, men & women & tender age of
of livelihood;
distributed as best to sub-serve the common good;
concentration of wealth to the common detriment;
(f) that children r given opportunities & facilities to develop in a healthy
children r not abused; that citizens r not forced by economic necessity
to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;
manner & that childhood & youth r protected against exploitation &
against moral & material abandonment.
Art. 39(b) & (c) r/w other relevant provisions contain the main objective of
building of a welfare society as also the egalitarian social order in the country.
The Constitution does not permit distinction b/w same class of workers. In
Hindustan Antibiotic v. Workmen, Art. 39(d) was judicially enforced & held that
equal pay for equal work was not a mere dogmatic slogan, but a goal attainable
through constitutional remedies & the enforcement of constitutional rights. In
Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of Delhi, the SC laid down that the State
must pay equal pay for equal work & the pay structure of the employees of the
Govt. should also reflect many other social values.
In M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, held that in view of Article 39, the
employment of children within match factories directly connected with the
manufacturing process of the matches & fireworks can’t be allowed as it is
hazarduous. Children can, however, be employed in the process of packaging
but it should be done in area away from the place of manufacturing to avoid
exposure to accidents.
Free Legal Aid : Article 39A provides that the State shall secure that the
operation of the legal system promotes justice & shall provide free legal aid to
ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by
reason of economic or other disabilities.
In Hussainara Khatton & Ors. v. The Home Secretary State of Bihar (IV), the SC
observed that it is the constitutional right of every accused person unable to
engage a lawyer & secure legal service on a/c of reason such as poverty or
indigence, to have free legal services provided to him by the State, & the State is
under a constitutional mandate to provide a lawyer to such accused person if the
needs of justice so require. If free legal services are not provided to such an
accused, the trial itself may run risk of being vitiated as contravening Article 21.
In PUDR v. UOI, held that rule of law does not mean that the protection of law
must be available only to fortunate few, the poor too have civil & political right
though today it exists only on paper & not in reality.
In State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Bagali Vachi, held that Art. 21 r/w Art. 39-A
casts a duty on the State to afford grants-in-aid to recognize private law colleges
& it can’t be whittled down in any manner either by pleading paucity of funds or
otherwise.
Village Panchayats : Art. 40 requires the State to take steps to organise village
panchayats to enable them to function as units of self-govt. & to produce
democracy at the grass roots. This provision doesn’t prescribe as to what
powers should be given to the panchayats or what their structure should be & so
the panchayat laws vary from one State to another.
Social Services : The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity &
development, make effective provisions for securing the right to work, to
education & to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness &
disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want. ‘Public assistance’ means
‘economic assistance’.
In Radhakrishna Mills v. S.I.T., held that Art. 41 places no disability on the State
to pay compensation to workers whose continuous employment has suffered as
a result of action on the part of the Govt. such as short supply of electricity. But
in Bennet Coleman v. UOI, observed that the duty to take effective steps to
educate the people within limits of its available economic resources includes
political education as well.
Conditions of Work : Art. 42 provides that the State shall make provision for
securing just & humane conditions of work & for maternity relief. In D.B.
Patanaik v. State of A.P. observed, DPSP (Art. 42) may benevolently be
extended to living conditions in jail.
Living Wage : Art. 43 requires that the State shall endeavour to secure govt.
cos. in public sector should not necessarily be different from cos. in private sector
as Arts. 39 & 43 would be disobeyed if distinction is made b/w the same class of
labourers on the ground that some of them are employed in state enterprises &
others in private enterprises.
Participation of Workers in Management of Industries : Art. 43A provides that
the State shall take steps to secure the participation of workers in the
management of undertakings, establishments or other organizations engaged in
any industry.
Uniform Civil Code : Art. 44 provides that the State shall endeavour to secure
for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. At present,
Hindus are governed by Hindu Law. Likewise, the Muslims are governed by
Mohammadan Law. As India has accepted the ideal of a secular State, this DP
seeks to replace the various systems of personal law by a uniform civil code. In
Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano, the SC observed, “A common civil code will
help the case of national integration by removing disparate loyalities to laws
which have conflicting ideologies.”
