My Article Page!
RANDHIR SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA (1992 (1) SCC 618)
In this case, the Supreme Court once again dealing with Article 39(d) of the Constitution emphasized the importance of Directive Principles of State Policy by declaring that “equal pay for equal work” is not a mere demagogic slogar but it is a constitutional goal capable of attaining through Constitutional remedies. The Court went on to declare thus:
“Directive Principles as even pointed out in some of the Judgments of this Court, have to be read into the Fundamental Rights as a matter of interpretation”.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT HORTICULTURE EMPLOYEES UNION vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (AIR 1992 SC 789)
Referring to Article 41 of the Constitution which deals with right to work, to education and to public assistance, the Supreme Court gave reasons why this important right has been placed in Part IV and not in Part III of the Constitution. The Court observed thus:
“The country has so far not found it feasible to incorporate the right to livelihood as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution. This is because the country has so far not attained the capacity to guarantee it, and not because it considers it any the less fundamental to life. Advisedly, therefore, it has been placed in the Chapter of Directive Principles. Article 41 which enjoins upon the State to make effective provision for securing the same ‘within the limits of its economic capacity and development’.
MOHINI JAIN vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (AIR 1992 SC 1858)
In this case, the Supreme Court was called upon to deal with the question of right to education under Article 41 and once again the Court emphasized the importance of Directive Principles by holding that the right to education is concomitant to the Fundamental Rights and made the following observation:
“The directive principles which are fundamental in the governance of the country cannot be isolated from the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III. These principles have to be sent into the Fundamental Rights. Both are supplementary to each other. The State is under a constitutional mandate to each other. The State is under a constitutional mandate to create conditions in which the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the individuals under Part III could be enjoyed by all. Without making “Right to education” under Article 41 of the Constitution a reality, the Fundamental Rights under Chapter III shall remain beyond the reach of large majority which is illiterate. The Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India including the right to freedom of speech and expression and other rights under Article 19 cannot be appreciated and fully enjoyed unless a citizen is education and is conscious of his individualistic dignity”.
CONSUMER EDUCATION & RESEARCH CENTRE AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (AIR 1995 SC 922)
The case relating to remedial measures for the protection of health of the workers engaged in mines and asbestos industries came up before the Supreme Court for consideration in a petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution by way of Public Interest Litigation. The Supreme Court by interpreting the Preamble, Articles 21, 38, 39(e), 41, 43(a), 48A in the background of the concept of social justice, virtually included the Directive Principles within the fold of right to life and the expanded meaning given to the expression ‘life’ by the Supreme Court led to many of the Directive Principles being equated to inalienable right to life. The Supreme Court in this case observed thus:
“Right to health, medical aid to protect the health and vigour to a worker while in service or post retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21, read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48A and all related Articles and fundamental Human Rights to make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person”.
AIR INDIA STATUTORY CORPORATION vs. UNITED LABOUR UNION (AIR 1997 SC 645)
The question of abolishing contract labour system and absorbing the employees who were contract labourers under the appellant, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in this case. Once again, the issue of right to work was the borne of contention between the parties. The Supreme Court referring to Directive Principles observed thus:
“The Directive Principles in our Constitution are forerunners of the UNO convention of right of development as inalienable Human Rights. The said principles are embedded as integral part of our Constitution in the Directive Principles. Therefore, the Directive Principles now stand elevated to inalienable fundamental Human Rights. Even they are justiciable by themselves”.
HUSSAINARA KHATOON & OTHERS vs. HOME SECRETARY STATE OF BIHAR (AIR 1979 SC 1369)
In this case, though the question before the Court was about under trial prisoners being detained in jail for longer period and this fact having been found to be in violation of Article 21, the Supreme Court referring to Article 39A of the Constitution with regard to free legal aid, observed thus:
“Article 39A of the Constitution also emphasizes that free legal service is an unalienable element of ‘reasonable, fair and just’ procedure for without it a person suffering from economic or other disabilities would be deprived of the opportunity for securing justice. The right to free legal services is, therefore, clearly an essential ingredient of ‘reasonable, fair and just’ procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held implicit in the guarantee of Article 21. This is a constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so required, provided of course the accused person does not object to the provision of such lawyer.”
SUKHDAS vs. UNION TERRITORY OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH (AIR 1986 SC 991)
Once again the Directive Principles enshrined in Article 39A came up for consideration and the Supreme Court by following the law aid down in Hussainara Khatoon’s case reiterated the importance of free legal assistance at the State’s cost and declared that it is a Fundamental Right of a person implicit in the requirement of the procedure prescribed under Article 21.
The following are some of the recent decisions of the Apex Court in which the directive principles of state Policy have been recognised: (1) GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY vs. RATHOD LABHU BECHAR & OTHERS (2001 AIR SCW 351)
—A scheme was formulated for absorption of daily wage workers of Gujarat Agricultural University completing 10 years of service, in a phased manner. Upholding its viability, it was held that the financial viability was no ground to disentitle claim of workman and financial means have to be stretched to the maximum and maximum posts should be created even at first stage of absorption. Workers who are not regularized, were entitled to minimum wage as prescribed by Govt. from time to time as proposed under the scheme and not pay scale as admissible to incumbent regularized on similar post doing similar work.
(2) In THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA vs. SUBHARTI K.K.B. CHARITABLE TRUST (2001 AIR SCW 1883)
—Decision was taken by expert bodies like Dental Council of India to established Dental College and admit 60 students instead of 100 students. Refusal to approve strength of 100 students was in view of the fact that land, building, equipment and staff etc. were adequate for only 60 admissions. It was held that the right to education was concomitant with fundamental right, if permission is straightway granted by issuing mandamus, society, education and ultimately students will suffer.
