Part IV Directive Principles Of State Policy - Constitution of India (COI)

Legal Overview:

The expression "the State" defined in the Constitution, Part III - Fundamental Rights’, the Art. 36 refers to the same definition. Unless there is an express reference to any other scope to "the State".

Amendments:
No amendments in Art. 36 post its enactment.

Case Laws:

Legal Overview:

Art. 37 explains the scope and judicial scope and enforceability; it sets itself out as an administrative and governance aspect for the State. According to these principles, the State has the authority to enact laws.

Amendments:
No amendments in Art. 37 post its enactment.

Landmark Case Laws:

1. ‘Kesavananda Bharati's Case in 1973‘,
The Apex Court held that though the Fundamental Rights are enforceable by the Court, the DPSP is not enforceable but is within the administrative domain. Both will go hand in hand.

2. ‘State Of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat case in 2005 ‘,
In this instance, the Court interpreted Article 37 and determined that none of the Court may enforce the provisions found in Part IV of the Constitution. In the ‘In the Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan's case in 1951 ‘, the Court held that the Directive Principles of State Policy must conform to and run as a subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights. This view reiterated in ‘In the Deep Chand's case in 1959 ‘, The Court further found that the State's legislative authority is unaffected by disregard for the directive principles. So was the view taken in ‘In Re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957 case ‘.

Legal Analysis:

The Constitution of India, Art. 38, is a key Directive Principle of State Policy, which emphasizes the constitutional conception of a welfare state devoted to social justice and equality. Its scope and importance lie in directing the State to establish a social order which furthers the welfare of the people through justice - social, economic and political - informing all national institutions.

Key Takeaways:
Art. 38 highlights the State’s obligation to promote social justice and minimize inequalities, a commitment reinforced by the 44th Amendment’s focus on redistributive aims. This is not justiciable, but it points the legislative and judicial efforts towards the making of welfare state as interpreted by the landmark cases of the Supreme Court .

Amendments

Art. 38 was amended by the 44th Amendment in 1978, Section 9 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979);

1. Art. 38 as existing is numbered as clause;
2. Inserted new Clause 2.

Supreme Court landmark cases

1. ‘In 2005, the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union ‘,
The Court discussed the nature of social justice and described it as a broad constitutional doctrine directed at ensuring human dignity and equitable social circumstances. Art. 38 as a guiding principle for labour and welfare law. It reinforced the idea that state policy should interpreted in the light of distributive justice.

2. ‘In 2000, the case of Consumer Education & Research Centre v. UOI,‘,
The Court took Art. 38, Clause (1) & (2) - as guide to interpret and read in scope of health and medical care protections under Art. 21 in the context of worker's welfare. The key question was whether the State should create protective and welfare conditions for the workers. The court held that the directive principles can significantly affect the extent of the right to life.

‘The case in 1986, State of HP v. Umed Ram Sharma‘
The Court linked the Art. 38(2) with the duty of the State to reduce inequality in the access to facilities and opportunities by providing facilities for roads and transport in hilly areas. The question was whether the failure of the administrative authorities to provide road access could infringe constitutional rights. The case stands for the proposition that infrastructure can be constitutionally significant when it facilitates equality and access to life and liberty.

Legal Overview:

The State is accountable for the policy-making process in the administration and supervision of state affairs. The enumeration of Article 39, from (a) to (f), outlines the six (06) subject matters for which the State is responsible for security.

Listed below:

1. Gender equality requires sufficient life expectancy;
2. The custody and control of community material resources to ensure that they are distributed equally in order to achieve a common objective;
3. Ensure the administration is fair and inclusive, with no wealth concentration among a few;
4. Pay grades that are equitable for both genders;
5. The health and welfare of workers, without gender discrimination, and the protection of minors;
6. Future welfare and the health of children.

The 42nd Amend of 1976, (w.e.f. 3-1-1977), reference to section 7, the Clause (f) was updated with new details.

• His Holiness Kesavananda Bharat Sripadagala Var U U. v. State Of Kerala, 1973 INSC 91; [1973] SUPP. 1. SCR 1.
• Property Owners Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 INSC 835; [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1;
• State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy, 1977 INSC 196, [1978] 1 SCR 641.
• L. R. COELHO (DEAD) BY LRS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, 2017 INSC 28; [2017] 1 SCR 706.
• Union Of India v. Elplllnstone Spinning And Weaving Co. Ltd. & Ors. Etc., 2001 INSC 15; [2001] 1 SCR. 221.

