DPSPs (36 - 51)

 Directive Principles of State Policy

 Part IV
 ART 36 TO 51
 Borrowed from constitution of Ireland

Historical background
 Constituent Assembly Debates:
 Kazi Syed Karimuddin said "That in the heading under Part IV the word "Directive' be
deleted.My submission is that, if this Constitution is not laying down these principles for
being enforced in a court of law, or if they are not binding on the State, they are meaningless.”
 The Constitutional Proposals of the Sapru Committee commonly referred to as the Sapru
Committee Report was published in 1945 to resolve issues pertaining to minorities that had
plagued Indian political and constitutional discourse.
 It was prepared by a committee appointed by the Non-Party Conference in November
1944.
 The Sapru Committee in 1945 suggested two categories of individual rights.
 One being justiciable.
 The justiciable rights, as we know, are the Fundamental rights
 The other being non-justiciable rights
 whereas the non-justiciable ones are the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Meaning
 DPSP are ideals which are meant to be kept in mind by the state while formulating policies and
enacting laws.
 There are various definitions to Directive Principles of State which are given below:
 They are an ‘instrument of instructions’ which are enumerated in Government of India Act,
1935
 They seek to establish economic and social democracy in the country
 DPSPs are Ideals which are not legally enforceable by the courts for their violation
 Connection to Preamble
 DPSPs (36 - 51)
Classification of DPSP
 SOCIALIST PRINCIPLE : 38, 39, 39A, 41, 42, 43, 43A, 47
 GANDHIAN PRINCIPLES : 40, 43, 43B, 46, 47, 48
 LIBERAL PRINCIPLES : 44, 45, 48, 48A, 49, 50, 51

Article 37
 Application of the principles contained in this Part :
 The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles
therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall
be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws

 Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951)

 Supreme Court ruled that in any case of conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, the
provisions of the former would prevail.
 DPSPs were regarded to run as a subsidiary to Fundamental Rights.
 SC also ruled that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights through constitutional
amendment act to implement DPSPs.

Harmonious construction
 In Re Kerala Education Bill (1957)
 Supreme Court in the Re Kerala Education Bill(1957) had propounded the Doctrine of
Harmonious Construction to avoid a situation of conflict while enforcing DPSPs and the
Fundamental Rights.
 As per this doctrine, the court held that
 there is no inherent conflict between FRs and DPSPs and the courts while interpreting a
law should attempt to give effect to both as far as possible i. e. should try to harmonize
the two as far as possible.
 The court further said that where two interpretation of the law is possible, and one
interpretation validates the law while other interpretation makes the law unconstitutional and
void, then the first interpretation which validates the law should be adopted.
But if only one interpretation is possible which leads to conflict between DPSPs and FRs,
the court has no option but to implement FRs in preference to DPSPs.
 DPSPs (36 - 51)

 Golaknath Case (1967)

 Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights to implement
Directive Principles of State Policy.
 Result: Parliament enacted the 24th Amendment Act 1971 & 25th Amendment Act 1971
declaring that it has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by
enacting Constitutional Amendment Acts. 25th Amendment Act inserted a new Article 31C
containing two provisions:
 No law which seeks to implement the socialistic Directive Principles specified in Article
39 (b)and (c) 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).
 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.

 Keshavnanda Bharati V State of Kerala(AIR 1973 SC1461)

 Court Verdict: Parliament can amend any part of Constitution, but could not destroy Basic
Structure of the Constitution.
 The second clause of Article 31C was as declared as unconstitutional and void as it was
against the Basic Structure of the Constitution propounded in this case itself.
 However, the SC upheld the first provision of Article 31C.
 The court also held that the power of Judicial review cannot be taken out by Parliament.
 Parliament Reaction:
 Parliament brought the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976, which extended the scope of the
above first provision of Article 31C by including within its purview any law to
implement any of the DPSPs specified in Part IV of the constitutional and not merely
Article 39 (b) or (c).
 DPSPs (36 - 51)
 Minerva Mills V UOI (AIR 1980 SC 1789)
 Court Verdict: A law under Article 31C would be protected only if it is made to implement
directives in article 39b and 39 c and not any other DPSPs.
 The extension to all DPSPs was declared as unconstitutional and void by the SC in the
Minerva Mills Case(1980).

