DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF THE STATE POLICY


DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF THE STATE POLICY


Directive Principles are fundamental in the governance of a country and the State is under an obligation to apply these principles in making laws, though they cannot be enforced by a court order. These are intended for the guidance of the State according to the political philosophy it is guided by. As such, Directive Principles in a capitalist and socialist vary considerably. They establish the goals which the government should strive to achieve and include in its sectoral laws and policies. The Directive Principles are in fact, the overall policies undertaken by the State to achieve social equality and economic democracy. They are oriented towards the formation of a just, peaceful, open, and prosperous society. Though the implementation status of these Principles cannot be challenged in courts, the real sanction behind them is the mandate served by the electorate.



The Directive Principles of State policy, thus, constitute directions given to the Central and State governments to guide the establishment of a just society in the country. The government should keep them in mind while framing laws, devising policies and programs, regardless of the fact that they are non-justiciable in nature. The Directive Principles act as a check on the government. They serve as a yardstick in the hands of the people to measure the performance of government. Since the Government is answerable to the people, the Directive Principles act as a sign post to all succeeding Governments. If the government enacts laws to give effect to the Directive Principles over fundamental rights, they shall remain valid even on the grounds that they take away some of those rights. For e.g. laws providing for affirmative action may neutralize right to equality in most instances. In case of a conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, if the latter aim at promoting larger interest of the society, the courts will have to sustain Directive Principles. These Principles commit the State to promote the welfare of the people by affirming social and political justice, as well as to fight economic inequality. Thus concept is the latest development in the constitutional governments throughout the world, with the growing acceptance of a Welfare State.



Some common themes of Directive Principles found in modern democracies are: The State must continually work towards providing an adequate means of livelihood for all citizens, equal pay for equal work for men and women, proper working conditions, protection against exploitation and reduce the concentration of wealth and means of production into the hands of a few. The State must safeguard the environment and wildlife of the country. The State should commit itself to raise the standard of the living and improve public health. The State must also strive for the maintenance of international peace and stability, etc.


The Directive Principles of State Policy are made non-justiciable and non-challengeable in courts due to the following 2 reasons:

  • The state may not collect enough resources to implement them, and
  • There may be change of guard in government or even a new political system may emerge. The new government or system may look at socio-economic justice in a different light.


The Directive Principles do not override the fundamental rights, in general, but in determining the scope of fundamental rights, the courts are not a liberty ti completely neglect the Principles. Hey are required to adopt the principle of harmonious construction and try to give effect to both, as far as practicable. They are expected to invoke such rules of statutory interpretation that would not hinder, rather further the spirit of these pious Principles. The Directive Principles are taken into account in deciding whether or not a restriction on fundamental rights is a reasonable one. For example in India, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was held valid by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bijoy Cotton Mills Vs State of Ajmer (1955), as it was enacted to give effect to the Directive Principle laid down un Article 43 of the Constitution of India.



The Directive Principles are also helpful in statutory interpretation. In case two alternative construction of a legal provision is possible, the courts are supposed to prefer that construction which conforms to the Principles, as far as practicable.



Spain is the first country in the world to provide for Directive Principles of State Policy in its Constitution (1931) followed by Ireland (1937). As regards Nepal, these Principles featured for the first time in the Interim Governance Statute of Nepal, 1951 (2007 BS).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Questions and Answers of ‘My Mother Never Worked’

  Questions and Answers of ‘My Mother Never Worked’ Comprehension 1.      What kind of work did Martha Smith do while her children were growing up? List     some of the chores she performed.        Martha Smith worked very hard at raising her children, doing farm chores, and               maintaining a household, but she did not work outside the home for pay-the only              kind of work recognized by the government.   2.      Why aren’t Martha Smith’s survivors entitled to a death benefit when their mother dies?     According to the government, Martha Smith is not eligible for a death benefit because she was never employed.   3.      How does the government define work?       The government defines work as an activity performed for compensation.   Purpose and Audience   1.      What point is the writer trying to make? Why do you suppose her thesis is never       explicitly stated?       The essay’s thesis is that although Martha Smith did not work out
Read more

Questions and Answers of 'The Case Against Air Conditioning'

Image
              Questions and Answers of 'The Case Against Air Conditioning ' Comprehension 1.      What does Cox think is wrong with air conditioning? Ans: Cox says that air conditioning uses a lot of energy; running air conditioners burns fossil fuels, which emits greenhouse gases that raise global temperatures, which in turn increases the need for air conditioning. He believes that air conditioning should be used more sparingly. 2.     According to Cox, what would be the results of a largely “A.C.-free Washington” (3)? Does the scenario he outlines apply only to Washington, DC? Only to urban areas? Does it apply to other parts of the countries as well? Ans: cox says that reduced air conditioning use in Washington would result in more flexible work schedules (business, including governmental ones, closing and adjusting for heat), renovation for buildings to better accommodate heat, decreased use of heat-generating   appliances, and increased socialization resulting f
Read more

Summary of 'The Case Against Air Conditioning

  The Case Against Air Conditioning The author’s message is that A.C. keeps us inside and away from interacting with one another. We shouldn’t be trapped inside everyday but we should be out and about to enjoy the world around us. This essay is about why Washington/America should stop using air conditioners in everyday life with the expectation of hospitals, archives, and cooling centers. The author supports his argument by providing examples of wat Washington would look like without air conditioners at work, at home, and around town. Cox’s starts out with using modern day examples of people using air conditioning to beat the Heat and why it is bad. Cox’s wants readers to turn down, turn off, or just complete eliminate air conditioning use. He believes that it will benefit us by making neighborhoods more friendly, laws more lax, and climate change less of an issue. People in Washington didn’t have to experience extreme heat because their houses were equipped with air condition
Read more