Polity Set 53
π
π Directive Principles β’ Article 44
Q.1) Which Directive Principle requires the State to secure for all citizens a uniform civil code throughout the country?
Ans > Article 44
- Constitutional Mandate: Article 44 in Part IV of the Indian Constitution explicitly directs the State to endeavor to secure a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) for all citizens across the entire territory of India, aiming to unify diverse legal frameworks.
- Scope of the Code: A UCC is designed to replace personal laws based on religious scriptures and customs with a common set of rules governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption, ensuring all citizens are treated equally regardless of faith.
- The Goa Exception: Currently, Goa is the only Indian state implementing a form of a uniform civil code. The Goa Civil Code, a legacy retained from Portuguese colonial rule, remains applicable to all its residents today.
- Supreme Court Stance: The Indian judiciary has repeatedly highlighted the necessity of a UCC in landmark judgments like the Shah Bano case (1985) and the Sarla Mudgal case (1995), stressing its importance for national integration, gender justice, and secularism.
π Directive Principles β’ Article 50
Q.2) Article 50 of the Constitution directs the State to:
Ans > Separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services
- Ensuring Impartiality: Article 50 was incorporated to ensure the complete independence of the judiciary. By separating judicial functions from executive control, the Constitution ensures that judges and magistrates can operate without political pressure or administrative interference.
- Historical Context: During British colonial rule, executive officers (like District Collectors) often held judicial powers, which compromised fair trials. The framers of the Constitution recognized this flaw and mandated separation to uphold democratic justice.
- Legislative Implementation: The separation was practically achieved through the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in 1973. This sweeping legal reform stripped executive magistrates of their traditional judicial powers, transferring them strictly to judicial magistrates.
- Categorization of Magistrates: Today, Executive Magistrates handle administrative duties and law-and-order maintenance (like issuing Section 144 orders), while Judicial Magistrates exclusively handle criminal trials, thereby fulfilling the mandate of Article 50.
π Constitutional Amendments β’ 42nd Amendment
Q.3) The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 added four new Directive Principles. Which of the following is NOT one of them?
Ans > To minimise inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities (Article 38)
- The Mini-Constitution: The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, enacted during the Emergency under Indira Gandhi, was so comprehensive that it is often called the “Mini-Constitution.” It heavily expanded the scope of Part IV by adding multiple new socialistic and environmental directives.
- Newly Added Articles: This amendment specifically introduced Article 39A (free legal aid), Article 43A (participation of workers in management), and Article 48A (protection of environment and wildlife), fundamentally shifting the State’s welfare responsibilities.
- Modification to Article 39: It also amended Article 39(f) to ensure that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, protecting them against exploitation.
- The Exception Explained: The directive to minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities, and opportunities (Article 38) was NOT added by the 42nd Amendment. It was actually introduced later by the Morarji Desai government through the 44th Amendment Act of 1978.
π Constitutional Amendments β’ 44th Amendment
Q.4) The Directive Principle requiring the State to minimise inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities (Article 38) was added by which Amendment Act?
Ans > 44th Amendment Act of 1978
- Political Reversal: The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 was enacted by the Janata Party government primarily to reverse and rectify many of the authoritarian changes made during the Emergency by the controversial 42nd Amendment.
- Expansion of Article 38: Originally, Article 38 only directed the State to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people. The 44th Amendment specifically added clause (2) to this article to tackle deep-rooted socio-economic disparities.
- Focus on Equality: This new clause explicitly mandates the State to strive to minimize inequalities in income and eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities, not just among individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas.
- Welfare State Philosophy: This addition strengthened the constitutional foundation of India as a welfare state, obligating the government to focus its economic policies on lifting marginalized communities and preventing the concentration of wealth.
π Constitutional Amendments β’ 86th Amendment
Q.5) The 86th Amendment Act of 2002 changed the subject-matter of Article 45. It now directs the State to provide:
Ans > Early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years
- Educational Revolution: The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002 was a watershed moment in Indian education. It fundamentally restructured how the Constitution addresses the educational rights and early developmental care of the nation’s children.
