Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental Rights & Fundamental Duties: Relationship, Conflict , Harmony & Present Scenario

Dear Readers and loyal followers of this Blog, you are the strength and force behind it and it is because of you that this Blog has been at the forefront of all things related to Public Administration and it will continue to be so with your unflinching belief in it. Many thanks and heartfelt gratitude to all of you. 

This post is going to delve into the very problematic yet interesting and interdependent relationship which exists between the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and Fundamental Rights (FR) in practicality (through the interpretation of Courts and the Acts of Parliament) although they both have kept their special places in the Indian Constitution and remain harmoniously together in written form there but it is a totally different story outside of it. To this we will also add the role of Fundamental Duties in facilitating all three together in making a conducive atmosphere for progress oriented Country.

So let us begin.

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY:

The DPSP are the guiding principles in State’s Policy making to ensure that there is a well-adjusted monetary growth as well as holistic societal growth of the country as per the values enshrined in the Indian Preamble which very articulately lists the India that its Constitutional founders had in their minds and heart.

Even though it is non justiciable in any Court of Law but still it has to be always kept in mind of the Policy framers from the very beginning when framing any policy.

The curious characteristic of the Directive Principle of State Policy is that no doubt it gives the State a free hand in implementing them as per their discretion owing to certain factors that currently prevent them from going ahead with it, yet it can never be violated by them while making any policy even if any DPSP is not explicitly included in the Policy. This is the beauty of the DPSP. So basically there is always some element of DPSP implicit in every Policy ultimately which will help achieve the respective DPSP in its full form later on explicitly because any DPSP being violated or contravened will find form in violation of Fundamental Rights of certain section of the society and it will land up at the door of High Court or Supreme Court. 

For a simple and noncomplex layman example of the abovementioned, let's take this one:

As long as there was non implementation of DPSP's Article 40 which states “State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government” till 1992 there was not an issue as it is up to the State when it is without any justifiable constraint and wants to implement a DPSP. However, let us suppose if a Bill/Amendment was presented in Parliament that only Union and State Govt will have joint hold or only State will manage the local governance without any other form of local governance and if the opposition is unable to stop it from being passed then it can land up in Court as an ultra vires Act as it directly violates the spirit of the Indian Constitution which specifically mentions Democracy to be upheld in all forms, also it is directly violative of Fundamental Rights - Article 21 which under its wide ambit and interpretation would have surely directed for this impugned Act to be removed as Right to one's own local representative at the lowest level helps form a bond of understanding as well as accountability and provide door to door service to the most remotest of areas. Negating this would lead to an overburdened state govt functioning, the Community Development Plan of 1952 which had the Centre take over local governance was a flop, and a distortion of all types in the current system of functioning of the State which had manifest itself till 1992, hence, there was a lot of pressure on the Parliament to ultimately pass a Bill for implementing this DPSP and bringing it to Constitutional Status that is justiciable in a Court of Law.

It also would have led to a Constitutional question in Court as to how the impugned Act of not having any Panchayats violates the very spirit and basic structure of the Indian Constitution which is Democracy at all levels. 

Also, we have seen in a plethora of cases’ judgments by the Court wherein the question raised was that of FR violation which at that time listed "Right to property" as a part of it and the Courts drew interpretation of it from the DPSP and removed this FR from the list and conferring it the status of a legal right only which will go along the laws established by the Legislature on matters of personal property.

Apart from these factors, if there is any Bill which is being passed by the Parliament directly in contravention of a DPSP or violating it then a dedicated and watchful opposition plays a very important role in curbing it then and there.  Also public opinion forces the people in power to adhere to DPSP else they would be shown the door in next election.

This is the strong hold that the Constitution founders placed in the DPSP thus rightly keeping it non justiciable as it will ultimately find its own justice with the implicit powers and provisions provided to it even though Article 37 of the Indian Constitution clearly mentions that the DPSP are not enforceable in any Court of Law.