In Sarla Mudgal v. UOI, the SC directed the then PM to take fresh look at Art. 44,
which according to the SC, is imperative. But unfortunately, the Court while
hearing an appeal filed by one of the accused clarified that its direction was only
obiter dicta & not legally binding on the Govt.
Free & Compulsory Education for Children : Article 45 requires the State to
endeavour to provide, within ten years, for free & compulsory education for all
children until they complete the age of 14 years. Art. 45 is not confined to
primary education; it extends to providing free education upto an age of 14 years,
whatever the stage of education it may come to.
In Unnikrishan v. State of A.P., observed, ‘Right to Education’ means (a) every
child/citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes 14
years, his right to education is circumscribed by the limits of the economic
capacity of the State & its development. Only Art. 45 speaks of a time. Art. 45
does not speak of the limits of its economic capacity & development as does Art.
41, which inter alia speaks of RTE.
Promotion of Educational and Economic Interests of Weaker Sections : Art.
46 obligates the State to promote with special care the educational & economic
interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of SCs & STs &
to protect them from social injustice & all forms of exploitation.
Raising Standard of Living : The State is under an obligation to take measures
for raising standards of living. In Nashirwar v. State of MP, held dealing in liquor
can’t be regarded as ‘trade or business’ u/Art. 19(1)(g). Opium is a drug &
injurious to health. However, use of drugs for medicinal purposes has been
exempted, per Pritpal Singh v. Chief Comr.
Organisation of Agriculture & Animal Husbandry : U/Art. 48, the State shall
endeavour to organise agriculture & animal husbandry on modern & scientific
lines & shall take steps for preserving & improving the breeds and prohibiting the
slaughter of cows & calves. The directive for taking steps for preventing
slaughter of certain specified categories of animals is quite explicit & positive.
Protection of Wild Life : U/Art. 48A, the State shall endeavour to protect &
improve the environment & to safeguard forests & wild life of d country.
Protection of Monuments : Art. 49 obligates the State to protect every
monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest, declared to be of
national importance, from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal,
disposal or export, as the case may be.
Separation of Judiciary from Executive : U/Art. 50, the State shall take steps
to separate judiciary from executive. In other words, judiciary be freed from
executive control. By & large, this goal has been achieved.
Promotion of International Peace : U/Art.51, State shall endeavour to –
(a) promote international peace & security;
(b) maintain just & honourable relations b/w nations;
(c) foster respect for intl. law & treaty obligations in the dealings of organised
people with one other; &
(d) encourage settlement of intl. disputes by arbitration.
Fundamental Duties : Rights & duties go together. The Constitution mentions
only the Rights, which r FRs. There r also DPSP, which again confer rights on
the citizens of India. Prior to 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, which came
into force on 01.02.1977, there was no provision in the Constitution dealing with
FDs of a citizen. Art. 51A does not contain provision for the enforcement of FDs.
The Swaran Committee suggested that the Parliament be empowered to impose
punishment for breach of FDs, which was, however, not accepted.
Enforcement by the State : Part IV contains a no. of human rights intended
to ensure socio-economic justice. Though they hv bn declared to be
fundamental in the governance of the country, yet they were not enforeable by
court. In the beginning, they did not receive the importance they deserved.
However, gradually they started getting importance. In re. Kerala Education Bill,
1957, held that an attempt must be made to harmonise the provisions of FRs
with DPSP as far as possible such as ‘equal pay for equal work’ has been held to
be a human right / FR.
It is not necessary that a right to be recognised as a human right is expressly
stated in Part III of the Constitution. New rights can be read into & inferred from
the rights stated in Part III. ‘Right to life’ has been held to include many
freedoms. In Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, held that the expression ‘personal liberty’
in Art. 21 is of the widest amplitude & it covers a variety of rights which go to
constitute the personal liberty of man & some of them hv bn raised to the distinct
human rights & given addl. protection. If a law deprives a person of personal
liberty & prescribes a procedure for that purpose within the meaning of Art. 21, it
has to stand the test of Art. 19 & 14. The procedure contemplated by Art. 21
must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Art. 14.