- Creation of Article 21A: This amendment elevated the right to elementary education (for children aged 6 to 14 years) from a mere Directive Principle to an enforceable Fundamental Right by inserting the new Article 21A into Part III of the Constitution.
- Transformation of Article 45: Because the 6-to-14 age group was moved to Fundamental Rights, the subject matter of Article 45 in the DPSP was entirely rewritten to focus exclusively on early childhood care and education for children below the age of six.
- Policy Impact: This directive heavily influenced modern government initiatives like the Anganwadi system and the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme, which provide crucial preschool education, nutrition, and primary healthcare to young children across India.
π Constitutional Amendments β’ 97th Amendment
Q.6) Which Constitutional Amendment Act added a new Directive Principle (Article 43B) relating to co-operative societies?
Ans > 97th Amendment Act of 2011
- Empowering Grassroots: The 97th Amendment Act of 2011 was specifically designed to give constitutional status and protection to co-operative societies, recognizing their vital role in the economic development of rural and agricultural sectors in India.
- Addition of Article 43B: This amendment inserted Article 43B into the Directive Principles of State Policy, which mandates that the State shall endeavor to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control, and professional management of co-operative societies.
- Fundamental Right Status: Alongside the DPSP addition, the amendment also modified Article 19(1)(c) to make the formation of co-operative societies a Fundamental Right, ensuring citizens have the protected freedom to unionize for economic cooperation.
- New Constitutional Part: To provide a detailed administrative framework, the 97th Amendment also added an entirely new Part IX-B to the Constitution (Articles 243-ZH to 243-ZT), explicitly detailing the incorporation, board structure, and election rules for these societies.
π Constitutional History β’ Justiciability
Q.7) Who recommended that the rights of an individual should be divided into two categories: justiciable and non-justiciable?
Ans > Sir B.N. Rau
- Role of B.N. Rau: Sir Benegal Narsing Rau served as the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly. Though not an elected member, his legal expertise was instrumental in drafting the initial framework of the Indian Constitution.
- Irish Inspiration: Rau heavily studied the Irish Constitution of 1937, which had successfully divided citizens’ rights into enforceable Fundamental Rights and non-enforceable Directive Principles of Social Policy. He recommended adopting this dual structure for India.
- Reason for Division: Rau recognized that while political and civil rights (like free speech) could be immediately enforced by courts, India’s newly independent, impoverished economy lacked the financial resources to guarantee enforceable socio-economic rights (like the right to work or education).
- Acceptance by the Assembly: His pragmatic recommendation was accepted by the Drafting Committee. Consequently, enforceable rights were placed in Part III (Fundamental Rights), while non-justiciable socio-economic goals were placed in Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy).
π Directive Principles β’ Article 37
Q.8) Article 37 states that the Directive Principles are non-justiciable. However, it also declares that these principles are:
Ans > Fundamental in the governance of the country
- Dual Nature of Art 37: Article 37 explicitly contains two contrasting but complementary features. First, it states that the provisions contained in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court, preventing citizens from suing the government for failing to implement them.
- Moral Obligation: Secondly, it emphatically declares that these principles are nonetheless “fundamental in the governance of the country.” This places a powerful moral and political obligation on the State to use these principles as a compass.
- Law-Making Guide: The article specifically instructs that it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. Every legislative and executive action is expected to strive toward achieving the socio-economic goals outlined in Part IV.
- Voter Accountability: While courts cannot enforce them, the ultimate sanction behind the Directive Principles is political. Governments are held accountable by the electorate; failure to implement these principles can lead to a loss of public support and defeat in subsequent elections.
π Constitutional Critics β’ K.T. Shah
Q.9) Who criticised the Directive Principles by calling them “pious superfluities” and compared them to a cheque payable only when bank resources permit?
Ans > K.T. Shah
- Constituent Assembly Critic: Prof. K.T. Shah was a prominent and highly vocal member of the Constituent Assembly of India. He represented Bihar and was known for his staunch socialist views and sharp critiques of the draft constitution.
