CHAPTER - I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL
The ruling political gospel of the nineteenth century was laissez faire which
manifested itself in the theories of individualism, individual enterprise and self-help. 1 The
philosophy envisaged minimum Government control, maximum free enterprise and
contractual freedom. At this time, State was characterized as the “law and order” State
and its role was conceived to be negative as its interest extended primarily to defending
the country from external aggression, maintaining law and order within country,
dispensing justice to its subjects and collection a few taxes to finance these activities. It
was an era of free enterprise and minimum Government responsibility and functions. 2 At
one time, it was thought that the State was mainly concerned with the maintenance of law
& order and protection of life, liberty & property of its subjects. 3 The management of
social and economic life was not regarded as Government responsibility. But the laissez
faire doctrine resulted in human misery. It came to be realized that the bargaining
position of every person was not equal and uncontrolled contractual freedom led to
exploitation of the weaker by the stronger, e.g., of the labour by the management in
industries. On the one hand, slums, unhealthy and dangerous conditions of work, child
labour, widespread poverty, and exploitation of masses, but on the other hand,
concentration of wealth in a few hands, became the order of the day. It came to be
recognized that the State should take active interest in ameliorating the conditions of the
poor. This approach gave rise to the political dogma of “collectivism” which favoured
State intervention in, and social control and regulation of individual enterprise. 4
Before 1947, India was a police State. The ruling foreign power was primarily
interested in strengthening its own domination; the administrative machinery was used
mainly with that object in view and the civil service came to be designed as the “steel

1
A.V. Dicey, Law and Public Opinion in England 126-210 (University of California Press, California,
1961).
2
M P Jain & S N Jain, Principles of Administrative Law 2 (Wadhwa & Company, Nagpur, 5th edn., 2005).
3
J.N.Pandey, The Constitutional Law of India 433(Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 50th edn., 2013).
4
Supra note 1 at 212-302.

1
frame”.5 The British authority recognized and regulated India’s economy in the interest
of British trade and industry and organized a modern administrative system to guarantee
order and security. Because of the industrial revolution which had begun in the middle of
the eighteenth century, the British wanted to make India a big market for their goods.6
The State did not concern itself much with the welfare of the people. But all this changed
with the advent of independence on 15 August 1947 and the task of developing a
Constitution for the Nation was undertaken by the Constitutional Assembly of India.7 So,
a conscious effort began to be made to transform the country into a welfare State. The
State started to act in the interests of social justice; it assumed a ‘positive’ role. In the
course of time, out of dogma of collectivism emerged the concept of the “social welfare
State” which lays emphasis on the role of the State as a vehicle of socio-economic
regeneration and welfare of the people.8 The emergence of the social welfare State9
concept has affected the democracies very profoundly. It has led to State activism, there
has occurred a phenomenal increase in the area of State operation; it has taken over a
number of functions which were previously left to private enterprise. The State today
pervades every aspect of human life; it runs buses, railways and postal services; it
undertakes planning of social and economic life of the community with a view to raise
the living standards of the people and reduce concentration of wealth; it improves slums,
plans urban and rural life, looks after health, moral and education of the people; it
generates electricity, works mines and operates key and important industries. It acts as an
active instrument of socio-economic policy, regulates individual life and freedom to a
large extent10, provides many benefits to its citizens, 11 and imposes social control and

5
Supra note 2 at 3.
6
Bipin Chandra, History of modern India 114 (Orient Blackswan Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi, 2009).
7
D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India 18 (LexisNexis Butterworths, Wadhwa, Nagpur, 20th
edn., 2009).
8
Calvin Woodard, “Reality and Social Reform: The Transition from Laissez Faire to the Welfare State” 72
Yale LJ 286 (1963).
9
A welfare State is a concept of Government where the State plays a key role in the protection and
promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality
of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail
themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of
economic and social organization. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_State _ (Visited
on September 10, 2012).
10
Bernard Schwartz, “Crucial Areas in Administrative Law” 34 George Washington LR 401 (1966).
11
Charles A. Reich, “Individual Rights and Social Welfare: The Emerging Legal Issues” 74 Yale LJ 1245
(1965).

2
regulation over private enterprise. The philosophy of welfare State has been expressly
engrained in the Indian Constitution.12 The fact that the Indian Constitution was
conceived and drafted in the mid-twentieth century when the concept of social welfare
State is the rule of the day, gave an advantage to its makers in so far as they could take
cognizance of the various constitutional processes operating in different countries of the
world and thus draw upon a rich fund of human experience, wisdom, heritage and
traditions in the area of governmental process in order to fashion a system suited to the
political, social and economic conditions in India. 13 The makers of the Constitution had
also realized that in a poor country like India, political democracy would be useless
without economic democracy. Accordingly, they incorporated a few provisions in the
Constitution with a view to achieve amelioration of the socio-economic condition of the
masses.14 The Constitution, i.e. the Supreme Law of the Land is thus pervaded with the
modern outlook regarding the objectives and functions of the State. It embodies a distinct
philosophy of Government, and explicitly declares that India will be organized as social
welfare State, i.e. a State which renders social services to the people and promotes their
general welfare.
The Preamble to the Constitution of India records the solemn resolve of the Indian
people to establish a “Socialist”15society based on socio-economic justice. Socio-
economic justice16, however, has to be attained in a democratic way by the rule of law.
The egalitarian principle of democracy requires not only one man one vote, but also the

12
Supra note 5.
13
M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 10, 15 (Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon, 7th edn., 2014).
14
Id. at 1406.
15
The word socialist was not there in the Preamble at the time of adoption of Constitution of India at 26
November, 1949, but it was added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976. As being a socialist
State, the Government is required to take steps to ensure that the minimum facilities of life are provided
to every person, and there are equalities of income and material resources as far as democratically
possible. A socialist State strives to achieve many ideals that are contained in Part IV of the Constitution.
16
Under the concept of social justice the State is required to ensure that the dignity of socially excluded
groups is not violated by the powerful, and they are considered on equal footing with others. “Social
justice, equality and dignity of person are corner stones of social democracy. The concept 'social justice'
which the Constitution of India engrafted, consists of diverse principles essential for the orderly growth
and development of personality of every citizen.” Under economic justice it is contemplated that the
State would not make any distinction among its citizens on the basis of their possession of economic
resources. Economic justice also requires the State to try to narrow down the gap of resourceful and poor
by distributive justice in terms of income and wealth. To achieve the ideals of social and economic
welfare the State is required to involve in different social welfare schemes as like reservation for
SC/ST/OBCs, MGNREGA, Mid Day Meal Scheme, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, etc. See Consumer
Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922.

