Part IV
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the state has the same meaning as in Part III.
The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.
The Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Part IV of the Constitution set out the aims and objectives to be taken up by the States in the governance of the country. This novel features of the Constitution is borrowed from the Constitution of Ireland which had copied it from the Spanish Constitution.
In the Directive Principles set forth in this part are intended for the guidance of the State. While these principles shall not be cognizable by any court they are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and their application in the making of laws shall be the duty of the State.
Part IV (Articles 36-51) contains what may be described as the active obligation of the State. The State shall secure a social order in which social, economic and political justice shall inform all the institutions of national life. The State shall endeavour the means of livehihood for all and equal pay for equal work, the right to work, to education, to secure the health and strength of workers, a uniform civil code, and free and compulsory education for children.
The Directive Principles State Policy detailed in articles 36 to 51 of the Constitution possess two characteristics. First, they are not enforceable in any court and therefore, if a directive is not obeyed or implemented by the State, its obedience or implementation cannot be secured through judicial proceedings. Second, they are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.
(1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.
(2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour 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.
Air India Statutory Corp. v. United Labour Union, MANU/SC/0163/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 645: 1997 AIR SCW 430: (1997) 9 SCC 377: 1997 (3) Serv LJ 81 SC: 1997 (2) Supreme 165. The court envisages not only legal justice but socio-economic justice as well. The Supreme Court has observed: "The Constitution commands justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as supreme value to usher in the egalitarian social, economic and political democracy. Social justice, equality and dignity of person are cornerstone of social democracy." Thus social justice is an integral part of justice in the generic sense. Justice is the genus of which social justice is one of its species."
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 of 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 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;
(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.
Clause (f) was modified by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1978, with a view to emphasize the constructive role of the State with regard to children.
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0169/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 699: 1997 AIR SCW 407: (1996) 6 SCC 756: 1997 SCC (LandS) 49: 1997 (1) Supreme 207: 1997 (1) UJ (SC) 243, (Known as Child Labour Abolition Case). The Supreme Court held that children below the age of 14 years cannot be employed in any hazardous industry, or mines or factory.
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0234/1982 : AIR 1982 SC 879: (1982) 1 SCC 618: 1982 SCC (Lab) 119: 1982 UJ (SC) 193: (1982) 1 SCWR 260: 1982 (1) SCJ 283. The Supreme Court held that equal pay for equal work though not a fundamental right is certainly a constitutional goal, and, therefore, capable of enforcement through constitutional remedies under article 32 of the Constitution. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work is equally applicable to persons employed on a daily wages basis.
The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.
This article has been inserted in the Constitution by 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. This article ordains the State to secure a legal system which promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity. The language of article 39A is couched in mandatory terms as is clear by the use of word 'shall' twice therein.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that legal assistance to a poor or indigent accused who is arrested and put in jeopardy of his life and personal liberty is a constitutional imperative mandated not only by article 39A but also by articles 14 and 21.
The State shall take steps to organise village panchyats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.
The Constitution 73rd Amendment Act, 1992 introducing the panchayats in Part IX (articles 243-243-O) is a major step in the direction of implementing this directive principle.
The idea underlying this constitutional provision is to introduce democracy at the grassroots. This provision does not prescribe as to what powers should be given to the panchayats or what their structure should be and so the panchayat laws may vary from one State to another. The village panchayats are envisaged by the article as the basic democratic institutions of a pyramid of the democratically organised and functioning self-governing units.
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.
The State is directed by this article to ensure to the people within the limits of its economic capacity and development: (I) employment, (II) education, (III) public assistance in case of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement and in other cases of undeserved want.
The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief.
D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, MANU/SC/0038/1974 : AIR 1974 SC 2092: 1974 SCC (Cri) 803: 1975 Cr LJ 556: MANU/SC/0367/1974 : (1975) 3 SCC 185: (1975) 2 SCR 24. The Supreme Court has suggested that article 42 may 'benevolently' be extended to living conditions in jails. The barbarous and subtle form of punishment to which convicts and undertrials are subjected to, offend against the letter and spirit of the Constiution.
The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas.
A 'living wage' is such a wage as enables the male earner to provide for himself and his family not merely the bare essential of food, clothing and shelter, but a measure of frugal comfort including education for children, protection against ill-health and requirement of essential social needs.
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0237/1982 : AIR 1983 SC 130: (1983) 1 SCC 305: 1983 SCC (Lab) 145: 1983 UJ (SC) 217: (1983) 1 SCWR 390: 1983 (1) SCJ 188. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has held that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but also by the broader significance it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice.