The various ways in which the DPSP have been implemented are:

i. The Minimum Wages Act (1948), Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act (1986) etc. seeks to protect the interests of the workers.

ii. The Maternity Benefit Act (1961) and Equal Remuneration Act (1976) have been implemented to protect the interests of women workers.

iii. Handloom Board, Handicrafts Board, Coir Board, Silk Board have been set up for the development of cottage industries.

iv.Integrated Rural Development Programme (1978), Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (1989), Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (1999), Sampoorna Gram Rozgar Yojana (2001), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Programmes (2006) etc. have been implemented to improve the living standard of the people.

v. The National Forest Policy (1988), aims at the protection, conservation and development of forests, etc.

 vi. Abolition of Zamindari system

vii.Nationalisation

viii.Factory Acts

ix.Reservation for SC & ST

x.Compulsory education till 14 years

xi.Community development plans for raising the standard of living

xii. Abolition of titles

xiii.Local self govt.

xiv:ASI to protect monuments and historical places

xv:Prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs as well as prevention of slaughter of cows and calves in many states

xvi:Equal pay for equal work

xvii. Planning Commission

xviii. Wildlife protection Act

xix:Tenancy reforms

xx:imposition of ceiling on land holdings and distribution of land to landless labourers.

xxi. Cooperative farming

xxii. Legals Services Authorities Act

xxiii. lok Adalats

xxiv. Modernisation of agriculture and animal husbandry, operation flood,etc

xxv.Untouchability offences Act

xxvi.Primary and secondary health programmes

xxvii.Old age pension scheme

xxviii.MNREGA

xxix.IRDP,ITDP,Pradhan Mantri Yojanas

xxx. Continuing trend of various judgments of HC & SC on Personal Law interpretations with the ultimate goal to secure a Uniform Civil Code.

So one can see by the above implementations of DPSP across time that how an implementation of a DPSP also leads to enabling and better room for exercise of FR by all citizens and vice versa.

It is pertinent to mention here the beautiful judgment passed in the M.Nagaraj case in 2006 by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court that sums up the essence of FR & DPSP Relationship: 

               "On the question of power of amendment, it is submitted that the limited power of amendment cannot become an unlimited one. A limited amendment power is one of the basic features of our Constitution and, therefore, limits on that power cannot be destroyed. Petitioners submit that Parliament cannot under Article 368 expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to abrogate the Constitution and if the width of the amendment invites abrogation of the basic structure then such amendment must fail. 

It is further submitted that amendments for giving effect to the directive principles cannot offend the basic structure of the Constitution. On the contrary, the amendments which may abrogate individual rights but which promote Constitutional ideal of 'justice, social, economic and political' and the ideal of 'equality of status' are not liable to be struck down under Article 14 or Article 16(1) and consequently, such amendments cannot violate the basic structure of the Constitution. That, the amendments to the Constitution which are aimed at removing social and economic disparities cannot offend the basic structure. It is urged that the concepts flowing from the preamble to the Constitution constitute the basic structure; that, basic structure is not found in a particular Article of the Constitution; and except the fundamental right to live in Article 21 read with Article 14, no particular Article in Part-III is a basic feature. Therefore, it is submitted that equality mentioned in Articles 14 and 16 is not to be equated to the equality which is a basic feature of the Constitution.

JUSTICE, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL IS PROVIDED NOT ONLY IN PART-IV (DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES) BUT ALSO IN PART-III (FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS):

India is constituted into a sovereign, democratic republic to secure to all its citizens, fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation. The sovereign, democratic republic exists to promote fraternity and the dignity of the individual citizen and to secure to the citizens certain rights. This is because the objectives of the State can be realized only in and through the individuals. Therefore, rights conferred on citizens and non-citizens are not merely individual or personal rights. They have a large social and political content, because the objectives of the Constitution cannot be otherwise realized. Fundamental rights represent the claims of the individual and the restrictions thereon are the claims of the society. Article 38 in Part- IV is the only Article which refers to justice, social, economic and political. However, the concept of justice is not limited only to directive principles. There can be no justice without equality. Article 14 guarantees the fundamental right to equality before the law on all persons. Great social injustice resulted from treating sections of the Hindu community as 'untouchable' and, therefore, Article 17 abolished untouchability and Article 25 permitted the State to make any law providing for throwing open all public Hindu religious temples to untouchables. Therefore, provisions of Part-III also provide for political and social justice."

For more on this case:https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102852/

DPSP concept was borrowed from the Irish Constitution and are placed in Part IV of Indian Constitution and spans from Article 36-51.

Article 36: Definition

In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State” has the same meaning as in Part III.

Article 37: Application of the principles contained in this Part

The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforced 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.

Article 38: State to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people

(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.

Article 39: Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State

The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing –
(a) that the citizen, 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.

Article 39A: Equal justice and free legal aid

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.

Article 40: Organisation of village panchayats

The State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.

Article 41: Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases

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.

Article 42: Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief

The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief.

Article 43: Living wage, etc., for workers

The State shall endeavor 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.

Article 43A: Participation of workers in management of industries

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 organisation engaged in any industry.

