Skip to main content

Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 36 -51)

Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
(Article 36 -51)

It includes:
  1. Welfare of the State
  2. State makes law and policies
  3. Social Justice
Article 38 says about Welfare policy.



Introduction:

To implement the ideals, to achieve the goals that is srinked in the preamble of the constitution, to establish a welfare state, fundamental rights and the Directive Principles of state policy has been provided in the constitution.

Part-4 of the constitution, Article 36-51 lays down various provisions.
Directive principles of state policy have been borrowed from the constitution of Ireland in 1937.

They are the fundamental in the governance of the country, they are known as Positive or Negative rights.


Classification of Directive Principles of State Policy:

  1. Social and Economic Charter
  2. Social Security Charter
  3. Community Welfare Charter
Social and Economic Charter:

Article- 38 says about Social Order
Article- 39 says about Securing Economic Justice

Social Security Charter:

Article – 39A: Equal justice and free legal Aid to the economically 
Backward classes.

Article – 41: Just and Human Conditions of the work

Article – 42: Right to work, education and public assistance in certain 
  Cases

Article – 43: Participation of the workers in the Management of 
Industries.

Article - 45: Compulsory education for children. 

Article – 46: Promotion of educational and economic interest of the 
Weaker sections.

Article – 47: Duty to raise the standard of living and improvement of 
the health. 

Community Welfare Charter:

Article – 44: Uniform civil code

Article – 48: Organization of agriculture and animal husbandry.

Article – 48A: Protection and improvement of forests and wild life.

Article – 51: Promotion of International peace and security.

Relation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State policy: 
  1. First View: Fundamental Rights to DPSP
  2. Second View:         DPSP to Fundamental Rights
  3. Third View: Balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSP
First View:
Fundamental Right to DPSP:
Fundamental rights are enforceable and hence they would prevail over DPSP.

In State of Madras
V
Champakam Dorairanjan

The Supreme Court held that, in the case of any conflict between the fundamental rights and DPSP, the fundamental right would prevail over DPSP.

Second View:
DPSP to Fundamental Rights:

According to this view, DPSP being the Social Rights should be preferred on the grounds that the equal rights may be out weighted in the entrance of the society.


In Kesavnanda Bharti
V
State of Kerala

The Supreme Court held that, the parliament is empowered to amend the fundamental rights to give the effect to DPSP.

Third View:
Balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSP:

The Supreme Court accepted the importance of DPSP and tried to harmonize the DPSP with Fundamental Rights.

In Kerala Education Bill (1957)

The Supreme Court observed that through the DPSP cannot over rite the fundamental rights but in order to determine the scope ambience of the fundamental rights, the DPSP cannot be ignored.

Therefore the principles of harmonious construction were adopted to give effect to both.
In      Mohini Jain
    V
State of Karnataka

In this case, the petition of Mohini Jain challenged the Karnataka Educational Institution.
The petitioner was denied of admission as she could not afford to pay such heavy fees.
The Supreme Court held that charging such heavy fees amount to deny the Right to Education, which is the violation of Personal liberty under Article-21.

In Olga Telis
V
Bombay Municipal Corporation

It was held that, life under Article-21 includes Right to livelihood.
No person can live without the means of livelihood.
The right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of the constitution.
The easiest way to deprive a person of his right to life is to deprive him of his right to livelihood.

In Minerva Mills
V
Union of India

In this case, both Fundamental rights and DPSP are equal.

Hope you enjoy reading!!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment

 Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment I, Trilok Chand Gupta Joint Secretary of ETA Garden have celebrated and raised our country Flag at our pavilion. It's been published in the News Paper for welcoming people for Flag Hoisting.

THEFT (Section 378)

  THEFT (Section 378) Sec-378 Indian Penal Code defines theft. A person is guilty of theft is he takes with dishonest intention, any moveable property, out of the possession of any person, without his consent and moves with the property. 1)  If an item is attached to the earth, it cannot be stolen, but if it is freed from the earth it may be stolen. 2)  Moving the property is essential. Removing an obstacle amounts to theft. Eg: 1) A cuts down a -tree from the field of Z with a view to dishonestly taking the 2) tree. He has committed theft. A meets a bullock cart carrying valuable articles, he causes it to be moved in a different direction with a dishonest intention to take it. This is theft. Essentials: 1. Dishonest taking. 2. Moveable property 3. Out of the possession of the person 4. Without consent 5. Moving with the property 1. Dishonest Taking: The dishonest intention is the gist of the offense. The accused must make wrongful gain or wrongful loss. The taking must b...

Insanity (Section 84)

  Insanity (Sec-84) Act of a person of unsound mind is given under Sec-84 as, “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law” The law of Insanity was introduced by a leading case of McNaughton. In R V Mc. Naughten Facts: Daniel Mc. Naughten the accused, murdered Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of Sir. Robert Peel, the Prime Minister of England, by confusion that Mr. Drummond was Sir. Robert Peel. He was tried for murder. On behalf of the accused, the defense counsel pleaded that, the accused due to the insanity, he was not able to know that he was violating the laws of God and man. It was established that the accused lost his power of control of mind, while committing the offence, a medical report was also produced to that effect. Judgment: The court acquitted Mc. Naughten on the grounds of Insanity. Mc. Naug...