Status of the Directive Principles in the Indian Legal System

Directive Principles of State Policy, or Directive Principles as generally known, or DPSPs form one of the basic and an important part of the Indian Constitution. These principles have been embodied under Part IV of the Constitution. The socio-economic condition of India at the time of the independence was in shambles. The agricultural land belonged to the zamindars, banks and industries were controlled by the capitalists, labours were exploited. And, there was no proper legislation or provision which can make sure that these activities can be stopped. Most of the population was illiterate, and it was the aim of framers of the Indian Constitution to make India a literate and a prosperous nation. And for this purpose, there were several rights which the framers of the Indian Constitution were keen to include in the list of Fundamental Rights, but they were aware of the fact that the resources available in the Country are very limited and it would not be possible for them to include each and every such right in the list of the Indian Constitution. So, these rights were included in the Indian Constitution as “Directive Principles of State Policy” which are not justifiable, but form a fundamental part in the governance of the country and it is the duty of the State to enforce such rights. These are the basic guidelines which have been mentioned in the Indian Constitution to have a ordered society characterized by social, economic and political justice accompanied by Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. These principles have been borrowed from the Irish Constitution

These principles are specific policies which are to be fulfilled by the State in distant future, and provide a much-desired philosophy to the Government and a set of instructions which are to be complied with. After analyzing these principles, it can be seen that these principles can be classified into various categories viz. Social, Gandhian and Liberal ideas. But, there have been various issues regarding the applicability of these provisions which have been laid down under the Indian Constitution. These principles cannot be enforced in any court of law in the country, nor is it the duty of the state to comply with these principles mandatorily. Directive Principles are seen as a positive set of principles unlike Fundamental Rights, as it allows State to implement these principles on its own convenience. It has been argued by various political leaders, and even by several members of the Constitution that these principles are superfluous and mere instruction with no agency to enforce it. The same view has been taken by various scholars at several instances, but it has been laid down in various decisions though not enforceable, should not be ignored by the legislature which would be discussed later in this article. But this view has been contradicted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar stating that these principles are mere guidelines which are issued to the legislature and it would be quite interesting to note that it was never denied by Ambedkar that these principles have no legal force. In other words, it can be concluded that Directives principles are the instruction which have been incorporated under the Indian Constitution so that it can provide directions or guidance to the legislature and the executive as regards the manner in which they should exercise their powers.

State’s Duty and some cases laws related to Directive Principles and its relation to Fundamental Rights –

Every legal aspect in India is accompanied by a number of case laws which act as precedents which are to be followed by several courts while dealing with the matters similar to such case laws. Also, these case laws provide directions to the state to consider what has been decided by a particular court as the case may be.

These case laws have reiterated at various occasions that state should not overlook the Directive Principles, and it should implement these principles as and when it becomes important to do so. The importance of Directive Principles was enhanced by the 42^nd amendment to the Indian Constitution which provided that Directive Principles cannot be declared unconstitutional only on the ground that they have violated any of the fundamental rights. The amendment simultaneously stated that laws prohibiting "antinational activities" or the formation of "antinational associations" could not be invalidated because they infringed on any of the Fundamental Rights. From this amendment, it can be seen that the duty of the state and the importance of Directive principles have been enhanced not only by the Judicial decisions, but also by the legislative actions from time to time. In other words, a state has been achieved wherein the Directive Principles are looked upon as equivalent to Human Rights and the directives have been held to supplement fundamental rights in achieving a welfare state. The main problem which arises while dealing with Directive Principles is the inability of the Indian Courts to implement these principles. There have been various instances when State escapes from implementing these principles on the ground that it is not bound to implement these principles. The power which has been provided to Indian High Courts and Supreme Court is very vast, and it has directed state on various occasions to do or not to do something. The judgment which curtailed the power of the legislature to amend the Indian Constitution to the extent that it should not amend the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and various such judgements indicates that there has always been an active role played by the Indian Judiciary in instructing the state with regard to certain matters.