Article 44: Uniform civil code for the citizen

The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.

 

Article 45: Provision for free and compulsory education for children

The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.

Article 46: Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections

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 and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.

Article 47: Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health

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.

Article 48: Organization of agriculture and animal husbandry

The State shall endeavour to organize 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.

Article 48A: Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife

The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.

Article 49: Protection of monuments and places and objects of national importance

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 spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be.

Article 50: Separation of judiciary from the executive

The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.

Article 51: Promotion of international peace and security

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 people with one another; and
(d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

The DPSP helps fill the void left in PART III of the Indian Constitution as to what about Social goals and welfare state and representations of other sections of the Society as Fundamental Rights are individual rights and one needs to take certain decisions keeping in mind welfare of society and economy as well wherein at certain times personal/individual rights, goals and benefit need to take a backseat. Both Part III and Part IV as per Justice Chandrachud are the "conscience of the Constitution." and B.R Ambedkar hailed them as "the most cardinal and important provision of the Constitution."

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:

These found mention for the very first time together with many of Indian Constitution's DPSPs in its nascent form in Motilal Nehru Committee's of 1928. They were clubbed together in this as Rights of the Citizen and State. It was only later that they were bifurcated in two separate parts during the Drafting phase in the Constituent Assembly following many discussions between the members regarding these.

They are inalienable basic rights of the common people to live a peaceful, harmonious, fulfilled, progressive and respectful life under Part III Articles 12-35 of the Indian Constitution. If any of these rights are violated by anyone or any institution it will be enforceable via the High Court under Article 226 & in the Supreme Court under Article 32 via Writs of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, and Prohibition & Quo Warranto.

The Fundamental Rights draw their source from England's Bill of Rights, US Bill of Rights & France's Declaration of Rights of Man.

The Fundamental Rights are (they have been given wide interpretations by Courts in plethora of judgments):

1. Right to Equality

2. Right to Freedom

3. Right against exploitation

4. Right to freedom of religion

5. Cultural and Educational Rights

6. Right to Constitutional Remedies

The ambit of the Fundamental Rights have been broadened by the Courts in landmark cases.

1. Article 21 - Right to Life:

 https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-life/

2. For all other cases on Fundamental Rights interpretation and ambit expansion: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-important-cases-related-to-fundamental-rights-in-India

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONFLICT AND PRESENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FR & DPSP:

In the nascent stages of Indian Independence the Judiciary gave a blanket dominance of Fundamental Rights over DPSP as the former was enforceable and justiciable but the latter wasn't and the first landmark judgment in this context was State of Madras vs. Srimathi Champakam that led to the First Constitutional Amendment. 

The same rationale was applied by the Judiciary in successive cases that came up viz. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v State of Bihar 1957 and In re Kerala Education Bill, 1958 which led to further 3 Constitutional Amendments. 

This did evoke a lot of criticism from the Legislature and it was put across by the PM Nehru in his speech: 

                    "There is difficulty when the Courts of the Land have to consider these matters and lay more stress on the Fundamental Rights than on the Directive Principles. The result is that the whole purpose behind the Constitution which was meant to be a dynamic Constitution leading to a certain goal step by step, is somewhat hampered and hindered by the static element being emphasized a little more than the dynamic element.”

In 1967, the Golaknath vs State of Punjab case occurred where for the first time a Supreme Court Bench of 11 judges was formed in which the Court laid down that the FR cannot be abridged or diluted to implement the DPSP.This led to the Parliament bringing in the 24th & 25th Amendment Act 1971 in which it amended Article 13 & 368 that stated that parliament had the right to amend any part of the Constitution and Article 31C was added which gave more powers to the DPSP and stated that if any Law is made to implement a DPSP in Part IV of the Indian Constitution, it would be immune from unconstitutionality on the ground of contravention of the FR conferred by Articles 14 & 19 of the Indian Constitution.

Then, there was a sudden shift in the Judiciary's approach towards such cases and they looked to harmonise and equate the two as both were supplementary to each other and derive their interpretations and strengths from each other. Even the Courts rely on both of these while weighing the benefit of individual vs benefit of the whole society as a collective.

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan,1964 , it was clearly laid down that even if the fundamental Rights are to be taken as unalterable, then the much needed dynamism may be achieved by properly interpreting the Fundamental Rights in the light of Directive Principles. Part IV, is “fundamental in the governance of the country and the provisions of Part III must be interpreted harmoniously with these principles." Thus it was clearly stated that that the FR should be interpreted in light of the DPSP and in this manner a harmonious relationship is to be brought out while dealing with such cases. 

