Directive Principles of State Policy – A talk by Sh. C Pal Singh, Former IGP, Punjab I NISSMAT I

Hello dear viewers. I am C Pal Singh, president of NISSMAT. Welcome to you and good morning, good afternoon, good evening wherever you are. Today I'm going to delve into an often understated and profoundly important part of our constitution. That profound part of our constitution is the directive principles of the state policy. We shall try to explore in this section what they are, why they matter to us, how they influence our laws, how they influence our policies and why every Indian by and large should know about them.

When the framers of the constitution met to decide the foundation of free India, they wanted a document that did not just organize the government, that did not just organize the courts and judiciary. This document should also reflect the soul of the nation. These principles, that is directive principles of state policy, they can be termed as the soul of the constitution. These principles are not justiceable. These principles cannot be got enforced by going to the court of law, which means they serve only as moral and political guidelines for the government.

The makers of the constitution were influenced by many sources to frame these directive principles. The Irish constitution also inspired them and gave them the idea. Besides, the Gandhian philosophy which emphasized the upliftment of the poor and self-reliance was also kept in view. Then the socialist ideas advocated for equitable distribution of wealth and resources, and also the democratic values, they were also kept in view. All these were kept, and the makers of the constitution drew the inspiration for them from these resources, for justice, for liberty, for equality and for fraternity.

The directive principles basically fall into three broad categories. Slides please. The three categories of the directive principles, slide please, are the socialistic principles, the Gandhian principles and the liberal intellectual principles. Now they uphold values of human dignity. These principles, they uphold value of rational legal systems. They uphold the value of global cooperation. The answers lie in balancing and probably harmonizing, which we'll discuss subsequently. The judiciary is supposed to interpret the rights in the light of directive principles. The judiciary has to interpret the rights in terms of the directive principles, that is merging the moral value of the moral vision with the legal enforcers. That's the point of course, the classification. Next slide. Next slide please.

Now with classification we come first to the socialistic principles. The socialistic principles, they promote social honor by ensuring social, economic and political justice. Socialistic principles aim at eradicating the inequalities in income, the inequalities in the status and inequalities in the opportunities provided to the people. These principles ensure adequate means of livelihood for all citizens. They ensure that concentration of wealth should not take place in the hands of the few. Equal opportunity needs to be provided to all and no citizen should be denied the opportunity due to reasons of economic or social disability. Then the assurance of securing living wages to all was also laid down.

Then we come to the next set of principles. They can be labelled under Gandhian principles: to organize village franchisees, to promote cottage industries, to promote democratic management of the public sector undertakings, to promote the education and economic interests of the weaker sections of society, and to improve public health and prohibit consumption of intoxicants, also restriction on the slaughter of cows and other milk animals. This falls under the Gandhian principles.

Next is the liberal or intellectual principles. Now they have a few important points under this. One is establishment of a uniform civil code. Ultimately we are hearing a lot these days about the uniform civil code. The directive principles said establishment of uniform civil code. Next, protection of every monument, every place of artistic religion or every place of historical interest etc. Then free and compulsory education for the children. This was another point to be kept in view. Now keeping in view these points, the directive principles have been put under the three categories. Now the question is, the next slide.

Now the relationship — what is the relationship between the directive principles and the fundamental rights? That is a very important point. The directive principles of state policy, as I gave you the three categories, they are not legally enforceable like fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are legally enforceable. You can go to the court of law and get your fundamental right enforced through the court of law. But directive principles are not legally enforceable. Then obviously when the directive principles are not enforceable, there can be some conflict with the fundamental rights, because the directive principles may say something but they are not enforceable, and the fundamental rights may say something else which is enforceable. So there can be a conflict between the two.

For example, in article 39B and article 39C of the constitution, it favors socialistic policies now which may violate the right to private property. Now the question is, it favors socialistic policies which may violate the right to private property. The right to private property is a fundamental right. If somebody has a property, you can't just take away his property because you say the directive principles lay down that there should be equitable distribution, or they say it violates the equitable distribution. The equitable distribution does not mean that you take away the private property of somebody and start distributing to anyone. So there are certain places where the conflict arises between the directive principles and the fundamental rights. It should be known that while directive principles are not legally enforceable, yet one has to be guided — the state has to be guided in view of the directive principles of state policy while legislating on certain issues — how the legal system should operate so that the state should acknowledge the directive principles to the extent possible.

Of course, let me first explain the relationship again between non-justiciable and justiciable — your fundamental rights or non-justiciable directive principles. This relationship is very important to understand so that the areas of conflict should be understood. The areas of conflict can be, for example, I have mentioned that property right versus land reforms. The abolition of zamindari system and land reform laws are definitely in terms of your directive principles. But when you abolish the zamindari system and you promote equality, it clashes with the rights of a person, of a zamindar who has a property. This leads to several constitutional amendments. Therefore, some constitutional amendments had to be brought forth so that the zamindari system could be abolished. Otherwise without amendment in the constitution or the laws, we could not straight away say, since the property rights should be equitable distributions in terms of directive principles of state policy, the zamindari system is abolished and the land is taken over. So this area of conflict should be understood.