One of the earliest case law after the Indian Independence which deals with the matter related to State’s duty towards the implementation of Directive Principle is Keshvananda Bharti v. State Of Kerela (1973) 4 SCC 225 in which it was held by the Supreme Court that while imposing the restrictions on fundamental rights, the directive principles are to be kept in mind mandatorily and opined that “In view of the principles adumbrated by this Court it is clear that the directive principles form the fundamental feature and the social conscience of the Constitution and the Constitution enjoins upon the State to implement these directive principles. The directives thus provide the policy, the guidelines and the end of socio-economic freedom and Articles 14 and 16 are the means to implement the policy to achieve the ends sought to be promoted by the directive principles”. The reason behind providing importance to Directive Principles was crucial. There had been a lot of dispute over the distinction between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. There is a view which had been taken by various scholars that Fundamental Rights are the end which has to be achieved, and Directive Principles act as a source to that means that has to be achieved. These principles provide a medium or source for the government for implementing the Fundamental Rights.

It can be seen that while implementing the fundamental rights of a citizen, the state should not underestimate or ignore the importance of Directive Principles and there should be a balance between these two sets of principles. The relation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles was once again discussed in the case Pathumma and Others v. State of Kerala and Ors., (1978) 2 SCC 1 where it was held by the Supreme Court that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles constitute the "conscience" of the Constitution. The purpose of the latter is to fix certain social and economic goals for immediate attainment by bringing about a non-violent social revolution. The Constitution aims at bringing about a synthesis between fundamental rights and directive principles by giving to the former a place of pride and to the latter a place of permanence. It is clear from this decision that even after remaining unenforceable, Directive Principles find a prominent position under the Indian Constitution.

Similar set of principles as that of Directive Principles, which have been included under Chapter IV-A of the Indian Constitution i.e. Fundamental Duties. Though not enforceable in any court of law, this set of duties finds a very important place under the Indian Constitution. In AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS and Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 428, it was opined by the Supreme Court that in the era of globalisation, where the nation as a whole has to compete with other nations of the world so as to survive, excellence cannot be given an unreasonable go-by and certainly not compromised in its entirety. Fundamental duties, though not enforceable by a writ of the court, yet provide a valuable guide and aid to interpretation of constitutional and legal issues. In case of doubt or choice, people's wish as manifested through Article 51-A, can serve as a guide not only for resolving the issue but also for constructing or moulding the relief to be given by the courts. Constitutional enactment of fundamental duties, if it has to have any meaning, must be used by courts as a tool to tab, even a taboo, on State action drifting away from constitutional values.

These are the few cases which deal with the importance of Directive Principles as considered by the Supreme Court from time to time. The reason behind providing such importance to the Directive Principles is quite simple, firstly there must have been a motive for including these principles under the Indian Constitution. The framers of the Indian Constitution wanted to create a society where each and every citizen of the country would be able to live a happy and prosperous life. But for achieving this goal, they wanted to include several human rights in the form of fundamental rights in the constitution. But they were also aware of the fact that the amount of resources which were available at the time of independence was limited. And, that was the fundamental reason why these principles were not enforceable in any court of law. In case these principles had been enforceable, then there would have been an extra burden on the government to implement these principles irrespective of the available resources with them. But it is the law of nature that as and when time changes, the economic, political, social scenario change. It would be quite illogical to interpret the provision in the same way as they were interpreted at the time of the independence. The economic condition of India has changed over a period of time, and the resources and means which are now available with them are much greater than ever before. Considering these facts, it now becomes the duty of the state to implement these principles as and when it becomes necessary to implement them. Instead, there have been various provisions which were once parts of these directive principles have been enacted in the form of some legislation, and some have been included in the some other parts of the Indian Legal System. But, still there is a need to understand the basic difference between the provisions and its applicability which are present under the head of Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policies. The differences can be understood as follows-

1. On one hand where Fundamental Rights are the basic civil rights which are guaranteed to every citizen of India equally and are enforceable in the court of law, Directive Principles are considered as basic human rights which are not enforceable in any court of law.

2. Directive Principles in order to get implemented need a specific legislation passed by the legislature, but fundamental rights do not require any legislation for their enforcement in the court of law.

3. Directive Principles are the guidelines which have been included in the constitution so as to instruct the state to implement these guidelines as and when it is capable to do so taking into account the available resources.

