Polity: Directive Principles of

State Policy 4.1

Presented by Dr. Roman Saini
 About me
• IAS, Doctor and trying to be a good teacher

• If you want to know more, you can read online.

• Spread the word of this education revolution.

• Any query or doubt, please comment below the video on youtube or

on Facebook page: www.facebook.com/romansaini.official
 Directive Principles of State Policy -
Introduction
• Part IV of the Constitution, Article 36-51

• Irish constitution of 1937 (Spanish Constitution)

• The state should keep them in mind while framing laws and enacting policies,
even though they are non-justiciable in nature.

• Article 36, the term ‘State’ in Part IV has the same meaning as in Part III dealing with
Fundamental Rights (legislative and executive branches of the central and state
governments, all local authorities, other public authorities) [State in part III=Part IV]

• Similar to ‘Instrument of Instructions’ (Government of India Act of 1935), according

to Dr. BR Ambedkar
• Article 37 reveals that :

• The Directive Principles are not justiciable, not legally enforceable in court of law

• Set the agenda for economic, social and political programme for a modern
democratic State

• Objective is to come close to achieving ideals of justice, liberty, equality and

fraternity as enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution

• Concept of a ‘welfare state’ NOT a ‘police state’

• In short, they are positive obligation of the state where the state has a duty to
implement the DPSP’s by incorporating them in policies formulated laws enacted
by legislature.
 Why DPSP non-justiciable
• Founding fathers of nation, in all their wisdom, divided rights in 2
categories: FR which is justiciable and DPSP, which is non-
justciable because:

• Not enough financial resources

• Vast diversity and backwardness will deter their implementation

• Newly independent Indian State had too many things to worry

about. So it should be free to decide the order, the time, the place
and the mode of implementing DPSP
 Non-justiciable, yet?
• No compulsion for implementation from judiciary BUT political
compulsion from popular electorate (Dr. BR Ambedkar). Hence, they are
fundamental in the governance of the country

• Play a crucial rule in conclusion by courts whether a law is

constitutionally valid or not.

• Present situation: The Supreme Court can overrule 14,19 if a law wants
to give effect to DPSP

• It shall be the duty of the State to apply these Directive Principles while
formulating policies or making laws for the governance of the State
• Dr. BR Ambedkar: A government which rests on popular vote can hardly
ignore the Directive Principles while shaping its policy. If any government
ignores them, it will certainly have to answer for that before the electorate
at the election time.

• Alladi Krishna Swamy Ayyar: “No ministry responsible to the people can
afford light- heartedly to ignore the provisions in Part IV of the Constitution”

• Unanimous voice of CA- Art 37: “These principles are fundamental in the
governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply
these principles in making laws”

• Middle path, pragmatic view, more dependent on people’s will than court
procedures
 Evolution
• Kautilya – Responsibility of the King to the people of his Kingdom

• Civil, Economic and Social Rights

• British period – economic exploitation

• Deprived of social rights and political freedom

• Hence we gave to ourselves social justice (Social and economical rights)

• Epitomise the ideals of the people of India

• Evolved along the emergence of constitutional form of government

• Constitutionalism = that government can and should be legally limited in its powers,
and that its authority or legitimacy depends on its observing these limitations

• Welfare state: State exists for welfare of people and is grounded in a set of inalienable
rights of the individuals.

• Form of social and economic rights of citizens which are to be extended to them by
the state by exacting necessary laws.

• Form of instruction or direction to the state.

• Unique blend of principles of socialism, Gandhism, western liberalism and the ideals
of freedom struggle of India.

• Seek to promote a comprehensive, social, economic and administration structure for a

modern democratic state.
 Contrast betwen FR and DPSP
FR
Negative, prohibit state to do
something
Justiciable i.e. legally
enforceable, if they are violated
Objective: Establishing political
democracy
Legal sanctions, no need of
legislation for implementation
Individual based
Any law in violation of FR; SC is
bound to declare it null and void
DPSP
Positive, require state to do
something
Non-justiciable i.e. not legally
enforceable, if they are violated
Objective: Establishing socio-
economic democracy
Moral and political sanctions,
need of legislation for
implementation
Community based
No such binding
Relationship between FR and DPSP
• DPSP + FR = Soul, philosophy, cornerstone, conscience (Graneville
Austin) of constitution

• Purpose: fix certain goals - (social and economic) by bringing non-

violent social revolution

• Art 37: state to incorporate the DPSP in the policies formulated by

executive and laws enacted by the legislature

• If such a law is passed to give effect to one or more DPSP, violates one
or more of the FR then what is the relationship b/w FR and DPSP
 State of Madras v. Champakam
Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226)
• SC held that the DPSP are subordinate to the FR

• DPSP shall conform and run subsidiary to FR.

• If there is any conflict between them, FR shall prevail over DPSP.

• On the basis of such a narrow interpretation, many of the social

legislation including land reform acts were held to be
unconstitutional by SC.
FR>>DPSP
 In Re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957. Reference
Under Article 143(1) of The Constitution of India,
AIR1958 SC956

• In determining the scope and ambit of the fundamental rights relied

on by or on behalf of any person or body the court may not entirely
ignore these directive principles of State policy laid down in Part IV
of the Constitution but should adopt the principle of harmonious
construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as
possible.
 In Re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957. Reference
Under Article 143(1) of The Constitution of India,
AIR1958 SC956

• In determining the scope and ambit of the fundamental rights relied

BORING
on by or on behalf of any person or body the court may not entirely
ignore these directive principles of State policy laid down in Part IV
of the Constitution but should adopt the principle of harmonious
construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as
possible.
• However, after realising the growing importance of DPSP the SC gave
a wider interpretation to provision of constitution to reconcile the
FR and DPSP as far as possible.

• In the Kerala education bill 1957 case, the SC held that

• there is no inherent conflict b/w the FR and DPSP.

• They together constitute an integrated scheme of establishing

political, social and economic democracy in country.

• Thus they are supplementary to each other and must be

harmoniously constructed
• Similar theory also in The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v.
Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and Ors., AIR1976SC1455

• Where two judicial choices are available, the construction in

conformity with the social philosophy of Part IV has preference.

• DPSP are stairs to climb, to become Socialistic State where

everyone has some basic rights and FR are means to reach the
TOP

• The SC also propounded the theory of Harmonisation.

 Theory of Harmonisation

• If a law passed by a state giving effect to one or more DPSP

capable of giving one or more interpretation

• If one of the interpretation leads to the DPSP being in harmony

with FR and the other interpretation lead to a conflict between
them,

• Court shall prefer the first interpretation and validate the law.
• This is the mandate of constitution, not only to executive and
legislature but also to judiciary.

• However if such a law is capable of only one interpretation that

leads to a conflict b/w DPSP and FR, the court shall have no
choice but to implement the FR in reference to DPSP.

• On basis of above interpretation, the SC held the Bank

Nationalisation Act and The Privy Purses (Abolition) Act 1971 as
unconstitutional (null and void).
FR>DPSP
 Golaknath case, 1967

• Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away or

abridge any of the Fundamental Rights, which are ‘sacrosanct’ in
nature.

• Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of

the Directive Principles.
FR>>>>DPSP
 www.facebook.com/romansaini.official

Tweet
@RomanSaini

Spread the word and help those who cannot afford coaching