Constitutional Law

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and the Welfare Principle in India



The Constitution of India a visionary document, not only outlines the structure of governance and enshrines fundamental rights but also provides a unique set of guidelines for the State to achieve its socio-economic objectives. These are the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), encapsulated in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51). Though non-justiciable, the DPSP are fundamental to the governance of the country and embody the very essence of India's commitment to becoming a welfare state.

Nature and Purpose of DPSP:

Unlike Fundamental Rights (Part III), which are enforceable by courts, the DPSP are not directly enforceable. Article 37 explicitly states that "the provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein nevertheless are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws." This means that while citizens cannot go to court to demand the implementation of a DPSP, the State (both Union and State governments) is morally and constitutionally bound to consider them while formulating policies and enacting laws.

The primary purpose of the DPSP is to lay down the goals and objectives that the State should strive to achieve for the welfare of its citizens. They represent a comprehensive socio-economic charter for a modern democratic welfare state, aiming to build a society free from exploitation, ensuring social and economic justice.

The Welfare Principle Embodied in DPSP:

The DPSP directly manifest the welfare principle by directing the State to create a society where citizens can live a dignified life. Key examples include:

  • • Article 38: Directs the State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, striving to minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities.
  • • Article 39: Outlines several principles of policy to be followed by the State, such as ensuring adequate means of livelihood for all citizens, equitable distribution of material resources, prevention of concentration of wealth, equal pay for equal work for both men and women, and protection of workers' health.
  • • Article 41: Enjoins the State to make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education, and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness, and disablement.
  • • Article 43: Calls for securing a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life, and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities.
  • • Article 47: Directs the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health.

These, among others, demonstrate the framers' vision of India as a welfare state, moving beyond a mere police state to actively promote the well-being of its citizens.

Relationship with Fundamental Rights and Judicial Interpretation:

The relationship between DPSP and Fundamental Rights (FRs) has been a subject of extensive judicial debate. Initially, courts often held that FRs were superior to DPSP.

  • • State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): The Supreme Court held that DPSP cannot override FRs and if there is a conflict, FRs would prevail.

However, judicial interpretations evolved, recognizing the symbiotic relationship between the two parts of the Constitution.

  • • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark judgment introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. This case also hinted at the importance of DPSP in understanding the constitutional scheme.
  • • Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court explicitly held that the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. It stated that "to give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution." It emphasized that DPSP are meant to achieve socio-economic justice, and FRs are a means to achieve that end.
  • • Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): The Supreme Court, drawing from DPSP (specifically Article 45 then), held that the right to education is a fundamental right implicit in Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). This showcased how DPSP can give content to and expand the scope of FRs.

Conclusion:

The Directive Principles of State Policy are not mere moral precepts; they are fundamental guiding lights for governance in India. They constantly remind the State of its constitutional obligation to establish a just social and economic order, thereby transforming India into a true welfare state. The judicial balancing act between DPSP and Fundamental Rights has further solidified their significance, ensuring that while individual liberties are protected, the collective welfare of society also remains a paramount objective.