DETAILED ANALYSIS OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

This article is written by Akshara Maheshwari of 3^rd Semester of Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Abstract

One distinctive aspect of the Indian Constitution is the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), which attempts to direct the country toward the creation of a fair and just society. They represent the principles of social and economic democracy and act as a guide for national governance. The purpose of this article is to examine the meaning, constitutional provisions, classification, features, significance, criticism, and other relevant aspects of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). This article will critically analyse the various case laws and judgements which led to the development and growth of Directive Principles of State Policy.

The sole objective of this article is to understand the various aspects and dimensions of Directive Principles of State Policy and what is the major area of conflict between DPSPs and Fundamental rights. It will deal in detail about these factors which help in further understanding of the concept and its further development in Indian society.

Keywords

Directive Principles, Evolution, Features, Criticism, Categories, Conflict with Fundamental Rights.

Introduction

The Indian constitution is notable for its provisions pertaining to the directive principles of state policy. Following World War I, there was a general trend for the majority of written constitutions in contemporary states to include some social and economic policies. The Irish Constitution of 1937 lays out some directive social policy principles in Article 45^[1]. Several articles of the Chinese Constitution address every topic, including social security, national defence, diplomacy, the economy, education, and culture, as well as national minorities living in border regions. Some guiding principles of state policy are found in the fourth chapter of the Burmese Constitution.^[2] These principles are predicated on the understanding that the protection of national independence and equality, global cooperation and peace, the welfare of the populace on a social level, and the nation’s economic prosperity are the primary duties of the state. It is an indication that the service state of today has replaced the regulatory state of the past. Part IV of the draft Constitution lists the tenets of State policy. They lay out specific administrative goals and are declarative. However, they are essential to the nation’s governance. The State has a moral obligation to base its legislative decisions on these precepts. It hardly needs to be mentioned that in outlining the tenets of State policy, the draft constitution followed the Irish example.

Evolution of Directive Principles

The “concept of a declaration of policy in regard to social and economic obligations of the state cannot be said to be foreign to the genius of India”.^[3] “The King shall provide the orphan, the dying, the infirm, the afflicted and the helpless with maintenance; he shall also provide subsistence to helpless expectant mothers and also the children they give birth to,” wrote Kautilya in his Arthasastra, citing a specific directive.^[4] The king of kings, dharma is the ultimate law of laws. All living beings seek refuge in “Raja Dharma,” as Yudhistira noted.^[5] In essence, Raja Dharma is the core social and political idea that reveals both universal security and the full accomplishment of human goals.

Raja Dharma is the source of the directive principles of state policy stated in part IV of the Indian Constitution. Dharma, or the government’s duty path, is one of the fundamental tenets of governance.^[6] Therefore, these ideas can be linked to either right reason or divine will. They share the same fundamental status as the rights. Specifically, Article 37 states that “the principles laid down are fundamental in the country’s governance.” Although the practice of establishing state policies dates back centuries, the Karachi Resolution of 1931 is credited with originating the idea to include such principles in the Indian Constitution. Next, the concept of justiciable and non-justiciable rights was proposed in the 1944–1945 Sapru Committee Report. According to B.N. Rau, rights should be divided into two categories: those that deal with the core ideas of public policy and those that deal with fundamental rights in and of themselves. According to B.N. Rau, “some rights only call for the State to refrain from taking discriminatory action, while others require the State to take positive action that can only be guaranteed to the extent that it is practical to do so.

Regarding directives, some were pessimistic while others were optimistic. ‘A veritable dust bin of sentiment’^[7] was how some described them, attaching no significance. Jennings claims that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment embodies Fabian Socialism without socialism.^[8]  Nonetheless, B.R. Ambedkar compared the directives to the “Instruments of Instructions”^[9]. They were also praised for being the most fundamental, significant, and original parts of the Constitution, as well as its essence. As a result, there was disagreement among the Constituent Assembly members regarding how important the directives were to describe, ranging from negative to positive. However, part IV’s fundamentalness as defined by article 37^[10] implies that the directives are just as significant as the fundamental rights.

Features of Directive Principles

To guarantee that no citizen is denied the opportunity to secure justice because of financial or other disabilities, the State shall… provide free legal aid through appropriate legislation, programs, or other means. Indian Constitution, 1949, art. 39A^[11].

