DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY: AN OVERVIEW

[The Author, Deekhsha Sharma is a 2nd year Ba.LLB (Hons.) student at The Law School, University of Jammu ]

INTRODUCTION

Directive Principles of Sate Policy provides essential guide-lines both for the state as well as the citizens for establishing economic democracy in India and are reflections of the overall objectives laid down in the Preamble of Constitution. The Directive Principles of State Policy may be found in Part IV of the Indian Constitution, embodied in particular, in Article 36 to 51. This novel feature of the Constitution is borrowed from the Constitution of Ireland which had copied it from the Spanish Constitution.

With the passing of Forty-Second Constitution Amendment Act, four new Directive Principles were added to the original list, it has been provided that India shall be socialist democracy but socialism is not in the traditional sense which suits the Indian conditions.

CLASSIFICATION OF THE DIRECTIVES

Following are the three categories in which the DPSPs can be grouped into:

• Lucid and assertive borrowings from the “liberal humanitarian traditions” from the west: this pertains to the broad and undefined meaning of secularism.
• Values emanating from the peculiar and special Indian challenges.
• Values demonstrating an effort to merge the traditional and modern means of livelihood and thought.

ENFORCEABILITY OF DPSPs

• Can Individual sue the government?

Article 37 states that: 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.

Therefore, by the virtue of this Article, no Provision of this Part can be made enforceable in the court of law thus these Principles cannot be used against the Central Government or the State Government. This non-justiciability of DPSPs makes the government immune from any action against them for not following the Directives.

• Can Writ of Mandamus be issued?

The writ of mandamus is generally issued in two situations. One is when a person files a writ petition or when the Court issues it suo moto i.e. own motion. As per Constitutional Principles, a Court is not authorized to issue the writ of mandamus to the state when the Directive Principles are not followed because the Directive Principle is a yardstick in the hand of people to check the performance of government and not available for the courts. But the Court can take suo moto action when the matter is of utmost public importance and affect the large interest of the public.

DPSPs are the moral obligation of the state to follow. Article 38 lay down the broad ideals which the State should strive to achieve. Many of these Directive Principles have become enforceable by becoming a law. Some of the DPSPs have widened the scope of Fundamental Rights.

DPSPs AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Part III i.e. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS limit the power of government and restrains the state from making any law which contravenes the interests of its people, on the other hand, Part IV i.e. DPSPs helps the state in making a law which harmonizes the interest of its people. Both Fundamental Rights and DPSPs hold equal relevance and significance in the current legal scenario and cannot overlook each other. Many people argue that DPSPs are useless because of its non-justiciability but we need to understand that these are not only guiding principles but also lay down the broad objectives and ideals that India strives to achieve.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

There are judicial pronouncements which settle the dispute: whether Fundamental Rights precedes DPSPs or latter takes precedence over former.

In Madras V. Champakan, 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 I.C. Golaknath & Ors V. State of Punjab & Anr. The Court was of the view that Fundamental rights cannot be curtailed by the law made by the Parliament. In furtherance of the same, the Court also said that if a law is made to give effect to Article 39(c) which come under the purview of DPSPs and in the process the violates Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31, the law cannot be declared as unconstitutional and void merely on the ground of said contravention.

In Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala, the Apex Court placed DPSPs on the higher pedestal than Fundamental rights. Ultimately in the case of Minerva Mills V. Union of India, the question before the court was whether the Directive Principles of State Policy specified in Article IV can have primacy over the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. 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.

CONCLUSION

We should not be blinded by the glorious provisions contained in these Directives. They are useful and define us a welfare state, but enforcing them will serve no purpose. They have mostly been made justiciable through other laws, and amending them will give rise to gross misuse by fanatics. The current position of the Directive is balanced and desirable. But it is also recommended that they must be made secular and free of morals that they impose on citizens. They must incorporate the sentiments held by the nation as a whole and not those held by only a particular class.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION

1. What is the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy?

Ans. There is a three-way relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy as provided by the Judiciary:

a) The primacy of Fundamental Rights over the Directive Principles of State Policy.

b) Both of them stand on equal footing and a harmonized outcome should br resorted to, in case of contradiction.

c) Directive Principles of State Policy enjoy primacy over the Fundamental Rights. (39B and 39C).

REFERENCES

1. Dr. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (56 ed. 2019).
2. ‘Enforceability of Directive Principles’ < http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-916-directive-principles-of-state-policy-dpsps-.html > accessed on 15 July 2020
3. State of Madras V. Champakan Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226)
4. Golaknath V. State of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762)
5. Kesavananda Bharti V. State of Kerala (1973)4 SCC 225
6. Minerva Mills V. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789
7. T ategories of Directive Principles’ < https://www.legalbites.in/directive-principles-of-state-policy/#:~:text=Directive%20Principles%20of%20State%20Policy%20%7C%20Overview&text=The%20vital%20adaptations%20and%20modifications,the%20Fundamental%20Rights%20of%20citizens. > accessed on 15 July 2020T