It must be right, just & fair – not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise there
shd b no procedure at all & requirement of Art. 21 wud nt b satisfied.
In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., held that right to life means not only
continuance of a person’s animal existence but a right to be in possession of
each of his organ, his arms, legs, etc. This means something more than mere
survival of animal existence. Right to life includes the right to basic necessities of
life & the right to carry on such functions & activities as constitute the bare
minimum expression of human-self, per Francis Muller v. Union Territory of Delhi.
Now, it has become a reservoir of human rights & interpreted to include:
(i) right to privacy, Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., which covers tapping of
telephone, People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. UOI;
(ii) right to livelihood, Olga Tellis v. Bby. Municipal Corpn.; it includes better
standard of life, hygienic conditions in work place & leisure; & it ensures to
workmen health & medical care during & after service.
(iii) right to education, Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P.;
(iv) right to travel abroad, Satwant Singh v. Asstt. Passport Officer;
(v) right to envmntl. protection, Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. UOI;
(vi) right to shelter; U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing
Society Ltd.;
(vii) right to have pollution free air & water, Indian Council for Enviro Legal
Action v. UOI & M.C. Mehta v. UOI; and
(viii) bonded labour must be identified, released & suitably rehabilitated,
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI.
In Joginder Kr v. State of UP, held that right of arrested person upon arrest to hv
someone informed about his arrest & right to consult privately with lawyer r
inherent in Art. 21 & 22. The arrest & detention of an honest judgment debtor in
civil prison, who has no means to pay the debt, in absense of mala fide &
dishonesty, violated Art. 11 of Intl. Covenant on Civil & Political Rights & Art. 21 :
Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin.
Right to have free legal aid to the accused at the State cost has been held to be
implicit in Art. 21. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Admn., held the practice of keeping
under-trials with convicts in jails offends the test of fairness. The torture or use of
third degree method by police against an accused or under-trial is violative of Art.
21, per Sunil Batra (No. 2) v. Delhi Admn. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., held
any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment falls within the
inhibition of Art. 21. Speedy trial is also implicit in Art. 21, per Hussainara
Khatton (No. 1) v. State of Bihar. Furthermore, this right is available at all stages
of proceedings, i.e., investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision & retrial.
In Charles Shobhraj v. Suptd. Central Jail, Tihar, held that prisoners also hv a no.
of rights which r included in the right to life. It means right to live with dignity.
Human dignity needs not to b lost even in prison setting. The treatment of a
human being, which offends human dignity, reduces the man to the level of
beast. Justice Krishna Iyer in Sunil Batra (No.1) obsvd., there is no iron-curtain
b/w the Constitution & the prisoners of this country; held that they r also entitled
to rights included in the right to life. Delay in execution of death sentence is also
violative of right u/Art. 21 & in such circumstances, death sentence may be
reduced to life imprisonment, per Triveniben v. State of Gujarat.
In Minerva Mills v. UOI, Art. 31C as amended by 42nd Amendment was
challenged on the ground that it destroys the basic feature of the Constn. The
SC struck down Art. 31C being unconstitutional. Thus, to give absolute primacy
to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution, which is the
essential feature of the basic structure. The goals set out in Part IV have to be
achieved without the abrogation of the means provided by Part III. In Unni
Krishnan v. State of A.P., held that the FRs & DPSP r supplementary to each
other and the provisions in Part III should be interpreted having regard to the
Preamble & the DPSP.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI, held that though DPSP r nt enforceable by
courts, yet courts can’t direct legislature or executive to enforce them. Once a
legislation in pursuance of DPSP hs bn passed, courts can order the State to
enforce the law, particularly when non-enforcement of law leads to denial of FR.
Conclusion : DPSP hv bn drafted in flexible & general language & leave enough
leeway to various govts. in the country to frame their policies from time to time in
accordance with contemporary needs & circumstances to achieve the goals set
out therein. These have played a crucial role in legislative & administrative policy
making in the country. They have inspired the idea of socialist pattern of society.
While a no. of laws hs bn enacted to promote programmes & policies envisaged
by these DPSP, there has been failure of the administration by way of non-
administration, mal-administrative & mis-administration of these laws.