The Directive Principles of State Policy, found in Part IV, Articles 36–51 of the Indian Constitution, provide the State with general guidelines or instructions to be adhered to when creating laws and policies. The Indian Constitution’s Directive Principles govern the state’s exercise of its legislative and executive branches. Nonetheless, the State cannot be sued for failing to comply with the Directive Principles, nor can they be enforced in court. Because the Directive Principles uphold national ideals but do not impose them as laws, they are in fact a fascinating and captivating section of the Constitution. Constitutional Instructions: These refer to the State’s constitutional directives for legislative, executive, and administrative actions. As a result, the state should keep them in mind when creating policies and passing legislation.

• Non-Justiciable: The DPSPs are not subject to legal action, in contrast to the Fundamental Rights, which are. As a result, the governments cannot be forced to put them into effect, nor can the courts hold them accountable for their violations.
• Welfare State Aims: As stated in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, they seek to actualize the principles of Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. They thus represent the idea of a “Welfare State.”
• Aiming for Socio-Economic Democracy: These programs are extremely extensive in nature and cover economic, social, and political aspects to bring about socio-economic democracy in the nation. They therefore seek to create a contemporary democratic state.
• Encourage Good Governance: They make it possible for governance to innovate and adapt to achieve socioeconomic development goals. They therefore support sound governance principles.
• Similarity to “Instrument of Instructions”: Dr. Ambedkar observed that they bear similarities to the “Instrument of Instructions” listed in the 1935 Government of India Act^[12].
• Supports the Judiciary: Although not subject to appeal, they assist the courts in assessing and deciding whether a legislation is constitutional. According to a Supreme Court ruling, a court may consider a law to be “reasonable” in respect to either Article 19^[13] (Protection of Six Freedoms) or Article 14^[14] (Equality before Law and Equal Protection of Laws) when assessing whether it is constitutional. This is especially true if the law in question aims to give effect to a Directive Principle.

As previously stated, the Directive Principles are unenforceable in court and lack legal standing, in contrast to the fundamental rights protected by the Indian Constitution. Nonetheless, the State is working hard to apply the Directive Principles to as many industries as it can. The 86th constitutional amendment of 2002 is notable for its implementation because it added a new article, Article 21A^[15], which mandates free education for children under the age of 14. Other examples of how the Directive Principles have been put into practice include the Minimum Wage Act of 1948^[16], the Prevention of Atrocities Act^[17], which protects the interests of SC and ST, and several Land Reform Acts^[18]. Following the Directive Principles’ guidelines, the Indian Army has taken part in 37 UN peace-keeping operations.

Categories of Directive Principles

The following three categories comprise the Directive Principles:

Socialistic Directives: This section includes the directives for ensuring the welfare of the Indian populace, the equitable distribution of the nation’s material resources, the defence of children’s and youth’s fundamental rights, equal compensation for equal labour, education, and other issues. These ideas, which represent socialism’s ideology, establish the foundation for a democratic socialist state. In general, they work toward establishing social and economic justice to create a welfare state. Examples include – PM Awas Yojana, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Maternity Benefit Law, etc.

Gandhian Directives: These include the rules for setting up village Panchayats, banning alcohol and the killing of cows, guaranteeing a liveable wage, promoting cottage industries, and offering free and obligatory education to all children up to the age of 14. These ideas represent Gandhi’s reconstruction program during the national movement and are grounded in Gandhian ideology. Examples include – Khadi and Village Handloom Boards, Establishment of the Ministry of Cooperation, Panchsheel Doctrine, UN Peacekeeping Operations, etc.

Liberal Intellectual Directives: This section contains recommendations for a national civil code that legislators can use when enacting laws or issuing orders. The liberalism ideology is reflected in these principles. Examples include – Special Marriage Act of 1954^[19], Soil Health card Scheme, Biological Diversity Act of 2002^[20], The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958^[21], etc.

