You are on page 1of 13

Jamia Millia Islamia

Constitution Project

Project topic: ‘Importance of DPSP.

Course Name:B.A.L.L.B(Regular)4th Semester.

Submitted to:Dr. Asad Malik .

Prepared by: Sarthak Sharma


The Directive Principles of State Policy(DPSP) are enshrined in Part IV of the Constituion of
India and extends from Article 36 to 51 of the Constitution. They have been borrowed by the
Constituion framers from the Irish Constituion and found there traces ultimtely in the Spansih
Constitution. In its Literal meaning and in most simple words the DPSP are the Guiding
Principles that directs the state while framing plans and policies. We can also say that DPSP are
the non-justiciable rights of the Citizens of India. Non-justiciable connotes non-enforceable by a
court of law. So, while Part III includes justiciable rights of the citizens of India, Part IV includes
the non-justiciable ones. Furthermore while Fundamental rights are negative obligation over the
state that restrict the state from taking any step that infringes a citizen’s fundamental right, the
DPSP on the other hand are Positive Obligations that directs the state to achieve certain goals not
by restricting it but by obliging it to do. The DPSP could also be seen as a pure reflection of the
principles of Preamble of our constitution. For instance the expression “Justice- Social,
economic, political” is sought to be achieved through DPSP.

Evidence that what distinguished Part III and Part IV, in the mind of the framers, was a narrow
conception of legal enforceability/remedies is evident from the debate over Draft Article 36.
Originally worded as “every citizen is entitled to free primary education…”, it was amended to
“The State shall endeavour to provide… free and compulsory education” – on the specific
ground that the language of entitlement (which, of course, logically entails a remedy) was the
language of fundamental rights. In addition, as Minattur points out, the fact that the word
“enforceable” in Article 37 was actually brought in to replace the word “cognizable” (which is of
much wider import), makes the argument compelling.
Types/Classification of DPSP

1. Socialistic Directives

Principal among this category of directives are

1. Securing welfare of the people (Article 38)

2. Securing proper distribution of material resources of the community as to best sub serve
the common-good, equal pay for equal work, protection of childhood and youth against
exploitation. etc. (Article 39)
3. Right to work, education etc. (Article 41)
4. Securing just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief (Article 42)

2. Gandhian Directives

Such directives are spread over several Arts. Principal among such are:

1. To organize village panchayats (Article 40)

2. To secure living wage, decent standard of life, and to promote cottage industries (Article
3. To provide free and compulsory education to all children up to 14 years of age (Article 45)
4. To promote economic and educational interests of the weaker sections of the people,
particularly, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes,
5. To enforce prohibition of intoxicating drinks and cow-slaughter and to organize
agriculture and animal husbandry on scientific lines (Articles 46-48).

3. Liberal intellectual directives

Principal among such directives are:

1. To secure uniform civil code throughout the country. (Art.44)

2. To separate the judiciary from the executive. (Art.50)
3. To protect monuments of historic and national importance
4. To promote international peace and security.

Ammendments and Recent trends in DPSP

The amendment to Article 31C empowered all Directive Principles to ride over the Fundamental
Rights, by stating that “no law implementing any of the Directive Principles could be declared
unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated any of the Fundamental Rights”.

On 31 July 1980, in its judgement on Minerva Mills v. Union of India, the Supreme Court
declared unconstitutional two provisions of the 42nd Amendment which prevent any
constitutional amendment from being “called in question in any Court on any ground” and
accord precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy over the Fundamental Rights of
individuals respectively.

By the 44Th Amendment, A new directive principle has been inserted in article 38, which
provides that State shall secure social order for promotion of welfare of the people.

The Constitution of India in a Directive Principle contained in article 45, has ‘made a provision
for free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of fourteen years within ten
years of promulgation of the Constitution. India could not achieve this goal even after 50 years
of adoption of this provision. The task of providing education to all children in this age group
gained momentum after the National Policy of Education (NPE) was announced in 1986.

The Government of India, in partnership with the State Governments, has made strenuous efforts
to fulfill this mandate and, though significant improvements were seen in various educational
indicators, the ultimate goal of providing universal and quality education still remains
unfulfilled. In order to fulfill this goal, it is felt that an explicit provision should be made in the
Part relating to Fundamental Rights of the Constitution.
With a view to making right to free and compulsory education a fundamental right, the
Constitution (Eighty-third Amendment) Bill, 1997 was introduced in Parliament to insert a new
article, namely, article 21 A conferring on all children in the age group of 6 to 14 years the right
to free and compulsory education. The said Bill was scrutinised by the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Human Resource Development and the subject was also dealt with in its 165th
Report by the Law Commission of India.