Then there is, for example, the reservation versus equality. Now you see, legally in some cases you may say there should be reservation — that there should be some people who are disabled or this caste, they should be given some reservation — but the fundamental right gives the equality. How do you want to take it away, the fundamental right of equality? So for that also there's areas of conflict, and there had to be some more amendments or more changes in certain laws, in certain amendments and certain articles, so as to bring a harmony between the two. The directive principles have influenced ultimately the policymaking and enactment of special laws in consonance with these principles.

Now try to understand that the directive principles are at times in contradiction with the fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are enforceable in the court of law. Directive principles are not enforceable in the court of law. Now to bring about harmonization and to avoid the area of conflict, sometimes in the course of continuance of the government policies, certain amendments, certain special laws were enacted so that they become in consonance with the directive principles. New laws were enacted, then it's all right because then it becomes enforceable. If the new law is enacted in terms of what is laid down in the fundamental rights, then it becomes legally enforceable. So therefore certain special laws were enacted in consonance with these principles.

Then for example, providing free legal aid and to ensure participation of workers in the management of industries. Okay, you want to give them a participation — the workers' participation in the management in terms of your socialistic principle or in terms of intellectual principle of directive principles of state policy — but providing some legal background, we had to ensure that certain amendments are brought about in the laws or certain new laws are enacted. Now similarly, though not justiciable, many laws I'll refer to which were aligned — the new laws which were aligned with the directive principles of state policies which were enacted. Say for example, right to education. This was enacted in 2009. This right of education was in consonance with the directive principles. But if you say the right of education, every individual should be admitted in tenth class or ninth class or fourth class irrespective of his ability or not ability — sometimes it impinges on the merit of other candidates while you are giving them the sort of quota to the disabled classes. So the right to education act was brought about in 2009 which brought it in consonance with the directive principles. This was aligned with the directive principles, this right to education act.

Then we have got another act, that is MGNREGA, aligned with the article 42 right to work. Right to work did not mean, because the directive principle says right to work, but the right to work if you follow that means you deprive somebody else of his right to work. No. So therefore the act was passed, and this act was passed in 2009 to align with article 41, that is right to work. So those were made aligned. Environmental laws, certain more environmental laws like wildlife protection act etc., they were all inspired by the directive principles of the state policy. So therefore I'm trying to say the policies and laws have also been enacted, changed, enunciated to provide certain conditions in terms of the directive principles. I have indicated some of them.

Similarly about the minimum wages act — you laid down some wages. It again in terms of the directive principles was not necessary that everyone should get wages of eight or due to this wages, but the minimum wages act, it's stipulated under the minimum wages act which is in consonance with the directive principles of the state policy. So some of the legal judgments in this slide are indicated to clarify the influence of the directive principles: right to education act, I said MGNREGA aligned with article 41 right to work, environmental laws like the wildlife protection act, like equal wages act, like right to education. So these laws were enacted or special provisions are made. So to go in terms of the inspiration derived from the directive principles, policy and laws have also been initiated to provide minimum wages. I told you, which stipulates otherwise other conditions. Certain welfare measures to be taken for the labourer also have been provided. These all are in terms of the directive principles.

But if you want that just for directive principles, hence we go to the court of law — it is my right to work, why am I not being given this work here? No, because that is in contradiction with others. So I have right to property, equal property, I should be given some property, why one person has got 100 acres, I don't have even one acre? No, the system has to be abolished so as to bring it in consonance with the directive principles of the state policy. Next.

Now what is the significance of the directive principles? The significance is that it cannot be overlooked totally or at least it cannot be looked down upon. No, no, no, we don't consider the directive principles on just the plea that the courts of law say not provided for, hence they'll go by fundamental rights, therefore the directive principles are ignored. No. However, these directive principles, they give some guidelines, they give some indication to the government to make up policies, to draw out guidelines and measures to facilitate the government so that they are able to follow the soul of the constitution, that is the directive principles, though I am again repeating, though non-enforceable by law. These directive principles, as this slide indicates, though non-enforceable by law, these principles provide important guidelines for promotion of social justice and for welfare of labourers, for education and for other challenges.

Lack of implementation, lack of legal enforcement is definitely a hurdle. But there are also other problems. One is the legal enforcement is not possible. Therefore, you cannot introduce without changing the laws to some extent or enacting new laws — that is the legal enforcement. All right, the other challenges are there. The next challenge is also that in addition there is a constraint, and the challenges are, in addition to legal, there are financial constraints. You want that every daily wager or this thing should get eight or that sort — you don't have finances with the government. So there are sometimes financial constraints, and that sort of financial constraints, they inhibit the welfare measures to be taken under the directive principles.

