Directive
Principles
PART – IV, ARTICLES (35 – 51)
· DPSP
are also known as non justifiable rights.
· They
are taken from Irish const.
· Originally
they were obtained from Scandinavian countries, which are ‘DP of social
policy’.
· DPSP
are guidelines to the central & state Govt. in their policy making.
· Hence
Dr. B.R Ambedkar observed that DPSP are instruments of instructions, provided
in act of 1935.
· The
purpose of DPSP is ‘Est. of socialistic pattern of society’. It is mixed
economy (pvt, public). It means not exproportion of rich, but multiplying the
wealth & distributing to the people.
· To
achieve this, there are certain directives for central & state Govt. &
every Govt. is expected to follow these directives.
· DPs
are meant for the community welfare, but FRs is meant for individual progress.
Classification of Directive Principles: There
is no classification in the const. however, based on the nature, they are
classified into 3 categories by Prof. M.P. Sharma.
· Prof.
M.P. Sharma was the 1st Prof. of public ad. In India from
Nagpur university. This classification is extra constitutional.
· It
was not universally accepted.
1. Socialist
principles – Articles - (38, 39, 4, 42, 43)
2. Gandhian
principles – Articles – (40, 46, 47, 48)
3. Liberal
principles – Articles – (44, 45, 49, 50, 51)
Article – 36: definition of state. (Same as article – 2 of
const.)
Article – 37: DPSP are non justifiable.
-Non justifiable means, if the DP is not implemented, citizens
can’t move to courts for their implementation.
Socialistic Principles: These principles imply that,
Govt. should initiate certain steps for Est. of egalitarian society, by
preventing the concentration of wealth.
Article – 38: The state to secure social order, for the
promotion of welfare of the people. To secure social, Economic, political
justice & minimize inequalities among the people.
Article – 39: The state shall provide securing an adequate
means to livelihood and ownership & control of material & equitality
distributed and equal pay for equal work for men/women.
Article – 41: right to work & employment, Right to
education to all, Right to public assistance.
Article – 42: Just & Humane working condition at work
place. Maternity relief to woman.
Article – 43: Living wages to workers, social security
measures like insurance, job security.
GANDHIAN PRINCIPLE:
Article – 40: Est. of Panchayat Raj institutions i.e., grama
swaraj.
Article – 46: Special development & welfare programme
for upliftment of down trodden like SC, ST, and OBC.
Article – 47: Total prohibition of all drugs, liquors,
injurious to public health; except for the industrial & medicinal purposes.
-Only state to have total prohibition is GJ.
Article – 48: Ban on slaughtering of animals, which are
useful to agricultural, dairy department.
Liberal Principles:
Article – 44: Implementation of uniform civil code- It
means, in the civil matters like property, inheritance, marriage, divorce.
- This art -44 is
not implemented.
- In Goa,
uniform civil code is implemented.
- Sarala maudgal
case related to art – 28.
Article – 45: Free pre-1° education by 86th Amend,
2002.
Article 49: Protecting preserving all the places of
historical significance.
Article 50: Separation of judiciary from executives.
Articles 51: Resolving all internal disputes, with other
countries peacefully amicably through negotiations.
· Art
51 prescribes the nature of foreign policy which is non-aligned with panchashal
policy.
New directives, added by 42nd 1976 amend:
Article 39 A: Equal justice and free legal aids to the poor
people.
· Providing
such facilities & opportunities to develop the children in healthy manner,
protecting the against exploitation.
Article 43 A: Participation of workers in management of
industry i.e. profit sharing.
Article 48 A: protection of environment & wildlife.
Directives other than part – IV in other parts of const.:
Part – 16, Art 335: The claims of SC, ST
shall be considered in the matters of Govt. services, without hampering the general
merit. (Reservation)
Part – 17, Art 350A: The Govt. shall provide
the facilities to impact 1° Education tongue only.
Art 351, part – 17: recognizing Hindi as
national language & initiate action to speed Hindi as national language.
· In
Tamil Nadu, Hindi is not recognized as national language.
NOTE: All the above 3 directives area justifiable as parliament had
already made the law.
Criticism of Directive Principles of State Policy:
- They are non
justifiable.
- Some are out
dated.
- Some do not have
clear meaning.
- A conflict
between DPSP, Fundamental Rights
Comments on DPSP:
· Prof.
K.T Shah observed that DPSP are like ‘post dated check’, payment at the
convenience.
· Nasiruddin
Shah observed DPSP are like the ‘resolution of a new year day’, conveniently
forgotten.
· Dr.
B. R Ambedkar said that they are like ‘instruments of instructions, ensuring
economic democracy’.
· Ivor
Jennings observed that they are like ‘Devils of Sidney web, paraded in all
parts of const. of India without socialism in reality’.
· Nani
Palki wala, a famous jurist observed that ‘DPSP are like election speeches,
which are generally not kept’.
· M.C.
Chagla, former CJI observed that, ‘if the DPSP are implemented property, heaven
on earth, Sp in India’.
Conflict between Fundamental Rights & DPSP:
-In the original const., there was a fine balance between FR &
DP. However, with subsequent Amendments, this balance was disturbed.
1st const. Amend, 1951: Dealing
with right to property i.e. 9th schedule, imposing limit on
right to property to implement DPSP.
In 1956, 7th Amendment: imposed
some limitations.
è In 1967, Golakhnath
vs PB state, SC held that, FR are most precious aspects & they are
‘unAmendable’.
· If
at all these rights are to be amended, there must be a separate C.A.
1950-1967 – FR prevailed
over DPSR.
è In 1973, in KB vs
state of KL (case related 24th const. Amend, 1971), 24th Amend
imposed limitations of judicial review of SC.
‘Any Amend. made under art
368, is not a law’. Even it violates Fundamental Rights, it is valid.
NOTE: KB challenged 24th Amendment, who restricted J.
review.
· In
this case, SC completely reversed Golakhnath Judgment and held that; parliament
can amend any part of Const. including FR, but not the ‘basic structure’.
· Restricting
Judicial review, according to 24th const. amend is valid. So,
to implement certain FR, imposing limitation on FR is valid.
è Again in 1976 by 42nd Amendment,
parliament imposed limitations on J. Review.
· In
1980, in Minerva mills cases 42nd amend were challenged. SC repeated the
judgment of KB case.
· However
if any amendment made to Fundamental Rights, in order to implement DPSP under
art 39(b), 39 (c), such amendment is held valid.
NOTE: Only in the case of articles 39 (b), (c) if they conflict
Fundamental Rights, these principles prevail over Fundamental Rights. In the
rest Fundamental Rights prevail over Directive principles.
-As of now, the balance between Fundamental Rights & DPSP had
been established.
No comments:
Post a Comment