The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) are guidelines or principles enshrined in Part IV (Articles 36 to 51) of the Constitution of India. Unlike the Fundamental Rights, which are justiciable and enforceable by the courts, the Directive Principles are non-justiciable. This means that they cannot be enforced by any court, but they are fundamental in the governance of the country, intended to guide the state in the creation of laws and policies.

The DPSPs are borrowed from the Irish Constitution and reflect the ideals that the framers of the Indian Constitution aimed to achieve in order to establish social and economic democracy. They set forth the goals and directions for the state to promote the welfare of the people, ensuring social, economic, and political justice.

Historical Background

The concept of Directive Principles has its roots in the socio-economic and political conditions of pre-independence India. The British colonial rule had left the country economically drained and socially fragmented. The framers of the Indian Constitution were deeply influenced by the national struggle for freedom and the socio-economic inequalities prevailing in the society. They wanted to establish a framework that would guide the future Indian state towards achieving an egalitarian society.

The Directive Principles were thus incorporated to serve as an instrument of social revolution, aiming to transform India into a welfare state. These principles reflect the aspirations of the people for a just and equitable society.

Nature and Scope of Directive Principles

1. Non-Justiciability: The Directive Principles are non-justiciable, meaning they are not legally enforceable by the courts. However, this does not diminish their importance. They are fundamental in the governance of the country, guiding the state in policymaking and legislation.
2. Moral Obligation: The Directive Principles impose a moral obligation on the state to apply these principles in making laws and policies. They serve as a yardstick for measuring the performance of the government in fulfilling its duties towards the citizens.
3. Complementary to Fundamental Rights: While Fundamental Rights ensure political democracy, the Directive Principles are designed to promote social and economic democracy. Together, they aim to establish a just society in India.
4. Dynamic Nature: The Directive Principles are dynamic and flexible, allowing the state to adapt to changing social and economic conditions. They provide a framework within which laws and policies can evolve to meet the needs of the people.

Classification of Directive Principles

The Directive Principles can be broadly classified into three categories: social and economic, Gandhian, and liberal-intellectual principles.

1. Social and Economic Principles:
• Article 38: The state shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order in which justice—social, economic, and political—shall inform all institutions of national life.
• Article 39: The state shall direct its policy towards securing the right to an adequate means of livelihood for all citizens, equal pay for equal work, and prevention of the concentration of wealth.
• Article 41: The state shall make effective provisions for securing the right to work, education, and public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement.
• Article 43: The state shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation, economic organization, or in any other way, to all workers agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life.
2. Gandhian Principles:
• Article 40: The state shall take steps to organize 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 46: The state shall promote the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other weaker sections of the society with special care, and 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.
3. Liberal-Intellectual Principles:
• Article 44: The state shall endeavour to secure a uniform civil code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.
• Article 45: The state shall provide free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of 14 years.
• Article 48: The state shall endeavour to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall take steps for preserving and improving the breeds.

Significance of Directive Principles

The Directive Principles of State Policy are significant for several reasons:

1. Welfare State: They lay down the foundation for India to be a welfare state, focusing on the well-being of all citizens, especially the weaker sections of society.
2. Policy Guidelines: They guide the government in formulating policies aimed at achieving social justice, reducing economic inequality, and promoting the welfare of the people.
3. Social Justice: The Directive Principles aim to create a society based on social justice, ensuring that resources are distributed equitably and that all citizens have access to basic necessities.
4. Economic Democracy: They promote economic democracy by directing the state to ensure that wealth is not concentrated in a few hands and that everyone has an opportunity to earn a livelihood.
5. Gandhian Ideals: The Directive Principles reflect the Gandhian vision of self-reliant villages, social justice, and the upliftment of the downtrodden.

Judicial Interpretations and Developments

While the Directive Principles are non-justiciable, the judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting and upholding their importance. Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has given various landmark judgments that have enhanced the significance of Directive Principles.

1. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Supreme Court held that the Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are complementary and not mutually exclusive. The Court stated that the Directive Principles are fundamental in the governance of the country, and it is the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.
2. Minerva Mills Case (1980): The Supreme Court held that the Indian Constitution is based on a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. It asserted that giving absolute primacy to one over the other would disturb the balance of the Constitution.
3. Right to Education Case (2002): The Supreme Court recognized the right to education as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 (Right to Life) by interpreting Article 45 (Directive Principle) along with Article 21. This was a significant step in giving effect to the Directive Principles.