- Demand for Justiciability: Shah strongly believed that socio-economic rights should be made legally binding. He argued that making the Directive Principles non-justiciable rendered them practically useless and merely decorative promises without any legal teeth.
- The Famous Quote: Expressing his deep frustration with their non-enforceable nature, Shah famously compared the Directive Principles to “a cheque on a bank, payable only when the resources of the bank permit,” highlighting the government’s convenient loophole to avoid implementation.
- Pious Superfluities: He also dismissed them as “pious superfluities,” arguing that without the backing of the courts, these directives were nothing more than empty, well-meaning wishes that the political elite could easily ignore once in power.
π Constitutional Critics β’ T.T. Krishnamachari
Q.10) Who described the Directive Principles of State Policy as a “veritable dustbin of sentiments”?
Ans > T.T. Krishnamachari
- Identity of the Critic: T.T. Krishnamachari was a prominent member of the Constituent Assembly’s Drafting Committee and a highly respected Indian politician who later served as the Finance Minister of India.
- Nature of the Criticism: Despite being heavily involved in the Constitution’s creation, Krishnamachari was highly skeptical of the practical utility of Part IV. He believed that grouping a vast array of unconnected ideals into one section diminished their serious legislative value.
- The Dustbin Analogy: He famously labeled the Directive Principles as a “veritable dustbin of sentiments,” suggesting that the Assembly had simply dumped all the good ideas, aspirations, and unresolved political promises into this non-justiciable section to appease various interest groups.
- Lack of Legal Force: His core argument was that filling the Constitution with grand, philosophical sentiments that lacked any immediate legal backing would only create confusion and false hope among the masses without resulting in concrete, enforceable administrative changes.
π Constitutional Critics β’ K.C. Wheare
Q.11) Which British constitutional expert opined that the Directive Principles serve as a mere “moral homily” and “manifesto of aims and aspirations”?
Ans > K.C. Wheare
- Eminent Scholar: Kenneth Clinton Wheare (K.C. Wheare) was a highly influential Australian-born academic and an internationally recognized expert on federalism and constitutional law, widely known for his analysis of Commonwealth constitutions.
- Skepticism of Part IV: Wheare viewed the inclusion of non-justiciable rights in a legal document like a constitution as inherently problematic. He believed that constitutions should strictly contain enforceable laws, not philosophical aspirations.
- Moral Homily: He criticized the Directive Principles by referring to them as a “moral homily” and a “manifesto of aims and aspirations.” He argued that they read more like a political party’s election manifesto than a binding legal text.
- Questioning Utility: Wheare suggested that inserting such directives blurred the line between law and morality. He feared that these non-binding goals would remain mere paper promises, ultimately serving no practical legal purpose in the actual governance and judicial review of the nation.
π Constitutional Critics β’ Sir Ivor Jennings
Q.12) Sir Ivor Jennings claimed the Directive Principles are based on the political philosophy of 19th century England and expressed:
Ans > Fabian Socialism without the socialism
- The Critic’s Background: Sir Ivor Jennings was an eminent British constitutional lawyer and academic who heavily scrutinized the Indian Constitution. He famously found the document to be overly long, rigid, and unnecessarily complex.
- Outdated Philosophy: Jennings criticized the Directive Principles for being deeply rooted in the outdated political and economic philosophy of 19th-century England, rather than reflecting the modern, indigenous realities and needs of mid-20th-century India.
- The Fabian Critique: He famously stated that Part IV expressed “Fabian Socialism without the socialism.” He meant that while the directives used the language of gradual, reformist welfare (typical of the British Fabian Society), they lacked the actual systemic socialist mechanisms required for true wealth redistribution.
- Ghost of Sidney Webb: Jennings elaborated on this by stating that the “ghosts of Sidney and Beatrice Webb” (founders of Fabianism) stalked through the pages of the Indian Constitution, pointing out the heavy British intellectual influence on India’s founders.
π Constitutional Critics β’ K. Santhanam
Q.13) Which member pointed out that the Directive Principles could lead to a constitutional conflict between the Centre and the states, the President and the Prime Minister, and the governor and chief minister?
