Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), enshrined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution (Articles 36-51), are guidelines for the government to follow while framing policies. Unlike Fundamental Rights which are justiciable, DPSPs are non-justiciable, meaning they are not directly enforceable by courts. They represent the socio-economic aspirations of the Indian people and aim to create a welfare state. The question of whether all DPSPs are equally fundamental is complex, as their relative importance has evolved with changing societal needs and judicial interpretations. This answer will examine this question, drawing on decided case laws to illustrate the varying degrees of practical and judicial significance attached to different DPSPs.
Understanding Directive Principles of State Policy
DPSPs are a crucial component of the Indian Constitution, representing a vision for a just and equitable society. They were drawn from various sources, including the Government of India Act, 1935, and resolutions passed by the Constituent Assembly. They are intended to guide the government in promoting the welfare of the people and establishing a social order based on justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Categorizing DPSPs & Their Relative Importance
DPSPs can be broadly categorized into:
- Social Justice & Equality: Articles 36-43 (e.g., promoting just and humane conditions of work, ensuring adequate living wage, securing the health and strength of workers)
- Economic Equality: Articles 44-48 (e.g., promoting ownership and control of the means of production, organizing village and agricultural development)
- Governance: Articles 49-51 (e.g., promoting separation of powers, fostering public spirit, protecting the environment)
While all DPSPs are important, their practical application and judicial consideration differ significantly. Some are more readily incorporated into legislation, while others remain aspirational goals.
Case Laws & Judicial Interpretation
The judiciary has consistently maintained that DPSPs are not enforceable through courts but are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country. They serve as a guiding light for legislation and are considered during constitutional interpretation. Here's a look at some case laws:
1. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1979)
This landmark case established the “basic structure” doctrine, affirming that DPSPs, while non-justiciable, contribute to the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be altered by constitutional amendments.
2. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1981)
The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of DPSPs, stating that they should be given due consideration by the legislature while making laws. The court emphasized that while not directly enforceable, they are vital for the overall governance of the nation.
3. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
This case, dealing with the rights of pavement dwellers, demonstrated the influence of Article 41 (right to an adequate means of livelihood) even though it isn't directly enforceable. The court acknowledged the socio-economic context and the importance of providing basic necessities.
4. Bijaykumar Jadeja v. Union of India (2000)
The Supreme Court discussed Article 48 (prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs) and its relevance in the context of liquor licensing. While not directly enforceable, the principle influenced the court’s reasoning.
A Comparative Table: Enforceability & Significance
| DPSP Article | Category | Degree of Influence on Legislation | Judicial Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article 39A (Equal Opportunity) | Social Justice | High - Used extensively in labor laws and reservation policies | Frequently considered in cases related to discrimination and equal opportunity |
| Article 41 (Right to Work) | Social Justice | Moderate - Influences employment guarantee schemes | Used to justify social welfare programs; Olga Tellis case |
| Article 48 (Prohibition of Intoxicants) | Economic Equality | Low - Often overridden by revenue considerations | Limited judicial impact, but used to frame policy debates |
| Article 51(e) (Promoting Public Spirit) | Governance | Indirect - Encourages citizen participation in governance | Reinforces the importance of civic responsibility |
Arguments for & Against Equal Fundamental Nature
Arguments for equal fundamental nature: All DPSPs are intended to contribute to the overall welfare state goal. Ignoring any one principle would be a disservice to the constitutional vision. They are intrinsically linked and reinforce each other.
Arguments against equal fundamental nature: Some DPSPs are more readily achievable and have a more direct impact on the lives of citizens. Others remain aspirational goals due to practical or economic limitations. The judiciary’s engagement with specific DPSPs varies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while all DPSPs are vital for guiding the governance of the country and shaping its socio-economic fabric, their practical significance and judicial enforceability vary. The Minerva Mills case firmly established their contribution to the constitution's basic structure. A balanced approach is crucial, recognizing the interconnectedness of these principles and striving to achieve the overarching goal of a just and equitable society. Future policy decisions must continue to draw inspiration from the DPSPs, adapting them to the evolving needs of a dynamic nation.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.