3
equal and effective right of each and every man to live full human life, to develop his
personality in accordance with the tenets of freedom, equality and justice. This
preambulary message of socio economic justice has been translated into several Articles
dealing with its different facets in Part III (Articles 12-35) and IV (Articles 36-51) of the
Constitution. 17 The former contains the Fundamental Rights of the citizens and latter
deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy.18 Both aim at the establishment of an
egalitarian social order and give sustenance to the rule of law. 19 They aim at the
betterment of the individual as an integrated component of the society. Though, the rights
enumerated in Part III of the Constitution have been designated as fundamental or
enforceable rights but if a person does not have “a minimum of material well being,” 20 so
as to be able to exercise these rights, how can he think of enforcing them. In fact, political
freedom will have no meaning without social and economic justice to the common man.
This is the theme of Directive Principles of State Policy. These Principles aim at bringing
about a non-violent social revolution. It is through such a revolution that the Constitution
seeks to fulfill the basic needs of the common man and to change the structure of our
society. The Constitution visualizes that the society as a whole and every member of the
society should participate in these freedoms.21 To quote Austin:22
The core of the commitment to the social revolution lies in the
Fundamental Rights and in the Directive Principles of State Policy. These
are the conscience of the Constitution.

17
Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation 50 (Oxford University press, New
Delhi, 1999).
18
The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles had their origins in the Indian independence
movement, which strove to achieve the values of liberty and social welfare as the goals of an independent
Indian State. The drafting of the Fundamental Rights was influenced by the adoption of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights by the U. N. General Assembly and the activities of the United Nations
Human Rights Commission as well as decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court in interpreting the Bill of
Rights in the American Constitution. Id. at 73; Directive Principles of Indian Constitution have been
greatly influenced by the State of Irish Constitution. See B.B. Tayal & A.Jacob, Indian History, World
Developments and Civics A-39 (Avichal Publishing Co., Himachal, 2005).
19
State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines, AIR 1958 SC 923; J,K.Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills
Co. v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, AIR 1964 SC 737.
20
Virendra Kumar, “The Institution of Property and the proposed Forty-Forth Amendment of the
Constitution" 38 PULR 62 (1976). The learned author very ably remarks that for a common the Directive
Principles come first, and the Fundamental Rights later, because he must first have “a minimum of
material well being” so as to be able to exercise these rights.
21
Supra note 17.
22
Ibid.

4
 Austin’s observation brings out the true position that Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles are like two wheels of a chariot, one no less important than the other.
You snap one and the other will lose its efficacy. They are like a twin formula for
achieving the social revolution. The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, thus,
connect India’s future, present and past adding greatly to the significance of their
inclusion in the Constitution and giving strength to the pursuit of social revolution in
India. They aim at making the Indian masses free in the positive sense, free from the
passivity endangered by the centuries of coercion by society and by nature…. and the
physical condition that had prevented them from fulfilling their best selves. 23 They exhort
the State to take positive action by protecting the minimum of the individual’s right and
by reducing the number of those whose share of utilities of life fall below the minimum
level. In fact one cannot exist without the other. Take for instance, Article 14 of the
Constitution which guarantees to every citizen, equality before law and equal protection
of laws. But how this right can be exercised by those weaker sections of the society who
been continuously oppressed, suppressed and exploited for years together. Similarly,
Article 21 gives a right to life and personal liberty, but how a person who is suffering
from starvation can take benefit of this precious freedom. Article 19 guarantees a number
of fundamental freedoms but such freedoms will remain like an empty slogan for a
person who has no food to eat, no roof under which he can take shelter and no clothes to
wear. Article 25 gives religious freedom but the same can be enjoyed by those who have
material means to practice them. In fact, these two chapters read with the Preamble of the
Constitution summarize the legitimate aspirations, lofty ideals and objectives of the
people of the country. But what has happened subsequently is obvious. An impression
has been created that there is conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive
Principles and that two cannot operate in harmony with each other.
The basic distinction between these two fundamental mandates of the Constitution
is that the former are enforceable in the Court of law,24 while the latter are not
enforceable in the Court of law.25 As directives are not enforceable by any Court it has
become common to explore the relationship between enforceable Part III and

23
Id. at 50-51.
24
Article 32, the Constitution of India.
25
Article 37, the Constitution of India.

5
unenforceable Part IV. From the journey through various judicial decisions starting from
Champakam Dorairajan case, 26 it is possible to discern four stages or judicial approaches
with regard to the inter-relationship between Part III and Part IV by virtue of Article 37.
Accordingly, it is known as the subsidiary period. Thus in State of Madras v.
Champakam Dorairajan27, the Supreme Court held that the Directive Principles of State
Policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights
because the latter are enforceable in the Courts while the former are not.28 In course of
time, a perceptible change came over the judicial attitude on this question of
enforceability. The Supreme Court came to adopt the view that although Directive
Principles, as such, were legally non-enforceable, nevertheless, while interpreting a
statute, the Courts could look for light to the “loadstar” of the Directive Principles. Where
two judicial choices are available, the construction in conformity with the social
philosophy of the Directive Principles has preference. 29 Further, the Courts also adopted
the view that in determining the scope and ambit of Fundamental Rights, the Directive
Principles should not be completely ignored and that the Courts should adopt the
principle of harmonious construction and attempt to give effect to both as far as
possible.30 However, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab,31 the Court emphasized that the
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles formed an integrated scheme, which was
flexible enough to respond to the changing needs of the society but kept them in the
subjection of Fundamental Rights. In the second period, which is generally known as
harmonious construction period, an attempt was made by the judiciary to draw a balance
and harmony between Part III and Part IV. The observation that the provisions contained
in Part III and Part IV, ‘are complementary and supplementary to each other’ in C.B.
Boarding and Lodging v. State of Mysore32 signaled the dawn of this period. In
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerela,33 the Supreme Court observed that the
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles constitute the conscience of the

26
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226.
27
Ibid.
28
Id. at 228.
29
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai, AIR 1976 SC 1455.
30
In Re Kerala Educarion Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956.
31
AIR 1967 SC 1643.
32
AIR 1970 SC 2042.
33
AIR 1973 SC 1461.

