Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DPSPs Students
DPSPs Students
Directive + principle + state + policy which suggest that these are the principles that direct
the state when it makes policies for its people. These DPSPs act as a guideline for the state
and are needed to be taken into consideration while coming up with any new law but a citizen
cannot compel the state to follow DPSPs. Dr B.R Ambedkar while debating on Part IV
argued –
“It is the intention of this Assembly that in future both the legislature and the executive
should not merely pay lip service to these principles enacted in this part, but that they should
be made the basis of all executive and legislative action that may be taken hereafter in the
matter of the governance of the country”
Article
What it says
Number
It authorizes the state to secure a social order for the promotion of the
Article 38
welfare of people.
Certain principles of policies to be followed by the state. The State
shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing
(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an
adequate means to livelihood;
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the
community are so distributed as best to subserve the common
good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the
concentration of wealth and means of production to the common
Article 39 detriment;
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;
(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the
tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by
economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or
strength;
Equal justice and free legal aid. The above Directive has been added by
the Constitution(42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, in order to ensure equal
Article justice which has been promised to all the citizens by the Preamble and
39A to further the guarantee of equality before law (Art.14) which has no
meaning to a poor man as long as he is unable to pay for his legal
adviser.
Article
Participation of workers in management of industries.
43-A
Article
Promotion of cooperative societies.
43-B
Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the
age of six years. The Directive does not empower the State to override
the fundamental right of minority communities to establish educational
Article 45 institutions of their own choice under Art.30(1). It is possible for the
State to discharge its obligation under the present Article through
Government owned and aided schools, Kerala Education Bill, 1957,
AIR 1958
Article 47 Duty of the state to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of
living and to improve public health and the State shall endeavour to
bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal
purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to
health.
Reflection of Preamble
The Preamble of the Constitution is called the key to the mind of the drafters of the
Constitution. It lays down the objectives that our Constitution seeks to achieve. The founding
fathers were aware of the drawbacks; the country had been suffering from such as poverty
unemployment, lack of education, social, economic, and political backwardness. They in
order to eradicate these evils, set forth in the very preamble, the ideals and objectives to be
achieved. The expression “Justice- social, economic, political” is sought to be achieved
through DPSPs. DPSPs are incorporated to attain the ultimate ideals of preamble i.e. Justice,
Liberty, Equality and fraternity. Moreover, it also embodies the idea of the welfare state
which India was deprived of under colonial rule.
DPSPs are positive obligations on the state. The true nature and the justiciability can be
determined by the authority of Article 37 which clearly mentions that the entire part IV will
not be of enforceable nature. The reason for the unenforceability to part IV is because when
the Indian nation achieved independence the social and economic condition of the Indian
state was not well, and therefore it was not possible of creating directive principles of
the state policy to be enforceable, but they were made an integral part to guide the Indian
governments towards the constitutional goals. DPSPs were not made justiciable because India
did not have sufficient financial resources. Moreover, its backwardness and diversity were
also a hindrance in implementing these principles at that time. At the time of the drafting of
the Constitution, India was a newly born independent state and was struggling with other
issues and making DPSPs justiciable would have put India in great difficulty.
The question that whether Fundamental Rights precede DPSPs or latter takes precedence over
former has been the subject of debate for years. There are judicial pronouncements which
settle this dispute.
State of Madras vs Champakan (AIR 1951 SC 226), the Apex Court was of the view that if a
law contravenes a Fundamental right, it would be void but the same is not with the DPSPs. It
shows that Fundamental rights are on a higher pedestal than DPSPs.
In Kerala Education Bill (1957) (1959 1 SCR 995) Court said that in case of conflict between
Fundamental Right and DPSPs, the principle of harmonious construction should be applied.
But still after applying the doctrines of interpretation, there is a conflict between fundamental
right and DPSPs, then the former should be upheld.
In I. C. Golaknath vs State Of Punjab,1967, The Court was of the view that Fundamental
rights cannot be curtailed by the law made by the parliament.
Article 31-C and Directive Principles:25th Amendment inserted A-31-C, which protected
any law made with respect to the directives to the state and contravened the fundamental
rights, the amendment also barred the judicial review of the courts with respect to such law.
Art. 31-C was added by the Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1971. The amendment
has considerably enhanced the importance of the directive principles. The object of the
amendment as stated in the objects clause of the Bill was that this was enacted to get
over the difficulties placed in the way of giving effect to the directive principles of State
policy. The first part of Article 31-C provides that no law which is intended to give
effect to the Directive Principles contained in Art. 39 (b) and (c) shall be deemed to be
void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the
rights conferred by Article 14, or 19. The second part of Art. 31-C provided that “no
law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy can be called in
question on the ground that it does not in fact give effect to such policy”. The validity of
first part of Article 31-C was upheld in the Fundamental Rights case, Keshavnanda
Bharati vs the State of Kerala (1973) , but the second part of this Article, which barred
the judicial scrutiny of such laws, was struck down as unconstitutional. The 42nd
Constitution Amendment,1976 widened the scope of Article 31C to cover all the directive
principles laid down in the Constitution. Prior to the Amendment Article 31C saved
only those laws which gave effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy specified in
Article 39(b) and 39(c). Thus, whereas the 25th Amendment gave primacy to Directive
Principles contained in Art. 39(b) and (c) over the Fundamental Rights in Arts. 14, 19
or 31, the 42nd Amendment gave precedence to all the Directive Principles over the
Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Articles 14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution. To give
absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution
which is the essential feature of the basic structure. The Court held that the unamended
Art .31-C is valid as it does not destroy any of the basic features of the constitution. The
unamended Art 31-C gives protection to defined and limited categories of laws, i.e.
specified in Arts. 39(b) and (c). They are vital for the welfare of the people and do not
violate Arts. 14 and 19. In fact, far from destroying the basic structure, such laws, if
passed bona fide, for giving effect to the directives in Arts. 39(b) and (c) will fortify that
structure. The court held that the doctrine of harmonious construction should be
applied because neither of the two has precedence to each other. Both are
complementary therefore they are needed to be balanced.
In Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) The Court was of the view that
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are not exclusive to each other therefore they
should not be read in exclusion. Moreover, the Court said that the Fundamental Rights are the
means through which the goals enumerated in Part IV are achieved.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the Court referred to Articles 39(d) and (e), 41 and 42 to infuse
substantive content into the dignitarian principle underlying Article 21’s guarantee of the
right to life – and many of the substantive rights that the Court was to subsequently read into
Article 21 were located within this dignitarian foundation. In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay
Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 Court used the same technique (relying upon Articles
39(a) and 41) to read right to livelihood under the right to life. The Supreme Court has
observed in Olga Tellis, that since the Directive Principles are fundamental in the
governance of the country they must, therefore, be regarded as equally fundamental to
the understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of Fundamental
Right.
DPSPs and Amendments
For amending the Directive Principles of State Policies, the Constitutional amendment is
required.
It added clause (f) in Article 39: To secure opportunities for the healthy development
of children
It added Article 39-A which makes it the duty of the state to provide for equal justice
and free legal aid. By the virtue of this Article, Parliament came up with the law
called the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
It also added Article 48A which deals with the protection and improvement of
environments. The Water Pollution, Air Pollution, Environmental Pollution Acts, The
Forest Act etc demonstrate the application of the principles laid down in Article 48A.
B) 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978 added Article 38 clause (2) which directs the state
to minimize inequalities in income, to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and
opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in
different areas or engaged in different vocations.