Directive Principles of State Policy

Directive Principles of State Policy

The Directive Principles of State Policy are enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution from
Articles 36 to 51. The framers of the Constitution borrowed this idea from the Irish
Constitution of 1937, which had copied it from the Spanish Constitution. Dr B R Ambedkar
described these principles as ‘novel features’ of the Indian Constitution. The Directive Principles
along with the Fundamental Rights contain the philosophy of the Constitution and is the soul of the
Constitution. Granville Austin has described the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights as
the ‘Conscience of the Constitution’2.

FEATURES OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

1. The phrase ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ denotes the ideals that the State should keep
in mind while formulating policies and enacting laws. These are the constitutional instructions
or recommendations to the State in legislative, executive and administrative matters.
According to Article 36, the term ‘State’ in Part IV has the same meaning as in Part III dealing
with Fundamental Rights. Therefore, it includes the legislative and executive organs of the
central and state governments, all local authorities and all other public authorities in the
country.

2. The Directive Principles resemble the ‘Instrument of Instructions’ enumerated in the
Government of India Act of 1935. In the words of Dr B R Ambedkar, ‘the Directive
Principles are like the instrument of instructions, which were issued to the Governor-General
and to the Governors of the colonies of India by the British Government under the Government
of India Act of 1935. What is called Directive Principles is merely another name for the
instrument of instructions. The only difference is that they are instructions to the legislature
and the executive’.

3. The Directive Principles constitute a very comprehensive economic, social and political
programme for a modern democratic State. They aim at realising the high ideals of justice,
liberty, equality and fraternity as outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution. They embody
the concept of a ‘welfare state’ and not that of a ‘police state’, which existed during the
colonial era3. In brief, they seek to establish economic and social democracy in the country.

4. The Directive Principles are non-justiciable in nature, that is, they are not legally enforceable
by the courts for their violation. Therefore, the government (Central, state and local) cannot be
compelled to implement them. Nevertheless, the Constitution (Article 37) itself says that these
principles are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State
to apply these principles in making laws.

5. The Directive Principles, though non-justiciable in nature, help the courts in examining and
determining the constitutional validity of a law. The Supreme Court has ruled many a times
that in determining the constitutionality of any law, if a court finds that the law in question
seeks to give effect to a Directive Principle, it may consider such law to be ‘reasonable’ in
relation to Article 14 (equality before law) or Article 19 (six freedoms) and thus save such
law from unconstitutionality.

CLASSIFICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

The Constitution does not contain any classification of Directive Principles. However, on the basis of
their content and direction, they can be classified into three broad categories, viz, socialistic,
Gandhian and liberal–intellectual.

Socialistic Principles

These principles reflect the ideology of socialism. They lay down the framework of a democratic
socialist state, aim at providing social and economic justice, and set the path towards welfare state.
They direct the state:

1. To promote the welfare of the people by securing a social order permeated by justice—
social, economic and political—and to minimise inequalities in income, status, facilities and
opportunities4 (Article 38).

2. To secure (a) the right to adequate means of livelihood for all citizens; (b) the equitable
distribution of material resources of the community for the common good; (c) prevention of
concentration of wealth and means of production; (d) equal pay for equal work for men and
women; (e) preservation of the health and strength of workers and children against forcible
abuse; and (f) opportunities for healthy development of children5 (Article 39).

3. To promote equal justice and to provide free legal aid to the poor6 (Article 39 A).

4. To secure the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment,
old age, sickness and disablement (Article 41).

5. To make provision for just and humane conditions for work and maternity relief (Article 42).

6. To secure a living wage7, a decent standard of life and social and cultural opportunities for
all workers (Article 43).

7. To take steps to secure the participation of workers in the management of industries 8 (Article
43 A).

8. To raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of people and to improve public
health (Article 47).

Gandhian Principles

These principles are based on Gandhian ideology. They represent the programme of reconstruction
enunciated by Gandhi during the national movement. In order to fulfil the dreams of Gandhi, some of
his ideas were included as Directive Principles. They require the State:

1. To organise village panchayats and endow them with necessary powers and authority to
enable them to function as units of self-government (Article 40).

2. To promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operation basis in rural areas (Article
43).

3. To promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and professional
management of co-operative societies8a (Article 43B).

4. To promote the educational and economic interests of SCs, STs, and other weaker sections of
the society and to protect them from social injustice and exploitation (Article 46).

5. To prohibit the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health
(Article 47).

6. To prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves and other milch and draught cattle and to improve
their breeds (Article 48).