The State shall take steps, by suitable legislation or in any other way, to secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings, establishments or other organisations engaged in any industry.
This article has been inserted in the Constitution by 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.
The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.
This provision was made to promote unity and integrity which are cherished goal enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution. Hindu law of marriage, succession etc., have been drastically changed in the first decade of the commencement of the Constitution but there has been resistance from Muslim community in this respect and for avoiding any resentment on their part political parties in power remained reluctant to enforce a uniform civil code.
Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0290/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 635: 1995 Cr LJ 2926 (SC): AIR 1995 SC 1531: 1995 AIR SCW 2326: JT 1995 (4) SC 331: 1995 SCC (Cri) 569. The Supreme Court observed that article 44 is based on the concept that there is not necessarily a connection between religion and personal laws.
The State shall endeavor to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.
This article has been substituted by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 which received assent of the President on December, 12, 2002.
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0169/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 699: 1997 AIR SCW 407: (1996) 6 SCC 756: 1997 SCC (LandS) 49: 1997 (1) Supreme 207: 1997 (1) UJ (SC) 243. Child labour is a big problem and remained intractable, even after about 50 years of our having become independent, despite various legislative enactments........ Prohibiting employment of a child in a number of occupations and avocations.
The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, MANU/SC/0007/1951 : AIR 1951 SC 226: 1951 SCJ 313: 1951 SCR 525. The Supreme Court refused to let the fundamental right declared in article 29(2) to be whittled down by this article. In that case, although the object of the impugned 'communal order' of the Madras Government was to advance the interest of educationally backward classes of citizens, the Supreme Court held the order void for the violation of fundamental right under article 29(2).
R. Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0805/1995 : (1995) 6 SCC 309: (1995) 5 SCALE 620: JT 1995 (7) SC 93. The Court observed that the economic empowerment to the poor dalits and tribes is an integral constitutional scheme of socio-economic democracy is a way of life of political democracy. Economic empowerment is, therefore, a basic human right and a fundamental right as part of right to life, quality and of status and dignity to the poor, weaker sections, dalits and tribes.
The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purpose of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.
AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS, MANU/SC/0480/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 3262: 2001 AIR SCW 3143: JT 2001 (7) SC 12: MANU/SC/0480/2001 : (2002) 1 SCC 428: 2001 (4) SCJ 590: (2001) 5 SCALE 430: 2001 (6) Supreme 367. The Supreme Court observed that the improvement of public health being one of the primary duties of the State, public health can be improved by having the best of doctors, specialists and super specialists.
In a welfare state the primary duty of the government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people as an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare State.
The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, MANU/SC/1352/2005 : AIR 2006 SC 212: 2005 AIR SCW 5723: (2005) 8 SCC 534: 2005 (7) SCJ 701: (2005) 8 SCALE 661: 2005 (8) Supreme 697. Upholding total ban on the slaughter of cows, calves, bulls and bullocks irrespective of their age, the Supreme Court held that a milch cattle goes through a life cycle during which it is sometimes milch and sometimes it becomes dry. This does not mean that as soon as a milch cattle ceases to produce milk, for a short period as part of its life cycle, it goes out of the purview of articles 48, and can be slaughtered. A drought cattle may lose its utility on account of injury or sickness and may be rendered useless as a drought cattle during that period. This would not mean that if a draught cattle ceases to be of utility for a short period on account of sickness or injury, it is excluded from the definition of 'drought cattle' and deprived of the benefit of article 48.
The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0271/2003 : AIR 2003 SC 3469: 2003 Cr LJ 2045: 2003 AIR SCW 1975: JT 2003 (3) SC 505: (2003) 5 SCC 376: (2003) 3 SCALE 575: 2003 (3) Supreme 44. The court has said "articles 39(e), 47 and 48A by themselves and collectively cast a duty on the State to secure the health of the people, improve public health and protect and improve the environment".
This article has been inserted in the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.
It shall be the obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance, from spoilation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 1087: 2007 AIR SCW 1025: 2007 (1) Crimes 375: MANU/SC/5296/2006 : (2007) 1 SCC 110: (2006) 12 SCALE 391: 2007 (1) SCC (Cri) 264: 2007 (1) Supreme 219. Having regard to article 49 and clause (g) of article 51A of Constitution of India the Supreme Court in a public interest litigation, prevented the "Taj Heritage Corridor Project", one of the main purposes of which was to divert river Yamuna and to reclaim 75 acres of land between Agra Fort and the Taj Mahal from using the reclaimed land for constructing food plazas, shops and amusement activities.