6
Constitution. There is no antithesis between the both, and one supplements the other. The
Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights should be construed in harmony with each
other and every attempt should be made by the Court to resolve any apparent
inconsistency between them. 34 Later in Minerva Mills v. Union of India,35 it was held that
harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is an
“essential feature” of the basic structure of the Constitution. Chandrachud C.J., in this
case said that the Fundamental Rights “are not end in them but are the means to an end”.
The end is specified in the Directive Principles. It was further observed in the same case
that the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles together, are the “conscience of the
Constitution”. In Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India,36 Balakrishanan, C.J. said that
no distinction can be made between the two sets of rights. The Fundamental Rights
represent the civil and political rights and the Directive Principles embody social and
economic rights. Merely because the Directive Principles are not justiciable by the
judicial process does not mean that they are of subordinate importance. Later being
fueled by the International revelation and realization37 that the two kinds of human rights
namely civil and political rights and economic and social rights are actually
complementary to one another as civil and political rights cannot be realized without
economic and social rights, the judiciary while interpreting Part III started reading Part
IV into Part III.38 Many of the un-enumerated rights39 are read into the list of
Fundamental Rights by interpreting Part III in the light of Part IV as both are seen
complementary to each other.40 In the Unikrishanan v. State of Andra Pradesh41, J.
Jeeven Reddy said that the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are
34
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490.
35
AIR 1980 SC 1789; J&K National Panthers Party v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 3.
36
(2008) 6 SCC 1.
37
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), together with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966),
make up the International Bill of Human Rights.
38
Article 39A has been found to be an interpretative tool for Article 21 in Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot
v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548.
39
For example Right to health, Right to Shelter, Right to Education etc. For detail, see Chapter V.
40
The Court’s Path-breaking decision in Manaka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 was the
critical moment in this transformation. Thenceforth, the Court resuscitated judicial activism, mainly to
render Constitutional liberties a living reality for the most vulnerable and powerless sections of Indian
Society.
41
AIR 1993 SC 2178; Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. v. Union of India (1996) 10 SCC 104; Rajasthan v.
Union of India & Others (2012) 6 SCC 1; Paramati Educational and Cultural Trust & Others v. Union
of India & Others (2014) 8 SCC 1; Charu Khurana & Others v. Union of India, 2014 Indlaw SC 781.

7
supplementary and complementary to each other, and not exclusionary of each other, and
that the Fundamental Rights are but a means to achieve the goals indicated in Directive
Principles. Further, in Rajasthan v. Union of India & Another, 42 It has been held that
Fundamental Rights must be construed in the light of the Directive Principles. Since then,
it has now become a judicial strategy to read Fundamental Rights along with Directive
Principles with a view to define the scope and ambit of the former, by and large this
assimilative strategy has resulted in broadening, and giving greater depth and dimension
to, and even creating more rights for the people over and above the expressly stated,
Fundamental Rights.43 The biggest beneficiary of this approach has been Article 21. By
Article 21 with the Directive Principle, the Supreme Court has derived a bundle of rights.
As, the Supreme Court has stated in Baadhua Mukti Morcha, that the right to live with
human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles
of State Policy44 particularly Clause (e) and (f) of Article 39 with Article 47 of the
Constitution of India 45; Right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution free water and
air and environment46; Right to health and social justice has been held to be a
Fundamental Rights of the workers. The Court has derived this right by reading Article
21 with Articles 39(e), 41,43, and 48 A47i.e., right to health, Right to work, Right to
Shelter etc.48 Thus, some DPSPs are actually enforced as Fundamental Rights.49 This
judicial approach indeed led to the third stage namely enforcement stage. In this period
the DPSP, otherwise unenforceable (non-justiciable) were actually enforced though not
directly but indirectly. Initially provisions of Part IV were used to justify restrictions
imposed on the Fundamental Rights and in this fashion; they were indirectly accorded
judicial recognition.50 In determining the reasonableness of a classification under Article

42
(2012) 6 SCC 1.
43
Supra note 13 at 1413.
44
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802, 811-812.
45
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 49.
46
Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.
47
Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922; LIC v. CERC, AIR 1995
SC 1811.
48
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051.
49
Girish Kalyan Kendra Workers Union v Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1173.
50
For example in State of Bombay v. F.N.Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318 with reference to Article 47 it was
held that a restriction imposed by a law on the sale and possession of liquor was a reasonable restriction
in the interest of public; in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252, Article 39 was taken
into consideration while upholding abolition of Zamidari System as it was for a public purpose; Article