Liberal–Intellectual Principles

The principles included in this category repre-sent the ideology of liberalism. They direct the state:

1. To secure for all citizens a uniform civil code throughout the country (Article 44).

2. To provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of
six years9 (Article 45).

3. To organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines (Article 48).

4. To protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wild life10 (Article 48A).

5. To protect monuments, places and objects of artistic or historic interest which are declared to
be of national importance (Article 49).

6. To separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State (Article 50).

7. To promote international peace and security and maintain just and honourable relations
between nations; to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations, and to
encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration (Article 51).

NEW DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 added four new Directive Principles to the original list. They
require the State:

1. To secure opportunities for healthy development of children (Article 39).
2. To promote equal justice and to provide free legal aid to the poor (Article 39 A).
3. To take steps to secure the participation of workers in the management of industries (Article43 A).
4. To protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wild life (Article 48 A).
The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 added one more Directive Principle, which requires the State to
minimize inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities (Article 38).

Again, the 86th Amendment Act of 2002 changed the subject-matter of Article 45 and made
elementary education a fundamental right under Article 21 A. The amended directive requires the
State to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six
years.

The 97th Amendment Act of 2011 added a new Directive Principle relating to co-operative societies.
It requires the state to promote voluntary formation, autonomous functioning, democratic control and
professional management of co-operative societies (Article 43B).

SANCTION BEHIND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

Sir B N Rau, the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly, recommended that the rights of
an individual should be divided into two categories—justiciable and non-justiciable, which was
accepted by the Drafting Committee. Consequently, the Fundamental Rights, which are justiciable in
nature, are incorporated in Part III and the Directive Principles, which are non-justiciable in nature,
are incorporated in Part IV of the Constitution.

Though the Directive Principles are non-justiciable, the Constitution (Article 37) make it clear that
‘these principles are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state
to apply these principles in making laws’. Thus, they impose a moral obligation on the state
authorities for their application, but the real force behind them is political, that is, public opinion.

As observed by Alladi Krishna Swamy Ayyar, ‘no ministry responsible to the people can afford lightheartedly
to ignore the provisions in Part IV of the Constitution’. Similarly, Dr B R Ambedkar said in
the Constituent Assembly that ‘a government which rests on popular vote can hardly ignore the
Directive Principles while shaping its policy. If any government ignores them, it will certainly have
to answer for that before the electorate at the election time.’11

The framers of the Constitution made the Directive Principles non-justiciable and legally nonenforceable
because:

1. The country did not possess sufficient financial resources to implement them.
2. The presence of vast diversity and backwardness in the country would stand in the way of
their implementation.
3. The newly born independent Indian State with its many preoccupations might be crushed
under the burden unless it was free to decide the order, the time, the place and the mode of
fulfilling them.

‘The Constitution makers, therefore, taking a pragmatic view, refrained from giving teeth to these
principles. They believed more in an awakened public opinion rather than in court procedures as the
ultimate sanction for the fulfilment of these principles’12.

CRITICISM OF THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

The Directive Principles of State Policy have been criticised by some members of the Constituent
Assembly as well as other constitutional and political experts on the following grounds:

1. No Legal Force

The Directives have been criticised mainly because of their non-justiciable character. While K T
Shah dubbed them as ‘pious superfluities’ and compared them with ‘a cheque on a bank, payable only
when the resources of the bank permit’13, Nasiruddin contended that these principles are ‘no better
than the new year’s resolutions, which are broken on the second of January’. Even as T T
Krishnamachari descri-bed the Directives as ‘a veritable dust-bin of sentiments’, K C Wheare called
them as a ‘ma-nifesto of aims and aspirations’ and opined that they serve as mere ‘moral homily’, and
Sir Ivor Jennings thought they are only as ‘pious aspirations’.

2. Illogically Arranged

Critics opine that the Directives are not arranged in a logical manner based on a consistent
philosophy. According to N Srinivasan, ‘the Directives are neither properly classified nor logically
arranged. The declaration mixes up relatively unimportant issues with the most vital economic and
social questions. It combines rather incongruously the modern with the old and provisions suggested
by the reason and science with provisions based purely on sentiment and prejudice’14. Sir Ivor
Jennings too pointed out that these principles have no consistent philosophy.