Ans > K. Santhanam
- Constituent Assembly Member: K. Santhanam was a prominent politician, scholar, and member of the Constituent Assembly from Madras. He is also well-known for later chairing the famous Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption.
- Foresight on Conflicts: Santhanam possessed remarkable political foresight. While others debated the legal enforceability of the directives, he warned about the severe administrative and constitutional friction these principles could cause between different tiers and branches of government.
- Centre vs. State Friction: He argued that if a State government ignored a Directive Principle, the Central government might issue directives to force compliance. If the State refused, the Centre could invoke Article 365, potentially leading to the dismissal of the State government.
- Executive Deadlocks: He also warned of potential clashes at the highest executive levels. If a Prime Minister pushed a bill that allegedly violated a DPSP, the President might refuse to sign it, citing their oath to defend the Constitution, leading to a massive institutional deadlock.
π Constitutional Experts β’ L.M. Singhvi
Q.14) Who stated that the Directives are “the life giving provisions of the Constitution. They constitute the stuff of the Constitution and its philosophy of social justice”?
Ans > L.M. Singhvi
- Distinguished Jurist: Dr. L.M. Singhvi was an eminent Indian jurist, parliamentarian, scholar, and diplomat. He was known for his deep understanding of constitutional law and his passionate advocacy for human rights and social justice.
- Positive Appraisal: Unlike early critics who dismissed the Directives as empty promises, Singhvi offered a highly positive and profound assessment of Part IV, recognizing it as the soul of the newly independent nation’s governance model.
- Life Giving Provisions: By calling them the “life giving provisions,” Singhvi meant that while Fundamental Rights provide the static framework of liberty, the Directive Principles provide the dynamic energy required to continuously improve the lives of the citizens.
- Philosophy of Social Justice: He emphasized that the directives were not just administrative guidelines but formed the core philosophical “stuff” of the Constitution, transforming it from a mere legal rulebook into a powerful instrument for achieving comprehensive socio-economic justice.
π Constitutional Experts β’ M.C. Chagla
Q.15) Former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court M.C. Chagla opined that if all the Directive Principles are fully carried out, India would be:
Ans > A heaven on earth
- Legal Luminary: Mahommedali Currim Chagla (M.C. Chagla) was a highly distinguished Indian jurist, diplomat, and Cabinet Minister who served as the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court from 1948 to 1958.
- Vision of Ultimate Welfare: Chagla held the Directive Principles in incredibly high regard. He believed that the framers of the Constitution had perfectly encapsulated every necessary ingredient for an ideal, equitable society within Part IV.
- The ‘Heaven’ Quote: In a famous constitutional commentary, he stated that if the government sincerely and fully implemented every single Directive Principle, India would literally be transformed into a “heaven on earth.”
- Comprehensive Scope: This quote highlights the vast, all-encompassing nature of the directivesβranging from securing adequate livelihoods, equal pay, and free education, to protecting the environment and ensuring international peace. Chagla believed fulfilling these would eradicate all poverty and systemic suffering in India.
π Constitutional Experts β’ B.R. Ambedkar
Q.16) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar pointed out that the Directive Principles have great value because they lay down that the goal of the Indian polity is:
Ans > Economic democracy
- Architect’s Vision: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, strongly defended the inclusion of the Directive Principles against critics who called them useless due to their non-justiciable nature.
- Beyond Political Rights: Ambedkar argued that while Part III (Fundamental Rights) successfully established “political democracy” (one man, one vote), political freedom was meaningless to a starving population. The nation urgently needed a framework for material survival.
- The Goal of Economic Democracy: He explicitly stated that the primary value of the Directive Principles is their mandate to establish “economic democracy.” This ensures that the government is continually working to prevent the concentration of wealth and to provide equitable livelihoods.
- Blueprint for Governance: Ambedkar emphasized that whoever captures power at the Centre or in the States, whether socialist or capitalist, must respect these directives. They serve as an inescapable constitutional blueprint demanding continuous progress toward socio-economic equality.
π Constitutional Experts β’ Granville Austin
Q.17) Who opined that the Directive Principles are “aimed at furthering the goals of the social revolution or to foster this revolution by establishing the conditions necessary for its achivement”?