8
14 or the reasonableness of a restriction under Article 19, the Court had regard to the
directives and gave such interpretation to the other Articles of the Constitution which
aimed at promoting the goals contained in the Preamble and the DPSP, envisaging a
socialistic polity. 51 Further, in interpretation of the law and the Constitution, the judiciary
does at times take note of the ideals of a social welfare State even though some of the
ideals may not be expressly incorporated in the Constitution.52
Finally, reference may be made to Article 31C, inserted by the 25th Amendment
Act of 1971 which seeks to upgrade the Directive Principles especially to Articles 39(b)
and (c) over the Fundamental Rights contained in Articles 14, 19 and 31. If laws are
made to give effect to the Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights, they shall not be
invalid on the ground that they take away the Fundamental Rights. In case of conflict
between Fundamental Rights and DPSP’s, if the DPSP aims at promoting larger interest
of the society, the Courts shall have to uphold the case in favor of the DPSP.53 The
Supreme Court also emphasized that there is no disharmony between the Directive
Principles and the Fundamental Rights as they supplement each other in aiming at the
goal of bringing about a social revolution and the establishment of a welfare State, which
is envisaged in the Preamble. 54 The Courts, therefore, have a responsibility to so
interpreting the Constitution as to insure implementation of the Directive Principles and
to harmonizing the social objectives underlying therein with individual rights. Justice
Mathew went farthest in attributing to Directive Principles, a significant place in the
Constitutional Scheme. According to him: 55
In building up a just social order it is sometimes imperative that the
Fundamental Rights should be subordinated to Directive
Principles….Economic goals have an uncontestable claim for priority over

43 was used to uphold the validity of Minimum Wages Act,1948 in Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd v. State of
Ajmer, AIR 1955 SC 33; in similar fashion cattle protection laws prohibiting slaughter of cattle was
upheld as it meant to give effect to Article 48 in Md. Hanif Quereshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731.
51
S.R.Bansali, Durga Das Basu’s Human Rights in Constitutional Law 334 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths,
Wadhwa, 3rd edn, 2008); A.David Ambrose, “ Directive Principles of State Policy and Distribution of
Material Resources with Special Reference to Natural Resources – Recent Trends” 55 JILI 4 (2013).
52
Mukherjea, C.J., in Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549, 533; Crown Aluminium Works v.
Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 30; Gujrat Steel Tubes v. Its Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1980 SC 1896; Ashoka
Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2007) 2 SCC 640.
53
Article 31 C, the Constitution of India.
54
Kesavananda Bharti v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
55
Ibid.

9
 ideological ones on the ground that excellence comes only after existence.
It is only if men exist that there can be Fundamental Rights.
Thus, Part IV enjoys a very high place in the Constitutional scheme as it imposes
obligations on the State to take positive actions for creating socio-economic conditions in
which there will be egalitarian social order with social and economic justice to all. 56 The
main intention of including Part IV in the Constitution is that it may form a set of
instructions issued to the prospective lawmakers and executives for their guidance for
good governance.57
These Directive Principles are most glaring examples of the scheme of social
justice in our Constitution, and these principles anticipate a lot of provisions for the
welfare of people at large relating to education, environment, promotion of justice, free
legal aid, living wages, protection of marginalized groups, forest and wildlife, etc. The
Directive Principles are classified under the many categories as: Gandhian, economic and
socialistic, political and administrative, justice and legal, environmental, protection of
monuments and peace and security. 58 Article 38 sets out it unmistakably by providing
that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and promoting
as effectively as it may a social order in which justice – social, economic and political,
shall inform all the institutions of national life. Article 37 makes the Directive Principles
of State Policy fundamental in the governance of the country and provides that it shall be
the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. The Article 39 says that the
citizens, men and women equally have the right to an adequate means of livelihood59;
that the ownership and control of material resources of the community should be so
distributed as best to sub-serve the common good60; that the operation of the economic
system should be such as not to result in the concentration of wealth and means of
production to the common detriment 61; that there should be equal pay for equal work for

56
Minerva Mills, supra note 35; Suresh & another v. State of Haryana, 2014 Indlaw SC 815.
57
“They are instructions to the Legislature and the Executive. Such thing is to my mind to be welcomed,
wherever there is a grant of power in general terms for peace, order and good government, it is necessary
that it should be accompanied by instructions regarding its exercise”, Ambedkar, III Constituent
Assembly Debates at 41.
58
Part IV, the Constitution of India.
59
Article39(a), the Constitution of India.
60
Article39(b), the Constitution of India.
61
Article39(c), the Constitution of India.

10
both men and women62; that the health and strength of the workers, men and women, and
the tender age of children is not abused 63; that the citizens are not forced by economic
necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength and that the children and
youth should be protected against exploitation and against moral and material
abandonment.64 These clauses highlight the Constitutional objectives of building an
egalitarian social order and establishing a welfare State, by bringing about a social
revolution assisted by the State, and has been used to support the nationalization of
mineral resources as well as public utilities.65 Children and youth should be allowed to
develop in healthy manner and should be protected against exploitation and against moral
and material abandonment.66 The re-drafted clause though widens the State obligation
towards children but does not add anything materially to the provisions that are included
in Articles 39 & 42. Article 42 imposes a duty on the State to provide for just and human
conditions of work and maternity relief. Another provision concerning welfare of workers
is Article 43A67 which stipulates participation of workers in the management of industries
and makes workers as partner in the nations’ productive process i.e., participation of
workers in the management of undertakings, establishments or other organizations
engaged in any industry. Beside it, the State shall endeavor to promote voluntary
formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of
co-operative societies. 68
Article 41 of the Constitution provides that the State shall within the limits of its
economic capacity and development; make effective provision for securing the right to
work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness
and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want. Article 38 states that the State
shall strive to promote the welfare of the people and Article 43 states that the State shall
endeavor to secure a living wage and a decent standard of life to all workers.69 It is no
doubt true that Article 38 and Article 43 of the Constitution insist that the State should

62
Article39(d), the Constitution of India.
63
Article39(e), the Constitution of India.
64
Article 39(f), the Constitution of India.
65
D.D. Basu, Shorter Constitution of India 449-450 (Wadhwa & Co., Nagpur, 13th edn., 2003).
66
Article 39 (f) subs. by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, Sec.7 (w.e.f. 3-1-1977).
67
Ins. by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, Sec. 9 (w.e.f. 3-1-1977).
68
Article 43 B ins. by the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011, Sec. 3 (w.e.f. 15-2-2015).
69
J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India 387 (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2008).