3. Conservative

According to Sir Ivor Jennings, the Directives are based on the political philosophy of the 19th
century England. He remarked: ‘The ghosts of Sydney Webb and Beatrice Webb stalk through the
pages of the text. Part IV of the Constitution expresses Fabian Socialism without the socialism’. He
opined that the Directives ‘are deemed to be suitable in India in the middle of the twentieth century.
The question whether they are suitable for the twenty-first century cannot be answered; but it is quite
probable that they will be entirely out moded.’15

4. Constitutional Conflict

K Santhanam has pointed out that the Directives lead to a constitutional conflict (a) between the
Centre and the states, (b) between the President and the Prime Minister, and (c) between the governor
and the chief minister. According to him, the Centre can give directions to the states with regard to the
implementation of these principles, and in case of non-compliance, can dismiss the state government.
Similarly, when the Prime Minister gets a bill (which violates the Directive Principles) passed by the
Parliament, the president may reject the bill on the ground that these principles are fundamental to the
governance of the country and hence, the ministry has no right to ignore them. The same constitutional
conflict may occur between the governor and the chief minister at the state level.

 

UTILITY OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

In spite of the above criticisms and shortcomings, the Directive Principles are not an unnecessary
appendage to the Constitution. The Constitution itself declares that they are fundamental to the
governance of the country. According to L M Singhvi, an eminent jurist and diplomat, ‘the Directives
are the life giving provisions of the Constitution. They constitute the stuff of the Constitution and its
philosophy of social justice’16. M C Chagla, former Chief Justice of India, is of the opinion that, ‘if
all these principles are fully carried out, our country would indeed be a heaven on earth. India would
then be not only democracy in the political sense, but also a welfare state looking after the welfare of
its citizens’17.

Dr B R Ambedkar had pointed out that the Directives have great value because they lay
down that the goal of Indian polity is ‘economic democracy’ as distinguished from ‘political democracy’.
Granville Austin 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’18. Sir B N Rau, the constitutional advisor to the Constituent As-sembly, stated that the
Directive Principles are intended as ‘moral precepts for the authorities of the state. They have at least
an educative value.’

According to M C Setalvad, the former Attorney General of India, the Directive Principles, although
confer no legal rights and creates no legal remedies, are significant and useful in the following ways:

1. They are like an ‘Instrument of Instructions’ or general recommendations addressed to all
authorities in the Indian Union. They remind them of the basic principles of the new social and
economic order, which the Constitution aims at building.

2. They have served as useful beacon-lights to the courts. They have helped the courts in
exercising their power of judicial review, that is, the power to determine the constitutional
validity of a law.

3. They form the dominating background to all State action, legislative or executive and also a
guide to the courts in some respects.

4. They amplify the Preamble, which solemnly resolves to secure to all citizens of India justice,
liberty, equality and fraternity.

The Directives also play the following roles:

1. They facilitate stability and continuity in domestic and foreign policies in political, economic
and social spheres in spite of the changes of the party in power.
2. They are supplementary to the fundamental rights of the citizens. They are intended to fill in
the vacuum in Part III by providing for social and economic rights.
3. Their implementation creates a favourable atmosphere for the full and proper enjoyment of the
fundamental rights by the citizens. Political democracy, without economic democracy, has no
meaning.
4. They enable the opposition to exercise influence and control over the operations of the
government. The Opposition can blame the ruling party on the ground that its activities are
opposed to the Directives.
5. They serve as a crucial test for the performance of the government. The people can examine
the policies and programmes of the government in the light of these constitutional
declarations.
6. They serve as common political manifesto. ‘A ruling party, irrespective of its political
ideology, has to recognise the fact that these principles are intended to be its guide,
philosopher and friend in its legislative and executive acts’19.

CONFLICT BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

The justiciability of Fundamental Rights and non-justiciability of Directive Principles on the one hand
and the moral obligation of State to implement Directive Principles (Article 37) on the other hand
have led to a conflict between the two since the commencement of the Constitution.

In the Champakam Dorairajan case20 (1951), the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between
the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. It declared that the
Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights. But, it also
held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliament by enacting constitutional
amendments acts. As a result, the Parliament made the First Amendment Act (1951), the Fourth
Amendment Act (1955) and the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964) to implement some of the Directives.

The above situation underwent a major change in 1967 following the Supreme Court’s judgement in
the Golaknath case21 (1967). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take
away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights, which are ‘sacrosanct’ in nature. In other words, the
Court held that the Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of the Directive Principles.

The Parliament reacted to the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Golaknath Case (1967) by enacting
the 24th Amendment Act (1971) and the 25th Amendment Act (1971). The 24th Amendment Act
declared that the Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by
enacting Constitutional Amendment Acts. The 25th Amendment Act inserted a new Article 31C which

contained the following two provisions:

1. No law which seeks to implement the socialistic Directive Principles specified in Article 39
(b)22 and (c)23 shall be void on the ground of contravention of the Fundamental Rights
conferred by Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws), Article 19
(protection of six rights in respect of speech, assembly, movement, etc) or Article 31 (right to
property).