Legal Overview

Art. 39, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, establishes the securing of justice as a fundamental Constitutional value. The State is accountable for the advancement of justice. The Constitution, Art. 14 serves as the foundation for Art. 39A - EQUALITY. No individual should face barriers to justice owing to financial or social inequities; therefore, the 'Legal Aid Scheme' and other facilitators will be available to citizens. Initiatives such as NLSA, as well as legal aid forums at the central, state, and district levels, exemplify this concept.

It was inserted in 1976 by the 42nd Amendment (w.e.f. 3-1-1977), through Section 8.

• Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, 2016 INSC 1186; [2016] 9 S.C.R. 560.
• P. Rama Chandra Rao v. State Of Karnataka, 2002 INSC 203; [2002] 3 SCR 60.
• Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 919; [2024] 12 S.C.R. 335.
• Kishan Chand Jain v. Union Of India & Ors, 2023 INSC 915; [2023] 14 S.C.R. 477.

In this case, the Petitioner argued along that virtual hearing shall be accessible as traditional in-person hearing. The Court concluded that the right to access the legal process under Articles 21 and 39A imposes an obligation on the State. The Court directed the State apparatus to implement the requisite arrangements.

• Papan Sarkar @ Pranab v. State of West Bengal, 2026 INSC 528.

The three defendants were convicted for murder under IPC. The two defendants in the aforementioned case appealed to the Supreme Court against their conviction.and ultimately concluded not guilty, leading the Court to order their release. The third accused remained incarcerated but did not appear before the Court for an appeal. The Court instructed the Member Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority to communicate with the Member Secretary of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, who shall, via the Secretary of the District/Taluk Legal Services Authority with jurisdiction over the prison housing one of the Accused, provide adequate assistance to the Accused and ensure that an appeal is submitted to this Court regarding the contested judgment.

Legal Overview:

The Constitution, Art. 40 is a ‘DPSP’ directing the State to set up village panchayats and enable them with the self-government power. While non-justiciable, its aim is to promote both democratic decentralization and decentralized rural self-government. Though not easily definable, the Directive is of the utmost importance and, indeed, the amendment of 1992 in the Constitution to create a Panchayat-Raj system, creating an enforceable system of Village Panchayats, can only be claimed to be in fulfillment of Art. 40. The laws will have to be formulated on the basis of these constitutional principles such as democratic decentralized governments at the local bodies level and tenure system.

The constitution mandates a three-tiered panchayat raj system: Gram-Panchayat, Panchayat-Samiti and Zila-Parishad and seeks to decentralize administrative power at the grass root level.

No Amendments in Art. 40, post its enactment.

Landmark Cases Laws:

1. The case of the court in ‘The case in 1995, State Of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetira Samiti‘ laid down that Art. 40 is not just a pious advice but also obligation to the setting up of the real self- government at the grass root level.


2. The court in the case of ‘The case Suresh Mahajan and another v. State of M.P. in 2022‘ also interpreted the provision to suit the constitution and reiterated the urgency of the real transfer of powers to the Panchayats.

Legal Overview:

The Constitution, Art. 41 provides a directive principle, which says within limits of its economic capacity and development - the State shall, make effective provision for safeguarding the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of joblessness, elderly age, illness and physical disadvantage, and in other matters of public assistance. Als, all citizens shall, according to their different financial and other capacities, have the right to contribute towards the cost of such provision.

It’s not any legally enforceable right. It is a direction in favor of welfare and justice and can be taken into consideration while framing public policy in the area of employment, education and public assistance.

No Amendments in Art. 41, post its enactment.

Landmark Cases Laws:

Art. 41 is a Directive concept; this is the constitutional aim for setting up a welfare state. It is not justiciable but does not have a direct legal impact. Instead, it is a guiding base principle for law and public policy-making.

1. Implementation of the directive depends on the legislative machinery and the state of the economy; but it can affect the administration of welfare programs, public employment and social security schemes, with particular for the weaker sections [‘The case D.S. Nakara v. Union Of India, in 1982‘,].


2. Courts have also interpreted the Constitution Art. 41 in conjunction with Art. 21 to protect social security, dignity and a life to an individual [‘The case Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, in 1993‘].


3. The phrase ‘within the limits of its economic capacity’ is a constitutional safeguard against judicial intervention and allows for adjustment to economic reality.


4. Even though the decisions of the Court are non-justiciable they always reinforce the importance of the welfare state by setting aside policy ideas that were in favor of the welfare of society (‘The case MOHD.HAROON & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA, in 2014‘).