11
endeavor to find sufficient work for the people so that they may put their capacity to
work into economic use and earn a fairly good living. 70 The promotion of the cottage
industry and establishment of Panchayti Raj has been two main ideals of Gandhian
philosophy. Speaking from the floor of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar
observed that there was a considerable feeling in the house in favour of governmental
encouragement for the cottage industry. Similarly, there was a considerable opinion to
enact in the Constitution decentralization and the Panchayti Raj. But with emphasize on
industrialization and a highly centralist federal system that was adopted, there was no
alternative but to place these ideals among the Directive Principles. In view of this, latter
part of Article 43 lays down that the State shall endeavor to promote cottage industries on
an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas. Article 40 enjoins the State to take steps
to establish village panchayats.71 Through 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution,
(1991 & 1992 respectively), Panchayati Raj has been given the Constitutional status with
more powers. Panchayati Raj now covers almost all States and Union Territories.
Article 39A72 which has been added to invest the legal process with functional
relevance and promotion of social justice enjoins on the State to make provisions for
providing free legal aid to the weaker sections of the society. The State shall ensure that
the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basic of equal opportunity. It also
recommends that access to justice should not be denied to the citizens merely because of
economic or other disabilities. This is wholly a desirable provision. Legal aid generally is
expensive. The expenses involved in obtaining justice have prevented many people from
fighting for their rights.
Article 44 stipulates for a Uniform Civil Code. This Article caused considerable
difficulty in the Constituent Assembly. It was opposed on the one side by an orthodox
section of Hindus and, on the other hand, by the minorities who thought that with a
Uniform Civil Code they would lose their identity. This Article has not been
implemented because of consistent opposition by the minorities.
There are other directives in Part IV of the Constitution by which State shall
endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they

70
K.Rajendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1982 SCC 273.
71
Paras Diwan, Administrative Law 124 (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 2004).
72
Ins. by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, Sec. 8 (w.e.f. 3-1-1977).

12
complete the age of six years.73 The State also promote with special care, the educational
and economic interests of weaker sections of the society including the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes etc. and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of
exploitation.74 The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard
of living. 75 Article 47 enacts the national policy of prohibition and enjoins the State to
bring about prohibition of the consumption, except for medical purposes, in intoxicating
drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. This directive has been sought to be
implemented from the beginning.
In a predominantly agricultural Hindu society of the ancient times emphasis on
the protection of the cow and other cattle connected with the agriculture was natural. The
question is not merely of the Hindu’s reverence towards cow, though religious aspect of
cow protection cannot be ignored, but protection of milk cattle in a country, which is
suffering from acute shortage of milk, is an imperative need. Article 48 deals with this
and allied matters. It enjoins on the State to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on
modern and scientific lines and in particular, to take steps for preserving and improving
the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught
cattle.
Article 48A76 provides for safeguarding the wild life and forests of the country.
There is at present a growing consciousness and awareness that suitable measures be
adopted to protect the environment, forests and wild life. Article 49 provides for the
protection of monuments and places and objects of artistic or historic interest, declared by
or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance against destruction and
damage. Article 50 enjoins that the judiciary shall be separated from the
executive. Article 51 lays down that the State shall endeavor to promote international
peace and security, to maintain just and honorable relations between nations and to foster
respect for international law and treaties and to encourage settlement of international
disputes by arbitration.
Thus, the ideals stated in the Preamble are reinforced through the Directive

73
Article 45 subs. by the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002, Sec. 3 (w.e.f. 1-4-2010).
74
Article 46, the Constitution of India.
75
Article 47, the Constitution of India.
76
Ins. by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, Sec. 10 (w.e.f. 3-1-1977).

13
Principles of State Policy which spell out in greater detail the goal of economic
democracy, the socio-economic content of political freedom, the concept of welfare
State.77 The concept of a welfare State is strengthened by the Directive Principles of State
Policy which set out the economic, social and political goals of the Indian Constitutional
system. In a numbers of pronouncements,78 the Supreme Court has insisted that these
Directive Principles seek to introduce the concept of a welfare State. They act as check
on the Government, theorized as a yardstick in the hands of the people to measure the
performance of the Government and vote it out of power if it does not fulfill the promises
made during the elections. To quote B.R. Ambedkar:79
If any Government ignores them, they will certainly have to answer for
them before the electorate at the election time.
The Directive Principles are non-justiciable rights of the people. The Directive
Principles, though not justiciable, are fundamental in the governance of the Country. It
shall be the duty of the State80 to apply these principles in making laws.81 The reason
behind the legal non-enforceability and non-justiciability of these principles is that they
impose positive obligations on the State. While taking positive action, Government
functions under several restraints, the most crucial of these being that of financial
resources. In the words of the Supreme Court:82
The Directive Principles of State Policy are made non-justiciable for the
reason that the implementation of many of these rights would depend on
the financial capability of the State. Non-justiciable clause was providing
for the reason that an infant State shall not be made accountable
immediately for not fulfilling these obligations. Merely because the

77
Supra note 13 at 1408.
78
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37; Ashoka Smokeless Coal
India (P) Ltd., supra note 52; Charu Khurana, supra note 41.
79
VII Constituent Assembly Debates at 41.
80
Article 36 provides that the term “State” shall have the same meaning as in Part III of the Constitution.
This means that not only the Union and State authorities but also local authorities shall have a moral
obligation to follow the directives contained in Part IV. See the Constitution of India. The term “State”
includes all authorities within the territory of India. It includes the Government of India, the Parliament
of India, the Government and legislature of the States of India. It also includes all local or other
authorities such as Municipal Corporations, Municipal Boards, District Boards, Panchayats etc. See
Article 12, the Constitution of India.
81
Article 37, the Constitution of India.
82
Supra note 36.