Landmark Judgments

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) have been the subject of numerous landmark judgments by the Supreme Court of India. While these principles are non-justiciable, the judiciary has often referred to them when interpreting laws, Fundamental Rights, and the Constitution itself. Here are some of the most significant judgments related to the Directive Principles:

1. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

• Context: This was one of the earliest cases where the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles was considered.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that in case of a conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, Fundamental Rights would prevail. The case involved the validity of reservations for backward classes in educational institutions, which was seen as violating the Fundamental Right to equality under Article 15(1). The Court held that Directive Principles cannot override Fundamental Rights.

2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

• Context: This landmark case established the basic structure doctrine, which holds that the Constitution's basic structure cannot be altered by Parliament.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are complementary and not mutually exclusive. It emphasized that the Directive Principles should be implemented as far as possible and that they are fundamental in the governance of the country. This case laid the foundation for a more harmonious relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

3. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)

• Context: The case involved the constitutionality of certain amendments that sought to give primacy to the Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the Constitution is based on a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. The Court struck down clauses that gave absolute primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights, asserting that this would disturb the balance of the Constitution. The judgment reinforced the idea that neither Fundamental Rights nor Directive Principles can be given absolute priority.

4. Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

• Context: The case focused on the right to education, which was then a Directive Principle under Article 45.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court recognized the right to education as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 (Right to Life). The Court interpreted the Directive Principles in conjunction with Fundamental Rights, effectively elevating the right to education to a justiciable right. This case led to the 86th Amendment to the Constitution, which made the right to education a Fundamental Right under Article 21A.

5. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)

• Context: This case involved the eviction of pavement dwellers in Mumbai, raising issues related to the right to livelihood.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. The Court linked this interpretation to the Directive Principles, particularly Article 39(a), which directs the state to ensure that citizens have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. This case is significant as it showcased the Court's approach in harmonizing Directive Principles with Fundamental Rights.

6. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)

• Context: This case dealt with the capitation fee charged by private medical colleges, which was alleged to be discriminatory and violative of the right to education.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court declared that the right to education flows directly from the right to life, interpreting it as part of Article 21. The Court relied on the Directive Principles, particularly Article 41, which calls for securing the right to education. This judgment further solidified the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

7. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

• Context: This case involved the issue of sexual harassment of women at the workplace.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court referred to the Directive Principles, particularly Article 42, which directs the state to make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. The Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, which later led to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013. The judgment demonstrated how Directive Principles can be used to fill legislative gaps.

8. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)

• Context: This case dealt with the reservation of seats for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in educational institutions.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 93rd Constitutional Amendment, which allowed reservations for OBCs in educational institutions, stating that such reservations are in line with the Directive Principles, particularly Articles 38 and 46. The judgment highlighted the role of Directive Principles in promoting social justice and equality.

9. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)

• Context: This case concerned environmental pollution caused by industries near the Ganges River.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court invoked the Directive Principles, particularly Article 48A, which directs the state to protect and improve the environment. The Court ordered industries to adopt measures to prevent pollution and laid down the principle of sustainable development. This case was significant in interpreting the Directive Principles as essential for environmental protection.

10. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996)

• Context: This case involved the denial of emergency medical treatment to a person due to a lack of facilities in government hospitals.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. The Court referred to the Directive Principles, particularly Article 47, which directs the state to raise the level of nutrition and improve public health. This judgment emphasized the state's obligation to provide adequate healthcare facilities to its citizens.

These landmark judgments reflect the evolving relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. The Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in ensuring that the Directive Principles, although non-justiciable, are given due importance in the governance of the country. Through various interpretations and judgments, the Court has harmonized the Directive Principles with Fundamental Rights, thereby strengthening the constitutional framework aimed at achieving social, economic, and political justice.

Conclusion

The Directive Principles of State Policy are a unique feature of the Indian Constitution, reflecting the aspirations of the people and the vision of the framers of the Constitution. Although they are non-justiciable, their importance cannot be underestimated. They serve as a guide to the government in policy-making, aiming to create a just, equitable, and humane society. The principles, though not enforceable by the courts, have been given life by the judiciary through various interpretations, thereby strengthening their role in the governance of the country.

In essence, the Directive Principles of State Policy are the moral compass for the Indian state, directing it towards achieving the goals of social and economic democracy, and ultimately, the realization of a welfare state.

Reference:-

1. Constitution of India

2. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan Citation: AIR 1951 SC 226

3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461

4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India Citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789

5. Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh Citation: AIR 1993 SC 2178

6. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation Citation: AIR 1986 SC 180

7. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka Citation: AIR 1992 SC 1858

8. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3011

9. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India Citation: (2008) 6 SCC 1

10. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1086

11. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal Citation: AIR 1996 SC 2426

Share this News