Ans > Granville Austin
- Foremost Historian: Granville Austin was an acclaimed American historian and a leading authority on the Indian Constitution. His seminal work, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, is considered a definitive text on the subject.
- The Concept of Social Revolution: Austin posited that the Indian nationalist movement had two intertwined goals: achieving political independence from Britain and initiating a massive “social revolution” to uplift the deeply impoverished and rigidly hierarchical Indian society.
- The Conscience of the Constitution: He famously described the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles together as the “Conscience of the Constitution,” working in tandem to pull India out of its feudal past.
- Role of DPSP: Austin argued that the specific purpose of the Directive Principles was to systematically further the goals of this ongoing social revolution, legally mandating the State to create the economic and social conditions necessary to eradicate caste-based and economic oppression.
π Supreme Court Judgements β’ Champakam Dorairajan Case
Q.18) In the Champakam Dorairajan case (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:
Ans > Fundamental Rights would prevail
- The Trigger Issue: The State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) was a landmark case involving caste-based reservations in medical and engineering colleges in Madras, which were challenged for violating the Fundamental Right to equality (Article 15).
- Government’s Defense: The State government defended its reservation policy by citing Article 46 of the Directive Principles, which mandates the State to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, specifically SCs and STs.
- The Judicial Ruling: The Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the Directive Principles, which are non-justiciable under Article 37, cannot override the justiciable Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
- Subsidiary Status: The Court declared that in any direct conflict between the two, Fundamental Rights would unequivocally prevail. The Directive Principles have to strictly conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter on Fundamental Rights. This ruling prompted the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect reservation policies.
π Supreme Court Judgements β’ Golaknath Case
Q.19) In which case did the Supreme Court rule that the Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights, stating they are ‘sacrosanct’ in nature?
Ans > Golaknath case (1967)
- Background of the Dispute: The Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case arose when the Golaknath family challenged the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, which restricted their land holdings. They argued it violated their Fundamental Right to property and equality.
- Reversal of Precedent: In a historic 6:5 majority judgment, the Supreme Court reversed its own earlier rulings (like Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh), which had previously allowed Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights to implement Directive Principles.
- The Sacrosanct Ruling: Chief Justice Subba Rao delivered the majority opinion, declaring that Fundamental Rights occupy a transcendental and “sacrosanct” position in the Constitution. They are immune to the legislative reach of the government.
- Restriction on Parliament: The Court controversially ruled that Parliament had absolutely no power to amend Part III of the Constitution to take away or abridge any Fundamental Rights, even if the goal was to implement the welfare-driven Directive Principles.
π Constitutional Amendments β’ 24th Amendment
Q.20) The 24th Amendment Act (1971) declared that the Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting:
Ans > Constitutional Amendment Acts
- Political Backlash: The 24th Amendment Act of 1971 was Indira Gandhi’s direct, aggressive political response to the Supreme Court’s restrictive ruling in the Golaknath case (1967), which had blocked her government’s socialist land reform agendas.
- Amending Article 13 and 368: This Amendment explicitly altered Article 13 and Article 368 of the Constitution to clearly state that the Parliament has absolute, unrestricted power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.
- Distinction of Laws: The amendment clarified the distinction between an “ordinary law” (which cannot violate Fundamental Rights under Article 13) and a “Constitutional Amendment Act” under Article 368 (which is exempt from the restrictions of Article 13).
- Presidential Assent: To further solidify parliamentary supremacy, the 24th Amendment also made it legally mandatory for the President of India to give their assent to any Constitutional Amendment Bill passed by both Houses, removing the President’s veto power on amendments.
π Constitutional Amendments β’ 25th Amendment
Q.21) The 25th Amendment Act (1971) inserted a new Article 31C to protect laws seeking to implement the socialistic Directive Principles specified in:
Ans > Article 39 (b) and (c)
- Push for Socialism: Following the 24th Amendment, the Indira Gandhi government passed the 25th Amendment Act (1971) to aggressively push forward bank nationalization and land redistribution without interference from the courts.