In Bijoya Cotton Mills v. State of West Bengal 1967, Supreme Court laid down two rules, firstly- in case of a conflict between the FR and the laws aiming to implement socio-economic policies, in pursuance to Directive Principles, weight should be given to the latter, and secondly- every legislation enacted in pursuance of Directive Principles should be construed as one purporting to be in public interest, or as a reasonable restriction to the Fundamental Rights.

 Then the Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging Bangalore v State of Mysore case, 1969 came up in which the Judiciary explicitly stated that the DPSP were created to facilitate progress as intended by the Preamble and it would be fallacious to assume that the Constitution provided only for rights and no duties.

The Kesvananda Bharti case in 1973 further strengthened this and it went a step further stating that the DPSP were in harmony with the country's aims and objectives and the fundamental rights could be amended to meet the needs of the hour implying that FR and DPSP need to harmoniously referred to.

This preceded the 42nd Amendment in 1976 through which the Legislature accorded primacy to the DPSP over FR and thus opened up a new Pandora's Box on this debate of FR Vs DPSP.

Then came the Minerva Mills case in 1980, in which the Court stated that the DPSP and FR were both part of the basic feature of the Indian Constitution and any amendment that destroyed its balance would be in contravention to the basic structure of the Constitution. Justice Chandrachud clearly stated that FR and DPSP are complementary to each other and formed the base and core of human rights of an individual and they could not be read independent of the other otherwise they would be rendered incomplete and inaccessible.

Also Article 31C was restored to its pre-1976 position so that a Law would be protected by Article 31C only if it has been made to implement the directive in Article 39(b)-(c) and not any of the other Directives included in Part IV.

Then in the Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.AIR 1983 SC 239 case, the Court went with Article 31C in deciding the matter thus granting greater importance to DPSP as compared to FR to upheld the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1972.

Another debate ensued with this judgment but it was put to rest in State of Tamil Nadu v L. Abu Kavier Bai, 1984 again reinstated the Minerva mills Judgment of harmonious existence of DPSP and FR and that this was the main thought behind separating the two (PART III for Individual rights & PART IV for socio-economic welfare state) in the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly. This has been further carried forward in various other judgments in later cases like Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka and Unni Krishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh.

The K. Santhanam Committee stated that the DPSP arise a situation of conflict between:

1. Centre & States

2. President & Prime Minister

3. Governor & CM

As per Santhanam, Centre can give directions to the states regarding implementations of DPSP and in case of noncompliance it can dismiss the State Govt. But this rarely happens and in case of wrong decision to dismiss a Govt, the Courts come to rescue and reimpose the Constitutional mandate.

FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES:

The Courts laid down a very important message that there can be no rights without duties. The Constitution of 1950 did not include Fundamental Duties. It was added via the 42nd Amendment in 1976 on the recommendations of Justice Swaran Singh Committee as Chapter IV under Article 51A of the Indian Constitution. These duties though obligatory on the citizens but are subject to the State enforcing the same by a valid law. SC has constantly given instructions to the State with a view to make these more effective and enabling citizens to perform their duties properly.

1. To abide by the Constitution and respect our National Flag and National Anthem

2. To follow the noble ideals that inspired our national freedom movement.

3. To protect the unity and integrity of India

4. To defend the country when the need arises

5. To promote harmony and brotherhood among all sections of the people and to respect the dignity of women.

6. To  preserve our rich heritage and composite culture.

7. To  protect and improve our natural environment including forests, rivers, lakes and wildlife

8. To  ldeveop scientific outlook and humanism

9. To  protect public property and not to use violence

10. To  strive for excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity

11. A parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education of his child or as the case may be ward between the age of six and fourteen years        

In case of violation of  Fundamental Duties it is taken as contempt of the Constitution and attracts punishment via the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

Supreme Court has ruled that fundamental duties are also helpful in determining the constitutionality of an Act passed by the Legislature.

Article 51A brings the Indian Constitution into conformity with international treaties like Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 CONCLUSION:

So one can very clearly see that how these three political concepts and provisions of our Constitution are interwoven to be complementary and supplementary to each other in making a responsible State and community/citizenry as a whole via DPSP and the Individuals via FRs and FDs. 

Only a dutiful citizen will ensure FR remain in its reasonable restrictions and exercised in its true form and will be able to help with the implementation of a DPSP. Smooth implementation of DPSP is possible only if the citizenry and individuals are aware of their rights and duties towards the country.