Illustration for further understanding

 Article 48- Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry The State shall endeavour to
organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular,
take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and
calves and other milch and draught cattle
 Article 47- Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to
improve public health The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard
of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in
particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for
medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health

Constituent assembly debates

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/directive-principle-not-right-how-cow-protection-became-
part-of-constitution-4683383/

 In the shadow of Partition, on November 24, 1948, the amendment to protect cows was made by a
member from East Punjab, Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava.
 To begin with, he argued from an economic point of view that was essential for a rational
approach: “How can you improve your health and food position, if you do not produce full quota
of cereals and milk? This amendment is divided into three parts.
 Firstly, the agriculture should be improved on scientific and modern lines.
 Secondly, the cattle breed should be improved; and
 thirdly, the cow and other cattle should be protected from slaughter. To grow more food and
to improve agriculture and the cattle breed are all inter-dependent and are two sides of the
same coin.”
 Pandit Thakur Dass also spoke of Muslim emperors having banned the practice, when he said:
“Babur, the first Mughal Emperor, told Humayun… ‘Refrain from cow slaughter to win the hearts
of the people of Hindustan’.”
 DPSPs (36 - 51)
 Mohammed Saadullah from Assam and ZA Lari sought that the law should not leave it in the grey
zone but should spell out clearly if slaughter was being banned for religious reasons and not
economic ones. Sadullah said it must be made explicit that:
 “This is part of our religion. The cow should be protected from slaughter. I know that the vast
majority of the Hindu nation revere the cow as their goddess and therefore they cannot brook
the idea of seeing it slaughtered. I am a Muslim as everyone knows. In my religious book, the
Holy Quran, there is an injunction to the Muslims saying – ‘La Ikraba fid Din’, or, there
ought to be no compulsion in the name of religion.”

 Arguments in favour of ban

1. Banning cow slaughter is necessary and justified because Hindu religious belief venerates
the cow as a holy animal.
2. It is among the Directive Principles of State Policy incorporated in the Constitution and
several states have enacted laws for enforcing the ban on slaughter and also against sale and
consumption of beef.
3. Cows form the backbone of the economy and allowing slaughter will cause serious damage
to society

 Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar

 This case was decided by a 5 judge bench. The petitions challenged slaughter of certain cattle
in three states – Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. The laws were challenged on
three grounds:
1) the total ban offended Muslims as the sacrifice of cows was sanctioned on a certain day.
2) Such a ban violated the rights guaranteed to butchers under 19(1) (g) of the constitution.
3) That a total ban was not in the interest of the general public
 The Supreme Court held that:
1) the total ban on the slaughter of cattle is valid and in consonance with the directive
principles laid down under Article 48.
2) A total ban on she-buffaloes and breeding bull or working bullocks as long as they are
capable of being used as milch or draught cattle was also reasonable and valid.
 With respect to the first ground of the petition which mentioned that slaughter of cows is
required on a certain day the court held that, “no material on the record before us which will
enable us to say, in the face of the foregoing facts, that the sacrifice of a cow on that day is an
 DPSPs (36 - 51)
obligatory overt act for a Mussalman to exhibit his religious belief and idea. In the premises,
it is not possible for us to uphold this claim of the petitioners.”

 State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat ( (2005) 8 SCC 534)
 This is the most important case with respect to the issue of banning cow slaughter.
 The petition was challenging the amendments in section 5 of the Bombay Animal
Preservation, which was also applicable to the state of Gujarat.
 The amendments changed the ban on slaughter of bulls and bullocks under the age of 16 to a
complete ban
 The petition challenged the amendment because of the belief that bull and bullocks over the
age of 16 tend to become economically unbeneficial.
 However, the court held that “The economy of the State of Gujarat is still predominantly
agricultural. In the agricultural sector, use of animals for milch, draught, breeding or
agricultural purposes has great importance.
 It has, therefore, become necessary to emphasise preservation and protection of
agricultural animals like bulls and bullocks.
 With the growing adoption of non-conventional energy sources like biogas plants, even
the waste material has come to assume considerable value.
 After the cattle cease to breed or are too old to do work, they still continue to give dung
for fuel, manure and biogas, and therefore, they cannot be said to be useless.
 The backbone of Indian agriculture is the cow and her progeny in a way. The whole
structure of the Indian agriculture and its economic system is indirectly dependent on the
cow.
 In order to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles laid down in
Articles 47, 48 and clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution, it was considered
necessary also to impose total prohibition against slaughter of progeny of cow.”
 The court also repelled all arguments on the grounds of fundamental rights under Article 14
and 19(1) (g) by stating that, “In the light of the material available in abundance before us,
there is no escape from the conclusion that the protection conferred by the impugned
enactment on cow progeny is needed in the interest of the nation’s economy.
 Merely because it may cause “inconvenience” or some “dislocation” to the butchers,
restriction imposed by the impugned enactment does not cease to be in the interest of the
general public. The former must yield to the latter.
 DPSPs (36 - 51)

JALIKATTU
Animal Welfare Board v Union Of India
https://www.scobserver.in/cases/challenge-to-the-practice-of-jallikattu/