After taking into consideration the report of the Law Commission of India and the
recommendations of the Standing Committee of Parliament, the proposed amendments in Part
III, Part IV and Part IVA of the Constitution are being made which are as follows:-

1. To provide for free and compulsory education to children in the age group of 6 to 14 years
and for this purpose, a legislation would be introduced in Parliament after the Constitution
(Ninety-third Amendment) Bill, 200l is enacted;
2. To provide in article 45 of the Constitution that the State shall endeavour to provide early
childhood care and education to children below the age of six years; and
3. To amend article 5lA of the Constitution with a view to providing that it shall be the
obligation of the parents to provide opportunities for education to their children.

The Constitution of India in a Directive Principle contained in article 45, has ‘made a provision
for free and compulsory education for all children up to the age of fourteen years within ten
years of promulgation of the Constitution. We could not achieve this goal even after 50 years of
adoption of this provision. The task of providing education to all children in this age group
gained momentum after the National Policy of Education (NPE) was announced in 1986.

The Government of India, in partnership with the State Governments, has made strenuous efforts
to fulfill this mandate and, though significant improvements were seen in various educational
indicators, the ultimate goal of providing universal and quality education still remains
unfulfilled. In order to fulfill this goal, it is felt that an explicit provision should be made in the
Part relating to Fundamental Rights of the Constitution.
The 97 th Amendment Act of 2011 added a new Directive Principle relating to co-operative
societies. It requires the state to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning,
democratic control and professional management of co-operative societies (Article 43B).

Relationship between DPSP and Fundamental Rights

As Already states earlier DPSP and Fundamental rights are rights for the citizens of India for
their Harmonius development and for achieving the objectives highlighted broadly in the
Preamble of the Constitution. While Part III includes the guranted rights enforceable by the
judiciary Part IV enlists the Moral obligations though not enforceable by the judiciary but vital
for establishing good governance in the country. While the Former part of the constitution are
Negative obligations over the state, the later is the positive one. The genesis and objectives
underlying part III and part IV have common desideratum in responding to the social
consciousness rest with the constitution making force. Which fundamental rights focus on
interests of personality, the Directives principles look on to the welfare of society. Judicial
remedies for fundamental rights and non justice able of directive principles are the deliberate
strategies of the constitution. The dichotomy between part III and part IV and the supremacy of
former over the latter a theory based on formalistic and too textual an interpretation in
Champakam Dorairajan did not last for long time.

A government order of the Madras government divided seats in colleges on the basis of religion
and caste. This was repugnant to article 29(2). But it was argued that the government order could
be supported on the basis of article 46 of the constitution which makes the state responsible for
promoting the education interests of the weaker sections of people. The Supreme Court held that
the fundamental rights under Article 29(2) over the Directive principle under article 46. So the
government order was struck down. It was held that in case of any conflict between part III and
part IV, the part III would prevail. These observations of the court were based on the literal
interpretation of the provision of article 37 which declares the directive principle not justifiable.

A remarkable change had come over in the judicial attitude on the question of inter relationship.
In In re Kerala Education bill
The Supreme Court observed “though the directive principles can not override the fundamental
rights, nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of fundamental rights the court could not
entirely ignore the directive principle but should adopt the principle of harmonious construction
and should attempt to give effect to both as much as possible.

The Supreme Court began to assert that there is “no conflict on the whole” between the
fundamental rights and the directive principles. They are complementary and supplementary to
each other.

In Chandrabhavan and Kesavananda Bharati cases inaugurated a new era of integrationist

approach which could emphasis the under pinning of interrelated value of part III and part IV,
Kesavananda Bharati’s case stood for penetration of the notion of distributive justice under
Article 39(b) and (c) into the property relations by upholding the constitutionality of Article 31c.
the legislative contributions through agrarian and economic reforms, labor welfare and other
social justice statutes have by focusing on social welfare, ultimately enhanced the worth of
fundamental rights. Judicial review, by removing unreasonable provisions monitored this
process. In practice, the interconnections of rights are more sensitized when the government
takes the directive principles of state policy seriously.

In Minerva Mills Limited v/s Union of India

The court observed that the constitution was founded on the bed-rock of balance between part III
and part IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other was to disturb the harmony of the
constitution. This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and the directive principles
is an essential feature of the basic structure of the constitution. Both the fundamental and
directive principles of the state policy are embodying the philosophy of our constitution, the
philosophy of justice social economic and political. They are the two wheels of the chariot as an
aid to make social and economic democracy a truism.

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v/s Union of India

The approach of sticking to strict legalism in the implementation of laws enforcing directive
principles, which in turn promote fundamental rights, has increased the role of directive
principles in the inter-relationship doctrine.