Criticism of Directive Principles

The Directive Principles of State Policy has certain criticism as well along with the importance and significance they play in the Indian legislation. Some of those criticisms are:

• Non-Justiciability: Because the DPSPs are not legally enforceable, the majority of them have remained little more than “pious declarations.”
• Illogically Arranged: The DPSPs are not in a coherent philosophical order, nor are they appropriately classified. They are arranged in a way that confuses the most important socio-economic issues with relatively insignificant issues and contemporary issues with historical issues.
• Conservative in Nature: Opponents contend that the Directives are inappropriate for India in the twenty-first century because they are primarily grounded in the political theory of 19th-century England.
• Ignoring Social Realities: According to some, India’s varied socio-economic realities are too complex for DPSPs to adequately handle, leading to policies that might not adequately meet the needs of all residents.
• Constitutional Conflict: They give rise to a variety of constitutional conflicts, as the following examples demonstrate:

Between the Centre and the States: The Centre may appoint the offending state government if it does not follow its directives regarding the application of these principles.

Between the President and Parliament: The President has the authority to reject any bill that violates a DPSP.

Between the State Legislature and the Governor: Any legislation that violates a DPSP is subject to a veto by the governor of a state.

• Conflict with Fundamental Rights: It can be difficult to strike a balance between conflicting interests when certain DPSPs frequently clash with fundamental rights.

Conflict between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights

Restrictions on certain Fundamental Rights may be necessary by the state to implement some of the Directive Principles. This implies that to implement non-justiciable rights (DPSP), the State must impose limitations on justiciable rights (Fundamental Rights). Since the Constitution’s inception, there has been a conflict between the two because of this contradiction. The following illustrates how the fight between DPSP and Fundamental Rights has changed over time:

1. Champakam Dorairajan vs. the State of Madras^[22] (1951): The Supreme Court decided in this case that the Fundamental Rights would take precedence over the Directive Principles in the event of a dispute. It stated that the Fundamental Rights are the parent organization of the Directive Principles.
2. In the 1967 case of Golaknath v. the State of Punjab^[23], the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament could not alter Fundamental Rights because they were inalienable. This meant that to implement Directive Principles, the Fundamental Rights could not be changed.
3. 24th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971): The 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 was passed by the Parliament in reaction to the ruling in the Golaknath Case by the Supreme Court. It stated that, in accordance with Article 368^[24] of the Constitution, the Parliament may restrict or eliminate any of the Fundamental Rights.
4. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution (1971) created a new Article 31C^[25] with the following provisions: No law that attempts to apply the DPSP outlined in Article 39(b) and (c)^[26] will be invalidated on the grounds that it violates Article 14^[27], Article 19^[28], and Article 31’s fundamental rights. No law that contains a declaration intended to give effect to a policy may be challenged in court on the grounds that it fails to do so.
5. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala^[29] (1973): The Supreme Court ruled in this case that Article 31C’s second clause was unconstitutional. It did, however, support Article 31C’s first clause.
6. Act of 1976, 42nd Constitutional Amendment: The original clause of Article 31C^[30] was expanded to cover any law that implements any of the DPSP, not just Article 39(b) and (c)^[31]. As a result, it aimed to grant all DPSPs precedence over Articles 14^[32], 19^[33], and 31^[34] of the Fundamental Rights.
7. Minerva Mills ltd. v. Union of India^[35] (1980): In this instance, the Supreme Court ruled that the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act’s enlargement of the first clause of Article 31C^[36] was unconstitutional. As a result, the Fundamental Rights were once again given precedence over the Directive Principles. Nonetheless, it was acknowledged that the Directive Principles listed in Article 39(b) and (c)^[37] superseded the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article 14^[38] and Article 19^[39].
8. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution (1978) eliminated Article 31^[40] (the Right to Property).
9. Current Status: The current standing of the DPSP in relation to fundamental rights is as follows: Over DPSP, the Fundamental Rights hold a superior position. Nonetheless, under Articles 14^[41] and 19^[42], the DPSP found in Articles 39(b) and (c)^[43] has precedence over Fundamental Rights. If the amendment does not alter the fundamental framework of the Constitution, Parliament may amend the Fundamental Rights to implement a DPSP.

Conclusion

Even though there is merit to some of the criticisms, the DPSP is still a significant force in India. Even though these are moral guidelines, a democratic society may not be able to function properly in the absence of these values. DPSP remains unchanged with each new administration. As a result, by serving as standards that the government and its officials should abide by when making crucial decisions that have an impact on the lives of the populace, they provide continuity for India’s legal and orderly governance. By calculating the proportion of government officials who adhere to these guidelines, it can also serve as a gauge of good or poor governance. In summary, the DPSP serve as reflections of a nation’s vision and mission and should only be regarded as guidelines or principles that the government can take into consideration for more positive governance.