14
 Directive Principles are not justiciable by the judicial process does not
mean that they are of subordinate importance.
The Courts do not, however, enforce a Directive Principle, as such, as it does not
create any justiciable right in favour of an individual. 83 A Court will not issue an Order or
a Writ of Mandamus to the Government to fulfill a Directive Principle.84 According to
quote V.N. Shukla:85
If the Court can compel Parliament to make laws then Parliamentary
democracy would soon be reduced to an oligarchy of judges. It is for this
reason that the Constitution says that the Directive Principles shall not be
enforceable by Courts. However, it does not mean that the Directive
Principles are less important than Fundamental Rights for the simple
reason that they are not judicially enforceable.
The Courts are nevertheless, bound to evolve, affirm and adopt principles of
interpretation which will further not hinder the goal set out in the Directive Principles of
State Policy. 86 Thus, all executive agencies should also be guided by these principles.
Even the judiciary has to keep them in mind in deciding cases.87
In short, the dynamic provisions of the Directive Principles fertilize the static
provisions of the Fundamental Rights. Excellence comes only after existence. This takes
us to a broader spectrum of rights, i.e., social and economic rights which are embodied in
Part IV of the Constitution. The Directive Principles of State Policy are designed to usher
in a social and economic democracy in the country. These Principles obligate the State to
take positive action in certain directions in order to promote the welfare of the people and
achieve economic democracy. These Principles give directions to the legislatures and

83
In Re Thomas, AIR1953 Mad 21; P.M. Ashurathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1989 SC
100.
84
Ranjan Dwivedi v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 624; Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650.
85
Supra note 57 at 494-95; Mahendra.P.Singh, V.N.Shukla’s Constitution of India 345-46 (Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow, 11th edn., 2008); A. David Ambrose, supra note 51 at 1-2.
86
U.B.S.E. Board v. Hari Shankar, AIR 1979 SC 69; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union
Waterfront Workers, AIR 2001 SC 3527: Orissa Textile & Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 2002 SC
708; Ashoka Smokeless supra note 52; State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht (2007) 6 SCC 586.
87
Savita, Supta Das, et.al., Social Science Part-II 29 (National Council of Educational Research and
Training, New Delhi, 2005); S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149; Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v.
Subhash Kapoor (2001) 1 SCC 118; Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (2010) 3
SCC 192.

15
executive in India as regard the manner in which they should exercise their power.88
Austin has rightly said that the Directive Principles were incorporated in our Constitution
with the hope and expectation that someday the tree of true liberty would bloom in
India.89 It is by enacting “Directive Principles of State Policy” in Part IV of the
Constitution that we have endeavored to create a welfare State.90 The idea of welfare
State envisaged by our Constitution can only be achieved if the State endeavors to
implement them with a high sense of moral duty. 91

1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The objective of the present study is to analyze as to what extent Directive
Principles of State Policy have been implemented by the State through different laws and
other policies in the country after Independence and how far away is India to become a
social welfare State. The present study also aims to identify and analyze the philosophy
behind the Directive Principles of State Policy and Preamble of Constitution which also
contain the philosophy of the social welfare State. Soon after the coming into force of the
Constitution, the various States in India enacted legislations in furtherance of the various
social welfare policies enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy. These
legislative measures were later challenged before the Courts as violative of the provisions
of Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. This brought the status
of Directive Principle under discussion. In view of above situation, researcher was
motivated to take up this aspect for its closer scrutiny and to assess the implementation of
Directive Principle of State Policy contained in Part IV of the Constitution. The main
thrust of the present research work will be, however, on the role played by the Directive
Principles of State Policy in providing social welfare to the people of India. The
implementations of various social welfare policies contained in the directives have been
taken as the basis to assess the gap between the promises and performances. It has been
stressed that implementative aspect of social welfare policies contained in the directives
will have to be judged not only from what we have achieved but also from what we have
failed to do. It is in this spirit that the present study has been undertaken.

88
Supra note 79 at 476, 493-94.
89
Supra note 17 at 52.
90
Ibid.
91
Supra note 3 at 435.

16
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The present study raises the following questions:
1. How far we have been able to achieve the objectives and realize the goals of
social welfare State as set out in the Constitution through the implementation of
Directive Principles of State Policy?
2. How and why the Directive Principles of State Policy were incorporated in the
Constitution?
3. How the Directive Principles of State Policy can be reconciled with the
Fundamental Rights and their Constitutional status?
4. To what extent the judiciary has shown its responsiveness towards the
implementation of social welfare concept under the Indian Constitution?
5. Does Part IV of the Constitution need a fresh look?
6. Should some of the Directive Principles of State Policy be made justifiable?
7. How more effective implementation of the Directive Principles of State Policy is
possible?

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher has followed the doctrinal method of research for the purpose of
present study. Doctrinal research, of course, involves analysis of case law, arranging,
ordering and systematizing legal propositions. As a part of doctrinal study, all the
primary and secondary sources of information have been analyzed and evaluated. It also
includes the report of various commissions and committees appointed from time to time.
Secondary resources include research articles, books and other relevant publication on the
subject. The descriptive and analytical methods of writing have been adopted. All
research is the gathering of evidence or information for ascertaining an assumption or
verifying some hypothesis. Research is a series which adds in the old, new suggestion
and recommendations. Research is therefore, an enquiry for the verification of a fresh
theory or for supplementing prevailing theories by new knowledge. No research can be
purely new, as even original discoveries are an extension of the search already
undertaken, being shaped generally as expressing agreement or refutation or plain
addition. A researcher is thus unavoidably burdened with the heritage of information
17
already collected in his area of work. Endless desire to research impels the researcher to
find new horizons and in present research, researcher has endeavored to do the same.