The integrative approach towards fundamental rights and directive principles or that the both
should be interpreted and read together has now come to hold the field. It has now become a
judicial strategy to read fundamental rights along with Directive principles with a view to define
the scope and the ambit of the former. Mostly, directive principles have been used to broaden
and to give depth to some fundamental rights and to imply some more rights therein for the
people over and what are expressly stated in the fundamental rights.

By reading article 21 with the directive principles, the Supreme Court has expanded the horizon
of article 21 and derived there from different rights of the citizen. Some of them are;

Right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution free water, air and environments. The court has
derived this right by reading article 21 with article 48A.
Right to health has been recognized as fundamental rights of the workers under article 21. Article
23 and 24 deal with right against exploitation. Those articles reflect the principles of article 39c.
the directive principles that the tender age of children and not abused and the 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 are supported by the post Maneka jurisprudence of rights of children
under article 21 and 24. In Asad and Salal Hydro project cases, the Supreme Court applied article
24 along with article 21 to prohibit child labor being influence by the above directive principles.
Right to education under article 21A is to be understood with reference to directive principles
contained in article 41 and 45.

It is necessary to look into interrelationship between specific directive principles and

fundamental rights in active practice. The central theme of directive principles is human
development with distributive justice, aims at upward movement of the entire social system by
making more people better off without making others worse off. The interrelationship between
the two results in greater freedom and autonomy to all people, reduction of disparity in access to
resources and opportunities and sustainability of environment. Although directives principles is a
policy, because of its importance to human rights values, its elevation to principle has taken
place through the inter-relationship, at least in core areas.

I. Directive Principles of state policy, which are related to distributive justice, molded the
property relations by influencing the inter-relationship doctrine both directly strive for promoting
justice, social, economic and political, in the social order. According to article 39(b) and (c), the
state shall direct its policy towards equitable distribution of the material resources of the
community, and non-concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.
Article 38(2) directs state to minimize inequalities in income and status amongst individuals and
groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. The protection of
agrarian reform legislations under Article 31(4) and (6) was a manifestation of achieving these
goals in property relations. The post Kameshwar Singh development of incorporating articles
31A and 31B into the constitution was for promoting the policy of distributive justice. This
meant the philosophy underlying article 39b and (c) in the sphere of property relations became
established after the incorporation of article 31c. This provision immunizes the laws providing
for implementation of Directive principles enshrined in Article 39(b) and (c) from any challenges
based on articles 14, 19 and 31.

It was in 1971 that the first step was taken to provide supremacy for directive principles in the
form of article 31c which was added to the constitution by the constitution twenty fifth
amendments Act,1971
The effect of the insertion of articles 31c was to provide supremacy for directive principles
contained in articles and 39(c) over fundamental rights contained in articles 14, 19 and 31. It
enhanced the utility of directive principles which had stood the testimony of the Supreme Court
in Kesavananda Bharti v/s State of Kerala

The Court observed: In building up a just and social order it is sometimes imperative that the
fundamental rights shared be subordinated to directive principles, economic goals have no
uncontestable claims for priority over ideological ones on the ground that excellence comes only
after existence. It is only if men exist that there can be fundamental rights.

To further widen the scope of the Directive principles, the constitution (42nd Amendment) Act
1976, amended article 31c for providing supremacy for all the directive principles. The effect of
amendment was to give overriding effect to directive principles and to make them immune from
being declared as violative of the rights guaranteed by articles 14, 19 & 31.

However, the change incorporated by 42nd Amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court
in Minerva Mills Ltd v/s UOI

The Court thus restored Article 31c to its original State as inserted by Twenty fifth amendments,

It thus follows that the Directive principles contained articles 39(b) and 39(c) shall have
supremacy on the fundamental rights contained in articles 14 & 19.
II. The inter-relationship doctrine is very much influenced by article 39A providing for equal
justice and free legal aid the justice delivery system. According to article 39A. The state shall
secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity and
shall in particular provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way to
ensure that opportunities for securing or other disabilities. The role of this provision was pivotal
in removing the impediment of poverty in one’s access to grievance redressed system

In M.H Hoskot Hussainara Khatoon in number of public interest litigation cases, this
provision was relied upon to bring the principle of equality into effect in the system of access to

In M.H. Hoskot the court held that “free legal assistance at state cost is a fundamental right of
person accused of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or personally liberty and his
fundamental rights is implicit in the requirement of reasonable fair and just procedure prescribed
by article 21.
III. The directive principles that the state shall strive to secure its citizens right to an adequate
means of livelihood and make effective provision for securing rights to work article 41 provided
a basis for the supreme court in olga tellis to locate right to livelihood in right to life under article
21, at least the circumstance of deprivation of that right. The post Maneka approach of just a fair
and reasonable procedure become a handy instrument in this regard similarly various positive
rights of life like right to food, health, environment and education were evolved by emphasizing
on the relevant directive principles of state policy. It is important to note that the language of
these provisions hinted the limitation of the scope of the positive rights also. This enabled a
pragmatic approach with regard to positive rights.

