ACCESS TO JUSTICE TOWARDS THE CREATION OF INCLUSIVE SOCIAL ORDER
Firstly, by reason of their very intrinsic nature, the directive principles, accommodated and
included in Part IV of the Constitution, are not made enforceable in any court of law.117
Secondly, the avowed purpose of including various directives in the complex of our
Constitution is to invest it (Constitution of India) clearly with the philosophy of Social Welfare
State, implying thereby a socio-economic-politico system in which the state assumes the
primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, as in matters of health care, education,
employment, and social security. Such an engaging responsibility is evident from the very
phraseology of Article 38, which affirms that the prime purpose of the State is “to secure a
social order for the promotion of welfare of the people.”118 In social welfare State, thus, the
State acts on behalf of indeterminate number of people even without their asking and
invoking the intervention of any court.
Thirdly, to provide access to justice for all on equal footing through the operation of legal
system via courts, there is a special directive, which directs the State to provide “free legal
aid” “to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by
reason of economic or other disabilities.”119 The underlying implication is that this directive,
instead of itself being enforceable in any court of law, enables the needy and underprivileged
members of the community to enforce their Fundamental Rights. In order to strengthen
this enabling provision, only very recently, in view of the startling fact that over 70 per cent
of the population is below poverty line, but only 12 per cent opt for legal aid, the National
Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 have
launched the special project called “Legal Aid Defence Counsel system” in all the districts of
all the States in India.120
Fourthly, the very nomenclature of Part IV is indicative of its profound purposive objective.
The indicted innate objective is to enunciate principles that would form the very basis of State
117 The non-enforceable nature of directives may be instanced and illustrated through the directives contained in Article 39, which commends
the State to frame policy towards securing “(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common
detriment; (d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women; (e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women,
and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their
age or strength.” By virtue of their very nature, these policy measures are not amenable to enforcement by an order or decree of any court.
118 Article 38 of the Constitution.
119 Article 39A, inserted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 8 (w.e.f. 3-1-1977).
120 See, The Tribune, August 22, 2022: Terming litigation a “bleeding wound”, Chief Justice of India-designate and NALSA Executive Chairman
Justice U.U. Lalit has launched Legal Aid Defense Counsel (LADC) system in 365 districts in 22 states across India to extend legal aid to the
poor.
29