These are some basic differences which are to be kept in mind while dealing with Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. But as the time has passed, the importance of directive principles has been increasing through various judicial decisions. The Supreme Court and High Courts have started providing importance to these principles more than ever before. This can be seen from various judicial decisions.

Article 39(d) of the Indian Constitution states that the state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women. This provision has been considered by Supreme Court from time to time, and finally it was decided in Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers'' Union vs Union Of India And Others (AIR 1991 SC 1773) that “Equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the Constitution as a Fundamental Right but in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy as contained in Art. 39(d) of the Constitution “equal pay for equal work” has assumed the status of the Fundamental Right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 17 of the Constitution”. This view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India that “equal pay for equal work” is not a mere demagogic slogar but it is a constitutional goal capable of attaining through Constitutional remedies. The Court went on to declare thus:

“Directive Principles as even pointed out in some of the Judgments of this Court, have to be read into the Fundamental Rights as a matter of interpretation”.

Another important section of Part IV of the constitution which has received importance in section 41 which states that 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. Right to Education, as popularly known was included in the list of Fundamental Rights in the year 2002 by 86^th Amendment Act, and became functional in the year 2010. The need of making Right to Education a fundamental right was opined by the Supreme Court in Mohini Jain v. State Of Karnataka (AIR 1992 SC 1858) stating that the directive principles which are fundamental in the governance of the country cannot be isolated from the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III. These principles have to be sent into the Fundamental Rights. Both are supplementary to each other. The State is under a constitutional mandate to each other. The State is under a constitutional mandate to create conditions in which the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the individuals under Part III could be enjoyed by all. Without making “Right to education” under Article 41 of the Constitution a reality, the Fundamental Rights under Chapter III shall remain beyond the reach of large majority which is illiterate. The Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India including the right to freedom of speech and expression and other rights under Article 19 cannot be appreciated and fully enjoyed unless a citizen is education and is conscious of his individualistic dignity.

Article 44 of the constitution states that the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. This provision is very hard to get implement for various reasons. In a country like India where different religious groups are present, it is quite difficult to have a uniform civil code which should be followed by members of every religion in a same way. This instance can be seen in the case of Shah Bano Begum v. Mohd. Akeel Khan 1985 SCC (2) 556 where a Muslim woman was demanding maintenance from her husband after their divorce. Being a Muslim, husband had paid her maintenance for the period as required by the personal Muslim Law, but it was held by the Supreme Court that Shah Bano would be entitled to get maintenance under section 125 of CrPC. This decision was followed by several protests from the Muslims priests and society claiming that this decision would harm their personal law. Soon an action was taken by the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by passing the Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights in Divorce) Act in 1986, a law that essentially provided for maintenance for Muslim women outside the criminal code, thus ensuring that Muslim women were not protected under the constitutional right to equality, and that they could no longer have recourse to section 125 of the Criminal Code. Thus, protection which was provided to Muslim women by Shah Bano judgment was made invalid subsequently due to the pressure from the Muslim section. This is just an example which shows that how difficult it is to implement a uniform civil code in India, and this question remains in ambiguity i.e. whether there would be any legislation in India which can be implemented uniformly. Other legislations such as the Indian Succession Act of 1925, which dealt with inheritance and succession, specifically exempted Muslims, the Special Marriage Act of 1872, which was essentially a secular civil marriage law, also exempted Muslims. Although, some pieces of legislation which don’t exempt anyone from its purview e.g. section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 concerning the legitimacy of the children. It was initially not applicable to Muslims, but later it became applicable to them also despite its inconsistency with Muslim Law.

The above discussion throws a light over the changing status of Directive Principles. The time is not the same where state can escape from its duty to implement these principles when resources are available. At the time of independence, India was not in a condition so that it can provide each and every citizen of the country a happy and prosperous life. Poor administrative system, poor political system, unemployment due to lack of opportunities were some of the major problems which were prevalent at the time of independence. These problems have been solved to a great extent on many parts of the country, and in a process to get solved in the other parts of the country. The Indian Judicial system is considered to be the most powerful judicial system in the world. Here, judiciary is empowered to direct the executive to implement the required legal provisions or to work in accordance with the Constitution. And as the time would pass, it seems that more and more Directive Principles would be implemented.