- Introduction of Article 31C: This amendment fundamentally altered the balance between parts III and IV by inserting a highly controversial new article: Article 31C.
- Primacy over Fundamental Rights: The first provision of Article 31C stated that any law made to implement the specific socialistic Directives in Article 39(b) (equitable distribution of material resources) and Article 39(c) (prevention of concentration of wealth) could not be declared void even if it violated the Fundamental Rights of equality (Art 14) or freedoms (Art 19).
- Ousting Judicial Review: The second, more dangerous provision of Article 31C stated that no such law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned in any court.
π Supreme Court Judgements β’ Kesavananda Bharati Case
Q.22) In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court declared the second provision of Article 31C unconstitutional because it took away:
Ans > Judicial review, which is a basic feature of the Constitution
- The Largest Bench: The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case was heard by a 13-judge bench, the largest in India’s history. It had the monumental task of reviewing the constitutional validity of the 24th and 25th Amendments.
- Upholding the First Provision: The Court surprisingly upheld the first part of Article 31C. It agreed that laws implementing Articles 39(b) and 39(c) could indeed override the Fundamental Rights in Articles 14 and 19, marking a massive victory for DPSP implementation.
- Striking Down the Second Provision: However, the Court struck down the second provision of Article 31C (which stated that courts couldn’t even question if the law actually fulfilled the directives) as strictly unconstitutional.
- The Basic Structure Doctrine: The Court ruled that “Judicial Review” is a core, unalterable “Basic Feature” of the Constitution. Parliament cannot pass any amendment that strips the Supreme Court of its fundamental power to review laws, effectively birthing the Basic Structure Doctrine.
π Supreme Court Judgements β’ Minerva Mills Case
Q.23) The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) attempted to extend the scope of Article 31C to accord primacy to ALL Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. This was declared unconstitutional in the:
Ans > Minerva Mills case (1980)
- Emergency Era Overreach: Emboldened by the partial survival of Article 31C in the Kesavananda case, the Indira Gandhi government used the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) during the Emergency to vastly expand executive power.
- Total DPSP Primacy: The amendment drastically widened the scope of Article 31C. It declared that laws seeking to implement any or all of the Directive Principles specified in Part IV could not be invalidated even if they violated Fundamental Rights (Articles 14 and 19).
- Subordination of Rights: This legislative move essentially made the entirety of Part III (Fundamental Rights) completely legally subordinate to Part IV (Directive Principles), destroying the delicate balance of the Constitution.
- The Judicial Strike Down: In the landmark Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) case, the Supreme Court struck down this vast extension of Article 31C, declaring it unconstitutional. The Court ruled that extending total primacy to all DPSPs destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution.
π Supreme Court Judgements β’ Minerva Mills Doctrine
Q.24) In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court stated that the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles are:
Ans > Like two wheels of a chariot
- Restoring the Balance: After decades of legal battles and constitutional amendments shifting power back and forth between Fundamental Rights (FR) and Directive Principles (DPSP), the Minerva Mills case (1980) finally established a harmonious judicial philosophy.
- The Core Philosophy: Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, delivering the majority opinion, explicitly stated that the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Part III (FRs) and Part IV (DPSPs).
- The Chariot Analogy: To illustrate this, the Court beautifully articulated that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are “like two wheels of a chariot”βone as important as the other. You cannot remove or severely weaken one without causing the constitutional machinery to collapse.
- Harmony as Basic Structure: The Court officially declared that this harmony and balance between the two parts is an essential feature of the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is fundamentally unconstitutional.
π Directives Outside Part IV β’ Article 335
Q.25) Which Article outside Part IV directs that the claims of the members of SCs and STs shall be taken into consideration in making appointments to services?
Ans > Article 335
- Directives Outside Part IV: While Part IV (Articles 36-51) contains the core Directive Principles, there are a few other vital directives scattered in other parts of the Constitution that function similarly as non-justiciable instructions to the State.
- Location of Article 335: Article 335 is located in Part XVI of the Constitution, which deals with “Special Provisions Relating to Certain Classes,” rather than in the traditional DPSP chapter.
