This Article is written by Anchal Manish Dubey& this article disscuss the concepts of Right to Life & Personal Liberty Under Article 21.

The Sapru Committee in 1945 suggested two categories of individual rights. One being justiciable and the other being non-justiciable rights. The justiciable rights, as we know, are the Fundamental rights, whereas the non-justiciable ones are the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Directive Principles of State Policy are a set of guidelines or principles enshrined in Part IV (Articles 36 to 51) of the Constitution of India. DPSP are ideals which are meant to be kept in mind by the state when it formulates policies and enacts laws. There are various definitions to Directive Principles of State which are given below:

• They are an ‘instrument of instructions’ which are enumerated in the Government of India Act, 1935.
• They seek to establish economic and social democracy in the country.
• DPSPs are ideals which are not legally enforceable by the courts for their violation.

Classification:

Indian Constitution has not originally classified DPSPs but on the basis of their content and direction, they are usually classified into three types-

• Socialistic Principles,
• Gandhian Principles and, • Liberal-Intellectual Principles.

Some of the key principles outlined in the DPSP include:

1. Equal Pay for Equal Work: Ensuring that men and women receive equal pay for equal work.
2. Right to Work, Education, and Public Assistance in Certain Cases: Ensuring opportunities for work, education, and public assistance, particularly for marginalized sections of society.
3. Provision of Adequate Means of Livelihood: Ensuring that the citizens have the means to earn a livelihood that is adequate and sustainable.
4. Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid: Ensuring that justice is accessible to all and that free legal aid is provided to those who cannot afford it.
5. Promotion of Educational and Economic Interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Weaker Sections: Ensuring the development and protection of marginalized communities.
6. Protection of Monuments and Places of National Importance: Preserving cultural heritage and historical sites.
7. Promotion of International Peace and Security: Pursuing policies that contribute to international peace and security.
8. Uniform Civil Code: Striving to secure for the citizens a Uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.
9. Protection of the Environment: Promoting sustainable development and protecting the environment.

Facts about Directive Principles of State Policy:

A new DPSP under Article 38 was added by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, which requires the State to minimise inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities.

The 86th Amendment Act of 2002 changed the subject-matter of Article 45 and made elementary education a fundamental right under Article 21A. The amended directive requires the State to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of 14 years.

A new DPSP under Article 43B was added by the 97th Amendment Act of 2011 relating to cooperative societies. It requires the state to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional management of co-operative societies.

The Indian Constitution under Article 37 makes it clear that ‘DPSPs are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.’

Implementation of Directive Principles:

The Directive Principles are implemented through various executive agencies at the union and state levels, as well as by the judiciary in deciding cases. The state must follow these directive principles both in the matter of administration and in the formulation of laws and policies. While the Directive Principles are not enforceable, they serve as a guiding principle for the government to ensure social and economic justice.

Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy:

As a point of debate, the following reasons are stated for the criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy:

1. It has no legal force
2. It is illogically arranged
3. It is conservative in nature
4. It may produce constitutional conflict between centre and state.

What is the conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs?

With the help of four court cases given below, candidates can understand the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy:

Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)

Supreme Court ruled that in any case of conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, the provisions of the former would prevail. DPSPs were regarded to run as a subsidiary to Fundamental Rights. SC also ruled that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendment act to implement DPSPs.

Result: Parliament made the First Amendment Act (1951), the Fourth Amendment Act (1955) and the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964) to implement some of the Directives.

Golaknath Case (1967)

Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights to implement Directive Principles of State Policy.

Result: Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment Act 1971 & 25th Amendment Act 1971 declaring that it has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting Constitutional Amendment Acts. 25th Amendment Act inserted a new Article 31C containing two provisions:

• No law which seeks to implement the socialistic Directive Principles specified in Article 39 (b)22 and (c)23 shall be void on the ground of contravention of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws), Article 19 (protection of six rights in respect of speech, assembly, movement, etc) or Article 31 (right to property).
• No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy.

Kesavananda Bharti Case (1973)

Supreme Court ruled out the second provision of Article 31C added by the 25th Amendment Act during Golaknath Case of 1967. It termed the provision ‘unconstitutional.’ However, it held the first provision of Article 31C constitutional and valid.

Result: Through the 42nd amendment act, Parliament extended the scope of the first provision of Article 31C. It accorded the position of legal primacy and supremacy to the Directive Principles over the Fundamental Rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31.

Minerva Mills Case (1980)

Supreme Court held the extension of Article 31C made by the 42nd amendment act unconstitutional and invalid. It made DPSP subordinate to Fundamental Rights. Supreme Court also held that ‘the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles.’ Supreme Court’s rulings following the case were:

• Fundamental Rights and DPSPs constitute the core of the commitment to social revolution.
• The harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• The goals set out by the Directive Principles have to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided by the Fundamental Rights.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Directive Principles of State Policy are essential for the socio-economic development of a country, as they aim to establish a welfare state by securing social and economic justice. The state must follow these principles while formulating policies and laws to ensure the progress and well-being of its citizens. Today, Fundamental Rights enjoy supremacy over the Directive Principles. Yet, Directive Principles can be implemented. The Parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights for implementing the Directive Principles, so long as the amendment does not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.

References

• Jain, M.P., Chelameswar, J. and Naidu, D.S. (2019) Indian constitutional law. Gurgaon, Haryana, India: LexisNexis.
• State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab,1967 AIR 1643
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India,AIR 1980 SC 1789
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 146