2. No law containing a declaration for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned in any
court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy.

In the Kesavananda Bharati case24 (1973), the Supreme Court declared the above second provision
of Article 31C as unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that judicial review is a basic feature of
the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away. However, the above first provision of Article 31C
was held to be constitutional and valid.

Later, the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) extended the scope of the above first provision of Article 31C
by including within its protection any law to implement any of the Directive Principles and not merely
those specified in Article 39 (b) and (c). In other words, the 42nd Amendment Act accorded the
position of legal primacy and supremacy to the Directive Principles over the Fundamental Rights
conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31. However, this extension was declared as unconstitutional and
invalid by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case25 (1980).

It means that the Directive Principles were once again made subordinate to the Fundamental Rights.

But the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article 14 and Article 19 were accepted as subordinate to the Directive Principles
specified in Article 39 (b) and (c). Further, Article 31 (right to property) was abolished by the 44th
Amendment Act (1978).

In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court also held that ‘the Indian Constitution is
founded on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles.
They together constitute the core of commitment to social revolution. They are like two wheels of a
chariot, one no less than the other. To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the
harmony of the Constitution. This harmony and balance between the two is an essential feature of the
basic structure of the Constitution. The goals set out by the Directive Principles have to be achieved
without the abrogation of the means provided by the Fundamental Rights’.

Therefore, the present position is that the Fundamental Rights enjoy supremacy over the Directive
Principles. Yet, this does not mean that the Directive Principles cannot be implemented. The
Parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights for implementing the Directive Principles, so long as
the amendment does not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.

IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES

Since 1950, the successive governments at the Centre and in the states have made several laws and
formulated various programmes for implementing the Directive Principles. These are mentioned
below:

1. The Planning Commission was established in 1950 to take up the development of the country
in a planned manner. The successive Five Year Plans aimed at securing socio-economic
justice and reducing inequalities of income, status and opportunities.

2. Almost all the states have passed land reform laws to bring changes in the agrarian society
and to improve the conditions of the rural masses. These measures include (a) abolition of
intermediaries like zamindars, jagirdars, inamdars, etc; (b) tenancy reforms like security of
tenure, fair rents, etc; (c) imposition of ceilings on land holdings; (d) distribution of surplus
land among the landless labourers; and (e) cooperative farming.

3. The Minimum Wages Act (1948), the Payment of Wages Act (1936), the Payment of Bonus
Act (1965), the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act (1970), the Child Labour
Prohibition and Regulation Act (1986), the Bonded Labour System Abolition Act (1976), the
Trade Unions Act (1926), the Factories Act (1948), the Mines Act (1952), the Industrial
Disputes Act (1947), the Workmen’s Compensation Act (1923) and so on have been enacted
to protect the interests of the labour sections. In 2006, the government banned the child labour.

4. The Maternity Benefit Act (1961) and the Equal Remuneration Act (1976) have been made to
protect the interests of women workers.

5. Various measures have been taken to utilise the financial resources for promoting the common
good.These include nationalisation of life insurance (1956), the nationalisation of fourteen
leading commercial banks (1969), nationalisation of general insurance (1971), abolition of
Privy Purses (1971) and so on.

6. The Legal Services Authorities Act (1987) has established a nation-wide network to provide
free and competent legal aid to the poor and to organise lok adalats for promoting equal
justice. Lok adalat is a statutory forum for conciliatory settlement of legal disputes. It has been
given the status of a civil court. Its awards are enforceable, binding on the parties and final as
no appeal lies before any court against them.

7. Khadi and Village Industries Board, Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Small-Scale
Industries Board, National Small Industries Corporation, Handloom Board, Handicrafts
Board, Coir Board, Silk Board and so on have been set up for the development of cottage
industries in rural areas.

8. The Community Development Programme (1952), Hill Area Development Programme (1960),
Drought-Prone Area Programme (1973), Minimum Needs Programme (1974), Integrated
Rural Development Programme (1978), Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (1989), Swarnajayanti Gram
Swarozgar Yojana (1999), Sampoorna Grameena Rozgar Yojana (2001), National Rural
Employment Guarantee Programme (2006) and so on have been launched for raising the
standard of living of people.

9. The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, have been
enacted to safeguard the wildlife and the forests respectively. Further, the Water and Air Acts
have provided for the establishment of the Central and State Pollution Control Boards, which
are engaged in the protection and improvement of environment. The National Forest Policy
(1988) aims at the protection, conservation and development of forests.

10. Agriculture has been modernised by providing improved agricultural inputs, seeds, fertilisers
and irrigation facilities. Various steps have also been taken to organise animal husbandry on
modern and scientific lines.