- The Specific Mandate: It explicitly directs that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs) shall be taken into consideration when making appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or a State.
- Efficiency Clause: However, this directive comes with a critical qualifying condition: these claims must be considered “consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration,” ensuring that reservations do not completely compromise administrative competence.
π Directives Outside Part IV β’ Article 350-A
Q.26) Which Article outside Part IV directs the state to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education?
Ans > Article 350-A
- Protection of Minorities: Article 350-A is a crucial constitutional provision placed outside the traditional DPSP chapter. It is found in Part XVII of the Constitution, which deals comprehensively with Official Languages.
- Origin of the Article: This specific directive was not in the original Constitution. It was inserted later by the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956, following the recommendations of the State Reorganization Commission to protect linguistic minorities.
- Educational Mandate: It imposes a strong directive on every State and local authority within the State to endeavor to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education.
- Target Demographic: This protection is specifically aimed at children belonging to linguistic minority groups, ensuring they are not alienated from the education system early on by being forced to study in a dominant regional language they do not understand.
π Directives Outside Part IV β’ Article 351
Q.27) Which Article outside Part IV makes it the duty of the Union to promote the spread and development of the Hindi language?
Ans > Article 351
- Linguistic Integration: Like Articles 335 and 350-A, Article 351 acts as a directive principle located outside Part IV. It is the final article in Part XVII, outlining a specific cultural and linguistic goal for the central government.
- Duty of the Union: Article 351 explicitly lays down that it shall be the duty of the Union government to proactively promote the spread of the Hindi language across the nation.
- Development Guidelines: The article directs that Hindi should be developed so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all elements of the composite culture of India. It suggests enriching Hindi by assimilating forms, styles, and expressions used in Hindustani and other Indian languages specified in the Eighth Schedule.
- Vocabulary Focus: Interestingly, the Constitution specifically directs that when enriching Hindi’s vocabulary, the Union should draw primarily on Sanskrit, and secondarily on other languages, to maintain a unified linguistic base.
π Institutions β’ Planning Commission
Q.28) To implement Directive Principles, the Planning Commission was established in 1950. In 2015, it was replaced by:
Ans > NITI Aayog
- The Soviet Influence: Shortly after independence, to systematically implement the socio-economic goals laid out in the Directive Principles, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru established the Planning Commission in 1950 via an executive resolution, heavily inspired by the Soviet Union’s Five-Year Plans.
- Centralized Control: For 65 years, the Planning Commission acted as a highly centralized authority, formulating five-year plans and distributing funds to states to achieve agricultural growth, industrialization, and poverty alleviation.
- The 2015 Shift: Recognizing that a top-down, centralized planning model was no longer suitable for a diverse, rapidly growing 21st-century market economy, the Modi government officially dissolved the Planning Commission.
- The Replacement: On January 1, 2015, it was replaced by the NITI Aayog. This new body was designed to act as a modern “think tank” rather than a financial controller, emphasizing cooperative federalism and bottom-up policy formulation.
π Institutions β’ NITI Aayog
Q.29) What does NITI stand for in NITI Aayog, which replaced the Planning Commission in 2015?
Ans > National Institution for Transforming India
- Etymology and Acronym: The word “NITI” in Sanskrit and Hindi translates to “policy” or “morality.” However, in the context of the NITI Aayog, it also serves as an official English acronym standing for the “National Institution for Transforming India.”
- Shift in Philosophy: The name itself reflects a major shift in governance philosophy. While the old Planning Commission focused on rigid “planning” and allocating state resources, NITI focuses on “transforming” India through strategic advice, innovation, and technological integration.
- Structure and Leadership: Like the Planning Commission, the Prime Minister serves as the ex-officio Chairperson of the NITI Aayog. However, its Governing Council uniquely includes all State Chief Ministers and Lieutenant Governors, ensuring states have a direct voice in national policymaking.
- Core Mandate: Its primary functions include fostering cooperative federalism, designing long-term strategic frameworks (like the 15-year vision document), and acting as the premier policy ‘think tank’ for the Government of India.