1.5 SCHEME OF THE STUDY

The study is divided into six chapters. The First chapter deals with the theory of
laissez faire that resulted in human misery and evolution of concept of “social welfare
State” which lays emphasis on the role of the State as a vehicle of socio-economic
regeneration and welfare of the people. An attempt has been made to examine the
Constitutional provisions of Directive Principles of State Policy and Preamble of the
Constitution that contain the concept of socio-economic justice and the philosophy of
welfare State. The role of judiciary has also been described briefly in diluting the conflict
between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. A summary of
research method and scheme of the study are to be made in manuscript has been
demonstrated.
The Second chapter deals with the origin and development of Fundamental Rights
and Directive Principles. The Constitution of India Bill, 1895, the Commonwealth of
India Bill, 1926, the Nehru Report of 1928 and the famous Karachi Resolution of 1931
have been examined to show that both these sets of rights have a common origin. The
leaders of our freedom movement drew no distinction between them. The Constitutional
proposals of Sapru Committee of 1945 have further been examined to show that the
Committee having been influenced by the Irish Constitution of 1937 envisaged those
rights as falling in two classes, one justiciable and the other non-justiciable and left the
issue to be finally settled by the Constitution making body. The second half of this
chapter is devoted to the deliberations of the framers of the Constitution in regard to the
incorporation of the provisions relating to the Directive Principles of State Policy in the
Constitution. This half of the chapter gives a deep insight into the various reasons that led
the Constitution makers to formulate these provisions in the present form. An attempt has
been made to show that the Assembly faced a lot of difficulties in drawing the line
between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. This chapter also spells out clearly
the approach of the founding fathers towards these directives and the reasons for making
them unenforceable through Courts. An attempt has also been made to analyze the nature
and significance of the Directive Principles.
18
 The Third chapter presents an analytical study of the Directive Principles. An
attempt has been made to present an acceptable classification of these directives and then
to analyze them in their proper prospective in regard to their impact in providing socio-
economic justice to the poor millions of our country. This chapter is also devoted to a
discussion on the relationship between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
of State Policy. On the initial stage the judiciary showed more concern in protecting the
property rights against legislations which were enacted to implement the Directive
Principles of State Policy. To resolve this dichotomy between these two fundamental
values of the Constitution, an attempt has been made to show that if the ‘institutional
arrangements’ for implementation of Part III and Part IV are kept in view the chances of
avoiding conflicts between the two can be minimized. Various judicial pronouncements
right from the Champakam Dorairajan,92 Minerva Mills,93 etc., to Ashok Kumar Thakur94
J&K National Panthers Party95and Rajasthan v. Union of India,96 have been orderly
examined so as to ascertain how far the judiciary has been able to appreciate the value
relationship between the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. It has been
demonstrated that the responsibility for implementing the enforceable rights which are
called Fundamental Rights rests primarily with the legislature but ultimately with the
Courts. In marginal situations, however, the conflict if any can be solved by the
assignment of priorities to the relative value of the particular ‘right’ or the ‘principle’ as
the case may be. If this approach is kept in view, the supposed confrontation or
dichotomy between these two Parts would remain nothing more than a myth.
The Fourth chapter seeks to evaluate the implementation of Directive Principles
of State Policy under the Indian Constitution. This chapter has been divided into two
main parts. The first part is devoted to a discussion on the post-independence land
reforms policies and legislation and its implementation and the second one is devoted to a
general discussion on evaluation of various socio-economic policies contained in Part IV
of the Constitution. It is revealed that the Five Years Plans initiated soon after the
inauguration of the Constitution have followed the path laid down in Directive Principles

92
AIR 1951 SC 226.
93
AIR 1980 SC 1789.
94
(2008) 6 SCC 1.
95
AIR 2011 SC 3
96
(2012) 6 SCC 1.

19
of State policies which in unmistakable words are the chief instruments of securing socio-
economic justice to the poor millions of India. It has been shown that the policy of land
reforms which was initiated right at the beginning of the planning process has to a great
extent succeeded in abolishing the so called big landlordism and in re-distributing this
primary source of livelihood (Land). The chapter also highlights that during the past six
decades substantial progress has been made in improving the living standard of the
people by providing them new opportunities and by reduction of inequalities in income,
wealth and opportunities. Special emphasis has continued to be laid on giving benefits to
the relatively less privileged class of society. Moreover, a sincere effort has been made to
reveal the present status of directives relating to Panchayati Raj, free legal aid, Uniform
Civil Code, protection of wild life and environment, modernization of agriculture and
animal husbandry and independent judiciary etc.
The Fifth chapter examines the role of Judiciary towards the implementation of
Directive Principles of State Policy to achieve the socio-economic justice and philosophy
of welfare State. It has also been revealed that after 1978, the seminal decision Maneka
Gandhi case,97 which has been the pillar of reform both in civil and political liberties and
socio-economic justice, the judiciary in some of its latest pronouncements as Steel
Authority of India Ltd.,98Arindam Chattopadhyay,99 T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad,100
Arif Usman Kapadia,101etc. has shown a greater degree of sensitivity for establishing the
welfare State and in providing socio-economic justice by implementing some Directive
Principles of State Policy through Article 21.
The last i.e., Sixth chapter of the study gives a summary of the discussion and
incorporates a few suggestions.

1.6 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In order to understand the above raised questions properly, it will be proper to
review the existing literature relating to the topic of the study. In the context of the
present study, it is important to take cognizance of some studies, related to research.

97
(1978)1 SCC 248.
98
AIR 2011 SC 897
99
AIR 2013 SC 1535
100
(2014) 1 SCR 923.
101
Writ Petition no. 777 of 2015

20
Keeping in view the philosophy behind the Directive Principles of State Policy and
Preamble of Constitution and to analyze as to what extent Directive Principles of State
Policy have been implemented by the State through different laws and other policies in
the country and how far away is India to become a social welfare State, many books,
research articles have been surveyed. The reviews of some books etc. are stated below.
Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a nation (1966 &
1999) - The book has blended each and every concept of Indian Constitution. It finds the
origin of the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy in the freedom
movement. It emphasis the concept of socio-economic justice that has been translated
into Part III and Part IV of the Constitution and equally stress that the Fundamental
Rights and Directive Principles are like two wheels of a chariot, one no less important
than the other. They are like a twin formula for achieving the social revolution. The book
enlightens the importance of DPSP as these principles aim at bringing about a non-
violent social revolution. The Directive Principles were incorporated in our Constitution
with the hope and expectation that someday the tree of true liberty would bloom in India.
M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (2014) – Through the chapter on DPSP,
author enjoins the directives with Preamble of the Constitution. The ideals stated in the
Preamble are reinforced through the Directive Principles of State Policy which spell out
in greater detail the goal of economic democracy, the socio-economic content of political
freedom, the concept of welfare State.
Tara Chand, History of the Freedom Movement in India (2005) – The book
covers all the Constitutional development during the freedom movement and witness the
whole development of Fundamental Rights and socio-economic rights from the formation
of the Indian National Congress, the Commonwealth of India Bill, 1925, Swaraj
Constitution, 1927, the Nehru Committee Report, 1928, to the Three Round Table
Conferences, 1930 etc.
B. Shiva Rao, The Framing of India’s Constitution: A Selected Documents (Vols.
I-IV 1967-1968) – This project of B. Shiva Rao, has comprehensively dealt with each and
every aspect relating to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles before and after the
setting up of the Constituent Assembly, as division of rights by Sapru Committee into
justiciable and non-justiciable rights. It mentions also B.N. Rau’s Notes and Draft on