11. Three-tier panchayati raj system (at village, taluka and zila levels) has been introduced to
translate into reality Gandhiji’s dream of every village being a republic. The 73rd
Amendment Act (1992) has been enacted to provide constitutional status and protection to
these panchayati raj institutions.

12. Seats are reserved for SCs, STs and other weaker sections in educational institutions,
government services and representative bodies. The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955,
which was renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976 and the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, have been enacted to protect the
SCs and STs from social injustice and exploitation. The 65th Constitutional Amendment Act
of 1990 established the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to
protect the interests of SCs and STs. The 89th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2003
bifurcated this combined commission into two separate bodies, namely, National Commission
for Schedule Castes and National Commission for Schedule Tribes.

13. The Criminal Procedure Code (1973) separated the judiciary from the executive in the public
services of the state. Prior to this separation, the district authorities like the collector, the subdivisional
officer, the tehsildar and so on used to exercise judicial powers along with the
traditional executive powers. After the separation, the judicial powers were taken away from
these executive authorities and vested in the hands of district judicial magistrates who work
under the direct control of the state high court.

14. The Ancient and Historical Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (1951) has
been enacted to protect the monuments, places and objects of national importance.

15. Primary health centres and hospitals have been established throughout the country to improve
the public health. Also, special programmes have been launched to eradicate widespread
diseases like malaria, TB, leprosy, AIDS, cancer, filaria, kala-azar, guineaworm, yaws,
Japanese encephalitis and so on.

16. Laws to prohibit the slaughter of cows, calves, and bullocks have been enacted in some states.

17. Some states have initiated the old age pension schemes for people above 65 years.

18. India has been following the policy of non-alignment and panchsheel to promote international
peace and security.

In spite of the above steps by the Central and state governments, the Directive Principles have not
been implemented fully and effectively due to several reasons like inadequate financial resources,
unfavourable socio-economic conditions, population explosion, strained Centre-state relations and so
on.

DIRECTIVES OUTSIDE PART IV

Apart from the Directives included in Part IV, there are some other Directives contained in other
Parts of the Constitution. They are:

1. Claims of SCs and STs to Services: The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of
efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the Union or a State (Article 335 in Part XVI).

2. Instruction in mother tongue: It shall be the endeavour of every state and every local
authority within the state to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at
the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups (Article
350-A in Part XVII).

3. Development of the Hindi Language: It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread
of the Hindi language and to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all
the elements of the composite culture of India (Article 351 in Part XVII).

The above Directives are also non-justiciable in nature. However, they are also given equal
importance and attention by the judiciary on the ground that all parts of the constitution must be read
together.

                                                                      NOTES

1. Actually, Directive Principles are mentioned in Articles 38 to 51. Article 36 deals with the
definition of State while Article 37 deals with the nature and significance of Directive
Principles.

2. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution— Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford, 1966, P. 75.

3. A ‘Police State’ is mainly concerned with the maintenance of law and order and defence of
the country against external aggression. Such a restrictive concept of state is based on the
nineteenth century theory of individualism or laissez-faire.

4. This second provision was added by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978.

5. The last point (f) was modified by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.

6. This Directive was added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.

7. ‘Living wage’ is different from ‘minimum wage’, which includes the bare needs of life like
food, shelter and clothing. In addition to these bare needs, a ‘living wage’ includes education,
health , insurance, etc. A ‘fair wage’ is a mean between ‘living wage’ and ‘minimum wage’.

8. This Directive was added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.

8a. This Directive was added by the 97th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2011.

9. This Directive was changed by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2002. Originally, it
made a provision for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of 14 years.

10. This Directive was added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.

11. Constituent Assembly Debates, volume VII, P. 476.

12. M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa, Third Edition (1978), P. 595.

13. Constituent Assembly Debates, volume VII, P. 470.

14. N. Srinivasan, Democratic Government in India, P. 182.

15. Sir Ivor Jennings, Some Characteristics of the Indian Constitution, 1953, P. 31–33.

16. Journal of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, June 1975.

17. M.C. Chagla, An Ambassador Speaks, P. 35.

18. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution—Cornerstone of a Nation, Oxford, 1966, P. 50–52.

19. P B Gajendragadker, The Constitution of India (Its Philosophy and Postulates), P. 11.

20. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, (1951).

21. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, (1967).

22. Article 39 (b) says: The State shall direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and
control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the
common good.

23. Article 39 (c) says: The state shall direct its policy towards securing that the operation of the
economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the
common detriment.

24. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973).

25. Minerva Mills v. Union of India, (1980).