References

1. B. Shiva Rao, The Framing of Indian Constitution: A Study 319 (1968).
2. B.N. Rao infers in his address to the; Indian Council of World Affairs, 10 August 1949. Quoted by Shiva Rao, Id. at 319-32.
3. Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).
4. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.
5. Government of India Act, 1935.
6. INDIA CONST. art. 14.
7. INDIA CONST. art. 19.
8. INDIA CONST. art. 21A.
9. INDIA CONST. art. 31.
10. INDIA CONST. art. 31C.
11. INDIA CONST. art. 368.
12. INDIA CONST. art. 37.
13. INDIA CONST. art. 39 (b) and (c).
14. INDIA CONST. art. 39A.
15. IRISH CONST., sec. 45.
16. Ivor Jennings, Some Characteristics of the Indian Constitution 31 (1953).
17. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
18. Land Reforms Act, 1961, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).
19. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591.
20. Minimum Wage Act, 1948, Acts of Parliament 1948 (India).
21. Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, Acts of Parliament 1989 (India).
22. See the speech of D. Biswanath, V C.A.D. 367, taken from K.C. Markandan, Directive Principles in the Indian Constitution 133 (1966).
23. See the speech of T.T. Krishnamachari, VII C.A.D. 582, cited by Granville Austin, supra note 7 at 75-76.
24. Special Marriage Act, 1954, Acts of Parliament, 1954 (India).
25. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCC 351.
26. T.S. Narayan Rao, Directive Principles of State Policy, 10 The Indian Journal of Political Science 16, 16-18 (1949).
27. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, Acts of Parliament, 1958 (India).
28. U.N. Ghoshal, A History of Indian Political Ideas 189 (1959).
29. VII C.A.D. 41-42 cited by Markandan, supra note 35 at 136.

---

[1] IRISH CONST., art. 45.

[2] T.S. Narayan Rao, Directive Principles of State Policy, 10 The Indian Journal of Political Science 16, 16-18 (1949).

[3] B. Shiva Rao, The Framing of Indian Constitution: A Study 319 (1968).

[4] B.N. Rao infers in his address to the; Indian Council of World Affairs, 10 August 1949. Quoted by Shiva Rao, Id. at 319-32.

[5] U.N. Ghoshal, A History of Indian Political Ideas 189 (1959).

[6] See the speech of D. Biswanath, V C.A.D. 367, taken from K.C. Markandan, Directive Principles in the Indian Constitution 133 (1966).

[7] See the speech of T.T. Krishnamachari, VII C.A.D. 582, cited by Granville Austin, supra note 7 at 75-76.

[8] Ivor Jennings, Some Characteristics of the Indian Constitution 31 (1953).

[9] VII C.A.D. 41-42 cited by Markandan, supra note 35 at 136.

[10] INDIA CONST. art. 37.

[11] Supra note 9 at art. 39A.

[12] Government of India Act, 1935.

[13] Supra note 9 at art. 19.

[14] Supra note 9 at art. 14.

[15] Supra note 9 at art. 21A.

[16] Minimum Wage Act, 1948, Acts of Parliament 1948 (India).

[17] Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, Acts of Parliament 1989 (India).

[18] Land Reforms Act, 1961, Acts of Parliament, 1961 (India).

[19] Special Marriage Act, 1954, Acts of Parliament, 1954 (India).

[20] Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).

[21] The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, Acts of Parliament, 1958 (India).

[22] State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCC 351.

[23] Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.

[24] Supra note 9 at art. 368.

[25] Supra note 9 at art. 31C.

[26] Supra note 9 at art. 39 (b) and (c).

[27] Supra note 9 at art. 14.

[28] Supra note 9 at art. 19.

[29] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.

[30] Supra note 24.

[31] Supra note 25.

[32] Supra note 26.

[33] Supra note 27.

[34] Supra note 9 at art. 31.

[35] Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591.

[36] Supra note 24.

[37] Supra note 25.

[38] Supra note 26.

[39] Supra note 27.

[40] Supra note 33.

[41] Supra note 26.

[42] Supra note 27.

[43] Supra note 25.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.