IV. The directive principle that “tender age of children are not abused” and article 39(f) could
give impetus to and also get supported by the post Maneka jurisprudence of rights of children
under articles 21 and 24. In Asiad construction and Salal hydro project cases the Supreme Court
applied Article 24 in collaboration with article 21 to prohibit child labor being partly influenced
by the above directive principles. In Lakshmikanth Pandey a case concerning transnational
adoption to conform to article 14, and 21 The PIL cases relating to rights of children under
custodial detention also reflect similar approach.

V. The directive principles of “Equal pay for equal work” and “participation of workers in
management” were received through right to equality under article 14 into part III in Randhir
Singh v/s UOI and national textile workers Union v/s P.R. Ramakrishna cases, and in turn
assisted freedom of occupation under article 19(1) or right to livelihood under Article 21. In
consumer education and research centre v/s UOI by reading article 21 with articles 39(c), 41, 43
and 48A K. Ramaswamy J held for the court, “The health and strength of the worker is an
integral facet of right to life”.

VI. The directive principles relating to uniform civil code has to potentiality of using the
interrelationship doctrine for its implementation. Application of articles 14, 19, 21 in examining
the constitutionality rights or right to maintenance has shown the permeability of these noble
principles into personal laws will be compelled to conform to these standards, and hence uniform
of constitutional spirit will persuade for uniform standards. In John Vallmattam v/s UOI where
section 118 of Indian success Act 1925 which discriminated between religious communities in
the matter of allowing death bed bequests was struck down as violative of articles 14, 15, 16 and
26. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to effectuate the policy of uniform civil code.

VII. Articles 46 of DPSP provides a guidance for affirmative actions under articles 15(4) and
16(4) and a pointer for resonant the tension between formal and substantive equality by laying
emphasis on infusing of strength and ability to compete, through education and training to the
weaker sections.

VIII. The directives principles that the state shall Endeavour to foster respect for international
law and treaty obligations articles 51 has a great potentiality of absorbing the international
principle relating to guarantee of human rights , and thus influence the inter-relationship

In Air India statutory Corporation v/s United Labor Union, it has been held that the directive
principles in the constitution are forerunners of the UNO convention on right to development as
inalienable human rights and every person and all people are entitled to participate in contribute
to and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development in which all human rights,
fundamental freedoms would be fully realized. These principles are embedded as integral part of
the constitution in the directive principles. Therefore, the directive principles now stand elevated
to inalienable fundamental human rights.

It can be concluded on a Critical analysis of Part IV of the Constitution that in the recent scenario
these Guidelines laid down for the Government are made more and more enforceable by the law
courts despite Article 37 which makes it unenforceable. The Constitution makers were of the
mind that a good Government is one that withstands and fulfills all these Objectives. Howsoever,
these can’nt be forced upon the Executive by the Judiciary but their non-achievement by the
government would render consequences in the public domain among its voter as their non-
achievement means failure of the Government which could lead it to a defeat in the Next
Elections. Finally, it can be concluded that making the DPSPs enforceable is unnecessary. The
Assembly did not want to enforce the Directives because they feared that they would become out
of date over time. Secondly, most of their provisions have been enforced through various
legislations; those that are not enforceable have debatable relevance in today’s world.

But merely because they are not justiciable in a court of law, does not render them useless. Their
importance has increased manifold over the years. They serve not only as guidelines today, but
also keep a check on the governments, even though that check is not the Court’s but the citizens’.
The parties that form governments today are not concerned with the well-being of the nation.
They play divisive politics for their personal betterment. They are concerned with the furtherance
of their ideologies that the nation may not even share. In this environment, the DPSPs are a
yardstick for the government’s performance and also a check on arbitrary legislation.

We should be not blinded by the glorious provisions contained in these Directives. They are
useful and define us as a welfare state, but enforcing them will serve no purpose. They have
mostly been made justiciable through other laws, and amending them will give rise to gross
misuse by fanatics. The current position of the Directives is balanced and desirable. But it is also
recommended that they must be made secular and free of morals that they impose on citizens.
They must incorporate the sentiments held by the nation as a whole and not those held by only a
particular class.