Then there is sometimes lack of political will also, from government to government. One government may be willing to give all rights to the labour. The other government may not be willing. The next government after five years may not be willing to give so much rights. So there is also the other problem, the other challenge is the political will. This varies across the governments — that is, uniform civil code has been pending. It could not be brought about because there have been different policies, different thinking of the governments. So they never could bring about uniform civil code. Then there is also the other view that they say, all right, if there's a conflict with fundamental rights, that may create legal debates tomorrow, because they'll go to the Supreme Court, they say no, they're trying to avoid our fundamental right. So there are problems. Non-uniform implementation leads to policy gaps. If you have a uniform implementation of all, whatever the directive principles, then it is all right. But invariably you cannot have all the directive principles to be converted into laws. Then there's no need of directive. Directive principle is direction. It is a direction. It provides the government a direction to bring about this, subject to the availability of finances, subject to the availability of changes in the legal laws, subject to the availability that the conflict with the fundamental rights doesn't rise to the extent that these become court cases.

The principles advocating for social justice, equality, inclusive development have led to the introduction of laws as I told you, and therefore the Gandhian focus and the rural self-sufficiency, decentralization of the governance has influenced the policies. Therefore, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, that was enacted, and various agriculture reforms were brought about so as to make these laws in consonance with the soul of the constitution. Similarly, promotion of Swadeshi, promotion of Gandhi ji's idea, advocacy for self-reliance and promotion of industries, then empowerment of weaker sections, Gandhian ideas of upliftment of weaker sections — they were all there in the directive principles, but gradually they were implemented either by bringing some special enactment or by changing in the evolution of the zamindari system etc., so that they become in consonance with the justiceable provisions in the laws.

Now the soul of the constitution being there, as you find that the intent of the framers of the constitution was to guide and direct government to ensure this implementation. Should we make the directives then legally enforceable? The intention was very good, but should we or can we make the directive principles legally enforceable? I think it's not possible. All directive principles made enforceable, there may be financial constraints. It should be realized that instead of making directive principles of state policy fully enforceable or fully justiceable, a balanced approach should be adopted — a balanced approach between the laws already available or the laws which have been enacted should be adopted to harmonize the directive principles along with the fundamental rights or other acts which have been passed from time to time.

Next, that harmonization is sort of middle ground. The middle ground is that neither this side nor that side, you adopt a middle ground. The middle ground is that some directive principles of state policy, like education I told you, health, equal pay, can be made justiceable. Government should make some directive principles of the state policy mandatory by enacting separate legislation, if you have the finances to make them. The doctrine of harmonization, that is very, very important for the constitution today, because otherwise there will be lot of legal hurdles. There have been earlier also, but there can be much more legal hurdles if we go one by one to everything — all right, this is a directive principle, now you have to enforce it by law. So therefore some directive principles of state policy like education, health and equal pay can be made justiceable, if there are resources. Government should make some directive principles mandatory also by enacting separate laws, if the resources are there. The doctrine of harmonization of the constitution is considered important. The directive principles of state policy have evolved with the passage of time in relevance to the year through such judicial interpretation, that is social economic reform and legislative initiatives. Next, the way forward.

Now what is the way forward to do this, so as we are able to implement the directive principles? The way forward is that there should be progressive interpretation. The interpretation of the directive principles, the interpretation of the law should be such that you don't have a restricted view of the law. Give it a little progressive interpretation. Then there has to be legislative prudence. When the courts are giving some instruction, they should keep in view that there are directive principles. If it's not directly in conflict with the directive principles, a little prudence can be exercised at the time of pronouncement of the judgments. Judicial review of some cases can be done. Then public interest litigations can be filed to demand certain policies to be put into laws or to be implemented in terms of some special enactments — that can be done.

Then awareness — awareness should be brought about in the public as far as what are the directive principles. There are very important points which have to be kept in view. I am of the view that somehow or the other, the directive principles of the state policy have not been understood by each and every citizen of the country. Once it is understood by the citizens of the country, probably a better method can be evolved, because in that there can be pressure from the citizens on the government that these are the directive principles. The citizens' pressure should be there so that they're able to understand that these directive principles, which are considered by us as the soul of the constitution, are not ignored totally.

Viewers, I feel the directive principles are not just meant for the state. They are a call also to all of us to shape, or to ensure that we pressurize the government to shape, a more compassionate and more equal India. Let me end with the words of Dr. Ambedkar, who was a principal architect of our constitution. He said, quote, "If you wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact — not to maintain only in the form of democracy but also in fact — what must be done?" The answer is we must hold fast to the constitutional methods and we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. We must hold fast to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, and these principles — the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity — are contained in the directive principles. It is said further, the directive principles are those very tools. They are actually the dream of India. They're cast in a language of law and they are cast in a language of hope for the future. Let's honor them not just in books or speeches, but in action. Thank you very much.