Directive Principles of State Policy: Journey from Non-Justiciable to Justiciable Principle | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)

• The DPSP, outlined in Part IV of the Constitution, serves as a set of guidelines for the government.
• These principles direct the government to formulate policies that cater to the needs of the disadvantaged and marginalized segments of society.
• They aim to bridge the gap between the privileged and underprivileged, ensuring social and economic justice for all.
• Implementing these principles is a gradual process, requiring continuous efforts from the state.
• DPSP embodies socio-economic rights, shaping the state's role as a welfare state.
• The government holds the responsibility to translate these principles into tangible laws and actions.
• Welfare policies can only be effective when supported by relevant legislation.
• The primary objective of DPSP enactment is the well-being of the populace.

Role of DPSP

• DPSP acts as a guide for the government to address social and economic disparities.
• It emphasizes the state's duty to enact laws that promote the welfare of all citizens.
• By implementing DPSP, the government aims to create a just and equitable society.
• These principles enable the state to intervene in areas where vulnerable groups require support.

Implementation of DPSP

• Efforts to fulfill DPSP objectives require consistent action from the government.
• Examples of DPSP implementation include initiatives to provide healthcare, education, and social security to the population.
• Legislation such as Right to Education Act and National Rural Employment Guarantee Act reflect the practical application of DPSP.
• Government schemes like Mid-Day Meal Program and MNREGA demonstrate DPSP in action.

Understanding the Role of DPSP in Judicial Interpretation of the Constitution

Importance of DPSP for Judicial Interpretation

• Judiciary relies on Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) for interpreting laws.
• Courts are obligated to follow these principles as they serve as a guide for interpretation.
• For instance, in the case of National Textiles Workers Union v. P.R. Ramkrishnan, the Supreme Court emphasized the duty of the court to apply DPSP while interpreting laws.

Dual Role of DPSP

• DPSP plays a dual role in the governance of the country.
• It acts as a fundamental aspect of governance.
• Additionally, DPSP serves as a code of interpretation for the Judiciary.

Nature of DPSP During Constitution Drafting

• During the drafting of the Constitution, framers differentiated between justiciable and non-justiciable principles.
• Justiciable principles, like Fundamental Rights in Part III, are enforceable in courts.
• Non-justiciable principles, such as DPSP in Part IV, provide guidelines for the government without being enforceable in courts.
• The state is morally bound to adhere to DPSP, even though they cannot be enforced through constitutional courts.

Directive Principles of State Policy: Duty of state to rights of the citizen

• DPSP aims to transform the socio-economic landscape towards an egalitarian society.
• The Supreme Court has a crucial role in interpreting these non-justiciable principles containing socio-economic rights.
• It is incumbent upon the state to safeguard these rights, and if the state fails to do so legislatively, the judiciary can intervene.
• The judiciary, viewing these state duties as socio-economic rights, can transform them into enforceable rights, drawing from fundamental principles like Article 21.
• The right to life encompasses a dignified existence, as affirmed in various court cases such as Oliga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others and Corlie Mullin v. Administrator and Union Territory of Delhi.
• State obligations under DPSP become enforceable when they impact human dignity, thereby becoming justiciable under Article 37.
• The judiciary can convert state duties into rights using Article 21 as a catalyst.
• For instance, the right to education, initially outlined in Article 45 of the Indian Constitution, was elevated to a fundamental right in the case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka.
• In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court specified that the right to education is a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14, leading to the enactment of the Right to Education Act in 2002.
• In 1979, the right to free legal aid was recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21.
• The state's role is transitioning from a welfare state to a laissez-faire state, impacting the scope of state functions as outlined in Articles 12 and 36 of the Constitution.

Is There Any Sanction for Non-Implementation of DPSP?

• The constituent assembly's constitutional advisor, Mr. B.N. Rau, proposed categorizing individual rights into justiciable and non-justiciable groups. Justiciable rights are included in Part III, while non-justiciable rights like Directive Principles are in Part IV.
• Ivor Jennings viewed Directive Principles as noble aspirations that are challenging for states to implement effectively.
• According to Seervai, including DPSP in a constitution is more of a declaration of ideals rather than enforceable realities supported by political mechanisms.
• Professor K. C. Wheare described DPSP as a collection of general statements. Implementing these directives could potentially conflict with Fundamental Rights.
• DD Basu believed DPSPs could be enforced. If states fail to implement them, the central government can issue administrative directions under Article 256 and 257, warning states under Article 365, and potentially invoking Article 356 against the state government.
• Notably, there is no legal penalty for non-implementation of DPSP in the constitution. The enforcement of DPSP transforms them into rights under Part III through political pressures.

Conclusion

• Indeed, it can be observed that the judiciary is reshaping fundamental principles by leveraging a reservoir of human rights, which can be referred to as "neo-fundamental rights." These rights, while not explicitly recognized by the Constitution, are being constructed by the judiciary through the invocation of Article 21.
• The concept of rights and duties is inherently intertwined, with the state having certain duties that may not be directly enforceable. However, by linking these duties to human dignity, the judiciary can activate Article 21, making these state obligations enforceable. This interpretation effectively transforms non-justiciable principles into justiciable ones, thereby altering the nature of duties within the legal framework.