π Legislations β’ Labour Rights
Q.30) Which Act was enacted in 1948 to protect the interests of the labour sections, fulfilling Directive Principles?
Ans > Minimum Wages Act
- Fulfilling Constitutional Promises: The Minimum Wages Act of 1948 was one of the earliest and most significant pieces of legislation enacted by independent India to practically implement the socio-economic promises laid out in the Directive Principles of State Policy.
- Connection to Article 43: This Act directly operationalizes Article 43 of the Constitution, which explicitly mandates the State to secure for all workers a “living wage” and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure.
- Scope of Protection: Enacted even before the Constitution formally came into effect, the Act legally empowered the government to fix and regularly revise minimum rates of wages for workers employed in specific “scheduled employments” (like agriculture, construction, and manufacturing).
- Preventing Exploitation: By establishing a legal wage floor, the Act was fundamentally designed to prevent the exploitation of unorganized, vulnerable laborers, ensuring they earn enough for basic sustenance, housing, and medical needs, thereby upholding economic democracy.
π Quick Summary β Polity Set 53
- Article 44: Requires the State to secure a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) for all citizens.
- Article 50: Directs the separation of the judiciary from the executive in public services.
- 42nd Amendment: Added new DPSPs but DID NOT add the directive to minimize income inequalities.
- 44th Amendment: Added Article 38 directing the State to minimize inequalities in income, status, and opportunities.
- 86th Amendment: Altered Article 45 to focus on early childhood care and education for children below six years.
- 97th Amendment: Added Article 43B relating to the promotion of co-operative societies.
- Justiciability: Sir B.N. Rau recommended dividing rights into justiciable and non-justiciable categories.
- Article 37: States that DPSPs are non-justiciable but “fundamental in the governance of the country.”
- K.T. Shah: Criticized DPSPs as “pious superfluities” and compared them to a cheque payable only when bank resources permit.
- T.T. Krishnamachari: Described the DPSPs as a “veritable dustbin of sentiments.”
- K.C. Wheare: Called the Directive Principles a mere “moral homily” and “manifesto of aims.”
- Sir Ivor Jennings: Claimed DPSPs expressed “Fabian Socialism without the socialism.”
- K. Santhanam: Warned that DPSPs could lead to constitutional conflicts between the Centre, states, President, and PM.
- L.M. Singhvi: Appraised the Directives as the “life giving provisions of the Constitution.”
- M.C. Chagla: Opined that fulfilling all DPSPs would transform India into a “heaven on earth.”
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Stated the value of DPSPs lies in establishing the goal of “economic democracy.”
- Granville Austin: Described DPSPs as aiming to foster a “social revolution.”
- Champakam Dorairajan (1951): Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights prevail over Directive Principles in conflicts.
- Golaknath Case (1967): Ruled that Parliament cannot take away Fundamental Rights, rendering them ‘sacrosanct’.
- 24th Amendment (1971): Declared Parliament has the power to abridge Fundamental Rights via Constitutional Amendment Acts.
- 25th Amendment (1971): Inserted Article 31C to protect laws implementing Article 39 (b) and (c) from FR challenges.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Struck down the second provision of Article 31C for violating the basic feature of Judicial Review.
- Minerva Mills Case (1980): Declared the 42nd Amendment’s extension of Article 31C’s scope unconstitutional.
- Minerva Mills Doctrine: Established that Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are “like two wheels of a chariot.”
- Article 335: A directive outside Part IV to consider SC/ST claims in service appointments.
- Article 350-A: Directs the State to provide instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary education stage.
- Article 351: Makes it the duty of the Union to promote the spread and development of the Hindi language.
- NITI Aayog: Replaced the Planning Commission in 2015 as the primary policy think tank.
- NITI Acronym: Stands for the National Institution for Transforming India.
- Minimum Wages Act: Enacted in 1948 to fulfill DPSP goals by protecting labour interests and securing living wages.
Timer β³
15:00
Progress (0/30)
Click any card to flip and reveal the summarized answer!
Smart Review: Questions you got wrong appear here for focused study.