(3) In T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD vs. UNION OF INDIA (2001 AIR SCW 2456)
—No consensus amongst deficient States regarding preservation of existing forest cover, show cause notice was issued to the Union of India directing it to bear expenses of maintaining natural forest and forest cover.
(4) In MAHATMA PHULE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY vs. NASIK ZILLA SHETH KAMGAR UNION (2001 AIR SCW 3105), some daily wagers in Agricultural Universities raised dispute on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The award passed granting higher rate of wages was held to apply even to daily wagers not covered by award in view of principles of equal pay for equal work. Reservation other than constitutional reservation was held to be subversion of fraternity, unity,. integrity and dignity of individual and fundamental duties cast on citizens. They are relevant in determining reasonableness of reservation. It was further observed that extending reservation beyond under-graduate medical education is keeping the crippled, crippled for ever. {See A.I.I.M.S. STUDENTS UNION vs. A.I.I.M.S. AND OTHERS (2001 AIR SCW 3143) Arts. 14, Pre., 41, 47, 51A, 226}
(5) In A.I.C.C. OF TRADE UNIONS vs. UNION OF INDIA—(2001 AIR SCW 4825), a direction to frame a scheme ensuring adequate means of livelihood, living wages, etc. with financial assitance/grant from Govt. was sought on grounds that a similarity situated institution has been given grant and on same parity grant should be given to the petitioner’s institution. The Court further directed the Union authority to deal with the said representation within a period of four months.
(6) In GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs. P. HARI HARA PRASAD (AIR 2002 SC 3645), employees of subordinate Courts had claimed pay parity with Assistants, Typists and Seno-typists of State Secretariat, it was held that the Court cannot under its discretionary jurisdiction go into the nature of duties performed by employees, and on that basis issue mandamus directing pay parity, mandamus issued by the High Court directing that pay parity be granted to employees of subordinate Courts on assumption that posts in subordinate Courts and Secretariat are identical and employees perform same duty, was set aside. However, the order accepting the claim of the employees of the High Court for pay parity was upheld. Equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right of an employee, it is only a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Govt. Pay parity between employees of State Govt. and Central Govt. cannot be claimed merely on the basis of identity of designation (STATE OF HARYANA vs. HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT : AIR 2002 SC 2589). Pay parity had been challenged in that case by Personal Assistants in the State Secretariat with P.A.s in the Central Secretariat. Averment in the petition ws that duties and responsibilities of the two posts were similar. Even if this is not rebuted, it cannot form the basis for grant of pay parity. High Court wrongly assuming that the averments as to similarity of duties and responsibilities remained undisputed. Ordered pay parity without comparing the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two P.A.s, the eligibility qualification was fixed for their recruitment. The order was set aside.
(7) In SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY vs. STATE OF ORISSA (AIR2002 SC 2314), erstwhile cadres of ministerial staff working in offices of DIG, IGP and DGP at Head Quarters and Ministerial staff were working in district. Their methodology of recruitment and qualifications for appointment were different. By virtue of resolution dated 7th September, 1974 there is no fusion of cadres of Ministerial Staff at DIG/IG and in districts. Subsequent rules framed in 1995 also treat them as separate cadres. Court however allowed monetary benefit available to the appellant in terms of judgment in 1998 (6) SCC 176 on grounds of equal pay for equal work.
(8) In matters like child rape cases, which constitute a crime against humanity, it is the duty of Courts to provide proper legal protection to such children. {STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. OM PRAKASH (AIR 2002 SC 2235)}.
(9) In M.C. MEHTA vs. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 2002 SC 1696), directions were given to phase out non-CNG buses and reduce use of diesel. Time limit was fixed by Court as there was no shortage of CNG. Owners of diesel buses which continues to ply diesel buses beyond 31st January, 2002 are made liable to pay fine of Rs. 500/- per bus per day increasing to Rs. 1,000/- per day after 30 days of operation of the diesel buses. Same was directed to be deposited in Court by the Director of Transport by the 10th day of every month. Union and all governmental authorities were directed to prepare a scheme containing time schedule for supply of CNG to other polluted cities and furnish the same to the Court by 9.5.2002 for its consideration.
(10) While dealing with religious freedom vis-à-vis uniform Civil Code, it was observed that the premise behind Article 44 is that there is no necessary connection between religion and personal law in civilized society; that the Parliament is still to steep in for framing a Common Civil Code in the country, is a matter of regret; and that Common Civil Code will help the cause of national integration by removing the contradictions based on idealogies. {JOHN VALLAMATTOM vs. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 2003 SC 2902)}.
(11) In INDIAN HANDICRAFTS EMPORIUM vs. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 2003 SC 3240), the prohibition of trade in imported ivory was in question. It was observed that the trade being dangerous to ecology, it was sought to be regulated by imposing total prohibition qua Wild Life (Protection) amending Act of 1991. Held: Amending Act indirectly seeks to protect Indian Elephants and to arrest their further depletion and it was not ultra vires Article 19(1)(g).
CONCLUSION
Having thus examined the various land mark judgments of the Supreme court with regard to interpretation of Directive Principles of State Policy, it is now cleaer that in effect these judgments have lifted Directive Principles to the level of Fundamental Rights and the broad propositions laid down in the above cases will have far reaching effects in future in so far as the interpretation of Directive Principles of State Policy is concerned. Thus it can be said that though Directive Principles cannot override Fundamental Rights, but in so far as determining the scope and ambit of Fundamental Rights, the Courts now cannot entirely ignore the Directive Principles, but will have to apply the doctrine of harmonious construction so as to give effect to both Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
--| <--Back |--