The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.
Baldev Raj Guliani v. Punjab and Haryana High Court, MANU/SC/0537/1976 : AIR 1976 SC 2490: (1976) 4 SCC 201: 1976 SCC (Lab ) 571: (1977) 1 SCR 425. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to further enhance the prestige, dignity and independence of the subordinate judiciary.
The State shall endeavour to-
(a) promote international peace and security;
(b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations;
(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another; and
(d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0274/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 1203: 1997 AIR SCW 1234: 1997 (1) Cr CJ 374: 1997 (1) Crimes 190: JT 1997 (2) SC 311: (1997) 3 SCC 433: 1997 (1) SCJ 480: (1997) 1 SCR 923: (1997) 1 SCALE 706: 1997 SCC (Cri) 434: 1997 (2) Supreme 429. International Law today is not confined to regulating the relation between the States. Today matters of social concerns such as health, education and economics apart from human rights falls within the ambit of the international regulations.
Addl. Distt. Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, MANU/SC/0062/1976 : AIR 1976 SC 1207: (1976) 2 SCC 521: 1976 Cr LJ 945: 1976 UJ (SC) 610: MANU/SC/0179/1976 : (1976) 3 SCC 454: (1976) 3 SCR 929: 1976 Supp SCR 172. Khanna, J. observed that if there be a conflict between the municipal law on the one side and the international law or the provisions of any treaty obligations on the other, the court would give effect to municipal law.
The directive principles differs from fundamental rights in this respect that while Fundamental Rights are justiciable but Directive Principles of State Policy are non-justiciable. Fundamental rights are mostly rights of the individuals against the State, whereas Directive Principles are guidelines for the State to be followed for general welfare of the society as a whole. According to article 37, Directive Principles, though they are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be duty of the State to apply these principles in making law, but they are non-justiciable.
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, MANU/SC/0007/1951 : AIR 1951 SC 226: 1951 SCJ 313: 1951 SCR 525. The Supreme Court held that the Directive Principles of State Policy have to confirm to and run as subsidiary to the chapter of Fundamental Rights because the latter are enforceable in the courts while the former are not. The chapter on Fundamental Rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by legislative or executive act or orders, except to the extent provided in the appropriate article in Part III.
In Re Kerala Education Bill, MANU/SC/0029/1958 : AIR 1958 SC 956: 1959 SCJ 321: 1959 SCR 995. The Supreme Court observed that though the directive principles cannot overside the fundmetnal rights, in determining the scope and ambit of the Fundamental Right the court may not entirely ignore the Directive Principles but should adopt the principle of harmonious construction and should attempt to give effect to both as much as possible.
Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v. State of Mysore, MANU/SC/0308/1969 : AIR 1970 SC 2042: (1970) 2 SCR 600: 1970 Lab IC 1632. The Court held that it did not see any conflict on the whole between the provisions contained in
Part III and Part IV and that they are complementary and supplementary to each other.
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru v. State of Kerela, MANU/SC/0445/1973 : AIR 1973 SC 1461: (1973) 4 SCC 225. The Supreme Court has said that fundamental rights and directive principles aims at the same goal of bringing about a social revolution and establishment of a welfare State and they can be interpreted and applied together. They are supplementary and complimentary to each other. It can well be said that Directive Principles prescribes the goal to be attained and the Fundamental Rights lays down the means by which that goal is to be achieved.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0075/1980 : AIR 1980 SC 1789: (1980) 2 SCC 591: (1980) 3 SCC 625: 1980 UJ (SC) 727. The Supreme Court held that harmony and balance between Fundamental Right and Directive Principles of State Policy, is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. It has been observed that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0051/1983 : AIR 1984 SC 802: (1984) 3 SCC 161: 1984 SCC (Lab) 389. The Court observed that though the Directive Principles are unenforceable by the courts and the courts cannot direct the legislature or executive to enforce them, once a legislation in pursuance of them has been passed, the courts can order the State to enforce the law, particularly when non-enforcement of the law leads to denial of fundamental rights.
Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, MANU/SC/0333/1993 : (1993) 1 SCC 645: 1993 AIR SCW 863: JT 1993 (1) SC 474: MANU/SC/0333/1993 : (1993) 1 SCC 645: (1993) 1 SCR 594: 1993 (1) UJ (SC) 721. The Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle that the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy are supplementary and complementary to each other and the provisions in Part III should be interpreted having regard to the Preamble and Directive Principles of State Policy.
© Universal law Publishing Co.