CHAPTER - 8 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
- The Directive Principles of State Policy are enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution from Articles 36 to 51. Borrowed this idea from the Irish Constitution of 1937. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar described these principles as ‘novel features’ of the Indian Constitution. The Directive Principles along with the Fundamental Rights contain the philosophy of the Constitution and is the soul of the Constitution. Granville Austin ‘Conscience of the Constitution’.
SOCIALISTIC PRINCIPLES | |
Art 38 | Secure social order Minimize inequalities |
Art 39 | a. Adequate means of livelihood b. Equitable distribution of resources c. Prevention of concentration of wealth d. Equal pay for equal work e. Preservation of health & welfare against forced labour& abuse f. Opportunities of health development for children |
Art 41 | Right to work, education & assistance in cases of unemployment, sickness & old age |
Art 42 | Just & humane conditions at work & maternity relief |
GANDHIAN PRINCIPLES | |
Art 40 | Organization of village panchayats |
Art 43 | Promote cottage industries |
Art 46 | Promote education & economy of SC’s & ST’s in rural areas |
Art 47 | Prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drinks & drugs |
LIBERAL – INTELLECTUAL PRINCIPLE | |
Art 44 | Uniform civil code |
Art 45 | Early childhood care & education (0-6 years) |
Art 48 | Organize agriculture & animal husbandry |
Art 49 | Protection of monuments |
Art 50 | Separate judiciary from executive in public services |
Art 51 | Promote international peace & security |
Gandhian Principles
Liberal-Intellectual Principles
Distinction Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
Fundamental Rights | Directive Principles |
1.These are negative as they prohibit the State from doing certain things. 2.These are justiciable, that is, they are legally enforceable by the courts in case of their violation. 3.They aim at establishing political democracy in the country. 4.These have legal sanctions 5.They promote the welfare of the individual. Hence, they are personal and individualistic. 6.They do not require any legislation for their implementation. They are automatically enforced. 7.The courts are bound to declare a law violative of any of the Fundamental Rights as unconstitutional and invalid. | 1.These are positive as they require the State to do certain things. 2.These are non-justiciable, that is, they are not legally enforceable by the courts for their violation. 3.They aim at establishing social and economic democracy in the country. 4.These have moral and political sanctions. 5.They promote the welfare of the community. Hence, they are societarian and socialistic. 6.They require legislation for their implementation. They are not automatically enforced. 7.The courts cannot declare a law violative of any of the Directive Principles as unconstitutional and invalid. However, they can uphold the validity of a law on the ground that it was enacted to give effect to a directive.
|
CONFLICT BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES
- In theChampakamDorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. But, it also held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliament by enacting constitutional amendment acts.
- Supreme court judgement in the Golaknath case (1967). In the Supreme Court ruled that parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights, which are ‘sacrosanct’ in nature. In other words, the Court held that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of the Directive Principles.
- The Parliament reacted to the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Golaknath Case (1967) by enacting the 24th Amendment Act (1971) and the 25th Amendment Act . The 24th Amendment Act declared that parliament has the power to abridge away any of the Fundamental rights by enacting Constitutional Amendment Acts. The 25th Amendment Act inserted a new Article 31C which contained the following two provisions.
1.No law which seeks to implement the socialistic Directive Principles specified in Article 39 (b) and (c) shall be void on the ground of contravention of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article 14.
2.No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such policy shall be guestioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy.
- In the KesavanandaBharathi case (1973), the Supreme Court declared the above second provision of Article 31C as unconditional and invalid on the ground that judicial review is a basic features of the Constitution and hence. However, the above first 31C was held to be constitutional and valid.
- The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) Minerva Mills case (1980). Directive principles were once again made subordinate to the Fundamental Rights. But the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article 14 and Article 19 were accepted as subordinate to the Directive Principles specified in Article 39(b) and (c).