21
Fundamental Rights and Directive principles.
Constituent Assembly Debates, Vols. I- IX of these Constitutional debates also
relevant to be referred here as these debates discuss all the proceedings of Constituent
Assembly as Deliberations of the Advisory Committee and of the Drafting Committee on
Directive Principles of State Policy, Reading of the Draft Constitution in the Constituent
Assembly, and Adoption of Directive Principles as well as amendments and all hurdles
and difficulties had to be faced by the Constitutional Advisory Committee and Drafting
Committee in making division between rights which ought to be enforceable in Court of
law and which unenforceable. Thus, Constitutional Assembly Debates ample cover all
the proceedings of Constituent Assembly.
D.D.Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (2009) – Keeping in view the
classification of Directive principles in Constitutional Scheme, the book is very relevant
and present the very scientific classification of Directive Principles for the purpose of
present study.
Upendra Baxi, “Little Done Vast-Undone: Some reflections on Reading
Granville Austin’s Indian Constitution” (1967) - Learned Professor classified the
directives in two categories: viz., fundamental directives and transitional directives.
Professor Baxi lays more stress on Article 38 and 39. In his view, Article 38 is basic to
the desired Constitutional goal while Article 39 specifies certain modalities for its
attainment. But the learned Professor seems to have gone far away when he observes that
the directives ranging from prohibition of cow slaughter to obligation to provide “just and
human conditions of maternity relief” and from prohibition of liquor to protection of
national monuments fall in the category of less fundamental or transitional directives.
This new invented category has been criticized by many authors.
Paras Diwan, “Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights towards the
Constitutionally proclaimed goal of justice” (1980) – The present article evolved an
increasingly pervasive classification of Directive principles. Prof. Diwan has complete
approach to Part IV of the Constitution of India. He made an exhaustive and universally
accepted classification of the Directive Principles in its proper prospective. He
dynamically classified the directives and refrained from making any rigid classification
and studied them in an atmosphere of openness.

22
 Many more Article and books of renowned scholars and jurists have been
discussed to study the classification of directives as G.S. Sharma, “Concept of
Leadership Implicit in the Directive Principles of State Policy under the Indian
Constitution” (1965), P.B. Gajendragadhker, The Constitution of India: Its Philosophy
and Basic Postulates (1969). Ranbir Singh and A.Lakshminath, Constitutional Law
(2006) etc.
A.David Ambrose, “Directive Principles of State Policy and Distribution of
Material Resources with Special Reference to Natural Resources – Recent Trends”
(2013) – The Article very lucidly present the summary of about all the Court cases on
relationship of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. The author
has briefly dealt with also new strategy of judiciary to read Part IV into Part III. Many of
the un-enumerated rights are read into the list of Fundamental Rights by interpreting Part
III in the light of Part IV as both are seen complementary to each other. In the
Unikrishanan case, J. Jeeven Reddy said that the Fundamental Rights and Directive
Principles are supplementary and complementary to each other, and not exclusionary of
each other, and that the Fundamental Rights are but a means to achieve the goals
indicated in Directive Principles. Since then, it has now become a judicial strategy to read
Fundamental rights along with Directive Principles with a view to define the scope and
ambit of the former, by and large this assimilative strategy has resulted in broadening,
and giving greater depth and dimension to, and even creating more rights for the people
over and above the expressly stated, Fundamental Rights.
Justice Kurian Joseph, “Judiciary and Social Welfare in India” (2013) – The
author highlights the concept of social welfare. As the Constitution of India provides for
Fundamental Rights in its Part III and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV
and provided for the basis for social welfare measures. Roughly they represent the two
streams in the evolution of human rights, which divide them into so-called negative and
positive or civil and political and social and economic rights respectively.
M. P. Singh, “The Statistics and the Dynamics of the Fundamental Rights and the
Directive Principles-A Human Rights Perspective” (2003) – the Article relates to
philosophy of the Constitution behind the Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. The core of
the commitment to the social revolution lies in Part III and Part IV, in the Fundamental

23
Rights and in the Directive Principles of State Policy. As ‘Justiciability’ is the basis of
division between them. The former are justiciable, which the latter are not. As reference
to the Preamble and Constituent Assembly Debates would show, it would be invidious
and indeed dangerous to give primacy or overriding effect to Fundamental Rights over
the Directive Principles. In fact, Indian Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court
minimizes the gap between Fundamental Rights and social welfare rights. Unfortunately,
during the initial period of the working of the Constitution, the trend of judicial
pronouncements showed an undue emphasis on the aspect of justiciability. However in
later it was held that “harmony and Balance is an essential feature of the basic structure
of the Constitution. The Constitution gives an idea of the society which is sought to be
built and also defines the space and the framework of action to realize the vision.
After reviewing the above existing literature, the researcher has attempted to
discuss the whole Constitutional Scheme relating to Directive Principles to analyze the
real philosophy behind them which Constitution makers had conceive in their mind while
incorporating them in Constitution and their relationship with Fundamental Rights.
Endless effort of researcher is to evaluate the implementation of DPSP through
Legislative and Executive efforts as well as the role of Judiciary with regard to these
directives in the implementation of socio-economic justice.

24