Directive Principles and their relation to rights

Directive Principles of State Policy. The framers knew independent India would face huge challenges of equality and well-being. They wanted to give policy direction without binding every future government. So they included guidelines that are not legally enforceable: 'non-justiciable'. If a government ignores one, we cannot ask a court to enforce it. The framers trusted their moral force, and expected people to hold governments responsible.

The Directive Principles list three kinds of things:

• Goals: welfare of the people; social, economic and political justice; a higher standard of living; equitable distribution of resources; international peace.
• Non-justiciable rights: adequate livelihood; equal pay for equal work for men and women; right against economic exploitation; right to work; early childhood care and education for children under six.
• Policies: a uniform civil code; prohibition of alcohol; promotion of cottage industries; prevention of slaughter of useful cattle; promotion of village panchayats.

Giving effect to them: governments have passed zamindari abolition laws, nationalised banks, enacted factory laws, fixed minimum wages, promoted cottage and small industries, made reservations for SCs and STs, and introduced the right to education, panchayati raj institutions across the country, a partial right to work under the employment guarantee programme, and the mid-day meal scheme.

Fundamental Duties. The 42nd Amendment (1976) added a list of ten Fundamental Duties: to abide by the Constitution, defend the country, promote harmony among all citizens, protect the environment and so on. The Constitution says nothing about enforcing them, and enjoyment of rights is not conditional on fulfilling duties.

Rights and Directive Principles together. They are largely complementary: Fundamental Rights restrain the government from doing certain things, while Directive Principles urge it to do certain things; rights mainly protect individuals, directives aim at the well-being of society. But they can clash.

• When governments tried to abolish zamindari, landlords objected that it violated the right to property. The government amended the Constitution, and a long legal battle followed: the government argued rights could be cut back to implement directives; the courts held that Fundamental Rights were too important to be limited even for that.
• The Constitution originally had a fundamental right to 'acquire, possess and maintain' property, though property could be taken for public welfare. In 1973 the Supreme Court held that the right to property was not part of the basic structure, so Parliament could abridge it. In 1978, the 44th Amendment removed it from the Fundamental Rights and made it a simple legal right under Article 300A.
• A further debate concerned whether Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution. In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution has certain basic features that Parliament cannot change.

Conclusion. The idea that rights include both freedom and equality goes back to reformers like Jotirao Phule (1827-1890); the national movement sharpened it, and the Constitution listed the Fundamental Rights. Since 1950 the judiciary has protected and expanded them.

Example (new): a Directive Principle asks the state to provide early childhood care; a parent cannot sue the state for not opening a creche nearby, but the principle guides governments that set up anganwadi centres.